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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-16 in the reply filed on May 18, 2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
Twelve sheets for formal drawings were filed December 28, 2022 and have been accepted by the Examiner.
Specification
Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Taha et al. (US 2023/0084003 A1) in view of Masuda et al. (US 2018/0196195 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Taha discloses a computing system (Figs. 20A-20B; paragraph 0194) comprising a semiconductor device (Fig. 18A), comprising an electronic die (2070) coupled to a glass substrate (2078); a photonic die (1800) coupled to the glass substrate (1804, 1870; paragraph 0122) and in communication with the electronic die (paragraphs 0194-0195 disclose EIC 2070 connected to PIC 2004; 1804 in Fig. 18A is a PIC); a first turning mirror assembly (1820) coupled between the photonic die and the glass substrate; and a second turning mirror (1850) assembly located at least partially within the glass substrate.
Still regarding claims 1 and 9, Taha teaches the claimed invention except for a cavity in the substrate. Masuda discloses a cavity (167 in Fig. 2) in a substrate (161), a mirror (“M”) formed on a surface within the cavity; and a cover (190) that encloses an amount of gas (paragraph 0052) within the cavity in the substrate. Since both of the inventions relate to optical devices, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to use a cavity in the substrate as disclosed by Masuda in the device of Taha for the purpose of enhancing the reflection of light.
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Taha discloses the glass substrate includes fused silica in paragraph 0122.
Regarding claims 3 and 11, the proposed combination of Taha and Masuda teaches the claimed invention except for the mirror being a coating. However, Taha discloses mirrors coated with a metal such as aluminum in paragraph 0122. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the mirror coating to include titanium and aluminum for the purpose of improving the reflectivity, and since 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 obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claims 4, 5, 8 and 12-14, Taha further discloses a top layer (top portion of 190) on the glass substrate, wherein the top layer and the cover (bottom portion of 190) are formed of the same material. The proposed combination of Taha and Masuda teaches the claimed invention except for a dielectric material. However, 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 photo imageable dielectric material in order to simplify the manufacturing process by allowing for etching, and since 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 obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 6, Masuda in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, further discloses the amount of gas includes air in paragraph 0052.
Regarding claim 7, Taha discloses the glass substrate includes one or more through glass vias filled with a metallic conductor in paragraph 0170.
Regarding claim 15, the proposed combination of Taha and Masuda teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating an antenna coupled to the electronic die. However, antenna are ubiquitous in the art of electro-optic devices and as such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an antenna coupled to the electronic die for the purpose of enabling communication with additional devices.
Regarding claim 16, the proposed combination of Taha and Masuda teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating an end user display device coupled to the electronic die. However, display devices are ubiquitous in the art of electro-optic devices and as such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an end user display device coupled to the electronic die for the purpose of displaying images, increasing the versatility of the device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS H CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-8655. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on 571-272-239797. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general or clerical nature should be directed to the Technology Center 2800 receptionist at telephone number (571) 272-1562.
Chris H. Chu
/CHRIS H CHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 May 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights