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 present application is also related to the applications giving rise to the following patent publication(s):
Office
Application
App. Date
Pub. #
Pub. Date
DE
102023123757
09/04/2023
DE 102023123757 A1
07/04/2024
The claims originally filed December 28, 2022 are entered, currently outstanding, and subject to examination.
This action is in response to the filing of July 6, 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No claims have been amended, cancelled, withdrawn, or added.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
10
"the second turning mirror assembly"
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) 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 (¶ 12, "FIG. 1 is an illustration of an example of an electronic device 102 that includes a PIC 104.") 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.");
a first turning mirror assembly coupled between the photonic die and the glass substrate (¶ 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.");
a second turning mirror assembly located at least partially within the glass substrate (¶ 21, "In FIG. 3, the optical element of the glass substrate 140 includes lens 146 to reduce the beam and a mirror 144 to steer the beam into the waveguide 142."), wherein the second turning mirror assembly includes;
a first cavity in the glass substrate having a first footprint (Fig. 5 shows a cavity for the mirror portion on the rightmost side);
a mirror on a surface within the first cavity (144/444 per Figs. 3 and 4; ¶ 22, "The mirrors 144, 444 in FIGS. 3 and 4 may be formed by etching a cavity or surface in the glass substrate 140 and forming a reflective surface on the etched structure."); and
a second cavity having a second footprint that encompasses the first footprint (in light of the device profile in Fig. 2, when optical element 110 is situated with respect to the substrate in Fig. 5, a larger cavity is seen to accommodate optical element 110).
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 2, 10, and 15 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. 2023/0084003 of Taha et al. (Taha).
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 fused silica.
Taha discloses an optical coupling that includes the use of fused silica for optical and spacer purposes. ¶¶ 265, 286. Such fused silica is used as a substitute for glass, ¶ 99.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use fused silica for glass along the lines of Taha in a system according to Liu as set forth above in order to provide better optical performance. 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 optical processing system) 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 10, Liu as set forth above discloses a computing system (Fig. 7), comprising:
an electronic die (102) coupled to a glass substrate (140);
a photonic die (104) coupled to the glass substrate (140) electrically coupled to the electronic die (102; ¶ 26, Fig. 6, "The PIC may include a substrate portion and an active portion that includes one or both of active photonic circuit and active electronic circuits.");
a turning mirror assembly (mirror 144/444) located at least partially within the glass substrate (140), wherein the second turning mirror assembly [sic] includes;
a first cavity (for the mirror 144/444) in the glass substrate (140) having a first footprint (per Figs. 2 and 5);
a mirror (144/444) on a surface within the first cavity (¶ 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.");
a second cavity having a second footprint that encompasses the first footprint (in light of the device profile in Fig. 2, when optical element 110 is situated with respect to the substrate in Fig. 5, a larger cavity is seen to accommodate optical element 110); and
a waveguide (waveguide 142, ¶ 21) positioned to receive optical signals from the turning mirror (per Figs. 3 and 4).
Liu as set forth above does not disclose:
an optical fiber positioned to receive optical signals from the turning mirror.
Taha discloses an optical coupling that includes (Fig. 1, ¶ 96):
an optical fiber (102) positioned to receive optical signals (optical signal 116) from the turning mirror (first turning mirror 120).
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 optical fiber along the lines of Taha in a system according to Liu as set forth above in order to transmit and/or receive 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 (an optical processing system) 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 15, Liu in view of Taha as set forth above discloses the computing system of claim 10, 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
Claim 3 is 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. 2014/0027709 of Higginson et al. (Higginson).
With respect to claim 3, Liu as set forth above discloses the semiconductor device of claim 1, but not one wherein
the mirror includes titanium and aluminum.
Higginson discloses a method and structure for receiving a micro device that includes (¶ 48):
In an embodiment, a conductive layer 102 or electrode line 106 comprises a reflective metallic film such as aluminum, molybdenum, titanium, titanium-tungsten, silver, or gold, or alloys thereof.
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 reflective metallic film of aluminum-titanium alloy along the lines of Higginson in a system according to Liu as set forth above in order to provide both reflection and 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 (an optical processing system) 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 mirror includes titanium and aluminum.
Claims 4-9 and 11-14 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 4, Liu as set forth above discloses the semiconductor device of claim 1, but not one further including
a first polymer fill material within the first cavity.
Brusberg discloses glass waveguide assemblies for oe-pcbs and methods of forming oe-pcbs that includes (¶ 55):
"Example OE-PCB features or components 110 include conducting (e.g., metal-filled) vias, insulating (e.g., polymer-filled) vias, electrical (conducting) contacts, electrical (conducting) wiring, optical vias, slots, cut-outs, polymer-filled cut-outs, open holes, perforations, fiducials, alignment features, etc. In an example, the OE-PCB features 110 are formed by drilling, etching, milling, depositing, etc. In particular, cut-outs are relatively large sections removed from glass substrate 10 and that can be used for mounting glass waveguide assembly 50 to a PCB or OE-PCB. The cut-outs can be filled with a non-glass material (e.g., a polymer), some or all of which can be removed later on in the OE-PCB fabrication process."
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use polymer to fill in cavity voids along the lines of Brusberg in a system according to Liu as set forth above in order to secure, insulate, and protect optical and/or related components/elements. 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 optical processing system) 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 first polymer fill material within the first cavity.
With respect to claim 5, Liu in view of Brusberg as set forth above discloses the semiconductor device of claim 4, but not one wherein
the first polymer fill material includes epoxy.
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, epoxy) is seen as obvious. Herein, this analysis is referred to as “specific materials”.
With respect to claim 6, Liu in view of Brusberg as set forth above discloses the semiconductor device of claim 4, but not one wherein
the first polymer fill material includes polyurethane.
Specific materials, polyurethane.
With respect to claim 7, Liu in view of Brusberg as set forth above discloses the semiconductor device of claim 4, including one wherein
the first polymer fill material overfills the first cavity and occupies a portion of the second cavity.
This is seen as naturally occurring during the manufacturing process.
With respect to claim 8, Liu in view of Brusberg as set forth above discloses the semiconductor device of claim 4, but not one further including
a second polymer fill material within the second cavity.
Brusberg, ¶ 103 also recites acrylates and resins as equivalents to polymer.
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 second polymer as a filling material along the lines of Brusberg in a system according to Liu as set forth above in order to take advantage of physical properties such as insulation or thermal coefficient of expansion in the materials used. 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 optical processing system) 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 second polymer fill material within the second cavity.
With respect to claim 9, Liu in view of Brusberg as set forth above discloses the semiconductor device of claim 8, but not one wherein
the second polymer fill material includes Ajinomoto Build-Up Film (ABF).
Specific materials, Ajinomoto Build-Up Film (ABF), known for its insulative and useful characteristics (low dielectric constant) in the fabrication of circuit elements.
With respect to claim 11, Liu in view of Brusberg as set forth above discloses the computing system of claim 10, also further including
a first polymer fill material within the first cavity.
Per claim 4, above.
With respect to claim 12, Liu in view of Brusberg as set forth above discloses the computing system of claim 11, including one wherein
the first polymer fill material includes epoxy.
Per claim 5, above.
With respect to claim 13, Liu in view of Brusberg as set forth above discloses the computing system of claim 12, also further including
a second polymer fill material within the second cavity.
Per claim 8, above.
With respect to claim 14, Liu in view of Brusberg as set forth above discloses the computing system of claim 13, but not one wherein
the second polymer fill material includes a photo imageable dielectric.
Specific materials, photo imageable dielectric. Brusberg, ¶ 57, "In an example, protective coating 150 is a dielectric material compatible with conventional PCB processing."
Claims 16-20 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 Higginson as set forth above.
With respect to claim 16, Liu in view of Brusberg as set forth above discloses a method of forming a semiconductor device, including one comprising:
coupling a photonic die to a surface of a glass substrate;
forming a first cavity in a glass substrate,
the first cavity having a first footprint;
forming a second cavity in the glass substrate,
the second cavity having a second footprint that encompasses the first footprint;
filling the first cavity with a first polymer material,
wherein an amount of the first polymer material overfills the first cavity and occupies a portion of the second cavity; and
filling the second cavity with a second polymer material.
Per claims 7 and 8, above, in light of claim 1. All elements are present and combined according to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Liu in view of Brusberg as set forth above does not disclose:
coating a surface of the turning mirror cavity with a reflective material; and
wherein the second polymer material forms a surface coplanar with a bottom of the glass substrate.
Higginson discloses, per claim 3, above:
coating a surface of the turning mirror cavity with a reflective material.
Regarding “wherein the second polymer material forms a surface coplanar with a bottom of the glass substrate”, changes in shape are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed surface formation was significant [in a patentable way, i.e., unique, unpredictable, advantageous, or the like per below]. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B). This is particularly true when the specification gives little or no description of why such changes in shape are unique, unpredictable, advantageous, or the like. No disclosure is given in the application with regards to the patentable significance of the coplanar surfaces.
Herein, this point is referred to as “changes in shape”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to coat a surface with reflective material and obtain a smooth surface along the lines of Higginson and known changes in shape in a system according to Liu in view of Brusberg as set forth above in order to provide operational and/or manufacturing conveniences or efficiencies. 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 optical processing system) 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:
coating a surface of the turning mirror cavity with a reflective material; and
wherein the second polymer material forms a surface coplanar with a bottom of the glass substrate.
With respect to claim 17, Liu in view of Brusberg and Higginson as set forth above discloses the method of claim 16, including one wherein
filling the second cavity with a second polymer material includes slit coating the second polymer material.
No description of “slit coating” is given in the specification as originally filed. As such, Brusberg is seen as providing such a process in filling the second cavity per claim 8, above.
With respect to claim 18, Liu in view of Brusberg and Higginson as set forth above discloses the method of claim 16, including one wherein
filling the second cavity with a second polymer material includes filling with Ajinomoto Build-Up Film (ABF).
Per claim 9, above, specific materials, Ajinomoto Build-Up Film (ABF), known for its insulative and useful characteristics (low dielectric constant) in the fabrication of circuit elements.
With respect to claim 19, Liu in view of Brusberg and Higginson as set forth above discloses the method of claim 16, including one wherein
filling the second cavity with a second polymer material includes filling with a photo imageable dielectric.
Specific materials, photo imageable dielectric. Brusberg, ¶ 57, "In an example, protective coating 150 is a dielectric material compatible with conventional PCB processing.” Per claim 14, above.
With respect to claim 20, Liu in view of Brusberg and Higginson as set forth above discloses the method of claim 16, including one wherein
coating a surface of the turning mirror cavity includes sputter depositing one or more metals.
Higginson, ¶ 72, "For example, reflective layer 122 can be evaporated or sputtered metallic material such as aluminum."
Conclusion
Applicant’s publication US 20240219656 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 PIC-related electro-optical 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 21, 2026