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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 4/17/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Dong et al. (US 2022/0155526 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Dong et al. (US 10,921,534 B2), hereinafter ‘534.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6, filed 4/17/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Dong et al. (US 2022/0155526 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Shaw (US 2018/0275342 A1).
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 4/17/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 18 under Dong et al. (US 2022/0155526 A1) and Marrapode et al. (US
2022/0029712 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Shaw (US 2018/0275342 A1).
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) 10 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong et al. (US 2022/0155526 A1), hereinafter ‘526, and Dong et al. (US 10,921,534 B2), hereinafter ‘534.
Re. Claim 10, ‘526 discloses a package assembly, comprising:
a photonic structure 40 disposed on an interposer structure 10 (Figs. 1A-2B;
[0026]-[0027]);
an encapsulation layer 17 laterally aside the photonic structure 40 (Fig. 5B; [0038], [0041]-[0042]); and
a laser written waveguide structure 60 embedded in a glass substrate 50 and
disposed adjacent to the photonic structure 40, wherein the laser written waveguide structure 60 has a plurality of curved waveguide paths (Figs. 2B and 5B; [0034]-
[0035]).
‘526 discloses the photonic structure 40 comprises a photonic circuit arrangement not shown in the Figures ([0035]), but fails to explicitly disclose an arrangement wherein the photonic structure comprises, from a bottom to a top, a photonic die, an electric die and a support die.
‘534 discloses a photonic structure comprising, from a bottom to a top, a photonic die 50, an electric die 20, and a support die 60 (Fig. 1; col. 6 lines 27-38; col. 8 lines 23-29 and 56-60).
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as ‘534 discloses their photonic structure increases the encapsulation density and number of channels of the optical modules (‘534: col. 5 lines 4-21).
Re. Claim 15, ‘526 and ‘534 renders obvious the package as discussed above. ‘526 discloses the package assembly the glass substrate 50 abuts the sidewall of the photonic structure 40 (Figs. 2B and 5B; [0035], [0037]).
However, ‘526 does not disclose the glass substrate being bonded to a sidewall of the photonic structure.
Bonding adjacent components is well known in the circuit arts, and provides the
advantage of maintaining proper alignment between components, and would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention for this advantage. The claim would have been obvious because a particular
known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the
art. KSR International Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Re. Claim 16, ‘526 and ‘534 renders obvious the package as discussed above. ‘526 also discloses an edge coupler disposed inside an optical integrated circuit of the photonic structure 40, and the laser written waveguide structure 60 inside the glass substrate 50 is laterally aligned with the edge coupler (Figs. 2B and 5B; [0035]). The claimed would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 17, ‘526 and ‘534 renders obvious the package as discussed above. ‘526 fails to disclose bonding a lid to the photonic structure and the glass substrate.
The use of lids to enclose circuit arrangements is well known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the claimed arrangement obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of permanently protecting the circuit from environmental effects and associated damage therefrom. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. KSR International Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘526 and ‘534, in further view of Patel et al (US 2020/0049890 A1).
Re. Claim 11, ‘526 and ‘534 renders obvious the package assembly as discussed above.
However, ‘526 does not disclose a plurality of laser lenses embedded in the glass substrate and in contact with the laser written waveguide structure.
Patel et al. discloses package assembly 100 comprising a photonic structure 120, a glass substrate 110, and a fiber array block 210, the glass substrate 110
comprising a plurality of waveguides 115 and a plurality of laser lenses embedded in the
glass substrate 110 and in contact with the plurality of waveguides 115 (Figs. 2A-2B; [0023], [0028]-[0029]).
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of aiding in
coupling light to the fiber array block (Patel et al.: [0029]).
Re. Claims 12-13, ‘526, ‘534, and Patel et al. renders obvious the package
assembly as discussed above. In addition, Patel et al. discloses the glass substrate
110 with the plurality of waveguides 115 is bonded to a top surface of the photonic
structure 120, and an evanescent coupler disposed between the photonic structure 120
and the glass substrate 110 (Figs. 3A-3D; [0033]). The claimed arrangement would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 14, ‘526, ‘534, and Patel et al. renders obvious the package assembly as discussed above. However, ‘526, ‘534, and Patel et al. fails to disclose an arrangement further comprising: a first reflector disposed adjacent an optical integrated circuit in the photonic structure; and a second reflector disposed between the photonic structure and the glass substrate and adjacent to the evanescent coupler, wherein the second reflector and the first reflector are configured to reflect and redirect a light beam received from the evanescent coupler to the optical integrated circuit.
The use of a pair of reflectors as claimed is well known in the art, and commonly utilized to redirect light to a buried photonic element. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found the claimed arrangement obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of utilizing a buried or encapsulated photonic element within the assembly. "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).
Claim(s) 1 and 3-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over ‘526 and Shaw (US 2018/0275342 A1).
Re. Claim 1, ‘526 discloses a method of forming a package assembly,
comprising:
bonding at least one integrated circuit structure 30 to an interposer structure 10
(Figs. 1A-2B; [0026]);
bonding a photonic structure 40 to the interposer structure 10 aside the at least one integrated circuit structure 30 (Figs. 1A-2B; [0026]-[0027]);
assembling a glass substrate 50 to a fiber array unit 70 (Fig. 2B; [0031], [0033]);
bonding the glass substrate 50 to the photonic structure 40 (Fig. 2B; [0032]); and
performing a laser writing process to the glass substrate 50, so as to form a laser
written waveguide structure 60 inside the glass substrate, wherein the laser written
waveguide structure 60 is optically coupled to the fiber array unit 70 and the photonic
structure 40 (Fig. 2B; [0034]-[0035]).
In ‘526, the fiber array unit 70 is coupled to the glass substrate 50 after the
glass substrate 50 is bonded to the photonic structure 40 (Fig. 2B). That is, ‘526
does not disclose an arrangement wherein the combination of the glass substrate and
the fiber array unit are subsequently bonded to the photonic structure.
However, one of ordinary skill would have found the claimed arrangement obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as the claimed order of steps (i.e., bonding the glass substrate with the fiber array unit to the photonic structure, as opposed to bonding the glass substrate without the fiber array block to the photonic structure and then coupling the fiber array unit to the glass substrate) does not provide new or unexpected results. See Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results).
Moreover, while ‘526 discloses bonding the glass substrate 50 to the photonic structure 40 (Fig. 2B; [0032]), ‘526 fails to disclose bonding the glass substrate to the photonic structure comprises dispensing an optical glue into a space between the glass substrate and the photonic structure.
Shaw discloses the method of bonding a glass substrate to a photonic structure comprises dispensing an optical glue into a space between the glass substrate and the photonic structure (Figs. 4 and 5; [0065] and [0068]).
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of creating a strong bond between components of the package assembly while providing an optical connection with low loss.
Re. Claim 3, ‘526 and Shaw renders obvious the method as discussed above. ‘526 also discloses the laser written waveguide structure 50 has a plurality of curved
waveguide paths 60 (Figs. 2B, 3A, and 5B; [0030]-[0031]). The claimed arrangement
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claims 4-5, ‘526 and Shaw renders obvious the method as discussed above.
‘526 discloses bonding the glass substrate 50 to the photonic structure 40 is performed after performing the laser writing process ([0034]), and does not disclose an arrangement wherein bonding the glass substrate to the photonic structure is performed
before performing the laser writing process.
Nonetheless, one of ordinary skill would have found the claimed arrangement obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as the claimed order of
steps (i.e., bonding the glass substrate to the photonic structure before the laser writing
process, as opposed to bonding the glass substrate to the photonic structure after the
laser writing process) does not provide new or unexpected results. See Ex parte Rubin,
128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a
laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter
impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the
prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA
1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the
absence of new or unexpected results).
Re. Claim 6, ‘526 and Shaw renders obvious the method as discussed above. ‘526 also discloses adjusting a location (e.g., conducting passive alignment) of the glass substrate 50 before bonding the glass substrate 50 to the photonic structure and after performing the laser writing process ([0033]). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 7, ‘526 and Shaw renders obvious the method as discussed above. ‘526 also discloses forming an evanescent coupler between the photonic structure 40
and the glass substrate 50 (Figs. 2B and 5B; [0035]). The claimed arrangement would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 8, ‘526 and Shaw renders obvious the method as discussed above. ‘526 also discloses forming an edge coupler inside an optical integrated circuit 46, and
the laser written waveguide structure 60 inside the glass substrate 50 is laterally aligned
with the edge coupler (Figs. 2B and 5B; [0035]). The claimed arrangement would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 9, ‘526 and Shaw renders obvious the package assembly as discussed above, but fails to disclose bonding a lid to the photonic structure and the glass substrate.
The use of lids to enclose circuit arrangements is well known in the art, and one
of ordinary skill in the art would have found the claimed arrangement obvious before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of permanently protecting the circuit from environmental effects and associated damage therefrom. The claim
would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part
of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. KSR International Co. V. Teleflex
Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘526 and Shaw (US 2018/0275342 A1), in further view of Patel et al (US 2020/0049890 A1).
Re. Claim 2, ‘526 and Shaw renders obvious the method as discussed above.
‘526 does not disclose the laser writing process further forms at least one laser lens between the fiber array unit and the laser written waveguide structure.
Patel et al. discloses package assembly 100 comprising a photonic structure 120, a glass substrate 110, and a fiber array block 210, the glass substrate 110 comprising a plurality of waveguides 115 and a plurality of laser lenses embedded in the glass substrate 110 and in contact with the plurality of waveguides 115 (Figs. 2A-2B; [0023], [0028]-[0029]). Patel et al. discloses the lenses are formed with the waveguides([0084]).
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of aiding in coupling light to the fiber array block (Patel et al.: [0029]).
Claim(s) 18 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over ‘526 and Marrapode et al. (US 2022/0029712 A1), in further view of Shaw (US 2018/0275342 A1).
Re. Claim 18, ‘526 discloses a package assembly, comprising:
a photonic structure 40 disposed on an interposer structure 10 (Figs. 1A-2B;
[0026]-[0027]);
a laser written waveguide structure 60 embedded in a glass substrate 50 and
disposed adjacent to the photonic structure 40, wherein the laser written waveguide
structure 60 has a plurality of waveguide paths (Figs. 2B-3A; [0032]); and
a fiber array unit 70 disposed laterally adjacent to the laser written waveguide
structure 60, wherein the fiber array unit 70 comprises a plurality of optical fibers corresponding to the plurality of the waveguide paths (Fig. 2B; [0033]),
wherein from a cross-sectional view (e.g., Fig. 2B), the plurality of waveguide paths have overlapping profiles.
However, ‘526 does not disclose an arrangement wherein from a cross-
sectional view, the plurality of waveguide paths have different profiles.
Marrapode et al. discloses a photonic structure 120, glass substrate 110 with a
plurality of waveguide paths 172 and 174, and fiber array unit 130 disposed laterally
adjacent to the glass substrate 110, wherein the fiber array unit 130 comprises a
plurality of optical fibers 160 corresponding to the plurality of the waveguide paths 172
and 174, and wherein from a cross-sectional view (e.g., Fig. 1B), the plurality of waveguide paths 172 and 174 have different profiles (Figs. 1A-1B; [0019]).
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as Marrapode et al. discloses
the differing waveguide profiles allows for the conversion of a 1D array from the
photonic structure to a 2D array such that the plurality of optical fibers may comprise an
array in two directions, thereby increasing density of the device (Marrapode et al., [0023]).
‘526 also does not disclose a support structure disposed aside the interposer and the photonic structure, and configured to support the glass substrate.
Shaw discloses a photonic structure 42 disposed on an interposer 44, a glass substrate 300 disposed adjacent the photonic structure 42, and a support structure 36 disposed aside the interposer and the photonic structure, and configured to support the glass substrate 300 (Figs. 4-5; [0050], [0061], [0068]).
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date claimed invention for the purpose of facilitating precise positioning the of glass substrate (Shaw: [0068]).
Re. Claim 21, ’526, Marrapode et al., and Shaw render obvious the package
assembly as discussed above. Shaw also discloses the support structure 36 has a buffer layer (e.g., upper portion) in contact with the glass substrate 300. The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
‘526 and Marrapode et al. (US 2022/0029712 A1), in further view of Shaw (US 2018/0275342), in still further view of Patel et al. (US 2020/0049890 A1).
Re. Claim 19, ’526, Marrapode et al., and Shaw render obvious the package
assembly as discussed above. However, the prior art does not disclose a plurality of laser lenses embedded in the glass substrate, wherein the laser lenses are disposed between and in contact with the waveguide paths and the optical fibers, respectively.
Patel et al. discloses package assembly 100 comprising a photonic structure 120, a glass substrate 110, and a fiber array block 210, the glass substrate 110
comprising a plurality of waveguides 115 and a plurality of laser lenses embedded in the
glass substrate 110 and in contact with the plurality of waveguides 115 (Figs. 2A-2B;
[0023], [0028]-[0029]).
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of aiding in
coupling light to the fiber array block (Patel et al.: [0029]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 5/19/26
Prosecution Insights