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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 16 January, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 16 January, 2026 has been fully considered and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant should submit an argument under the heading “Remarks” pointing out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions. Applicant must also discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 24-28 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the optical coupling structure between the first waveguide of the first photonic component and the second waveguide of the second photonic component (including the light propagation element comprising a first doped photoresist structure connected to the first waveguide, a second doped photoresist structure connected to the second waveguide, and a bonding adhesive connecting the first doped photoresist structure to the second doped photoresist structure, corresponding to Fig. 2A) is directed to a species that is patentably distinct from the originally presented optically coupling structure (a gradient index structure, corresponding to Fig. 2E).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 24-28 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wherein the first dielectric layer is spaced apart from the second dielectric layer by at least a portion of the optical coupling structure”, in combination with the additional features recited in claim 12, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). It appears in Fig. 2E that the first and second dielectric layer are in contact with each other, not separated by at least a portion of the optical coupling structure. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“and comprises” should be deleted from line 8.
Line 9 recites “wherein the optical connection element comprises a photonic component”. This creates antecedent basis issues with regard to the first photonic component and the second photonic component. Applicant should further specify, for example by amending to “wherein the optical connection element comprises a third photonic component”.
“optically coupled the top surface” in lines 11-12 should say “optically coupled to the top surface”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Amended claim 1 requires the optical connection element comprising a photonic component that is stacked above a top surface of the first photonic component and a second photonic component, and also that the first photonic component and second photonic component are arranged over a top surface of a carrier. Claim 4, dependent on claim 1, requires the optical connection element to be attached to the carrier through an adhesive layer and the optical connection element to be disposed between the carrier and the first photonic component. This is a new combination of features that are not described together in a single embodiment in the disclosure. Claim 4 appears to describe features of the embodiment of Fig. 5B, which does not read on claim 1 due to the features of claim 1 that are described above. Dependent claim 8 inherently contains the deficiencies of claim 4 detailed above.
Claims 4, 8, 12, 15, 21-23, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4: As noted above, amended claim 1 requires the optical connection element comprising a photonic component that is stacked above a top surface of the first photonic component and a second photonic component, and also that the first photonic component and second photonic component are arranged over a top surface of a carrier. Claim 4, dependent on claim 1, requires that the optical connection element be disposed between the carrier and the first photonic component. It is unclear how the optical connection element can be stacked above a top surface of the first photonic component and the second photonic component, which are themselves arranged over a top surface of the carrier, while also having the feature of the optical connection element being disposed between the carrier and the first photonic component. Due to these incompatible features, the structure of the device described by claim 4 is unclear.
As a result, a meaningful formulation of art rejections cannot be done at this time. See MPEP 2173.06 II, 2nd paragraph:
… where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. … a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Therefore, claim 4 has not been further considered with respect to prior art. This is not an indication of allowable subject matter.
b. Regarding claim 8: Dependent claim 8 inherently contains the deficiencies of claim 4 detailed above.
c. Regarding claim 12: The terms “first gradient index layer” and “second gradient index layer” are unclear, because it is unclear whether the gradient index layers refer to subcomponents of a gradient index structure within a layer of the device or whether it refers to an entire layer of the device. For clarity, Examiner looked to the specification. Based on Fig. 2E and the description thereof, it appears that “gradient index layers” 540 and 540’ are subcomponents of the “gradient index structure” 540A. However, calling them gradient index layer creates confusion as to where the boundaries of the layer are drawn, e.g. a portion of a layer or an entire layer. Based on this, it is unclear how to evaluate the claimed “cross-sectional width of a contact surface between the first gradient index layer and the second gradient index layer”. This could mean a width of the entire device, consisting entirely of a contact surface between two layers, or it could be limited to the width of the contact surface between two gradient index structures. The comparison of the cross-sectional width is additionally confusing because the cross-sectional width of the waveguide is not specifically defined, so it is unclear which dimension to consider as the cross-sectional width, and it is not clear that the term “waveguide” is referring to the waveguide core.
d. Regarding claims 12, 15, 21-23, and 29: Claims 12, 15, 21-23, and 29 inherently contain all of the deficiencies of any base or intervening claims from which they depend.
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, 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, 5-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taha et al. (US 2023/0084003; hereinafter Taha) in view of Pezeshki et al. (US 2020/0411587; hereinafter Pezeshki).
Regarding claim 1: Taha discloses
An optical device (Fig. 34B), comprising: a first photonic component (Fig. 34B, PIC 3404A) and a second photonic component (Fig. 34B, PIC 3404B) arranged side-by-side over a top surface of a carrier (Fig. 34B, second substrate 3478B); a first electronic component (Fig. 34B, EIC-1 3470-1) at least partially over the first photonic component (in Fig. 34B, the EIC-1 is at least partially over the first photonic component 3404A); and an optical connection element (see paragraphs 0238-0239, connectivity scheme, including first curved mirrors 3410A and 3410B, second curved mirrors 3412A and 3412B, and waveguide 3486) at least partially over and optically coupled to the first photonic component and the second photonic component (Fig. 34B shows this configuration), wherein the optical connection element is disposed adjacent to and spaced apart from a lateral side of the first electronic component (see Fig. 34B, the connectivity scheme including first curved mirror 3410A, is disposed adjacent to and spaced apart from a lateral side of the first electronic component),wherein the optical connection element comprises a photonic component (the connectivity scheme includes waveguide 3486, a photonic component).
Taha fails to teach that the optical connectivity scheme is stacked above a top surface of the first photonic component and a top surface of the second photonic component, the optical connection element having a surface facing and optically coupled to the top surface of the first photonic component via a first optical coupling structure and the top surface of the second photonic component via a second optical coupling structure. Pezeshki, also related to inter-chip optical communications (see abstract), teaches multiple possible configurations for an optical connection element coupling light from a first photonic component to a second photonic component, which are arranged side-by-side over a top surface of a carrier (see Figs. 2-5E). The configurations vary in where the optical connection element is positioned relative to the first photonic component, the second photonic component, and the carrier (the solder bumps shown in Fig. 2 are for connection to a carrier; see paragraph XXXX). In particular, Pezeshki teaches a configuration wherein the optical connection element (Fig. 2, glass body) is stacked above a top surface of the first photonic component (Fig. 2, CMOS CPU) and a top surface of the second photonic component (Fig. 2, memory), the optical connection element having a surface facing and optically coupled to the top surface of the first photonic component via a first optical coupling structure (Fig. 2, any 45-degree mirror 233 above the CMOS CPU) and the top surface of the second photonic component via a second optical coupling structure (Fig. 2, any 45-degree mirror 233 above the memory chip). Based on this, 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 Taha device by including the optical connectivity scheme in an optical connection element stacked above top surfaces of the first and second photonic components, the optical connection element having a surface facing and optically coupled to the top surface of the first photonic component via a first optical coupling structure and the top surface of the second photonic component via a second optical coupling structure. Such an arrangement would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to couple light from the top surface of the photonic components, and would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to make a more modular device, wherein the optical connection elements are on a separate component from the electronic circuitry in the wafer. Moreover, based on the multiple configurations taught by Pezeshki, 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 Taha device in this way as a matter of design choice which would amount to an obvious rearrangement of parts. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 2: Modified Taha teachesThe optical device as claimed in claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the first photonic component comprises a first waveguide (Taha Fig. 34B, waveguide 3462A) defining a first optical path, the optical connection element comprises a second waveguide (Taha Fig. 34B, waveguide 3486) defining a second optical path free from vertically overlapping the first optical path (Fig. 34B shows this; moreover, since the modification described above relates to placing the optical connection elements above top surfaces of the first and second photonic components without suggesting in-plane rearrangements, it would have been obvious to maintain this feature when making the modification), and the first optical coupling structure defines a vertical optical path having two ends optically coupled to the first optical path and the second optical path respectively (see vertical optical path between 3420A and 2412B; this vertical optical path has two ends optically coupled to the first optical path and the second optical path, as defined above, since the light is shown to propagate from the first optical path to the second optical path, with the vertical optical path disposed between the two optical paths).
Regarding claim 3: Modified Taha teachesModified Taha teaches the optical device according to claim 2, as applied above, further comprising a second electronic component (Fig. 34B, EIC-2 3470-2) over the second photonic component, wherein the optical connection element is disposed between the first electronic component and the second electronic component in a direction substantially parallel to the top surface of the carrier (Fig. 34B, EIC-1 3470-1, EIC-2 3470-2, first curved mirrors 3410A and 3410B, second curved mirrors 3412A and 3412B, and waveguide 3486 show this arrangement). Taha fails to disclose that the optical connection element is overlapping the first electronic component and the second electronic component in a direction substantially parallel to the top surface of the carrier. However, this difference amounts to a mere rearrangement of parts. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, when making the modification wherein the first EIC and the carrier are disposed on opposite sides of the PIC (see rejection of claim 2), for one of ordinary skill in the art to make a similar modification to the second EIC, such that the optical connection element is overlapping the first electronic component and the second electronic component, in order to optimize the device for a particular application.
Regarding claim 5: Modified Taha teaches the optical device as claimed in claim 1 (as applied above). In another embodiment, Taha discloses a device including an optical fiber array component at least partially disposed over the first photonic component (Fig. 58, fiber array 5330 and PIC 5302). In another embodiment (Fig. 20B), Taha shows an arrangement including an optical fiber, an EIC and a PIC (Fig. 20B, EIC 2070, optical fiber 2002 and PIC 2004). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the features of these embodiments, by providing the first photonic component of Taha Fig. 34B with an optical fiber and EIC arrangement of Fig. 20B, and to substitute an optical fiber array in applications where there is more than one optical input/output, rearranging the parts in order to optimize the configuration for a particular application. In making this modification, the optical fiber array component would be spaced apart from the optical connection element by the first electronic component, since in Fig. 34B, the optical connection element is shown to be on the opposite side of the PIC from the optical fiber array and EIC of Fig. 20B.
Regarding claim 6: Modified Taha teaches
The optical device as claimed in claim 5 (as applied above), wherein in a cross-sectional view, the first electronic component is disposed between and overlapping the optical connection element and the optical fiber array component in a direction substantially parallel to the top surface of the carrier (based on the modification described in the rejection of claim 1 based on Pezeshki, the components would overlap in a direction substantially parallel to the top surface of the carrier, and based on the modification described in the rejection of claim 5 based on Taha embodiments, the modified device would have the feature of the first electronic component being disposed between the optical fiber array component and the optical connection element).
Regarding claim 7: Modified Taha teaches the optical device as claimed in claim 5, as applied above. In another embodiment (Fig. 25), Taha teaches a conductive via penetrating the photonic component and configured to transmit an electrical signal from a top surface to a bottom surface of the photonic component (Fig. 25, TSVs 2556). Taha teaches that this configuration allows for high-speed electrical connections (see paragraph 0208). In order to facilitate high speed electrical connections, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the Taha device such that the first photonic component comprises a conductive via penetrating the first photonic component and configured to transmit an electrical signal from a top surface to a bottom surface of the first photonic component, based on the different Taha embodiments.
Regarding claim 9: Modified Taha teachesThe optical device as claimed in claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the first electronic component and the optical connection element are disposed on opposite sides of the first photonic component (see Fig. 34B, the first electronic component is on a right side of the first photonic component and the optical connection element is on a left side of the first photonic component).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mehfuz et al. (US Patent No. 9,875,761) discloses a tapered gradient index structure between a laser and a waveguide layer
Lee (US 2004/0037497; hereinafter Lee) discloses a tapered structure between two waveguides, wherein one of the tapered structures is a gradient index structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kirsten D Endresen whose telephone number is (703)756-1533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday.
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, Thomas 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.
/KIRSTEN D. ENDRESEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874