Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
DETAILED ACTION
This is an AIA application filed December 28, 2022.
The earliest effective filing date of this AIA application is seen as December 28, 2022, the actual filing date, there being no earlier priority applications.
The claims originally filed December 28, 2022 are entered, currently outstanding, and subject to examination.
This action is in response to the application data sheet/ADS filing of August 30, 2023.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and outstanding.
No claims have been amended, cancelled, withdrawn, or added.
Claims 1-20 are currently outstanding and subject to examination.
This is a non-final action and is the first action on the merits.
Allowable subject matter is not indicated below.
Often, in the substance of the action below, formal matters are addressed first, claim rejections second, and any response to arguments third.
Claim Objections
The following claim is objected to because of the indicated informality/ies:
Claim(s)
Informality/ies
3
"the metallic conductors in the through glass vias" has no antecedent in the claims
Appropriate correction is required.
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(IV)
No special definitions as defined by MPEP § 2111.01(IV) are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given their plain meaning. MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01.
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring those to the attention of the examiner and the prosecution history with its next response in a manner both specific and particular. In doing so, there will be no mistake, confusion, and/or ambiguity as to what constitutes the special definition(s). Per above, such special definitions must conform to the requirements of MPEP § 2111.01(IV).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20230077939 of Liu et al. (Liu).
With respect to claim 1, Liu discloses a semiconductor device (¶ 40, "While the modules shown in FIG. 7 are depicted as separate blocks within the system 700, the functions performed by some of these blocks may be integrated within a single semiconductor circuit or may be implemented using two or more separate integrated circuits."), comprising:
a photonic die (PIC 104, Figs. 1-5) coupled to a glass substrate (glass substrate 140);
a turning mirror assembly (optical element 110) coupled between the photonic die (104) and the glass substrate (140); and
wherein a transmitting surface (Fig. 3 right at 112 above lens 146) of the turning mirror assembly (110) is parallel to a corresponding surface of the glass substrate (per Fig. 3), and
the transmitting surface is separated from the glass substrate by an amount of gas filled space (Fig. 3, the space between the top of 146 and the bottom of 112).
With respect to claim 17, Liu as set forth above discloses a method of forming a semiconductor device, including one comprising:
coupling a turning mirror within a cavity in the photonic die;
coupling the photonic die to a surface of a glass substrate; and
spacing the turning mirror apart from the glass substrate,
such that a transmitting surface of the turning mirror is parallel to a corresponding surface of the glass substrate, and
the transmitting surface is separated from the glass substrate.
The method of claim 17 above would naturally occur in the construction and/or manufacture of a device as set forth in claim 1, above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as set forth above.
With respect to claim 10, Liu as set forth above discloses the semiconductor device of claim 1, but not one further including
an anti-reflective coating on the transmitting surface and the corresponding surface of the glass substrate.
Liu ¶ 16 discloses, "In certain embodiments, the optical element 110 is fabricated as two pieces and an anti-reflection coating is applied at the interface between the support portion 114 and the curved portion 112."
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use anti-reflective coatings on all possibly-reflective surfaces, including on the transmitting surface and the corresponding surface of the glass substrate, along the lines of Liu ¶ 16 in a system according to Liu as set forth above in order to reduce reflections. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), the combining of prior art elements (listed above) according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (a photonic integrated circuit/PIC) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
an anti-reflective coating on the transmitting surface and the corresponding surface of the glass substrate.
Claims 2, 3, 11, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as set forth above in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0217326 of Brusberg (Brusberg).
With respect to claim 2, Liu as set forth above discloses the semiconductor device of claim 1, but not one wherein
the glass substrate includes one or more through glass vias filled with a metallic conductor.
Brusberg discloses a glass waveguide assemblies for oe-pcbs and methods of forming oe-pcbs that includes (Fig. 2A) :
¶ 55, "The glass waveguide assembly 50 can also include one or more OE-PCB features or components 110 to facilitate the use of the glass waveguide assembly in forming an OE-PCB, as described below. Example OE-PCB features or components 110 include conducting (e.g., metal-filled) vias, . . . ." This passage is seen to disclose a glass substrate that includes one or more through glass vias filled with a metallic conductor.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use metallic conductors in vias of glass along the lines of Brusberg in a system according to Liu as set forth above in order to provide electrical connection to other components. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), the combining of prior art elements (listed above) according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (a photonic integrated circuit/PIC) would occur. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
the glass substrate includes one or more through glass vias filled with a metallic conductor.
With respect to claim 3, Liu as set forth above discloses the semiconductor device of claim 1, but not one further including
one or more solder connections between the photonic die and the metallic conductors in the through glass vias.
Per claim 2, above, Brusberg provides metallic conductors in the through glass vias.
Liu Fig. 3 provides solder bumps with ¶ 20 providing:
"The PIC 104 has bonding pads 120 that are bonded to the glass substrate using solder bumps 122 (shown as solder balls). The height of the solder bumps may be chosen to provide clearance between the optical element 110 and the glass substrate 140."
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide solder ball/conductive via connections along the lines of Brusberg and Liu in a system according to Liu as set forth above in order to provide both mechanical connection and electrical conduction. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), the combining of prior art elements (listed above) according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (a photonic integrated circuit/PIC) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
one or more solder connections between the photonic die and the metallic conductors in the through glass vias.
With respect to claim 11, Liu as set forth above discloses a computing system (¶ 33, "In one embodiment, system 700 includes, but is not limited to, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a netbook, a tablet, a notebook computer, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a server, a workstation, a cellular telephone, a mobile computing device, a smart phone, an Internet appliance or any other type of computing device."), comprising:
an electronic die coupled to a glass substrate (¶ 3, "FIG. 1 is an illustration of an example of an electronic device having a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) in accordance with some embodiments;");
a photonic die (104) coupled to the glass substrate (140, Figs. 3 and 4) and in communication with the electronic die (per Fig. 7 and common opto-electronic systems);
a turning mirror (110) assembly coupled between the photonic die (104) and the glass substrate (140);
wherein a transmitting surface of the turning mirror assembly is parallel to a corresponding surface of the glass substrate (per Fig. 3), and
the transmitting surface is separated from the glass substrate by an amount of gas filled space (Fig. 3, the space between the top of 146 and the bottom of 112).
Liu as set forth above does not disclose:
an optical fiber positioned to receive optical signals from the turning mirror.
Brusberg discloses the use of optical fibers (Fig. 8) for carrying signals in optical systems.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use optical fibers for optical signals along the lines of Brusberg in a system according to Liu as set forth above in order to carry optical signals. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), the combining of prior art elements (listed above) according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (a photonic integrated circuit/PIC) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
an optical fiber positioned to receive optical signals from the turning mirror.
With respect to claim 14, Liu in view of Brusberg as set forth above discloses the computing system of claim 11, but not one wherein
the transmitting surface of the turning mirror assembly is located within a cavity in the glass substrate.
Liu provides turning mirrors (144, 444) in the glass substrate per Figs. 3 and 4.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a turning mirror assembly along the lines of Liu in a system according to Liu in view of Epitaux as set forth above in order to provide optical control and direction. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), the combining of prior art elements (listed above) according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (a photonic integrated circuit/PIC) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
the transmitting surface of the turning mirror assembly is located within a cavity in the glass substrate.
See claim 5, above.
With respect to claim 16, Liu in view of Brusberg as set forth above discloses the computing system of claim 11, also further including
an antenna coupled (Fig. 7) to the electronic die.
Per Liu:
¶ 32, "The electronic device and the glass substrate may be included in an optical interface between two or more higher level devices."
¶ 33, "For instance, FIG. 7 depicts an example of an electronic device (e.g., system) that can include one or more of the optical interfaces as described in the present disclosure."
¶ 37, "The interfaces 717 and 722 may include one or more optical interfaces."
¶ 38, "One or more of interfaces 724 and 726 may be an optical interface."; and
"Chipset 720 connects to one or more buses 750 and 755 that interconnect various elements 774, 760, 762, 764, and 766. Chipset 720 may also be coupled to a wireless antenna 778 to communicate with any device configured to transmit and/or receive wireless signals."
Chipset 720 uses optical interfaces 722, 724, and 726 (Figs. 1-5) which are coupled to antennas 728 directly and through other components in Fig. 7
Claims 4-9 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as set forth above in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20250054929 of Epitaux et al. (Epitaux).
With respect to claim 4, Liu as set forth above discloses the semiconductor device of claim 3, but not one further including
an underfill between the photonic die and the glass substrate.
Epitaux discloses an optical engine for high-speed data transmission that includes underfill for use in optical systems. Fig. 7, ¶ 54, optically transparent underfill 302.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide underfill between discrete components along the lines of Epitaux in a system according to Liu as set forth above in order to provide mechanical stability with optical transparency. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), the combining of prior art elements (listed above) according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (a photonic integrated circuit/PIC) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
an underfill between the photonic die and the glass substrate.
With respect to claim 5, Liu in view of Epitaux as set forth above discloses the semiconductor device of claim 4, but not one wherein
the transmitting surface of the turning mirror assembly is located within a cavity in the glass substrate.
Liu provides turning mirrors (144, 444) in the glass substrate per Figs. 3 and 4.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a turning mirror assembly along the lines of Liu in a system according to Liu in view of Epitaux as set forth above in order to provide optical control and direction. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), the combining of prior art elements (listed above) according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (a photonic integrated circuit/PIC) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
the transmitting surface of the turning mirror assembly is located within a cavity in the glass substrate.
With respect to claim 6, Liu in view of Epitaux as set forth above discloses the semiconductor device of claim 5, including one wherein
the underfill does not fill the cavity.
As the turning mirror assembly is already located within the cavity, the underfill could not fill it.
With respect to claim 7, Liu in view of Epitaux as set forth above discloses the semiconductor device of claim 1, but not one further including
a polymeric seal around a periphery of the transmitting surface,
between the transmitting surface and the corresponding surface of the glass substrate.
Epitaux, Fig. 7, provides a sealing adhesive 304 to provide an enclosed volume 306. Sealing material 414 may be an epoxy, which is a polymer, and is seen as applicable as the adhesive 304 in Fig. 7.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a polymeric seal to provide an enclosed volume along the lines of Epitaux in a system according to Liu in view of Epitaux as set forth above in order to ensure optical signal integrity in hostile environments. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), the combining of prior art elements (listed above) according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (a photonic integrated circuit/PIC) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
a polymeric seal around a periphery of the transmitting surface,
between the transmitting surface and the corresponding surface of the glass substrate.
With respect to claim 8, Liu in view of Epitaux as set forth above discloses the semiconductor device of claim 7, but not one wherein
the polymeric seal includes silicone.
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious); Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Claimed agricultural bagging machine, which differed from a prior art machine only in that the brake means were hydraulically operated rather than mechanically operated, was held to be obvious over the prior art machine in view of references which disclosed hydraulic brakes for performing the same function, albeit in a different environment.). MPEP § 2144.07.
Consequently, the recitation of specific materials (here, silicone) is seen as obvious. Herein, this analysis is referred to as “specific materials”.
With respect to claim 9, Liu in view of Epitaux as set forth above discloses the semiconductor device of claim 7, but not one wherein
the polymeric seal includes polyurethane.
Specific materials: polyurethane.
With respect to claim 18, Liu as set forth above discloses the method of claim 17, but not one further including
placing a polymeric seal around a periphery of the transmitting surface to enclose an amount of gas filled space between the transmitting surface and the glass substrate.
The method of claim 18 above would naturally occur in the construction and/or manufacture of a device as set forth in claim 7, above.
With respect to claim 19, Liu in view of Epitaux as set forth above discloses the method of claim 18, but not one further including
forming a cavity within the glass substrate, and
locating the transmitting surface within the cavity in the glass substrate.
The method of claim 19 above would naturally occur in the construction and/or manufacture of a device as set forth in claim 5, above.
With respect to claim 20, Liu in view of Epitaux as set forth above discloses the method of claim 19, also further including
applying an underfill epoxy between the photonic die and the glass substrate, and
wherein the cavity channels the underfill epoxy around the cavity to keep the underfill epoxy out of the cavity.
Per claim 7, above, and the legs protecting the enclosed space of Epitaux Fig. 7 that exclude sealing material 304.
Claims 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Brusberg as set forth above and further in view of Epitaux as set forth above.
With respect to claim 12, Liu in view of Brusberg as set forth above discloses the computing system of claim 11, but not one wherein
the glass substrate includes fused silica.
Epitaux discloses that (¶ 28), "The optically transparent substrate 10 is preferably formed from glass, but may be a transparent crystal, such as sapphire, silicon, or a transparent organic substrate."
Fused silica is seen as being transparent silicon as disclosed by Epitaux.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use transparent silicon/fused silica along the lines of Epitaux in a system according to Liu in view of Brusberg as set forth above in order to provide a robust and stable substrate. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), the combining of prior art elements (listed above) according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (a photonic integrated circuit/PIC) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
the glass substrate includes fused silica.
With respect to claim 13, Liu in view of Brusberg as set forth above discloses the computing system of claim 11, but not one further including
a polymeric seal around a periphery of the transmitting surface,
between the transmitting surface and the corresponding surface of the glass substrate.
Epitaux, Fig. 7, provides a sealing adhesive 304 to provide an enclosed volume 306. Sealing material 414 may be an epoxy, which is a polymer, and is seen as applicable as the adhesive 304 in Fig. 7.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a polymeric seal to provide an enclosed volume along the lines of Epitaux in a system according to Liu in view of Epitaux as set forth above in order to ensure optical signal integrity in hostile environments. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), the combining of prior art elements (listed above) according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (a photonic integrated circuit/PIC) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
a polymeric seal around a periphery of the transmitting surface,
between the transmitting surface and the corresponding surface of the glass substrate.
See claim 7, above.
With respect to claim 15, Liu in view of Brusberg as set forth above discloses the computing system of claim 14, but not one further including
a polymeric seal around a periphery of the transmitting surface,
within the cavity between the transmitting surface and the corresponding surface of the glass substrate.
Epitaux, Fig. 7, provides a sealing adhesive 304 to provide an enclosed volume 306. Sealing material 414 may be an epoxy, which is a polymer, and is seen as applicable as the adhesive 304 in Fig. 7.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a polymeric seal to provide an enclosed volume along the lines of Epitaux in a system according to Liu in view of Epitaux as set forth above in order to ensure optical signal integrity in hostile environments. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), the combining of prior art elements (listed above) according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (a photonic integrated circuit/PIC) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
a polymeric seal around a periphery of the transmitting surface,
between the transmitting surface and the corresponding surface of the glass substrate.
See claim 7, above.
Conclusion
Applicant’s publication US 20240219659 A1 published July 4, 2024 is cited.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references have elements related to Applicant’s disclosure and/or claims or are otherwise associated with the other cited references, particularly with respect to related opto-electronic devices.
Conclusion
Applicant’s publication US 20240219659 A1 published July 4, 2024 is cited.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references have elements related to Applicant’s disclosure and/or claims or are otherwise associated with the other cited references, particularly with respect to related photonic devices and the like.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW JORDAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1571. The examiner can normally be reached most days 1000-1800 PACIFIC TIME ZONE (messages are returned).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. While examiner does not examine over the phone (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.2), examiner is glad to clarify or discuss issues so long as it forwards prosecution.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas (Tom) HOLLWEG can be reached at (571) 270-1739. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Andrew Jordan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
V: (571) 270-1571 (Pacific time)
F: (571) 270-2571
March 24, 2026