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 § 102 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 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. Claim(s) 10, 12, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US 20240012199; “Liu”). Regarding claim 1 0 , Liu teaches a co-package optics structure comprising: a photonic integrated chip (e.g., ¶s 0001, 0018) including at least one coupling area (e.g., fig. 5A; coupling from end surface 210 of waveguide {WG} structure 202 /302 ) ; an electromagnetic radiation absorption material layer 204 (e.g., fig. 5A; ¶s 0019, 0055-0056) located on a first surface (e.g., fig. 5A; the surface at the bottom of rectangular WG 202 core ) of the photonic integrated chip and in close proximity to the at least one least one coupling area (e.g., fig. 5A; coupling from end surface 210 of WG structure 202) ; ; and at least one waveguide structure 202/302 contacting the electromagnetic radiation absorption material layer 204 that is present on the first surface of the photonic chip (e.g., fig. 5A ; ¶s 0001, 0018 ) and in close proximity to the at least one least one coupling area (e.g., fig. 5A; coupling from end surface 210 of waveguide {WG} structure 202 /302 ) . Thus claim 10 is met. Regarding claim 1 2 , Liu teaches t he co-package optics structure of Claim 10 (see above) , wherein the electromagnetic radiation absorption material layer is composed of carbon, titanium, aluminum, copper or any combination thereof [e.g., ¶ 0038]. Thus claim 1 2 is met. Regarding claim 1 8 , Liu teaches t he co-package optics structure of Claim 10 (see above) , wherein the at least one waveguide structure is a polymer optical waveguide, a glass waveguide, a silicon dioxide waveguide [e.g., ¶ 0045; the cladding 302 is a part of the WG 202/302 and may comprise silicon dioxide (SiO.sub.2) ] , a silicon nitride waveguide or any combination thereof. Thus claim 1 8 is met. 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. 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. Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20240012199; “Liu”). Regarding claim 1 7 , Liu teaches the co-package optics structure of Claim 10 (see above 102 rejection ) . Liu does not explicitly state the at least one waveguide structure 202/302 is a fan-out optical waveguide structure. However, it was well-known for the at least one waveguide structure 202/302 is a fan-out at least the optical waveguide core 202 structure . Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the waveguide structure 202/302 is a fan-out of at least the optical waveguide core 202 structure at least for the purpose of dividing/spreading/demultiplexing the signal. Thus claim 17 is rejected. Claim(s) 1 , 3, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20240012199; “Liu”) with obviousness evidenced by {OEB} Marrapode et al. (US 20220029712 ; “ Marrapode ”) . Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches a co-package optics structure comprising: a photonic integrated chip (e.g., ¶s 0001, 0018) including at least one coupling area (e.g., fig. 5A; coupling from end surface 210 of waveguide {WG} structure 202/302) ; an electromagnetic radiation absorption material layer 204 (e.g., fig. 5A ; ¶s 0019, 0055-0056 ) located in close proximity to the at least one coupling area (e.g., fig. 5A; coupling from end surface 210 of WG structure 202). Liu does not explicitly state an optical link contacting Liu’s electromagnetic radiation absorption material layer 204 that is present in close proximity to Liu’s at least one coupling area (e.g., fig. 5A; coupling from end surface 210 of WG structure 202) . However, it was well-known to have an optical link coupled to the edge of a PIC chip at least as evidenced by Marrapode (e.g., Marrapode figs. 5A-5B; ¶s 0017, 0028 ). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an optical link [such as an optical fiber(s) in a V-groove(s)] coupled to the edge of a PIC chip in fig. 5A of Liu at least for the purpose of routing the signal off chip/wafer/substrate . Thus claim 1 is rejected under Liu with OEB Marrapode [for simplicity may be referred to as simply “Liu- Marrapode ”] . Regarding claim 3, Liu- Marrapode teaches t he co-package optics structure of Claim 1 (see above) , wherein the electromagnetic radiation absorption material layer is composed of carbon, titanium, aluminum, copper, or any other combination thereof that have high absorption for wavelength used to remove the electromagnetic radiation absorption material layer [e.g., ¶ 0038]. Thus claim 3 is rejected . Regarding claim 8 , Liu- Marrapode teaches t he co-package optics structure of Claim 1 (see above) . Liu- Marrapode teaches the link may be an optical fiber [e.g., Marrapode ¶ 0017] Liu- Marrapode does not explicitly state the optical link optical fiber (OF) comprises a glass fiber . However, it was well-known for an OF link OF to comprise glass. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for OF link OF to comprise glass at least for the purpose of utilizing a common material (glass) for the optical fiber of a link. Thus claim 8 is rejected. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2, 4-7, 9, 11, 13-16, 19-20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art, either alone or in combination, does not disclose or render obvious the electromagnetic radiation absorption material layer is a release layer in combination with the rest of claim 2 , 10 . It is noted that claim 2 , 11 is allowable because the unique combination of each and ever y specific element stated in the claim. The prior art, either alone or in combination, does not disclose or render obvious an adhesive located between the electromagnetic radiation absorption material layer and the optical link in combination with the rest of claim 4 . It is noted that claim 4 is allowable because the unique combination of each and ever y specific element stated in the claim. The prior art, either alone or in combination, does not disclose or render obvious the electromagnetic radiation absorption material layer comprises an adhesive having electromagnetic radiation absorption particles embedded in a polymer matrix in combination with the rest of claim 6 . It is noted that claim 6 is allowable because the unique combination of each and every specific element stated in the claim. The prior art, either alone or in combination, does not disclose or render obvious the photonic integrated chip includes at least one other coupling area located therein, wherein a replacement optical link or a waveguide array is present in the at least one other coupling area and adhered to a surface of the at least one other coupling area by a coupling materia l in combination with the rest of claim 9 . It is noted that claim 9 is allowable because the unique combination of each and every specific element stated in the claim. The prior art, either alone or in combination, does not disclose or render obvious further comprising an adhesive located between electromagnetic radiation absorption material layer and the waveguide structure in combination with the rest of claim 13 . It is noted that claim 13 is allowable because the unique combination of each and every specific element stated in the claim. The prior art, either alone or in combination, does not disclose or render obvious the electromagnetic radiation absorption material layer comprises an adhesive having electromagnetic radiation absorption particles embedded in a polymer matrix in combination with the rest of claim 15 . It is noted that claim 15 is allowable because the unique combination of each and every specific element stated in the claim. The prior art, either alone or in combination, does not disclose or render obvious further comprising another wafer guide structure and a stiffener layer located above the at least one waveguide structure in combination with the rest of claim 1 9. It is noted that claim 1 9 is allowable because the unique combination of each and every specific element stated in the claim. The prior art, either alone or in combination, does not disclose or render obvious the photonic integrated chip includes at least one other coupling area located therein, wherein one or more glass fibers or at least one other waveguide structure is adhered to a surface of the at least one other coupling area by a coupling material in combination with the rest of claim 20 . It is noted that claim 20 is allowable because the unique combination of each and every specific element stated in the claim. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mr. Michael Mooney whose telephone number is 571-272-2422. The examiner can normally be reached during weekdays, M-F. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on 571-272-2397. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). For checking the filing status of an application, please refer to <https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/checking-application-status/check-filing-status-your-patent-application>. /MICHAEL P MOONEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874