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 § 103
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.
Claims 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US Patent 12,007,611 B2 to Kuo et al (hereinafter “Kuo”).
The applied reference has a common applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claim 1, Kuo discloses a semiconductor photonic package comprising: a first photonic die (PD1 in Fig. 3A) and a second photonic die (PD2 in Fig. 3A) laterally disposed over a substrate (120 in Fig. 3A); a light divergence structure (GR2 in Fig. 3A) disposed in the first photonic die and beside the second photonic die; and a light source (400 in Fig. 3A) disposed over the light divergence structure and configured to provide an optical signal vertically to the first photonic die, wherein the optical signal is reflected or refracted to be laterally directed to the second photonic die by the light divergence structure (i.e. dotted lines in Fig. 3A).
However, Kuo does not explicitly disclose that the light divergence structure is disposed “over” the first photonic die, in the manner claimed in the present application. On the other hand, disposing a beam steering component over a photonic die is well known and common in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize the advantage of having a light divergence structure over a photonic die, since it would allow for light routing without significant light transmission loss due to light beam traveling through a photonic die structure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present application to modify the device of Kuo to have the light divergence structure disposed over the photonic die in the manner claimed in the present application.
Claims 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kuo in view of US Patent No. 7,800,826 B2 to Togino (hereinafter “Togino”).
Kuo renders obvious a semiconductor photonic package claimed in claim 1 as discussed above. However, it does not explicitly disclose the light divergence structure comprising a flying saucer-like structure having a main body and a central hollow portion, or a disc structure having a central hollow portion in the manner claimed in the present application. On the other hnad, such light divergence structure is known in the art. For example, Togino discloses a light divergence structure comprising a flying saucer-like, disc structure having a central hollow portion having a reflective covering the light receiving surface (Fig. 4; Fig. 10a). One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize such optical structure to be advantageous and desirable since it would allow for optical beam routing with significantly less chromatic aberration and improves broadband optical signal integrity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the present application to modify the device of Kuo to have the light divergence structure comprising a flying saucer-like structure having a main body and a central hollow portion, or a disc structure having a central hollow portion in the manner claimed in the present application.
Claims 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kuo in view of US Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0251033 A1 to Matsuoka et al. (hereinafter “Matsuoka”).
Kuo renders obvious a semiconductor photonic package claimed in claim 1 as discussed above. However, it does not explicitly disclose the cross-sectional view of the light divergence structure comprising a prism, in the manner claimed in the present application. On the other hand, such prisms are well known in the art. For example, Matsuoka discloses an optical interconnection module comprising a light divergence structure having a cross-sectional view being a prism (e.g. 109a-d in Fig. 7). Such prism light divergence structures are widely used in the art because they advantageously allow for customizable, highly versatile optical beam steering surface capable of exhibiting high mechanical strength and stability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present application to modify the device of Kuo to have the cross-sectional view of the light divergence structure comprising a prism, in the manner claimed in the present application.
Claims 8, 12, 14, 15, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kuo in view of Kuo in view of US Patent Application Publication No. US 2011/0091157 A1 to Yao et al. (hereinafter “Yao”).
Regarding claim 8, Kuo renders obvious a semiconductor photonic package claimed in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, Kuo discloses the first photonic die and the second photonic die comprising first and second signal receivers, respectively (i.e. GR2 and GR6 in Fig. 3A of Kuo). However, Kuo does not explicitly disclose the second photonic die being vertically stacked under the first photonic die, as claimed in claim 8 of the present application. On the other hand, such a feature is known in the art. For example, Yao discloses a semiconductor photonic package wherein the photonic dies are vertically stacked in the manner claimed in the present application (see Fig. 2). Such vertically stacked photonic dies would have been readily recognized as advantageous and desirable to one of ordinary skill in the art because it would allow for compact semiconductor photonics package with very small footprint. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present application to modify the device of Kuo to have the second photonic die vertically stacked under the first photonic die in the manner claimed in the present application.
Regarding claim 14, Kuo in view of Yao renders obvious a semiconductor photonic package claimed in claim 8 as discussed above. In addition, Kuo discloses the use of an electronic die (120, 200 in Fig. 3A) for coupling with the first and second photonic die. However, it does not explicitly disclose that the electronic die is disposed over the first and second photonic die as claimed. On the other hand, having an electronic die over the photonic dies is well known and common in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize the advantage of having an electronic die disposed over the photonic dies since it would prevent exposure of fragile active optical elements of photonic dies from electrical interconnection and ensure robust application of semiconductor optical communications device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present application to modify the device of Kuo to have the electronic die be disposed over the first and second photonic die as claimed.
Regarding claim 15, Kuo in view of Yao renders obvious a semiconductor photonic package claimed in claim 8 as discussed above. However, it does not explicitly disclose the light source being disposed beside the first and second photonic die as claimed. On the other hand, the light source being disposed besides photonic dies is well known and common in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize the advantage having a light source being disposed on the sides of both first and second photonic dies, since it would allow for a more even light distribution between the first and the second photonic dies and improves the coupling efficiency of the light receiving elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present application to modify the device of Kuo to have the light source disposed besides the first and second photonic die as claimed in the present application.
Regarding claim 19, Kuo in view of Yao renders obvious a semiconductor photonic package claimed in claim 15 as discussed above. In addition, Kuo discloses the angle formed by the light divergence structure and a surface of the die of the second photonic die being between 0 and 90 degrees (i.e. 90 degrees as shown in Fig. 3A).
Claims 9-10, 12, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kuo in view of Yao as applied to claims above, and in further view of Togino.
Regarding claims 9-10, 16-17, Kuo in view of Yao renders obvious a semiconductor photonic package claimed in claim 8 and 15 as discussed above. However, it does not explicitly disclose the light divergence structure comprising a flying saucer-like structure having a main body and a central hollow portion, or a disc structure having a central hollow portion in the manner claimed in the present application. On the other hand, such light divergence structure is known in the art. For example, Togino discloses a light divergence structure comprising a flying saucer-like, disc structure having a central hollow portion having a reflective covering the light receiving surface (Fig. 4; Fig. 10a). One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize such optical structure to be advantageous and desirable since it would allow for optical beam routing with significantly less chromatic aberration and improves broadband optical signal integrity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the present application to modify the device of Kuo to have the light divergence structure comprising a flying saucer-like structure having a main body and a central hollow portion, or a disc structure having a central hollow portion having a reflective covering the light receiving surface in the manner claimed in the present application.
Regarding claim 12, Kuo in view of Yao and Togino render obvious the semiconductor photonic package of claim 9 as already discussed above. In addition, Kuo discloses the angle formed by the light divergence structure and a surface of the die of the second photonic die being between 0 and 90 degrees (i.e. 90 degrees as shown in Fig. 3A).
Claims 11, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kuo in view of Yao as applied to claims above, and in further view of Matsuoka.
Kuo in view of Yao renders obvious a semiconductor photonic package claimed in claim 8 and 15 as discussed above. However, it does not explicitly disclose the cross-sectional view of the light divergence structure comprising a prism, in the manner claimed in the present application. On the other hand, such prisms are well known in the art. For example, Matsuoka discloses an optical interconnection module comprising a light divergence structure having a cross-sectional view being a prism (e.g. 109a-d in Fig. 7). Such prism light divergence structures are widely used in the art because they advantageously allow for customizable, highly versatile optical beam steering surface capable of exhibiting high mechanical strength and stability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present application to modify the device of Kuo to have the cross-sectional view of the light divergence structure comprising a prism, in the manner claimed in the present application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7, 13, 20 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 the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: as discussed above, a semiconductor photonics package comprising a first photonic die comprising at least a first optical signal receiver; a second photonic die vertically stacked under the first photonic die and comprising at least a second optical signal receiver; a light divergence structure; and a light source, wherein the light source provides an optical signal toward a light divergence structure, is known in the art.
However, none of the prior art fairly teaches or suggests such a semiconductor photonics package wherein the light divergence structure comprises a hollow ball-like structure, and a main body of the hollow ball-like structure has a plurality of holes, in the manner claimed in the present application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNG H PAK whose telephone number is (571)272-2353. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7AM- 5PM.
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.
/SUNG H PAK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874