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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on December 1st, 2025 has been fully considered and entered.
The objection to claim 1 has been withdrawn in light of the applicant’s amendment.
The rejections to claims 1, 3-15, 17-20 are maintained.
Necessitated by applicant’s amendment, the new claims 21 and 22 have been rejected under new grounds of rejection using the same prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 1st, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: “The asserted supporting substrate 201 of Pietambaram, however, may be an organic package substrate (Pietambaram, [0037]). As a matter of fact, it cannot be concluded that waveguides may be formed in the organic package substrate. Accordingly, the ‘substrate comprising a waveguide’ as recited in claim 1 of Krasulick is not analogous to the asserted supporting substrate 201 of Pietambaram. One of ordinary skill in the art thus is not motived to combine Krasulick with Pietambaram. The original claim 2 and the amended claim 1 are thus allowable.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Both references are in the same field of endeavor (photonics packaging/optical interconnects). The test is not whether the specific substrates are identical, but whether a skilled artisan would look to both references when solving the problem of coupling optical signals between a photonic die and external fibers.
The examiner did not rely on Krasulick’s substrate as the supporting substrate. Krasulick was used as a teaching for the concept of bonding a photonic die to a substrate. The bonding technique is independent of whether the substrate contains waveguides. Applicant seems to conflate the substrate material with the bonding method.
Pietambaram’s substrate isn’t limited to organic – paragraph 37 recites that the substrate “may be” organic, making it permissive, not limiting. A skilled artisan would understand that various substrate materials are suitable.
Applicant argues: “In Pietambaram (for example, fig. 2C as reproduced above), there is no recessed lens that is recessed in the asserted supporting substrate 201. Claim 13, as amended, is thus allowable over Pietambaram.”
The examiner acknowledges that the lenses in Pietambaram are on top of the substrate and not receded into it.
Recessing a lens into a substrate is a predictable design choice for reducing package/component height, improving alignment stability, and protecting optical components. Additionally, as seen in Figure 2C, the optical resist pathway leading to the reflector 231 would be a perfect place in which the lens could be receded to, with simple machining to clear out some of the solder resist layer. This would not at all change the function of efficacy of the device.
A skilled artisan would find it obvious to recess lens 237 into substrate 201 using known machining/etching techniques. Lenses 213 and 238 are already recessed with respect to connector 247 attached to the substrate 201, the device would not functionally change if the lenses were recessed into the substrate and would benefit from fewer overhanging components. No new function results, the lens still converges the light, and the motivation to recess over protrude to lower volumetric profile is apparent. Additionally, the methods to recess (boring, etching a hole and then adding the lens) are obvious to a skilled artisan as well, as fundamentally this is a shifting of existing components to accomplish the same task. This constitutes a rearrangement of parts, which is obvious to any skilled artisan. MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
Applicant argues: “In Pietambaram (for example, fig. 2C as reproduced above), the cover of the asserted lid 207 does not have any opening in the cover, and the asserted fiber deflection unit does not have any portion in any opening of the cover of the lid 207. Therefore, Pietambaram fails to disclose the above-recited claim elements. Lin fails to cure the deficiency in Pietambaram. Claim 18, as amended, is thus allowable.”
The examiner acknowledges that the asserted lid lacks a depicted opening. However, Pietambaram teaches that the fiber unit extends through/into the lid area (Figure 2A, fiber unit 211 is positioned relative to ISH 207; paragraph 38 introduces the lid as being coupled to ISH 207). Providing an opening in the lid to accommodate the fiber deflection unit is a functional necessity – the fiber unit must physically pass through or into the lid region. In order to accomplish this, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to fashion an opening in the lid, either through boring or etching techniques, or during manufacture of the lid.
Applicant argues: “The remaining claims depend from and add further features to one of the independent claims. It is respectfully submitted that these dependent claims are allowable by reason of depending from an allowable claim, as well as for adding new features, and that it is not necessary to separately address these dependent claims.”
As the previous rejections are maintained, the examiner cannot allow dependent claims on the basis that the independent claims upon which they depend are allowable.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 13-15, 17, 21, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pietambaram et al. (US 20220155539 A1) in view of Krasulick (US 11183492 B2).
Regarding claim 1;
Pietambaram et al. discloses:
An optical engine (the entire system of Figure 1, 1A, and 1B, or its embodiments)
A photonic die (Figure 11 depicts photonics dies 110, Figure 13B shows an embodiment of photonic die 1310), wherein the photonic die comprises a grating coupler (Figure 13B, paragraph 24 discloses that the photonic die contains a grating coupler 1316), wherein the forming the optical engine comprises bonding a supporting substrate to the photonic die (Figure 2C depicts die 210 coupled to the substrate 201 via bridges 215.
a fiber unit (Figure 2C depicts a set of elements 211, 213, 230, 231, 232, and 247 which form a ‘fiber unit’ for deflecting light transmitted by an optical fiber), comprising;
A fiber platform (Figure 2C, the bottom side of the connector 247 supports optical interconnect 213, which accepts fiber optic cables – the examiner interprets this to be a fiber platform, see paragraph 39) comprising a groove (Figure 14C depicts a V-groove for accepting fiber optic cables, in another embodiment)
In another embodiment, an optical fiber (1411) attached to the fiber platform (1410), wherein the optical fiber extends into the groove (see accompanying figure 14B)
In another embodiment, a reflector (Figure 5B, mirror 543), and attaching the fiber unit to the optical engine (Figure 2C depicts a fiber unit with a mirror which attaches to the optical engine)
Wherein the reflector (543) is configured to deflect a light beam (light beam from the second end 532),
So that the light beam emitted by [either the optical fiber or a grating coupler] (either optical receiving end 532) is received by one of [either the optical fiber or a grating coupler] (another optical end 532). Either end could be modified under the teachings of the embodiment in Figure 13A-13B, wherein the incoming light 1312 passes into the photonics module 1313 (Figure 13A), and into grating coupler 1316 (shown in Figure 13B).
and wherein the supporting substrate comprises a first lens configured to converge the light beam (lens 203).
Pietambaram does not specifically disclose that these components are part of an ‘optical engine’, however, the instant application refers to the ‘optical engine’ as a ‘package’ as well (paragraph 41). For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets a collection of optical and electric devices which together translate optical signals into electric signals to be an optical engine, as is known in the art. Pietambaram also does not explicitly teach that the layers are bonded as claimed.
Krasulick discloses a composite semiconductor device, wherein a “photonic die is bonded to the substrate” (see claim 1).
The prior art discloses a device comprising all of the structural features resulting from the claimed method. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form an optical engine containing a photonics die comprising a grating coupler with a die bonded to a substrate and a fiber platform with a groove that accepts an optical fiber and passes the light into a grating coupler, under the teachings of Krasulick and Pietambaram. This could be accomplished using methods known to the art (i.e., the components taught by Pietambaram et al., bonding methods of Krasulick), and would predictably result in a device which converts between optical and electrical signals on a stable die/substrate.
Regarding claim 3;
Pietambaram et al. in view of Krasulick et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein
Pietambaram et al. discloses that a first center of the first lens (Figure 2C, center of lens 232) is laterally offset from a second center of the reflector (Figure 5B, mirror 543, which accepts light through the end 532 which is down stream of the first lens).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to configure the device of claim 2 to contain mirror 543 as taught by Pietambaram et al. This may be accomplished using methods known to the art (routine placement of components in an optical device), and would predictably result in a device which accurately converges light from an incoming source onto a reflector for further processing with low loss.
Regarding claim 4;
Pietambaram et al. in view of Krasulick et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein
the supporting substrate (substrate 201) further comprises a second lens (Figure 2C, lens 237), wherein the first lens and the second lens are on opposite sides of the supporting substrate (see figure below – they are on opposite sides of the substrate, wherein a
PNG
media_image1.png
333
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
side is either above or below the diagonal dashed line).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to configure the device constructed through the methods of claim 2 to have a second lens on the opposite side of the supporting substrate, as taught in Pietambaram et al. This could be accomplished using routine placement and machining methods known to the art, and would predictably result in “improve[d] efficiency of the signal transmission between the photonics die and the optical path” (Paragraph 46).
Regarding claim 7;
Pietambaram et al. in view of Krasulick et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein
Pietambaram et al. further teaches that the fiber unit comprises a lens located in a light path of the light beam (RHS of Figure 2C contains lens 213), wherein the lens is configured to converge the light beam (the lens is plano-convex, and will converge the light).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the method of claim 1 to configure a fiber unit that contains a converging lens along the path of light. This could be accomplished using methods known to the art (lenses known to the air, placement techniques routine to the art) and would predictably result in a fiber unit which focuses light from an optical fiber into the photonic die, preventing loss of signal.
Regarding claim 10;
Pietambaram et al. in view of Krasulick et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein
The reflector (figure 5B, mirror 543) is planar and tilted.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the method of claim 1 to produce a device with a reflector which is planar and tilted. This could be accomplished using components (mirrors) and methods (adhesion, machining) known to the art, and would predictably reflect light from the optical source to internal components of the package downstream, ensuring that the desired signal propagates into the device.
Regarding claim 11;
Pietambaram et al. in view of Krasulick et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the fiber unit comprises:
A plurality of grooves (Figure 2C depicts two), with the groove being one of the plurality of grooves (there are at least two optical interconnects, and therefore at least two grooves), and
A plurality of optical fibers extending into the plurality of grooves (Figure 14C depicts a cross section of a fiber 1411 in the groove, and there are multiple grooves and therefore multiple fibers), with the optical fiber being one of the plurality of optical fibers (there are a plurality of fibers for a plurality of grooves).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the method of claim 1 to include the forming of a plurality of the groove and optical fiber components, respectively. This could be accomplished methods known to the art (the same ones used to construct the individual fiber and grooves of claim 1), and would predictably allow the optical engine to utilize more than one optical connection.
Regarding claim 13;
Pietambaram et al. discloses:
A package comprising a photonic die (Figure 11 depicts photonics dies 110, Figure 13B shows an embodiment of photonic die 1310) comprising a grating coupler (Figure 13B, paragraph 24 discloses that the photonic die contains a grating coupler 1316)
a support substrate over the photonic die (Figure 2C depicts die 210 coupled to the substrate 201 via bridges 215), wherein the supporting substrate comprises a first lens (lens 232) recessed in the supporting substrate (this would be an obvious design modification, see below) and
a fiber deflection unit (Figure 2C depicts a set of elements 211, 213, 230, 231, 232, and 247 which form a ‘fiber unit’ for deflecting light transmitted by an optical fiber) attached to supporting substrate, wherein the fiber deflection unit comprises;
A fiber platform (Figure 2C, the bottom side of the connector 247 supports optical interconnect 213, which accepts fiber optic cables – the examiner interprets this to be a fiber platform, see paragraph 39)
In another embodiment, a reflector (Figure 5B, mirror 543)
comprising a groove in the fiber platform (Figure 14C depicts a V-groove for accepting fiber optic cables, in another embodiment), and
In another embodiment, an optical fiber (1411) extending into the groove (see accompanying figure 14B), wherein in an optical path comprising the first lens, the reflector, and the optical fiber, the first lens is between the grating coupler and the optical fiber (Figure 2C depicts that the light path prior to reflection is vertical; the light will bounce off of mirror 543 and go horizontally, towards the optical fiber).
The first lens 232 is not explicitly recessed in the supporting substrate. However, recessing a lens into the substrate is a predictable rearrangement of parts, and an obvious mechanical modification for reducing overall package height, improving mechanical protection of the lens (without changing function), and without any unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to devise a package with a photonic die, a grating coupler, a support substrate that comprises a fiber deflection unit with a fiber platform, a reflector, a groove, and a fiber (as taught by Pietambaram et al.). These components are known to the art, and may be configured using methods known to the art (machining, pick-and-place). This would predictably result in a package that accepts optical signals and processes them further through the internal dies.
Regarding claim 14;
Pietambaram et al. in view of Krasulick et al. discloses the method of claim 13, wherein
the reflector (543) is configured to deflect a light beam (light beam from the second end 532) emitted from the optical fiber (any fiber connecting to the fiber deflection unit) and travelling in a horizontal direction (Figure 2C depicts that the light path is horizontal) to a vertical direction (the light will bounce off of mirror 543 and go upwards)
Pietambaram does not specifically disclose that the grating coupler is downstream from the reflector, but the fiber deflection unit will direct light towards photonics die 210 (paragraph 46). In another embodiment, Pietambaram discloses that the photonics die 1310 may receive incoming optical signals, and comprise a grating coupler 1316.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to configure the package of claim 13 to include the fiber deflection unit disclosed in Pietambaram et al, and then to further configure the package to contain a photonics die that comprises a grating coupler which receives the light. This could be accomplished using methods known to the art (pick and place, machining to create the space), and would predictably result in a device which efficiently couples light from a fiber optical cable to the internal optical and electrical dies with low loss.
Regarding claim 15;
Pietambaram et al. in view of Krasulick et al. discloses the method of claim 13, wherein
the reflector (543) is configured to deflect a light beam (light beam from the second end 532) emitted from the grating coupler (photonics die 1310 contains a grating coupler) and travelling in a vertical direction (Figure 2C depicts that the light path prior to reflection is vertical) to a horizontal direction to the optical fiber (the light will bounce off of mirror 543 and go horizontally, towards the optical fiber).
Pietambaram does not specifically disclose that the optical fiber is downstream from the reflector, however, light emitted by the grating coupler would necessarily have an optical path that meets the claim; Pietambaram et al. discloses the structure necessary. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the package of claim 13 to deflect light emitted by the grating coupler vertically into a horizontal direction that propagates to the fiber.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding claim 17;
Pietambaram et al. in view of Krasulick et al. discloses the method of claim 13, wherein
The reflector (figure 5B, mirror 543) is straight and slanted.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the method of claim 1 to produce a device with a reflector which is straight and slanted, under the teachings of Pietambaram et al. This could be accomplished using components (mirrors) and methods (adhesion, machining) known to the art, and would predictably reflect light from the optical source to internal components of the package downstream, ensuring that the desired signal propagates into the device.
Regarding claim 21;
Pietambaram et al. in view of Krasulick et al. discloses the method of claim 4, wherein:
both of the first lens (232) and the second lens (237) are between the reflector (543) and the grating coupler (1316).
Figure 2C depicts both lenses in the optical path between the photonic die containing the grating coupler and the reflector.
Regarding claim 22;
Pietambaram et al. in view of Krasulick et al. discloses the method of claim 13, wherein:
a first lens (Figure 2C, lens 213) comprises a convex surface that protrudes facing the reflector (lens 213 is plano-convex, wherein the convex surface faces the reflector to converge light toward the optical path; this orientation is a predictable design choice for focusing light toward the reflector).
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pietambaram et al. (US 20220155539 A1), in view of Krasulick (US 11183492 B2) and further in view of Yu et al. (US 20220392881 A1).
Regarding claim 5;
Pietambaram et al. in view of Krasulick et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the forming the photonic die comprises:
Patterning a top silicon layer in a substrate to form a plurality of photonic devices (Paragraph 82 discloses that glass substrate 661 obtains high density routing through patterning operations, like lithography), wherein the substrate comprises the top silicon layer (the glass substrate layer 661)
In another embodiment, Pietambaram et al. discloses that the glass layers may be adhered to each other by dielectric layers (Paragraph 107), teaching that a dielectric layer may be bonded to a top silicon layer.
Yu et al. teaches a photonic semiconductor device and method of manufacture, wherein
A top silicon layer (Figure 2, silicon layer 102A) is disposed over an oxide layer (oxide layer 102B may be composed of silicon oxide or the like, a standard dielectric material – see paragraph 28), and a semiconductor layer (substrate 102C may be a semiconductor – see paragraph 28) under the first oxide (dielectric) layer.
A second dielectric layer (Figure 4, dielectric layer 108) is formed on the substrate to form a photonic routing structure, allowing it to embed a plurality of photonic devices therein (Figure 4 or Figure 5 both show dielectric layer 108 enclosing photonic components 106A, 106B)
An interconnect structure over and signally coupling to the plurality of photonic devices (Figure 1, interconnect 50 couples with package 100, containing the aforementioned layers and photonic devices) and
Bonding an electronic die to the interconnect structure (paragraph 17 discloses that the interconnect provides electric connection between devices attached to the interposer structure, including processing/memory dies which are electric dies)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to configure the device constructed through the methods of claim 1 to have the layer arrangement taught in Yu et al., with an interconnect structure and a bonding with an electronic die. This could be accomplished using components and methods known to the art, and would predictably result in an optoelectrical package which isolates photonic elements from the substrate and other sources of thermal/electrical noise, improving signal integrity with low loss.
Regarding claim 6;
Pietambaram et al. in view of Krasulick et al., and further in view of Yu et al. discloses the method of claim 5, wherein
In an embodiment, Yu et al. teaches that the device of claim 5 contains additional dielectric layers and (Figure 7 depicts dielectric layers 115) and etching waveguides into existing dielectric layers (waveguide 104 within dielectric layer 108).
Forming through vias penetrating through the dielectric layers (via 112 passes through multiple layers including dielectric layers) to electrically couple to the interconnect structure (interconnect structure 60).
Yu et al. does not specifically disclose that the first dielectric layer and semiconductor are removed, or that the dielectric layers are on the backside of the device. However, the formation process is known, and Yu et al. discloses how a dielectric layer can contain a waveguide.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the method of claim 5 to incorporate the removal of the first dielectric layer and semiconductor layer using methods known to the art (simple machining, adhesion removal), and forming the additional dielectric layers on the backside of the device. Furthermore, the waveguides may be etched into those dielectric layers using methods known to the art, and finally through-vias would be machined to penetrate through the aforementioned layers, linking them to the interconnect structure. This would predictably result in a method for forming a device which is compact, and efficient at conveying photonic and optical signals with high precision and low loss.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pietambaram et al. (US 20220155539 A1), in view of Krasulick (US 11183492 B2) and further in view of Amano et al. (US 20210104637 A1).
Regarding claim 8;
Pietambaram et al. in view of Krasulick et al. discloses the method of claim 1,
Pietambaram et al. does not teach that the reflector is curved.
Amano et al. teaches an opto-electric integrated circuit, wherein a waveguide guides light that is reflected off of a curved reflector (Figures 6 and 7 depict curved reflector 326).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the reflector in the device taught by the method of claim 1 to have a curved surface, under the teachings of Amano et al. This could be accomplished using methods known to the art, and would predictably result in a mirror that reflects light and collimates it more effectively than a planar surface.
Regarding claim 9;
Pietambaram et al. in view of Krasulick, and further in view of Amano et al. teaches the method of claim 8, wherein
Amano et al. teaches that the reflector fits a circle in a cross-sectional view of the fiber unit; the orientation of mirror 326 in Figure 6 and 7 in Amano et al. is identical to the orientation as seen in the instant application, and thus would also fit a circle in the cross-sectional view.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the method of claim 8 to form a device with a reflector that is curved, such that the reflector fits a circle in a cross-sectional view of the fiber unit. This could be accomplished using components and methods known to the art, and would predictably result in reflector which collects and collimates light, preventing unwanted interaction with the surrounding medium and improving signal integrity.
Claim(s) 12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pietambaram et al. (US 20220155539 A1), in view of Krasulick (US 11183492 B2), and further in view of Lin et al. (US 20220196918 A1).
Regarding claim 12;
Pietambaram et al. in view of Krasulick et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the attaching the fiber unit comprising attaching the fiber unit to a supporting substrate (substrate 201) in the optical engine,
Pietambaram et al. further discloses that the fiber unit is further attached to a lid that encircles the optical engine, wherein the fiber unit extend into an opening in the lid (Figure 2A, IHS 207 encircles all of the die components and also sits between the internal components and optical interconnects 211. The top portion is intentionally not shown to reveal the internal structure).
Pietambaram et al. does not disclose that the lid is metal.
Lin et al. discloses an optoelectronic structure, containing an IHS (paragraph 82 discloses that the IHS may be any suitable material, including metal).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the method of claim 1 under the teachings of Pietambaram and Lin to form a device with an IHS that encircles the internal dies of the optical engine, and is composed of metal. This component is functionally a lid for the optical engine, and would predictably result in a device which is efficient at transferring heat throughout the device, preventing overheating and thermal noise.
Regarding claim 20;
Pietambaram in view of Lin et al. discloses the package of claim 18, wherein:
Pietambaram et al. discloses that the optical engine further comprises a photonic die (Figure 11 depicts photonics dies 110, Figure 13B shows an embodiment of photonic die 1310), and
a supporting substrate coupled to the photonic die (Figure 2C depicts die 210 coupled to the substrate 201 via bridges 215).
Pietambaram et al. does not disclose that the support substrate is over and bonded to the photonic die.
Krasulick et al. discloses a composite semiconductor device, wherein a “photonic die is bonded to the substrate” (see claim 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention of claim 18 to have a photonic die which is bonded with the substrate, using methods disclosed by Krasulick et al. (composite bonding, composite semiconductor-on-insulator bonding, template assisted bonding) and other methods known to the art (pick and place for placement). This would predictably result in a more compact device with closer alignment than the coupling methods taught in Pietambaram et al., reducing latency and improving signal to noise.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pietambaram et al. (US 20220155539 A1) in view of Lin et al. (US 20220196918 A1).
Regarding claim 18;
Pietambaram et al. discloses a package comprising:
An optical engine comprising a photonic device (Figure 11 depicts photonics dies 110, Figure 13B shows an embodiment of photonic die 1310), and
a lens over the photonic device (lens 237 is attached to the fiber deflection unit and is optically linked to the photonic device)
a lid, wherein the optical engine is covered by a top portion of the metal lid (Figure 2A, IHS 207 encircles all of the die components and also sits between the internal components and optical interconnects 211. The top portion is intentionally not shown to reveal the internal structure), and the top portion of the metal lid has an opening (it would need to, else the device could not function), and;
a fiber unit comprising a part in the opening of the lid (Figure 2A, IHS 207 encircles all of the die components and also sits between the internal components and optical interconnects 211; while this is not explicit disclosure of comprising a part in the opening of the lid, the fiber deflection unit 211 is adjacent and extending toward the lid region – accommodating components that interface between internal and external elements via lid openings is routine mechanical design in packaging), wherein the fiber deflection unit is configured to:
emit a light beam horizontally (Figure 2C depicts that the light path is horizontal) out of an optical fiber in the fiber deflection unit, and
deflect the light beam to the lens (Figure 2C, lens 237), wherein the light beam is further projected to the photonic device (The light propagates out towards the photonics die).
Pietambaram et al. does not disclose that the lid is metal.
Lin et al. discloses an optoelectronic structure, containing an IHS (paragraph 82 discloses that the IHS may be any suitable material, including metal).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize the teachings of Pietambaram et al. to construct a package containing an optical engine comprising a photonic device, a lens over the photonic device, a lid and a fiber deflection unit as taught. The methods and components are known to the art; this device could be further modified under the teachings of Lin et al. to have a lid which is composed of metal, and would predictably result in a package which efficiency couples an optical signal to an opto-electric package for further processing, with low thermal noise and high signal integrity.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pietambaram et al. (US 20220155539 A1), in view of Krasulick (US 11183492 B2), and further in view of Lin et al. (US 20220196918 A1), in further view of Amano et al. (US 20210104637 A1).
Regarding claim 19;
Pietambaram et al. in view of Lin et al. discloses the package of claim 18, wherein
Pietambaram et al. teaches that the fiber deflection unit comprises a reflector (Figure 2C, mirror 231) for deflecting the light beam, and wherein the reflector comprises a metal (it is known to the art that mirrors comprise a reflective layer, typically of metal).
Pietambaram et al. does not teach that the reflector has a curved shape.
Amano et al. teaches an opto-electric integrated circuit, wherein a waveguide guides light that is reflected off of a curved reflector (Figures 6 and 7 depict curved reflector 326).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the reflector in the device taught by the method of claim 18 to have a curved surface, under the teachings of Amano et al. This could be accomplished using methods known to the art, and would predictably result in a mirror that reflects light and collimates it more effectively than a planar surface.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Examiner notes that new grounds of rejection were used in response to applicant’s amendment for claims 21 and 22.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PREET B PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2579. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu: 8:30 am - 6:30 pm.
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 A 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.
/PREET B PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874