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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2021/0311269 to Goergen et al.
Goergen discloses in the abstract and figures 3, 6 and 8, an apparatus comprising:
an electrical signal and electrical power delivery subsystem (title and abstract);
an optical engine (39; figure 3);
an electrical interposer (49; figure 3) between the electrical signal and electrical power delivery subsystem and the optical engine (SerDes chiplerts to the left and right of the interposer in figure 3); and
an optical element configured to exchange optical signals with the optical engine and to exchange optical signals and optical power with an optical interface (through vias 38 and optical paths 48);
wherein electrical signals and electrical power delivery from the electrical interposer to the optical engine and optical signal delivery from the optical element to the optical engine are provided through a common plane on the optical engine (through common plane at 35 in figure 3).
As to claim 2, the optical signal delivery (through optical path 48) is perpendicular to the common plane in figure 3.
As to claim 3, the portion of the optical path at the SerDes chiplet makes a 90 degree turn and creates a parallel portion (see figure 3).
As to claim 4, the optical element adjoins the electrical interposer via substrate 41.
As to claims 5-7, there are two cold plates (37 and 35) which are parallel to a common plane (paragraph 44) and spaced apart from the optical engine (spaced apart by either the FAU or substrate 41) and in direct contact with the semiconductor die (FAU).
As to claims 8-10, the cooling system can be air, liquid or multi-phase (paragraph 47).
As to claims 11-12, if the optical element is defined as the connector or associated components, there is a cutout for the connector and the connector is removable (figures 8A-8B).
As to claims 13-14, the substrate (41) is common to both electrical and optical components packaged thereon.
As to claim 15, this claim mirrors independent claim 1 but adds language pertaining to the cooling subsystem. The cooling subsystem of the prior art is identified as the “cold plates” in figure 3.
As to claims 16-17, the cooling system may be either air or liquid (paragraph 47).
Claim 18 mirrors independent claim 1 above but recites the aspects of the signal delivery in independent form. The claimed signal paths are disclosed and shown in figure 3 in labeled portions 38, 43, and 48.
As to claim 19, if the optical element is defined as the connector or associated components, there is a cutout for the connector and the connector is removable (figures 8A-8B).
PNG
media_image1.png
510
745
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goergen.
Goergen discloses the invention as claimed except for a thickness of the combined elements being under 5mm. It is noted that there are no specifics as to the thicknesses of each element, nor how their thickness/thin-ness is achieved.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to size the components to 5mm thick since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10,211,590 (cooled optical bench).
US 8,546,930 (liquid cooled substrates).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric K Wong whose telephone number is (571)272-2363. The examiner can normally be reached M-Tu, Th-F 8A-6P.
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 Hollweg can be reached on 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.
ERIC K. WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2874
/Eric Wong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874