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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/15/2025 has been entered.
Joint Inventors
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 with regards to claim 1 have been fully considered but are moot in view of modified grounds for rejection brought about by a new interpretation of the claim limitations (See the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 section of this office action).
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 with regards to claim 15 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Examiner notes that an argument regarding claim 15 was presented on pages 12 and 13 of the response, but that the argument presented did not apply to claim 15 as it appeared in past communications. Examiner attempted to apply the presented argument to independent claim 16, but the presented argument was also not applicable to independent claim 16 because the limitations referenced in the argument did not appear in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menezo (US 11531171 B2) in view of Andry (US 8855452 B2) and in further view of Melville (US 11828983 B2).
With regards to claim 1, Menezo teaches a method (Menezo/Column 10/54-58) comprising:
forming a waveguide (Menezo/Fig4/Waveguide 121’ [Light guiding structure]) over a top surface of a dielectric layer (Menezo/Fig7a/Dielectric layer 110 [Buried oxide layer]), wherein the dielectric layer is on a first surface of a substrate (Menezo/Fig4/Top surface of substrate 100 [Substrate]);
forming a grating coupler (Menezo/Fig4/Grating coupler 122’ [Coupling array]) over the top surface of the dielectric layer, wherein the grating coupler is optically coupled (Menezo/Fig4) to the waveguide;
after forming the waveguide and forming the grating coupler, the substrate has a second surface facing away from the dielectric layer (Menezo/Fig4/Second surface F20 [Rear face]);
forming a recess in the second surface of the substrate (Menezo/Fig4/Recess defined by element 160); and depositing a reflective material in the recess (Menezo/Fig4/Reflective material comprising element 160; Column 7/Lines 6-9; Column 8/Lines 44-46; Column 11/Lines 29-33) wherein the reflective material has a reflectivity of at least 90% (Menezo/Material surrounding element 16; Column 7/6-9 where silver is known to have a reflectivity that is greater than 90%).
Menezo does not teach the recess (Menezo/Fig4/recess housing element 160) as laterally overlapping the grating coupler (Menezo/Fig4/122’), but does teach the recess as being laterally offset from the grating coupler (Menezo/Fig4). Menezo also teaches that a recess (recess housing lens 160/Fig4) may be formed to laterally overlap a grating coupler (Menezo/Fig8e) in another embodiment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the recess (Menezo/Fig4/recess housing lens 160) such that it laterally overlaps the grating coupler (122’) for the purpose of positioning the lens directly above the grating coupler to allow for optical coupling at a location direction above the grating coupler. Additionally, Menezo does not teach thinning the substrate in which the recess is formed, but does disclose the thinning of a substrate (Menezo/Column 11/12-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to thin the layer in which the recess is formed before forming a recess in the second surface of the substrate as taught by Menezo since doing so is a well-known means of achieving a desired thickness and would reduce the mass, volume, and overall silhouette of the device produced, without causing damage to or otherwise negatively affecting the reflective component.
Menezo is silent regarding the recess extending through the substrate and exposing a lateral surface of the dielectric layer, the grating coupler being between the reflective material in the recess and a light source along a straight line, and the reflective material is positioned to reflect light back to the grating coupler. However, the practices of forming a recess in a substrate with a depth sufficient to expose a lateral surface of a dielectric layer below the substrate and locating a grating coupler between a reflective material in a recess and a light source along a straight line, wherein the reflective material is positioned to reflect light back to the grating coupler exists in the art as exemplified by Andry. Menezo and Andry are considered to be analogous in the field of optoelectronic packages and the formation thereof. Andry teaches a method comprising the formation of a recess in a substrate, wherein the recess extends through the substrate and exposes a lateral surface of a dielectric layer beneath the substrate (Andry/Fig2/Substrate 206, Recess 212, Dielectric layer 204, Lateral surface [Surface of element 204 at interface with element 216]), and the location of a grating coupler between a reflective material in a recess and a light source along a straight line, wherein the reflective material is positioned to reflect light back to the grating coupler (Andry/Fig2/Reflective material 216, grating coupler 214, and light source 218). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the method disclosed by Menezo such that the recess extends through the substrate and exposes a lateral surface of the dielectric layer and the grating coupler is placed between a reflective material in a recess and a light source along a straight line, wherein the reflective material is positioned to reflect light back to the grating coupler as suggested by Andry, since doing so would allow for the reflector of Menezo to be disposed closer to the grating and would improve the efficiency of the optical communication within the finished device.
With regards to claim 2, Menezo and Andry together disclose the method of claim 1 as previously discussed, further comprising forming a redistribution structure over the waveguide (Menezo/Fig4/Redistribution structures 20 [Copper pillars]).
With regards to claim 3, Menezo and Andry together disclose the method of claim 2 further comprising forming a photonic device (Menezo/Fig4/Photonic device 123 [Active photonic components]) on the top surface of the dielectric layer, wherein the redistribution structure (Menezo/4/Connection to elements 124 [Metal levels]) is electrically connected to the photonic device.
With regards to claim 4, Menezo and Andry together disclose the method of claim 1 as previously discussed, and discloses that the waveguide can comprise silicon nitride (Menezo/Column 5/Lines 50-61), but does not explicitly teach the formation or inclusion of a second waveguide. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the formation of an additional waveguide within the method taught by Menezo since doing so would allow for an additional avenue of optical communication within the completed optoelectronic package.
With regards to claim 5, Menezo and Andry together disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the waveguide is a silicon waveguide (Menezo/Column 5/Lines 54-57) and the dielectric layer is an oxide layer (Menezo/Fig4/Oxide layer 110 [Buried oxide layer]).
With regards to claim 7, Menezo and Andry together disclose the method of claim 1 as previously discussed, wherein a portion of the recess laterally extends beyond an edge of the grating coupler (Menezo/Fig4).
With regards to claim 8, Menezo and Andry together disclose the method of claim 1 further comprising attaching an optical fiber over the grating coupler, wherein the optical fiber is optically coupled to the grating coupler (Andry/Fig2/Optical coupler).
Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menezo (US 11531171 B2) in view of Andry (US 8855452 B2).
With regards to claim 16, Menezo teaches a package (Menezo/(Fig4/Package 3 [Photonic chip]) comprising
a silicon layer (Menezo/Fig4/Silicon layer 100 [Substrate]); a reflective structure within the silicon layer (Menezo/Fig4/reflective structure 160 [Mirror lens]) wherein the reflective structure has a U-shape in a cross-sectional view (Fig4/U-shape in reflective element 160);
a first photonic routing structure (Menezo/Fig4/Component defined by elements 121’ and 122’) over a first side of the silicon layer (Menezo/Fig4/Structure defined by layers 110, 120, 130, and 140), wherein the first photonic routing structure comprises an insulating layer (Menezo/Fig4/Insulating layer 110 [Buried oxide layer]) on the first side of the silicon layer;
a silicon waveguide (Menezo/Fig4/Silicon waveguide 120 [Light guiding layer]; Column 5/Lines 54-57) on the insulating layer;
a photonic device on the insulating layer (Menezo/Fig4/Photonic device 123 [Active photonic components]); and
a grating coupler (Menezo/Fig4/Grating coupler 122' [Surface coupling array]) on the insulating layer wherein a light path from a light source to the reflective structure passes through the grating coupler (Fig4/[Light originates from element LA, then travels through element 122 before interacting with element 160);
a redistribution structure (Menezo/Fig4/Redistribution structure 20 [Copper micropillars]) on the first photonic routing structure, wherein the redistribution structure is electrically connected (Fig4/Electrical connections 124 [Metal levels]) to the photonic device; and
an electronic die on the redistribution structure (Menezo/Fig4/PE [Electronic chip]), wherein the electronic die is electrically connected to the redistribution structure (Menezo/Fig4).
Menezo does not specifically disclose the grating coupler as being directly over the reflective mirror in the embodiment previously discussed, but does disclose the aforementioned arrangement in another similar embodiment (Menezo/Fig6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to laterally shift the position of the grating coupler such that it was directly over the reflective mirror for the purpose of altering the light path in a desirable fashion. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to laterally shift the position of the grating coupler such that it was directly over the reflective mirror, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Menezo is silent regarding the insulating layer extending from a lateral surface of the reflective structure to the grating coupler; However, the practice of configuring an optical package such that an insulating layer extends from a lateral surface of a reflective structure to a grating coupler exists in the art as exemplified by Andry. Menezo and Andry are considered to be analogous in the field of optoelectronic packages and the formation thereof.
Andry teaches a package comprising an optical package wherein an insulating layer extends from a lateral surface of a reflective structure to a grating coupler (Andry/Fig2/Insulating layer 204, Reflective structure 216, Lateral surface [“A” as labeled by examiner below], and Grating coupler [“B” as labeled by examiner below]).
PNG
media_image1.png
169
407
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the package disclosed by Menezo such that the insulating layer extends from a lateral surface of the reflective structure to the grating coupler, as suggested by Andry, since doing so would allow for the reflector of Menezo to be disposed closer to the grating and would improve the efficiency of the optical communication within the finished device.
With regards to claim 20, Menezo and Andry together disclose the package of claim 16, further comprising a support structure (Menezo/Fig4/Support structure 140 [Encapsulation]) over the electronic die. Menezo and Andry do not teach the support structure as comprising a lens configured to optically couple an optical fiber to the grating coupler. However, Menezo does disclose a lens disposed between the grating and metal layer with regards to the path taken by light moving through the package (Menezo/Fig4/Path shown by arrows). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate a lens within the support structure disclosed by Menezo and Andry as suggested by Menezo in order to better control the light before it enters the grating coupler.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menezo (US 11531171 B2) in view of Andry (US 8855452 B2) as applied to claim 16 above, in further view of Freedman (US 12135461 B2).
With regards to claim 17, Menezo and Andry together disclose the package of claim 16, but are silent regarding a plurality of first nitride waveguides within the redistribution structure, and by extension at least one first nitride waveguide of a plurality of first nitride waveguides as being optically coupled to the silicon waveguide. However, the practice of configuring an optical package to include nitride waveguides in the above fashion exists in the art as exemplified by Freedman. Menezo, Andry, and Freedman are considered to be analogous in the field of optoelectronic packages and the formation thereof.
Freedman teaches a plurality of silicon nitride waveguides that are optically coupled to other components (Freedman/Fig1b/Silicon Nitride waveguide 330 [SiN waveguide] and equivalents components in parallel channels; Column 5/Lines 2-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a plurality of silicon nitride waveguides as taught by Freedman within the package taught by Menezo and Andry and to couple said SiN waveguides to the silicon waveguides, since doing so would allow for additional avenues of optical communication within the completed package.
With regards to claim 18, Menezo and Andry together disclose the package of claim 16, but are silent regarding the package comprising a second photonic routing structure over a second side of the silicon layer. However, the practice of configuring an optical package in the above fashion exists in the art as exemplified by Freedman. Menezo, Andry, and Freedman are considered to be analogous in the field of optoelectronic packages and the formation thereof.
Freedman teaches a plurality of silicon nitride waveguides that are optically coupled to other components (Freedman/Fig1b/Silicon Nitride waveguide 330 [SiN waveguide] and equivalents components in parallel channels; Column 5/Lines 2-6). It would have been obvious to have the second photonic routing structure comprise silicon nitride waveguides as taught by Freedman and to couple said SiN waveguides to the waveguides taught by Menezo and Andry since doing so would allow for additional avenues of optical communication within the completed package. Furthermore, since Menezo and Andry disclose one photonic routing structure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to add a second photonic routing structure to the package since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
With regards to claim 19, Menezo, Andry, and Freedman together disclose the package of claim 18, further comprising a via (Menezo/Fig5b/Via 125 [Interconnection via]) extending through the second photonic routing structure, wherein the via is electrically connected (Menezo/Fig5b) to the redistribution structure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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.
With regards to claim 6, the prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest the method of claim 1, wherein the recess extends into the dielectric layer in addition to the accompanying features of the independent claim. The closest prior art was relied upon in the rejection set forth 10/14/2025.
Claims 9-15 are allowed.
With regards to claim 9, the prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest a method comprising: receiving a workpiece comprising a substrate, a first dielectric layer over the substrate, and an optical layer over the first dielectric layer, wherein the first dielectric layer is between the substrate and the optical layer; patterning the optical layer to form a first waveguide and a grating coupler; after patterning the optical layer, forming a first opening through the substrate and partially through the first dielectric layer, that exposes the first dielectric layer, wherein at least a portion of the first opening is directly over the grating coupler; depositing a metal layer in the first opening in the substrate, wherein the grating coupler is between the metal layer and a light source along a straight line; and depositing a second dielectric layer in the first opening in the substrate and over the metal layer. The closest prior art was relied upon in the rejection set forth 10/14/2025.
Claims 10-15 inherit the allowability of claim 9 on which they depend.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc E Manheim whose telephone number is (703)756-1873. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30am - 5pm E.T., Monday - Tuesday and Thursday - Friday.
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.
/MARC E MANHEIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874