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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group Ia (i.e., claims 1-2, 15-16, 21-23, 27) in the reply filed on 9/15/25 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 2 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the bonding" in line 1. There is insufficient/improper antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since there are two instances of bonding mentioned in claim 1, it is not clear in claim 2 which of the two instances is being referred to in claim 2. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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) 1, 15, 21-22, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coolbaugh et al. (US 20180143374; “Coolbaugh”) with obviousness evidenced by {OEB} Vodrahalli (US 10535809).
Regarding claim 1, Coolbaugh teaches a method of manufacturing an optical device, the method comprising: receiving a laser die 160A (e.g., fig. 6), the laser die {LD} 160A comprising a first contact (e.g., fig. 6: the 1st contact of LD 160A is the left endface of light emission layer {LEL} 160AL that faces waveguide {WG} 150A) along a first/1st side [e.g., for the purposes of this rejection. the 1st side comprises a right angle with two relatively flat surfaces extending from the right angle corner {RAC}; the RAC of the 1st side comprises the corner at the bottom left {BL} corner of chip 160A in fig. 6 {so, LEL 160AL faces WG 150A along the vertical portion of 1st side}; fig. 6]; attaching (e.g., ¶s 0044-0047) the first/1st side of the laser die 160A to an optical interposer 120/122 (e.g., ¶ 0022: functional interposer structure 120 and its major body 122; since the horizontal relatively flat surface extending from the RAC in Coolbaugh fig. 6 is also part of the claimed 1st side, the area around elements 410/210 below LD 160A in Coolbaugh fig. 6 serves as an attachment area where LD 160A is attached to interposer 122/120), wherein after the attaching the optical interposer 120/122 comprises a first waveguide 150A (e.g., fig. 6) adjacent to the laser die 160A and optically coupled to the 1st contact (e.g., fig. 6: the 1st contact of LD 160A is the left endface of LEL 160AL that faces waveguide {WG} 150A; ¶ 0050); and attaching an electrical integrated circuit {EIC} 160C (e.g., fig. 6; ¶ 0042; ASIC, etc.) to the optical interposer 120/122 (e.g., fig. 6).
Coolbaugh does not explicitly use/teach the word “bonding” when describing
attaching the first/1st side of the laser die to an optical interposer and when describing attaching an electrical integrated circuit {EIC} 160C to the optical interposer.
However, Coolbaugh at least describes attaching/attachment via solder reflow at Coolbaugh ¶s 0026, 0041-0042, 0044-0045 and it was well-known to refer to attaching by solder reflow as “bonding” at least as evidenced by Vodrahalli (e.g., Vodrahalli teaches at col. 2, lines 31-33; “reflow solder bonding”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to refer to attaching the first/1st side of the laser die to an optical interposer as “bonding” the first/1st side of the laser die 160A to an optical interposer 122/120 and, further, referring to attaching an electrical integrated circuit {EIC} 160C to the optical interposer 122/120 as “bonding” an EIC 160C to the optical interposer 122/120 at least for the purpose of using the common practice of referring to mechanically coupling/attachment of objects by means of “reflow”/solder bumps as “bonding”.
Thus claim 1 is rejected under Coolbaugh with OEB Vodrahalli [herein, referred to as simply “Coolbaugh-Vodrahalli”].
Regarding claim 15, Coolbaugh teaches an optical device comprising: a laser die , the laser die comprising a first contact (e.g., fig. 6: the 1st contact of LD 160A is the left endface of light emission layer {LEL} 160AL that faces waveguide {WG} 150A) along a first/1st side [e.g., for the purposes of this rejection. the 1st side comprises a right angle with two relatively flat surfaces extending from the right angle corner {RAC}; the RAC of the 1st side comprises the corner at the bottom left {BL} corner of chip 160A in fig. 6 {so, LEL 160AL faces WG 150A along the 1st side}; fig. 6]; an optical interposer 120/122 attached to the first side of the laser die 160A (e.g., fig. 6; the 1st side of LD 160A also includes the horizontal flat surface extending from RAC in Coolbaugh fig. 6; the horizontal flat surface of the 1st side is attached to the interposer 122/120 around the area of elements 410/210 below LD 160A in Coolbaugh fig. 6), wherein the optical interposer 120/122 comprises a first waveguide 150A (e.g., fig. 6) adjacent to the laser die 160A and optically coupled to the first contact (e.g., fig. 6: the 1st contact of LD 160A is the left endface of LEL 160AL that faces WG 150A); and an electrical integrated circuit 160C (e.g., fig. 6; ¶ 0042; ASIC, etc.) attached to the optical interposer.
Coolbaugh does not explicitly use/teach the word “bonding”/“bonded” when describing
the 1st side of the laser die being attached to an optical interposer and when describing an electrical integrated circuit {EIC} 160C being attached to the optical interposer.
However, Coolbaugh at least describes attaching/attachment via solder reflow at Coolbaugh ¶s 0026, 0041-0042, 0044-0045 and it was well-known to refer to being attached by solder reflow as being “bonded” at least as evidenced/taught by Vodrahalli (e.g., Vodrahalli teaches at col. 2, lines 31-33; “reflow solder bonding”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to refer to the first/1st side [e.g., for the purposes of this rejection. the 1st side comprises a right angle with two relatively flat surfaces extending from the right angle corner {RAC}; the RAC of the 1st side comprises the corner at the bottom left {BL} corner of chip 160A in fig. 6 {so, LEL 160AL faces WG 150A along the 1st side}; fig. 6] of the laser die 160A being attached to an optical interposer 122/120 as the 1st side of the laser die being bonded to an optical interposer and further to refer to an electrical integrated circuit {EIC} 160C being attached to the optical interposer as an EIC 160C being bonded to the optical interposer 122/120 at least for the purpose of using the common practice of referring to the mechanically coupling/attachment of objects by means of “reflow”/solder bumps as “bonding”/“bonded”.
Thus claim 15 is rejected under Coolbaugh-Vodrahalli.
Regarding claim 21, Coolbaugh teaches an optical device comprising: a laser die, the laser die comprising a first contact (e.g., fig. 6: the 1st contact of LD 160A is the left endface of light emission layer {LEL} 160AL that faces waveguide {WG} 150A) along a first/1st side [e.g., for the purposes of this rejection. the 1st side comprises a right angle with two relatively flat surfaces extending from the right angle corner {RAC}; the RAC of the 1st side comprises the corner at the bottom left {BL} corner of chip 160A in fig. 6 {so, LEL 160AL faces WG 150A along the 1st side}; fig. 6]; an electrical integrated circuit 160C (e.g., fig. 6; ¶ 0042; ASIC, etc.) adjacent to the laser die 160A (e.g., fig. 6); and an optical interposer 120/122 physically attached to both the electrical integrated circuit 160C and the laser die 160A (e.g., fig. 6), wherein the optical interposer comprises a first waveguide 150A adjacent to the laser die 160A and coupled to the first contact (e.g., fig. 6: the 1st contact of LD 160A is the left endface of light emission layer {LEL} 160AL that faces waveguide {WG} 150A; LEL 160AL and WG 150A are optically coupled as indicated at ¶ 0050 of Coolbaugh).
Coolbaugh does not explicitly use/teach the word “bonding”/“bonded” when describing
an optical interposer 120/122 physically attached to both the electrical integrated circuit 160C and the laser die 160A (e.g., fig. 6).
However, Coolbaugh at least describes attaching/attachment via solder reflow at Coolbaugh ¶s 0026, 0041-0042, 0044-0045 and it was well-known to refer to being attached by solder reflow as being “bonded” at least as evidenced by Vodrahalli (e.g., Vodrahalli teaches at col. 2, lines 31-33; “reflow solder bonding”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to refer to an optical interposer 120/122 physically attached to both the electrical integrated circuit 160C and the laser die 160A (e.g., fig. 6) as: an optical interposer 120/122 physically bonded to both the electrical integrated circuit 160C and the laser die 160A (e.g., fig. 6) at least for the purpose of using the common practice of referring mechanically coupling/attachment of objects by means of “reflow”/solder bumps as “bonding”/“bonded”.
Thus claim 21 is rejected under Coolbaugh-Vodrahalli.
Regarding claim 22, Coolbaugh-Vodrahalli teaches the device of claim 21 (see above rejection of claim 21). Furthermore, Coolbaugh-Vodrahalli teaches the optical interposer 120/122 is physically bonded to the electrical integrated circuit 160C with a metal-to-metal bond (e.g., the solder bump/reflow; Coolbaugh ¶s 0026, 0041-0042, 0044-0045; fig. 6), thus, Coolbaugh-Vodrahalli teaches the claim 22 limitation “the optical interposer is physically bonded to the electrical integrated circuit with a … metal-to-metal bond” (e.g., the solder bump/reflow provides for a metal to metal bond; Coolbaugh ¶s 0026, 0041-0042, 0044-0045; fig. 6).
Coolbaugh-Vodrahalli does not explicitly state/teach the optical interposer 120/122 is physically bonded to the EIC 160C (e.g., Coolbaugh fig. 6) with a dielectric-to-dielectric bond.
However, Coolbaugh-Vodrahalli does fairly suggest to the ordinary skilled artisan a sealant surrounding the metal-to-metal bonds (in the area where the arrow from “430” is pointing in Coolbaugh fig. 6). In fact the hatch marks in the sealant surrounding the metal-to-metal bonds, in the area where the arrow from “430” is pointing in Coolbaugh fig. 6, have the same type of hatch marks as the sealant 194 surrounding the solder bumps 192 in the lower part of Coolbaugh fig. 6. Nonetheless, it was well-known to put a dielectric sealant around electrical solder bump/reflow connections at least for the purpose of providing physical bonding for protecting/strengthening the connections and/or providing electrical isolation. So, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the sealant/material surrounding the metal-to-metal bonds {SMSMMBs} in the area where the arrow from “430” {IAWAF430} is pointing in Coolbaugh fig. 6 to provide a physical bond between EIC 160C and the interposer 122/120. In Coolbaugh fig. 6, the SMSMMBs IAWAF430 is pointing is touching a dielectric surrounding electrical contacts [it is certainly true that surrounding the electrical contacts with a dielectric is the obvious material since, otherwise the electrical signals would not arrive at the correct location]; moreover, SMSMMBs IAWAF430 is pointing also touches the dielectric material of interposer 120/122 (e.g., Coolbaugh ¶ 0022 says that interposer 120/122 is a dielectric stack). Therefore, it is at least obvious to say SMSMMBs IAWAF430 is pointing causes the optical interposer 120/122 to be physically bonded to the EIC 160C (e.g., Coolbaugh fig. 6) with a dielectric-to-dielectric bond.
Thus claim 22 is rejected under Coolbaugh-Vodrahalli.
Regarding claim 27, Coolbaugh-Vodrahalli teaches the optical device of claim 21 (see above rejection of claim 21). Furthermore, Coolbaugh-Vodrahalli teaches wherein the optical interposer 120/122 comprises external connections (e.g., as a non-limiting example, see in Coolbaugh fig. 6 where element 150H of interposer 120/122 is connected to external optical fiber 196; see also in Coolbaugh fig. 6 where element 134 of interposer 120/122 is connected to external PIC 160B).
Thus claim 27 is rejected under Coolbaugh-Vodrahalli.
Claim(s) 2, 16, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coolbaugh-Vodrahalli as applied to claim 1, 15, 21 above with further OEB Doerr (US 20160013866).
Regarding claim 2, Coolbaugh-Vodrahalli teaches the method of claim 1 (see above rejection of claim 1). Furthermore, Coolbaugh-Vodrahalli teaches wherein the bonding is performed at least in part with a metal-to-metal bond process (e.g., the solder bump/reflow; Coolbaugh ¶s 0026, 0041-0042, 0044-0045; fig. 6).
Coolbaugh-Vodrahalli does not explicitly state/teach the bonding is performed at least in part with dielectric-to-dielectric bond process.
However, it was well-known to put curable optical adhesive between the light emission path of a laser and light path/waveguide that is slightly separated from the light emission path/waveguide of the laser as evidenced/taught by Doerr (e.g., Doerr ¶ 0052: two adjacent chips wherein each chip comprises a waveguide and optical adhesive is put between the respective waveguides to provide both adhesion and index matching). Moreover, it is also well-known for a waveguide to comprise a dielectric and optical adhesive is typically a dielectric material thereby facilitating a dielectric-to-dielectric bond. 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 bonding to be performed at least in part with dielectric-to-dielectric bond process to bond the vertical surface extending from the BL RAC of chip 160A (e.g., Coolbaugh fig. 6) with an optical adhesive and/or UV-curable adhesive at least for the purpose of providing both adhesion and index matching between elements 160AL and 150A in fig. 6 of Coolbaugh.
Thus claim 2 is rejected under Coolbaugh-Vodrahalli with OEB Doerr [herein, may simply be referred to as: Coolbaugh-Vodrahalli-Doerr].
Regarding claim 16, Coolbaugh-Vodrahalli teaches the device of claim 15 (see above rejection of claim 15). Furthermore, Coolbaugh-Vodrahalli teaches the optical interposer 122/120 is bonded to the laser die 160A with a metal-to-metal bond (e.g., the solder bump/reflow provides for a metal to metal bond; Coolbaugh ¶s 0026, 0041-0042, 0044-0045; fig. 6).
Coolbaugh-Vodrahalli does not explicitly state/teach the optical interposer 120/122 is bonded to the laser die 160A (e.g., Coolbaugh fig. 6) with a dielectric-to-dielectric bond.
However, it was well-known to put curable optical adhesive between the light emission path of a laser and light path/waveguide that is slightly separated from the light emission path/waveguide of the laser as evidenced/taught by Doerr (e.g., Doerr ¶ 0052: two adjacent chips wherein each chip comprises a waveguide and optical adhesive is put between the respective waveguides to provide both adhesion and index matching). Moreover, it is also well-known for a waveguide to comprise a dielectric and optical adhesive is typically a dielectric material thereby facilitating a dielectric-to-dielectric bond. 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 optical interposer 120/122 to be bonded to the laser die 160A (e.g., Coolbaugh fig. 6) with a dielectric-to-dielectric bond wherein the vertical surface extending from the BL RAC of chip 160A (e.g., Coolbaugh fig. 6) is bonded with an optical adhesive and/or UV-curable adhesive to the optical interposer 120/122 (e.g., Coolbaugh fig. 6) at least for the purpose of providing both adhesion and index matching (which provides better optical coupling in the form of lower optical losses) between elements/light paths 160AL and 150A in fig. 6 of Coolbaugh.
Thus claim 16 is rejected under Coolbaugh-Vodrahalli-Doerr.
Regarding claim 23, Coolbaugh-Vodrahalli teaches the optical device of claim 21 (see above rejection of claim 21). Furthermore, Coolbaugh-Vodrahalli teaches the optical interposer 122/120 is physically bonded to the laser die 160A with a metal-to-metal bond (e.g., the solder bump/reflow provides for a metal to metal bond; Coolbaugh ¶s 0026, 0041-0042, 0044-0045; fig. 6).
Coolbaugh-Vodrahalli does not explicitly state/teach the optical interposer 120/122 is physically bonded to the laser die 160A (e.g., Coolbaugh fig. 6) with a dielectric-to-dielectric bond.
However, it was well-known to put curable optical adhesive between the light emission path of a laser and light path/waveguide that is slightly separated from the light emission path/waveguide of the laser as evidenced/taught by Doerr (e.g., Doerr ¶ 0052: two adjacent chips wherein each chip comprises a waveguide and optical adhesive is put between the respective waveguides to provide both adhesion and index matching). Moreover, it is also well-known for a waveguide to comprise a dielectric and optical adhesive is typically a dielectric material thereby facilitating a dielectric-to-dielectric bond. 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 optical interposer 120/122 to be physically bonded to the laser die 160A (e.g., Coolbaugh fig. 6) with a dielectric-to-dielectric bond wherein the vertical surface extending from the BL RAC of chip 160A (e.g., Coolbaugh fig. 6) is physically bonded with an optical adhesive and/or UV-curable adhesive to the optical interposer 120/122 (e.g., Coolbaugh fig. 6) at least for the purpose of providing both adhesion and index matching (which provides better optical coupling in the form of lower optical losses) between elements/light paths 160AL and 150A in fig. 6 of Coolbaugh.
Thus claim 23 is rejected under Coolbaugh-Vodrahalli-Doerr.
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