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 .
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/31/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendment filed 03/31/2026 has been considered and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/31/2026 with regards to claims 1, 8, and 15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to claim 1, applicant has argued that “…photonics chip 15 and laser chip 40 are stacked on top of one another and, if connected to another substrate, only one of Wu's photonics chip 15 and laser chip 40 would be in physical contact…” with the substrate as taught by Suthram. However, examiner respectfully disagrees. Wu discloses element 15 as being stacked on top of element 40. Suthram discloses layered chiplets which are attached to a substrate by their side such that all layers within the stack are in physical contact with the substrate (See figures 1a and 3a of Suthram for example). Thus, Wu and Suthram together disclose the limitations of claim 1.
Examiner’s note: Examiner notes that new claim 21 is rejected for similar reasons to those discussed above.
With regards to claim 8, applicant has argued that “…Musk does not disclose "the first glue has a first thickness less than about 10 um, a first width, and a second width different from the first width…” and that “…none of Suthram, Musk and Olver, either individually or in combination, teach or suggest the recited features of claim 8…”. However, examiner respectfully disagrees. While Suthram, Musk, or Oliver do not explicitly state that the adhesive layer has more than one width thickness, it is well known that liquid and semi-liquid adhesives will exhibit curved edges and/or edges where a height changes as a function of distance (Publication US 20140097459 A1 “Motohara” is not relied upon, but has been cited as relevant art in the Conclusion section of this office action in order to provide an illustrative example in the form of the multiple thicknesses of adhesive 16 in figure 1). Thus, since Suthram, Musk and Olver disclose the dispensation of adhesive, they necessarily disclose the first glue as having a second thickness, in addition to the other limitations of claim 8.
Examiner’s note: Examiner’s note that the terms “width” and “thickness” are both used to describe a particular dimension within the context of claim 8 and the associated remarks. Examiner is interpreting “width” and “thickness” as both applying to the dimension associated with the “…less than 10…” microns limitation of claim 8.
With regards to claim 15, applicant has argued that “…Wu does not disclose "a first glue extending outwards from between the first optical chiplet and the laser die" as recited by claim 15…”. However, examiner respectfully disagrees. Element 52 of Wu extends at least from a central axis and towards one direction that points outwards from between the first optical chiplet and the laser die (See annotated figure 13 of Wu below).
PNG
media_image1.png
341
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, Wu and Musk together disclose the limitations of claim 15.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 20240348005 A1) in view of Musk (US 20160154179 A1) and in further view of Suthram (US 20230420432 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Wu discloses a method of manufacturing an optical device, the method comprising:
placing a first optical chiplet (Wu/Fig13/Optical chiplet 15 [Photonics chip]);
placing a laser die (Figs9&13/Laser die 40 [Laser chip; labeled in fig 9]) separated from the first optical chiplet to form a photonic chiplet integration (Structure shown in figure 13); and
Wu is silent regarding the attachment of the photonic chiplet integration to a substrate, whether or not the photonic chiplet and laser die are separated by less than about 10 µm, and by extension, whether or not both the first optical chiplet and the laser die are each in physical contact with the substrate. However, the practices of configuring optical components in the above fashion exist in the art as exemplified by Musk and Suthram.
Wu and Musk are considered to be analogous in the field of optical devices. Musk teaches an optical device wherein the distance between two components is less than 10 µm (Musk/Fig1b/Distances defined by layers 8 and 9; Paragraph 13/Lines 12-18). 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 optical device disclosed by Wu such that the distance between the dies was less than 10 µm as suggested by Musk since doing so would minimize the silhouette of the finished device while still providing space for adhesive material.
Wu, Musk, and Suthram are considered to be analogous in the field of optical devices. Wu discloses stacking the laser die on top of on top of the first optical chiplet to form the photonic chiplet integration. Suthram teaches attachment of a photonic chiplet integration comprising a plurality of vertically stacked elements to a substrate wherein the vertically stacked elements are each in physical contact with the substrate (Suthram/Fig11B/ Photonic chiplet integration 300 [Microelectronic assembly] and substrate 302 [IC die]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the photonic chiplet integration disclosed by Wu to a substrate as suggested by Suthram within the method disclosed by Wu since doing so would facilitate the connection of both the photonic chiplet and laser with other components in a fished device package.
With regards to claim 2, Wu, Musk, and Suthram together disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising dispensing a first glue between the first optical chiplet and the laser die (Wu/Fig13/First glue 52 [Adhesive]).
With regards to claim 3, Wu, Musk, and Suthram together disclose the method of claim 2, further comprising placing a second optical chiplet separated from the first optical chiplet (Suthram/Fig11B/Multiple chiplets separated by two central instances of element 1102) by no more than about 10 µm (Musk/Fig1b/Distances defined by layers 8 and 9; Paragraph 13/Lines 12-18).
With regards to claim 4, Wu, Musk, and Suthram together disclose the method of claim 3, further comprising dispensing a second glue between the second optical chiplet and the first optical chiplet (Suthram/Fig11B/Glue 1102 [Dielectric material]).
With regards to claim 5, The method of claim 4, further comprising simultaneously bonding the first optical chiplet, the second optical chiplet, and the laser die to a substrate (Suthram/Fig11B/Multiple chiplets separated by two central instances of element 1102 and substrate 302 [IC die]).
With regards to claim 6, Wu, Musk, and Suthram together disclose the method of claim 1 further comprising bonding the first optical chiplet and the laser die to the substrate, but are silent regarding simultaneity. However, Suthram discloses the simultaneous bonding of multiple optical components to a substrate (Suthram/Fig11B/Multiple chiplets separated by two central instances of element 1102). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simultaneously bond the first optical chiplet and laser die to the substrate in the method disclosed by Wu, Musk, and Suthram as suggested by Suthram since doing so would simplify the attachment process between the three components (as compared to attaching each individually).
With regards to claim 7, Wu, Musk, and Suthram together disclose the method of claim 6, wherein the substrate comprises a local interconnect (Suthram/Figs10&11b/Substrate 302 of fig11b and interconnects visible in 302(1) of fig10). Wu, Musk, and Suthram are silent regarding whether or not the substrate is comprised of silicon, however it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select silicon as the material from which to form the substrate in the method disclosed by Wu, Musk, and Suthram since doing so would lower processing costs.
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suthram (US 20230420432 A1) in view of Musk (US 20160154179 A1), and Olver, Kimberley; Calibration and Operation of the Research Devices, Inc., Flip-Chip Hybridization Bonder Model M8-A with Discussion of Solder Materials, June 2020 (available:https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD1102544.pdf).
With regards to claim 8, Suthram discloses a method of manufacturing an optical device, the method comprising:
aligning an edge coupler of a first optical chiplet (Suthram/Fig11b/First optical chiplet as indicated below [left]; Region on edge of element 112b defined by interface with element 130) with an output (Suthram/Fig11b/Output [Interface between element 130 and element 112b]) of the laser die (Suthram/Fig11b/Laser die indicated below [Right])
PNG
media_image2.png
322
530
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
322
530
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Suthram is silent regarding the use of chucks, the dispensing of glue between the chiplet and die, and the thickness of glue. However, the practices of using chucks for alignment and the dispensing of glue with a thickness of less than 10 µm between optical components exist in the art as exemplified by Musk, Motohara, and Olver. Suthram, Musk, Motohara and Olver are considered to be analogous in the field of photonic IC methodologies.
Musk discloses the dispensing of glue between optical components with a thickness of less than 10 µm between optical components (Musk/Fig1b/Glue 8 [Adhesive]; Musk/Fig1b/Distances defined by layers 8 and 9; Paragraph 13/Lines 12-18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adhere the chiplet and die of Suthram through the use of a layer of glue with a thickness of less than 10 µm as suggested by Musk since doing so would securely adhere both components to one another without significantly expanding the silhouette of the finished device.
Olver discloses the use of chucks in the alignment of components (Olver/Pages 16-17/Process most concisely summarized by steps 31-34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the first optical chiplet and laser die to chucks when aligning the components since doing so would allow for control and precise bonding.
Suthram, Musk, and Olver do not explicitly describe a second glue thickness different from the first thickness. However, it is well known that adhesives applied in liquid or semi-liquid form will inherently form curved edges and/or edges where a height changes as a function of distance when applied to/between surfaces. Thus, Suthram, Musk, and Olver disclose a second glue thickness different from the first thickness by virtue of disclosing a layer of liquid adhesive.
With regards to claim 9, Suthram, Musk, and Olver together disclose the method of claim 8, further comprising dispensing a second glue (Suthram/Fig11b/Second glue as indicated below [Left]) between the first optical chiplet and a second optical chiplet (Suthram/Fig11b/Second optical chiplet as indicated below [Right]), wherein after the dispensing the second glue the second glue has a second thickness less than about 10 µm.
PNG
media_image4.png
322
530
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
322
530
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 10, Suthram, Musk, and Olver together disclose the method of claim 8, further comprising dispensing a second glue (Suthram/Fig11b/Second glue as indicated below [Left]) between the first optical chiplet and a second laser die (Suthram/Fig11b/Second laser die as indicated below [Right]), wherein after the dispensing the second glue the second glue has a second thickness less than about 10 µm (Musk/Fig1b/Distances defined by layers 8 and 9; Paragraph 13/Lines 12-18).
PNG
media_image6.png
322
530
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
322
530
media_image7.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 11, Suthram, Musk, and Olver together disclose the method of claim 8, further comprising simultaneously bonding the first optical chiplet and the laser die to a substrate (Suthram/Paragraph 91/Lines 3-5; Paragraph 92/Lines 1-3; Fig11b/Substrate 302 [Another IC die]).
With regards to claim 12, Suthram, Musk, and Olver together disclose the method of claim 11, wherein the substrate is an integrated fan out substrate (Suthram/Figs11b&16/Paragraph 166/Lines 5-7; Paragraph 28).
With regards to claim 13, Suthram, Musk, and Olver together disclose the method of claim 12, wherein the integrated fan out substrate comprises a local silicon interconnect (Suthram/Figs10&11b/Substrate 302 of fig11b and interconnects visible in 302(1) of fig10).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suthram (US 20230420432 A1) in view of Musk (US 20160154179 A1) and in further view of Olver (https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD1102544.pdf) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Shiraishi (US 20120076454 A1).
With regards to claim 14, Suthram, Musk, and Olver together disclose the method of claim 8, but are silent regarding the use of an edge coupler within the first optical chiplet as an alignment mark during the moving at least one of the first chuck and the second chuck. However, the practice of using an existing coupler for alignment purposes exists in the art as exemplified by Shiraishi. Suthram, Musk, Olver and Shiraishi are considered to be analogous in the field of optical devices.
Shiraishi discloses the use of existing couplers for the purposes of alignment (Shiraishi/Paragraph 100/Lines 13-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the existing coupler itself as an alignment mark in the method disclosed by Suthram, Musk, and Olver as suggested by Shiraishi, since doing so would remove the need to fabricate dedicated alignment marks.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 20240348005 A1) in view of Musk (US 20160154179 A1).
With regards to claim 15, Wu discloses an optical device comprising:
a first optical chiplet (Wu/Fig13/Optical chiplet 15 [Photonics chip]);
a laser die adjacent to the first optical chiplet (Figs9&13/Laser die 40 [Laser chip; labeled in fig 9]); and
a first glue extending outwards from between the first optical chiplet and the laser die (Fig13/First glue 52 [Extends in directions of elements 28 and 26]).
Wu is silent regarding whether or not the distance between the dies is less than about 10 µm. However, the practice of configuring optical components such that the distance between said components is less than about 10 µm exists in the art as exemplified by Musk. Wu and Musk are considered to be analogous in the field of optical devices.
Musk teaches an optical device wherein the distance between two components is less than 10 µm (Musk/Fig1b/Distances defined by layers 8 and 9; Paragraph 13/Lines 12-18). 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 optical device disclosed by Wu such that the distance between the dies was less than 10 µm as suggested by Musk since doing so would minimize the footprint of the device while still providing space for adhesive material.
Claims 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 20240348005 A1) in view of Musk (US 20160154179 A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Suthram (US 20230420432 A1).
With regards to claim 17, Wu and Musk together disclose the optical device of claim 15 and the distance between two optical components as being less than 10 µm (Musk/Fig1b/Distances defined by layers 8 and 9; Paragraph 13/Lines 12-18), but are silent regarding the further inclusion of a second optical chiplet. However, the practice of including a second chiplet within an optical device exists in the art as exemplified by Suthram. Wu, Musk, and Suthram are considered to be analogous in the field of optical devices.
Suthram teaches the inclusion of a second optical chiplet within an optical device (Suthram/Fig11B/Multiple chiplets separated by two central instances of element 1102). 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 second optical chiplet within the optical device disclosed by Wu and Musk as suggested by Suthram since doing so would functionally increase the optical device’s capacity to fulfill its intended purpose.
With regards to claim 18, Wu, Musk, and Suthram together disclose the optical device of claim 17 and the distance between two optical components as being less than 10 µm (Musk/Fig1b/Distances defined by layers 8 and 9; Paragraph 13/Lines 12-18), but are silent regarding the further inclusion of a second laser die. However, it has been held that 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. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an additional laser die within the optical device disclosed by Wu, Musk, and Suthram since doing so would provide and additional optical source and/or would allow for the input of light at a different location within said optical device.
With regards to claim 19, Wu, Musk, and Suthram together disclose the optical device of claim 15, further comprising a local silicon interconnect connecting the first optical chiplet to an electronic integrated circuit (Suthram/Figures 8, 10, and 11b/Interconnects visible in 302(1) of figure 10 and electronic integrated circuit 318 [Active region] labeled in figure 8). Wu, Musk, and Suthram are silent regarding whether or not the substrate is made of silicon, however it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select silicon as the material from which to form the substrate in the optical device disclosed by Wu, Musk, and Suthram since doing so would lower processing costs.
With regards to claim 20, Wu, Musk, and Suthram together disclose the optical device of claim 19. Suthram further teaches a metallization layer located on an opposite side of a local silicon interconnect from a first chiplet (Suthram/Fig3d/Metallization layer 314 [Metalization stack] located on an opposite side of local silicon interconnect 316 [Substrate] from first chiplet 100 [IC die]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a metalization layer on the opposite side of the interconnect from the first chiplet within the optical device disclosed by Wu, Musk, and Suthram as suggested by Suthram since doing so would allow for increased electrical communication within the optical device.
With regards to claim 21, Wu, Musk and Suthram together disclose the method of claim 15. Wu further discloses the laser die and first optical chiplet as being two vertically stacked layers within the photonic chiplet integration (Wu/Fig13). Suthram further discloses a method wherein two layers are vertically stacked to form a photonic chiplet integration, and a substrate is in physical connection with both layers (Suthram/Fig11B/ Photonic chiplet integration 300 [Microelectronic assembly] and substrate 302 [IC die]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach both the layers of the photonic chiplet integration disclosed by Wu to a substrate as suggested by Suthram within the method disclosed by Wu since doing so would facilitate the connection of both the photonic chiplet and laser with other components in a fished device package.
Conclusion
This prior art, made of record, but not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure since the following references have similar structure and/or use similar structure and/or similar optical elements to what is disclosed and/or claimed in the instant application:
Motohara (US 20140097459 A1) [Fig 1]
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
Prosecution Insights