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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/15/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai et al. (US 20040087427 A1, “Kawai”) in view of Kanazawa et al. (US 20250047388 A1, “Kanazawa”) and further in view of HAN et al. (US 20180143463 A1, “HAN”) and Yang et al. (US 20220384326 A1, “Yang”)
Regarding claim 1, Kawai discloses (Fig. 1) an electronic sub-assembly comprising: a ceramic (para [0081]) substrate (1) having a top surface and a bottom surface, the substrate comprising: a plurality of layers of ceramic material (1a – 1d) disposed between the top surface and the bottom surface of the substrate, and a plurality of conductive structures (2 & 3) passing through the substrate between the top surface and the bottom surface of the substrate; a ball grid array (8) disposed on the bottom surface of the substrate, the ball grid array comprising a plurality of solder balls (para [0084]), wherein at least a portion of the solder balls are connected to at least a portion of the conductive structures (See annotated figure below);
PNG
media_image1.png
508
1087
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kawai is silent on an electro-absorption modulated laser (EML) disposed on the top surface of the substrate, the EML being soldered to at least a portion of the conductive structures with no wire bonds used, said portion of the conductive structures transmitting high frequency signals of at least 50 GHz, extending through the ceramic substrate and being connected to a portion of the solder balls.
However, Kanazawa discloses (Fig. 1a, 2a, 3a, 4a) an electro-absorption modulated laser (EML) (12, 32) disposed on the top surface of the substrate (31), the EML being connected to at least a portion of the conductive structures (33, 34), said portion of the conductive structures transmitting high frequency signals of at least 50 GHz, extending through the ceramic substrate and being connected to a portion of the solder balls (see para [0020] - [0024]).
Kawai and Kanazawa are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electronic sub-assembly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kawai to incorporate the teachings of Kanazawa and provide an electro-absorption modulated laser (EML) (12, 32) disposed on the top surface of the substrate (31), the EML being connected to at least a portion of the conductive structures (33, 34), said portion of the conductive structures and a portion of the solder balls connected thereto transmitting high frequency signals of at least 50 GHz (see para [0020] - [0024]). Doing so would allow the waveguide of the EML to be freely set, and the high frequency band of the EML can be improved (para [0025])
Kawai in view of Kanazawa is silent on the EML being soldered to at least a portion of the conductive structures with no wire bonds used
However, HAN discloses (Fig. 3) discloses the EML (200) being soldered to at least a portion of the conductive structures with no wire bonds used (See para [0041])
Kawai in view of Kanazawa and HAN are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electronic sub-assembly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kawai in view of Kanazawa to incorporate the teachings of HAN and provide discloses the EML (200) being soldered to at least a portion of the conductive structures with no wire bonds used (See para [0041]). Doing so would ensure both thermal and electrical connectivity critical for high-speed optical modulation (para [0039] – [0041])
Kawai in view of Kanazawa and Han is silent on said portion of the conductive structure transmitting high frequency signals of at least 50 GHz, extending through the substrate and being connected to a portion of the solder balls.
However, Yang discloses (Fig. 27k) said portion of the conductive structure transmitting high frequency signals of at least 50 GHz, extending through the substrate (See fig. 27k) and being connected to a portion of the solder balls (See para [0362], [0364] and [0366]).
Kawai in view of Kanazawa and Han and Yang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electronic sub-assembly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kawai in view of Kanazawa and Han to incorporate the teachings of Yang and provide said portion of the conductive structure transmitting high frequency signals of at least 50 GHz, extending through the substrate (See fig. 27k) and being connected to a portion of the solder balls (See para [0362], [0364] and [0366]). Doing so would enable minimal energy loss and excellent thermal-mechanical reliability (para [0366] – [0367]).
Regarding claim 2, Kawai in view of Kanazawa, HAN and Yang discloses the electronic sub-assembly of claim 1, wherein Kawai further discloses that the conductive structures are formed as openings formed through the layers of ceramic material (see annotated figure above) and filled with conductive material (para [0081]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai et al. (US 20040087427 A1, “Kawai”) in view of Kanazawa et al. (US 20250047388 A1, “Kanazawa”), HAN et al. (US 20180143463 A1, “HAN”) and Yang et al. (US 20220384326 A1, “Yang”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 20190254165 A1, “Wang”)
Regarding claim 10, Kawai in view of Kanazawa, HAN and Yang discloses the electronic sub-assembly of claim 1,
Kawai in view of Kanazawa, HAN and Yang fails to disclose wherein the electronic sub-assembly is a transmitter optical sub-assembly (TOSA).
However, Wang discloses (Fig. 1) electronic sub-assembly is a transmitter optical sub-assembly (140) (TOSA) (para [0004] and [0030]).
Kawai in view of Kanazawa, HAN, Yang and Wang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electronic sub-assembly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kawai in view of Kanazawa, HAN and Yang to incorporate the teachings of Wang and provide electronic sub-assembly is a transmitter optical sub-assembly (140) (TOSA) (para [0004] and [0030]). Doing so would provide a reliable, high-performance solution for converting electrical signals to optical signals (para [0004]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIDI MOHAMED MAIGA whose telephone number is (703)756-1870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am 5 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, Timothy Thompson can be reached on 571-272-2342. 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.
/SIDI M MAIGA/Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights