DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 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.
Claims 1-3, 8, 11, 21-23 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the US Patent Application Publication to Taha 2023/0084003US in view of the US Patent Application Publication to Lambert 2016/0306111US.
In terms of Claims 1 and 21, Taha teaches an apparatus (Figure 18a), comprising: a photonic die (Figure 18a: top portion of 1800) coupled to top surface of a glass substrate (Figure 14: teaches a spacer substrate 1418 that is made of glass [0169]). Figure 18a: middle portion “glass substrate” is a similar structure to 1418), the glass substrate comprising a bottom surface opposite top surface (Figure 18; see glass substrate below with top and bottom surface);
PNG
media_image1.png
652
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a first turning mirror assembly (Figure 18a: within 1800 at 1820) coupled between the photonic die (1800 top portion) and the glass substrate (Figure 18a: “glass substrate”); a second turning mirror assembly (Figure 18a: at 1850) at least partially within the glass substrate (Figure 18a: 1850 within 1870 which is a bump portion of middle glass substrate as shown above) between the top surface and bottom surface of the glass substrate (Figure 18a: top and bottom surface), wherein the second turning mirror assembly (1850) comprises: a mirror base (Figure 18a: support portion under 1850) comprising a bottom surface substantially coplanar with the bottom surface of the glass substrate (support portion under 1850 is coplanar with the bottom of 1870 which is considered the bottom surface of the glass substrate shown in green box area above of Figure 18a); a mirror coating (Figure 18a: 1850) on top and side surfaces of the mirror base (1850 is a slanted edge of support portion of 1870; the coating 1850 slanted portion at that location is a top slanted portion support portion).
Taha does not teach the coating being on a top and side surface of the mirror base since the slanted edge of 1850 only covers one side; and wherein the encapsulant is embedded in the substrate to define a border between the encapsulant and the substrate, the border between the top surface and the bottom surface of the substrate.
Lambert teaches a substrate (Figure 3: layer 230 and 220 makes up the substrate which is similar to the two layer structure of Figure 18a: middle portion and 1870 that makes up glass substrate of Taha), having a mirror base (Figure 14: portion under 460); a mirror coating (Figure 14: 460 and 470 [0098]) over or on the top surface and side surface of the base portion (Figure 14: support area under 460/470 the coating is located over a top surface and bottom and side surface of base portion); wherein the encapsulant (Figure 14: 540/520) is embedded in the substrate to define a border between the encapsulant and the substrate (540/520 is between the mirror 460/470 and top surface 550 of the substrate), the border between the top surface and the bottom surface of the substrate (Figure 14: 540/520 functions as border area between 460/470). The purpose of 540/520 is to act as an intermediate coupling region to reduce loss from the horizontal light directed towards the mirror 460/470 in polysilicon base materials ([0107]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device Taha wherein the reflective coating of the mirror is located on the top and sidewalls to catch all light with the cavity and redirected it upward. Further one would modify the recess within the substrate to have encapsulant material such as 540/520 in order to function as a bridge waveguide to reduce optical loss and improve coupling ([0107]).
PNG
media_image2.png
440
794
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As for Claims 2 and 22, Taha / Lambert teaches the device of Claims 1 and 21, Taha and Lambert does not teach wherein the base portion mirror matches the CTE values of the glass substrate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of the base to be silicon base glass to achieve similar CTE match with the glass substrate. CTE mismatch is a known issue in photonic circuits which cause different materials to expand at different temperatures. Having multiple components with similar CTE prevents the layers from undergoing thermal stress which may damage the layers and components alignment when expansion occurs. By having similar CTE values all the components will expand and shrink at the same rate thus reducing the mechanical stress on the various layers and components. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. that a mere reversal of the working parts of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 146.
As for Claims 3 and 23, Taha / Lambert teaches the device of Claims 1 and 21, wherein Taha teaches the mirror coating includes titanium and aluminum ([0122] and [0165]).
Taha does not teach wherein the encapsulant is on the mirror coating.
Lambert teaches a substrate (Figure 3: layer 230 and 220 makes up the substrate which is similar to the two layer structure of Figure 18a: middle portion and 1870 that makes up glass substrate of Taha), having a mirror base (Figure 14: portion under 460); a mirror coating (Figure 14: 460 and 470 [0098]) over or on the top surface and side surface of the base portion (Figure 14: support area under 460/470 the coating is located over a top surface and bottom and side surface of base portion); wherein the encapsulant (Figure 14: 540/520) is on the mirror coating of 460/470. The purpose of 540/520 is to act as an intermediate coupling region to reduce loss from the horizontal light directed towards the mirror 460/470 in polysilicon base materials ([0107]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Taha Further wherein encapsulant material such as 540/520 is on the mirror coating to function as a bridge waveguide to reduce optical loss and improve coupling ([0107]).
As for Claims 8 and 27, Taha / Lambert teaches the device of Claims 1 and 21, wherein Taha teaches the glass substrate includes one or more through glass vias filled with a metallic conductor ([0157]), the one or more through glass vias extending from the top surface to the bottom surface of the glass substrate (See Figure 15: 1518 and 1556).
In terms of Claims 11 and 28, Taha / Lambert teaches the apparatus of claim 1 and 21 (Figure 18a and 20a), further comprising: an electronic die (Figure 20a: 2070) coupled to a glass substrate (Figure 2070 sits on top substrate (Figure 20a: 2078); an optical fiber (Figure 18a: 1802) positioned to receive optical signals from the second turning mirror (1850 since light can travel bidirectional or Figure 16: 1662 or 1602).
Claims 4 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taha 2023/0084003US / Lambert 2016/0306111US as applied to claims 3 and 23 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication to Bolle 2011/0129181.
In regard to Claims 4 and 24, Taha / Lambert teaches the device of Claims 3 and 23.
Taha / Lambert does not teach wherein the mirror coating is on an entirety of the top surface and an entirety of the side surface of the mirror base and the mirror coating is absent the bottom surface the mirror base.
Bolle does teach wherein the mirror coating (Figure 1b: coating 148) is on an entirety of the top surface (Figure 1b: 148 on top side of 135) and an entirety of the side surface of the mirror base (Figure 1b: 148 on slanted left side of 135) and the mirror coating is absent the bottom surface the mirror base (Figure 1b: 144 does not any coating). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reflector/mirror of Taha / Lambert to be separable similar to element 135/148 in order to easily replace the mirror component if its gets damage wherein the side and top surface are coated with reflective materials in order to redirect light from horizontal to vertical and vice versa to function as turning mirror for more compact photonic circuits that requires vertical oriented components ([0021]).
Claims 6-7 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taha 2023/0084003US / Lambert 2016/0306111US as applied to claims 1 and 21 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication to Yu 20220344287US.
In regard to Claims 6-7 and 25-26, Taha / Lambert teaches the device of Claims 1 and 21.
Taha / Lambert do not teach wherein the encapsulant includes spin-on-glass and wherein the spin-on-glass encapsulant includes one or more fillers.
Yu does teach wherein the encapsulant (which is a dielectric layer 58 used to encapsulate components under 50c as shown in Figure 4) includes spin-on-glass and wherein the spin-on-glass encapsulant includes one or more fillers (layer 58 is made using a spin-on glass process having fillers such as boron or polymers [0157]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a dielectric material made from glass having polymer or boron fillers to form a dielectric layer for electrical isolation having the strength of glass or flexibility of polymers). As noted above glass are relatively low-cost materials while fillers can modify the base layer to have desired mechanical properties to help support, adhere or flex for flexible applications.
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the US Patent Application Publication to Taha 2023/0084003US in view of the US Patent Application Publication to Lambert 2016/0306111US and further in view of US Patent Application Publication to Bolle 2011/0129181US.
In terms of Claim 17, Taha teaches a method, comprising: forming a turning mirror plug (Figure 1 and 18a: mirror 1850 is placed or inserted into the cavity of 1870), wherein forming the turning mirror plug comprises; placing a pre-formed mirror base on a carrier (Figure 18a: 1850 on the support area under 1850); forming a cavity (cavity at the location of 1850) in a bottom surface (bottom surface of layer 1870) of a glass substrate (Figure 18a above: glass substrate middle portion / 1870 makes up the glass substrate wherein the middle portion of is identified as spacer substrate such as 1418, wherein 1418 is made of glass [0169]); placing the turning mirror plug 1870) within the cavity
encapsulating the coated mirror base (Figure 1: layer 126); forming a cavity in a glass substrate (Figure 1: area of 153; 122 is made of glass [0100]); placing the turning mirror plug within the cavity (Figure 18a: illustrate putting a mirror layer in the recess or cavity at 1850); and coupling a photonic die to the top surface of the glass substrate (Figure 18a: top layer that houses the fiber 1802 is coupled to the top surface of the green box as shown in Figure 18a above), wherein the turning mirror plug (1850) is between the top surface and bottom surface of the glass substrate (See Figure 18a: 1850 is located between the top and bottom surface of the green box); wherein the bottom surface of the coated mirror base is substantially coplanar with the bottom surface of the glass substrate (Figure 18: bottom of 1850 is coplanar with the bottom of layer 1870).
Taha does not teach wherein an encapsulant of the turning mirror plug is embedded in the substrate to define a border between the encapsulant and the substrate, the border between the top surface and bottom surface of the substrate.
Lambert teaches a substrate (Figure 3: layer 230 and 220 makes up the substrate which is similar to the two layer structure of Figure 18a: middle portion and 1870 that makes up glass substrate of Taha), having a mirror base (Figure 14: portion under 460); a mirror coating (Figure 14: 460 and 470 [0098]) over or on the top surface and side surface of the base portion (Figure 14: support area under 460/470 the coating is located over a top surface and bottom and side surface of base portion); wherein the encapsulant (Figure 14: 540/520) is embedded in the substrate to define a border between the encapsulant and the substrate (540/520 is between the mirror 460/470 and top surface 550 of the substrate), the border between the top surface and the bottom surface of the substrate (Figure 14: 540/520 functions as border area between 460/470). The purpose of 540/520 is to act as an intermediate coupling region to reduce loss from the horizontal light directed towards the mirror 460/470.in polysilicon base materials ([0107]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Taha the recess at the location of 1850 within the layer 1870 which is part of the substrate to have encapsulant material such as 540/520 in order to function as a bridge waveguide to reduce optical loss and improve coupling ([0107]).
Taha / Lambert do not teach an uncoated bottom surface of the coated mirror base is substantially coplanar with the bottom surface of the substrate.
Bolle teaches a mirror disposed in a recess (Figure 1: 135 with in 150) wherein the mirror comprises of a base (Figure 1: 135 that is coated by 148) wherein the mirror base 135 is uncoated by layer 148 [see 144]), wherein the bottom of 135 is substantially coplanar with the bottom of the substrate (see layer 115 under 144). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reflector/mirror to be separate similar to element 135/148 in order to easily replace the mirror component if its gets damage wherein the side and top surface are coated with reflective materials in order to redirect light from horizontal to vertical and vice versa to function as turning mirror for more compact photonic circuits that requires vertical oriented components ([0021]).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the US Patent Application Publication to Taha 2023/0084003US / Lambert 2016/0306111US / Bolle 2011/0129181US as applied to claim 17 above and further in view of the US Patent Scobey 6,896,949US.
In regard to Claims 18 and 19, Taha/ Lambert / Bolle teaches the method of Claim 17.
Taha/ Lambert / Bolle do not teach wherein the coatings to the mirror are applied via a sputtering method and wherein the coated mirror base is detached from a first carrier and attached to a second carrier before encapsulation.
Scobey teaches a mirror wherein coatings are applied to the mirror via a sputtering method (Column 16, lines 1-40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of applying the coating to the mirror using a sputtering method because sputtering is known to produce uniform coating layers.
As for limitation of steps “wherein the coated mirror base is detached from a first carrier and attached to a second carrier before encapsulation” the examiner considers this step to be obvious to try in view of the KSR rationale because the mirror must be made during the coating in a chamber on a substrate (See Scobey Column 4). Hence it would be required to be removed in order to place the mirror in order the device of Taha at 1820 or 1850) before encapsulation. The steps, in this case, have a finite number of possibilities 1) make the mirror and bulk optics together or 2) make the mirror separate of the photonic die and substrate. However, the 2nd possibility is not possible because coating cannot occur if the mirror is already placed in the location of 1804 and 1820 with an encapsulation layer over it. Thus only 1 possible solution exists to try while forming the coating layers on the mirror. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the US Patent Application Publication to Taha 2023/0084003US / Lambert 2016/0306111US / Bolle 2011/0129181US as applied to claim 17 above and further in view of the US Patent Application Publication to Yu 20220344287US.
In regard to Claim 20, Taha/ Lambert / Bolle teaches the method of Claim 17.
Taha/ Lambert / Bolle do not teach wherein the encapsulant includes spin-on-glass and wherein the spin-on-glass encapsulant includes one or more fillers.
Yu does teach wherein the encapsulant (which is a dielectric layer 58 used to encapsulate components under 50c as shown in Figure 4) includes spin-on-glass and wherein the spin-on-glass encapsulant includes one or more fillers (layer 58 is made using a spin-on glass process having fillers such as boron or polymers [0157]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a dielectric material made from glass having polymer or boron fillers to form a dielectric layer for electrical isolation having the strength of glass or flexibility of polymers). As noted above glass are relatively low-cost materials while fillers can modify the base layer to have desired mechanical properties to help support, adhere or flex for flexible applications.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any of the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claims 1 and Claim 17 have been rejected in view of newly cited prior art to Lambert and Bolle as detailed above.
Newly added claims 21-28 have also been rejected in view of the newly cited prior art to Lambert and Bolle as detailed above.
This action is therefore made FINAL for the reasons detailed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOANG Q TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5049. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 5:30pm Monday - Friday.
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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at 5712722397. 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.
/HOANG Q TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights