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.
The claims filed April 6, 2026 are entered, currently outstanding, and subject to examination.
This action is in response to the filing of the same date.
The current status and history of the claims is summarized below:
Last Amendment/Response
Previously
Amended:
none
N/A
Cancelled:
none
N/A
Withdrawn:
1-6 & 16-20
N/A
Added:
none
N/A
Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 7-15 are currently outstanding.
Regarding the last reply:
No claims were amended.
No claims were cancelled.
Claims 1-6 and 16-20 were withdrawn.
No claims were added.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 7-15 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of invention B (claims 7-15) in the reply filed on April 6, 2026 is acknowledged.
Having elected invention B, claims 7-15 are outstanding and subject to examination. The remaining claims (1-6 and 16-20) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant elected without traverse.
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.
The applied reference has a common applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by:
(1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A);
(2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or
(3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Claims 7 and 10-15 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 7, Liu discloses a computing system (Figs. 1-7, particularly Fig. 7), comprising:
an electronic die (¶ 35, "chipset 720") coupled to a glass substrate (¶ 20, "FIG. 3 is illustration of an example of the electronic device 102 of FIG. 1 mounted on a glass substrate 140." ¶ 33, "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.");
a photonic die (PIC 104) coupled to the glass substrate (140) and in communication with the electronic die (Fig. 7, ¶ 38, "Chipset 720 connects to display device 740 via interface (I/F) 726." "One or more of interfaces 724 and 726 may be an optical interface.");
a first turning mirror assembly (¶ 15, "The optical element 110 includes a support portion 114 and a curved portion 112. The curved portion 112 may be another lens or lens portion of the optical element. In some examples, the curved surface of the curved portion 112 includes a mirror.") coupled to the photonic die (104, Fig. 3),
the first turning mirror assembly including a mirror (112) on a glass turning mirror base (support portion 114); and
wherein a surface of the glass turning mirror base forms a direct interface with the photonic die (per Fig. 1);
a second turning mirror assembly (mirror 144, Fig. 3) located within the glass substrate (140); and
an optical fiber (waveguide 142) positioned to receive optical signals from the second turning mirror.
With respect to claim 10, Liu as set forth above discloses the computing system of claim 7, including one wherein
the direct interface is within a cavity in the photonic die.
Per Figs. 1, 3, and 4.
With respect to claim 11, Liu as set forth above discloses the computing system of claim 7, including one wherein
the direct interface is on an edge of the photonic die.
The lower edge in Figs. 3 and 4.
With respect to claim 12, Liu as set forth above discloses the computing system of claim 7, including one wherein
the direct interface is within a notch in an edge of the photonic die.
Per Figs. 1, 3, and 4.
With respect to claim 13, Liu as set forth above discloses the computing system of claim 7, also further including
a silicon block that abuts the notch and the turning mirror assembly.
¶ 19, "The optical element 110 can be made from a material transparent to infrared. Because silicon is transparent to near infrared the optical element could include silicon. The support portion 114 could be formed using crystallographic etching of silicon."
Per the figures, support portion 114 is "a silicon block that abuts the notch and the turning mirror assembly".
With respect to claim 14, Liu as set forth above discloses the computing system of claim 7, also further including
an antenna (wireless antenna 778) coupled to the electronic die (720).
With respect to claim 15, Liu as set forth above discloses the computing system of claim 14, also further including
an end user display device (display device 740) coupled to the electronic die (720).
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.
Claims 8 and 9 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. 2017/0017050 of Gamache et al. (Gamache).
With respect to claim 8, Liu as set forth above discloses the computing system of claim 7, but not one wherein
the turning mirror base includes fused silica.
Gamache discloses an optical transmitter assembly for vertical coupling that includes (Fig. 1, ¶ 28):
"The supporting substrate 40 may be, for example, made from silicon (Si), silica (SiO2), including fused silica and quartz, or other suitable material that is transparent to the light beam 99."
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to used fused silica along the lines of Gamache in a system according to Liu as set forth above in order to provide a compatible optical medium. 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 (an opto-electronic device) 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 turning mirror base includes fused silica.
With respect to claim 9, Liu as set forth above discloses the computing system of claim 7, but not one wherein
the direct interface includes silicon and oxygen bonding between adjacent surfaces at the direct interface.
Liu ¶ 19, "The support portion 114 could be formed using crystallographic etching of silicon.” The use of silicon is seen to include some oxygen and is supported by Gamache as follows.
Gamache ¶ 28 provides that "The supporting substrate 40 may be, for example, made from silicon (Si), silica (SiO2), including fused silica and quartz, or other suitable material that is transparent to the light beam 99". As such, silica (SiO2) is seen to provide silicon and oxygen bonding.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use silica (SiO2) and to provide silicon and oxygen bonding along the lines of Gamache in a system according to Liu as set forth above in order to use known and available materials for fabrication. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
The obvious analysis above is seen to apply here as well, mutatis mutandis.
The combination would then provide:
the direct interface includes silicon and oxygen bonding between adjacent surfaces at the direct interface.
Conclusion
Applicant’s publication US 20240219654 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 optoelectronic devices and systems .
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
June 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights