Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I (claims 1-7 and 15-20) in the reply filed on 10/28/2025 is acknowledged. The remarks assert that new backfill claims 21-27 are readable on group I.
Specification
The abstract is objected to because line 5 refers to "couple" instead of "coupler".
Claim Objection (Informality)
Claim 24 is objected to because it appears to be missing "is" before "over" in line 2. Alternatively, "wherein" could be replaced with "further comprising" in line 1.
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.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 25 uses the term "about", but the disclosure does not define it. Thus, it is not clear how large the refractive index difference could be and still qualify as being less than "about 0.1". For the purpose of comparison with prior art in this action, the term "about" will be disregarded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2020/0310027 A1.
Claim 21: '027 discloses a photonic device, comprising (see mainly figs. 2A-3B):
a semiconductor substrate 14;
an optical coupler 18 over the semiconductor substrate;
a waveguide structure 16 over the semiconductor substrate and laterally connected to the optical coupler;
an interlayer dielectric layer 34B over the optical coupler and the waveguide structure
a metal-dielectric stack 24 (including metal levels M1-M4 and dielectric layers 28A/28B) over the interlayer dielectric layer, wherein the metal-dielectric stack has a hole 200 above the optical coupler; and
a protection layer 300 (figs. 3A-3B) extending in the interlayer dielectric layer and directly above the optical coupler, wherein the protection layer comprises a side portion in contact with a sidewall (at least a left sidewall as shown in fig. 3A) of the interlayer dielectric layer and a bottom portion extending laterally from a bottom end of the side portion of the protection layer and in contact with the interlayer dielectric layer (at 201).
Claim 22: The optical coupler 18 comprises a plurality of protruding portions and a plurality of trenches spacing the protruding portions apart from each other, and an entirety of the bottom portion of the protection layer 300 vertically overlaps the protruding portions and the trenches of the optical coupler (fig. 3A).
Claim 23: The protection layer 300 lines the hole of the metal-dielectric stack (fig. 3B, [0058], [0061]).
Claim 24: A passivation layer 28A is over the metal-dielectric stack, wherein the passivation layer has an opening communicated with the hole of the metal-dielectric stack, and the protection layer lines the opening of the passivation layer (note that [0064] characterizes the uppermost layer 28A as a passivation layer).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0310027 A1 (applied above) in view of US 2010/0265983 A1.
Claim 15: '027 discloses a photonic device, comprising (see mainly figs. 2A-3B):
a semiconductor substrate 14;
an optical coupler 18 over the semiconductor substrate;
a waveguide structure 16 over the semiconductor substrate and laterally connected to the optical coupler; and
a metal-dielectric stack (including metal layers M1-M4 and dielectric layers 34A / 34B / 28A / 28B) over the optical coupler and the waveguide structure, wherein the metal-dielectric stack has a hole 200 above the optical coupler.
'027 does not disclose that a portion of the metal-dielectric stack below the hole (for example where layer 34B meets bottom 201) has a convex top surface.
'983 discloses a device (fig. 1A) in which a layer 11 includes a hole above an optical coupler 18. The bottom part of the hole includes a convex portion, particularly an integrated lens 19 to improve coupling with an optical fiber 31.
A person of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the '027 device by configuring the surface of 34B which faces optical fiber 304 with a convex lens shape in the manner suggested by '983 with predictable results. Accordingly it would have been obvious to such a person before the effective filing date of claim 15 to do so, motivated by a desire to improve the optical coupling between optical coupler 18 and optical fiber 304 which is one goal of '027 as mentioned for example at [0062]. Another potential benefit of having an integrated lens would have been avoidance of the need to align a separate lens as mentioned for example in '983 [0009], [0012], and [0014]-[0015]. In the proposed modified device, a portion of the metal-dielectric stack below the hole would have had a convex top surface as recited.
Claim 16: The photonic device further comprises a protection layer 300 (fig. 3A in '027) in contact with the convex top surface of the portion of the metal-dielectric stack.
Claim 17: The protection layer 300 has a convex top surface (for example where it overflowed onto the upper surface of 24 as mentioned in [0061] and depicted in fig. 3A).
Claim 18: The protection layer 300 has a substantially planar top surface (where it meets the bottom surface 306 of block 302).
Claim 19: The convex top surface of the metal-dielectric stack is laterally aligned with a metal layer (particularly, the vias 30 which pass through layer 34B) of the metal-dielectric stack.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0310027 A1 (applied above).
Claim 25: '027 does not expressly disclose that a difference between a refractive index of the protection layer and a refractive index of the interlayer dielectric layer is less than [[about]] 0.1. [0034] states that layer 34B may be made of silicon oxide (which is understood to be synonymous with silicon dioxide / silica). Optical fibers are commonly based on silica. [0058] states that protection layer 300 is preferably an epoxy glue. Official notice is taken of the fact that it was well known before the effective filing date of claim 25 to use an index-matching epoxy for bonding an optical fiber to another component. A person of ordinary skill in the art could have used such an epoxy as layer 300 in '027 with predictable results. Thus it would have been obvious to such a person to do so, motivated by an interest in reducing optical losses due to Fresnel reflections (which could be caused by excessive mismatches between the refractive indexes of the abutting materials).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 are allowed. The applied '027 reference does not disclose or suggest at least the recited photodetector and contact which connects the photodetector to the metal-dielectric stack, in combination with all the other elements of claim 1.
Claims 20 and 26-27 are 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 their respective base claims. As to claim 20, the applied '027 reference does not disclose or suggest that the convex top surface of the metal-dielectric stack is laterally aligned with a bottommost one of a plurality of metal layers of the metal-dielectric stack (the metal vias 30 extend below layer 34B). As to claims 26 and 27, '027 discloses that the protection layer 300 should be made from glue such as epoxy glue, and thus it does not comprise the same material as layer 34B (silicon oxide) and does not comprise silicon nitride.
Conclusion
The additional references listed on the attached 892 form are considered generally relevant to the subject matter of this application. Several of them disclose other examples of arrangements for optical coupling to integrated devices.
Contact Information
Examiner: 571-272-2360
Examiner's direct supervisor: 571-272-2397
Official correspondence by fax: 571-273-8300
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Should you have questions about Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Michael Stahl/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874