Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/403,136

INTERPOSER HAVING INTEGRATED OPTICAL WAVEGUIDE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jan 03, 2024
Examiner
PEACE, RHONDA S
Art Unit
2874
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Qualcomm Incorporated
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 0m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
1039 granted / 1219 resolved
+17.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 0m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
1257
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
46.6%
+6.6% vs TC avg
§102
36.4%
-3.6% vs TC avg
§112
12.2%
-27.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1219 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1/3/24 and 3/31/25 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. 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) 1-4, 8-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park (US 11,300,740 B1). Re. Claim 1, Park discloses a device comprising: an interposer 100 having a first side (e.g., top side) and a second side (e.g., bottom side) (Figs. 1-2; col. 5 lines 26-32), the interposer comprising: an optical waveguide 123/124/125 defined in a region between the first side and the second side (Fig. 2; col. 5 lines 49-52; col. 6 lines 25-31); first contacts 134 on the first side configured to be electrically connected to one or more electronic devices 401-403 (Figs. 1-2; col. 5 lines 66-67); second contacts (e.g., driver integrated circuit IC) on the second side configured to be electrically connected to one or more photonic devices 200-202 (Fig. 2; col. 7 lines 47-48); conductive interconnects 132/140/122/126 electrically connecting one or more of the first contacts to one or more of the second contacts (Fig. 2; col. 7 lines 59-61); and an optical coupler 250/129 on the second side configured to enable coupling of light between the one or more photonic devices and the optical waveguide (Fig. 3; col. 8 lines 29-46; col. 9 lines 52-57). Re. Claim 2, Park discloses the optical waveguide 123/124/125 is defined by at least a first cladding layer 123 having a first refractive index, a second cladding layer 125 having a second refractive index, and a core layer 124, between the first cladding layer and the second cladding layer, having a third refractive index, and wherein the third refractive index is greater than the first refractive index and is greater than the second refractive index (Fig. 2; col. 8 lines 17-28). Re. Claim 3, Park discloses the optical waveguide is further defined by one or more cladding walls between the first cladding layer and the second cladding layer (Fig. 7; col. 12 lines 27-45). Re. Claim 4, Park discloses the first cladding layer 123, the second cladding layer 125, and the core layer 124 comprise silicon (Fig. 2; col. 6 lines 32-45). Re. Claim 8, Park discloses the device as discussed above, including interposer 100 (Figs. 1-2; col. 5 lines 26-32). Park also discloses a first electronic device 401 coupled to the first side of the interposer; a second electronic device 402 or 403 coupled to the first side of the interposer 100; a first photonic device 200 coupled to the second side of the interposer; and a second photonic device 201 or 202 coupled to the second side of the interposer 100 (Figs 1-2; col. 5 lines 66-67; and col. 7 lines 47-48), wherein the interposer 100 comprises: first conductive interconnects 132/140/122/126 (e.g., left side) electrically connecting the first electronic device 401 and the first photonic device 200; second conductive interconnects 134/132/140/122/126 (e.g., right side) electrically connecting the second electronic device 402 or 403 and the second photonic device 201 or 202 (Figs. 1-2; col. 5 lines 66-67; and col. 7 lines 47-48); a first optical coupler 250/129 (e.g., left side) on the second side configured to enable coupling of light between the first photonic device 200 and the optical waveguide 123/124/125; and a second optical coupler 250/129 (e.g., right side) on the second side configured to enable coupling of light between the second photonic device and the optical waveguide 124 (Fig. 3; col. 8 lines 29-46; col. 9 lines 52-57). Re. Claim 9, Park discloses the first photonic device is configured to: receive first electrical signals from the first electronic device via the first conductive interconnects; and send light signals based on the first electrical signals to the second photonic device, via the first optical coupler, the optical waveguide, and the second optical coupler (col. 11 lines 28-32). Re. Claim 10, Park discloses the second photonic device is configured to: receive the light signals from the photonic device via the second optical coupler; and send second electrical signals based on the light signals to the second electronic device via the first conductive interconnects (Fig. 7; col. 12 lines 41-45). Re. Claim 11, Park discloses the optical waveguide is defined by at least a first cladding layer having a first refractive index, a second cladding layer having a second refractive index, and a core layer, between the first cladding layer and the second cladding layer, having a third refractive index, and wherein the third refractive index is greater than the first refractive index and is greater than the second refractive index (Fig. 2; col. 8 lines 17-28). Re. Claim 12, Park discloses the optical waveguide is further defined by one or more cladding walls between the first cladding layer and the second cladding layer (Fig. 7; col. 12 lines 27-45). Re. Claim 13, Park discloses the first optical coupler, the second optical coupler, or both, are configured to exchange light signals with a respective photonic device (Fig. 3; col. 8 lines 29-46; col. 9 lines 52-57). Re. Claim 14, Park discloses one or more redistribution layers 134 on the first side of the interposer configured to form conductive paths between the first electronic device, the second electronic device, or both, and one or more third electronic devices (Figs. 1-2; col. 5 lines 66-67). Re. Claim 15, Park discloses a method of fabrication comprising: forming a body defining an optical waveguide 123/124/125, the body comprising a first layer having a first refractive index 123, a second layer 125 having a second refractive index, and a third layer 124 between the first layer and the second layer, the third layer having a third refractive index that is greater than the first refractive index and greater than the second refractive index (Fig. 2; col. 8 lines 17-28); forming a plurality of conductive interconnects 132/140/122/126 through the body to electrically connect first contacts 134 on a first side of the body to second contacts (e.g., driver integrated circuit ICs) on a second side of the body (Figs. 1-2; col. 5 lines 66-67; and col. 7 lines 47-48); and arranging one or more optical couplers 250/129 on the second side of the body to couple light between the third layer 124 and one or more photonic devices 200-202 (Fig. 3; col. 8 lines 29-46; col. 9 lines 52-57). Re. Claim 16, Park discloses electrically connecting a first electronic device 401 to a first set of the first contacts; and electrically connecting a first photonic device 200 to a first set of the second contacts to define electrical signal paths between the first electronic device devices and the first photonic device devices (Fig. 2; col. 7 lines 59-65), wherein the first photonic device is arranged relative to a first optical coupler of the one or more optical couplers to enable communication of optical signals between the optical waveguide and the first photonic device (Fig. 3; col. 7 lines 28-39). Re. Claim 17, Park discloses electrically connecting a second electronic device to a second set of the first contacts; and electrically connecting a second photonic device to a second set of the second contacts to define electrical signal paths between the second electronic device devices and the second photonic device devices (Fig. 2; col. 7 lines 59-65), wherein the second photonic device is arranged relative to a second optical coupler of the one or more optical couplers to enable communication of the optical signals between the first photonic device and the second photonic device via the optical waveguide (Fig. 3; col. 7 lines 28-39). Re. Claim 18, Park discloses the body further defines a second optical waveguide, and the method further comprises: electrically connecting a third electronic device to a third set of the first contacts (e.g., CL3); and electrically connecting a third photonic device to a third set of the second contacts to define electrical signal paths between the third electronic device and the third photonic device; electrically connecting a fourth electronic device to a fourth set of the first contacts (e.g., CL4); and electrically connecting a fourth photonic device to a fourth set of the second contacts to define electrical signal paths between the fourth electronic device and the fourth photonic device, wherein the third photonic device is arranged relative to a third optical coupler of the one or more optical couplers and the fourth photonic device is arranged relative to a fourth optical coupler of the one or more optical couplers to enable communication of the optical signals between the third photonic device and the fourth photonic device via the second optical waveguide (Fig. 7; col. 12 lines 27-57). Re. Claim 19, Park discloses electrically connecting a third electronic device to a third set of the first contacts; and electrically connecting a third photonic device to a third set of the second contacts to define electrical signal paths between the third electronic device devices and the third photonic device devices, wherein the third photonic device is arranged relative to a third optical coupler of the one or more optical couplers to enable communication, via the optical waveguide, of the optical signals between the third photonic device and the first photonic device, the second photonic device, or both (Fig. 7; col. 12 lines 27-57). Re. Claim 20, Park discloses forming the body comprises affixing the first layer to a first side of the third layer and affixing the second layer to a second side of the third layer (Fig. 3; col. 8 lines 17-28). 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. 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) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 11,300,740 B1). Re. Claim 5, Park discloses the device as discussed above, wherein the first cladding layer inherently has a first porosity, the second cladding layer inherently has a second porosity, and the core layer inherently has a third porosity. However, Park does not disclose the third porosity is less than the first porosity and is less than the second porosity. The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed, since 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. Re. Claim 6, Park discloses the device as discussed above. Park does not disclose the first cladding layer, the second cladding layer, the core layer, or a combination thereof, further comprise a refractive index dopant. The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed, since 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. Re. Claim 7, Park discloses the device as discussed above. Park does not disclose the optical coupler includes an optical fiber disposed in a groove on the second side of the interposer, the optical fiber having a first end configured to exchange light signals with a photonic device of the one or more photonic devices and a second end configured to exchange light signals with the optical waveguide. Optical fibers arranged in grooves are well known in the art, and provide the advantage of reduced loss compared to free space arrangements. The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reduce optical loss in the device. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” – ‘[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the attached PTO-892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to R. PEACE whose telephone number is (571)272-8580. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (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 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. /RHONDA S PEACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 1/8/26
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 03, 2024
Application Filed
Apr 07, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 06, 2026
Interview Requested
Mar 16, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 16, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 07, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601880
OPTICAL CONNECTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596286
OPTICAL PHASE MODULATOR, OPTICAL DEVICE, AND OPTICAL COMPUTING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12585067
CABLE MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578618
Optical Sources
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12566291
SURFACE MOUNT TYPE OPTICAL MODULE AND ATTACHMENT/DETACHMENT APPARATUS AND METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+12.5%)
2y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1219 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month