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
Information disclosure statement filed 2/01/2024 has been considered.
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)(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, 6, 7, 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication No. US 2022/0334310 A1 to Yu et al. (hereinafter “Yu”).
Regarding claim 1, Yu discloses a package structure, comprising: a top interposer (2100 in Fig. 24) formed over a substrate (407 in Fig. 24); a first die (e.g. 2201B in Fig. 24) formed over the top interposer, wherein the first die comprises: an optical package structure (i.e. optical grating, gap fill material and waveguide of the optical engine as shown as 106c, 127, 105 respectively in Fig. 1A. This optical engine is used in Fig. 24), wherein the optical package structure comprises first optical components; and an electronic die (i.e. shown in more detail in Fig. 1A- see 115 in Fig. 1A) bonded to the optical package structure; and an optical die (e.g. 2201A in Fig. 24) adjacent to the first die, wherein the top interposer is shared by the optical die and the first die (Fig. 24).
Regarding claim 6, Yu discloses an optical gel (2301 in Fig. 23; paragraph [0151]) between the first die and the optical die (Fig. 23-24).
Regarding claim 7, Yu discloses a bridge structure (105 in Fig. 24) formed on the first die and the optical die, wherein the bridge structure comprises a waveguide (paragraph [0158]).
Regarding claim 17, since Yu discloses a package structure of claim 1 as discussed above, it necessarily discloses a method of forming a package structure comprising bonding an electronic die (115 in Fig. 1A as discussed above) to an optical package structure (i.e. optical grating, gap fill material and waveguide of the optical engine as shown as 106c, 127, 105 respectively in Fig. 1A) to form a composite die (e.g. 2201B in Fig. 24), bonding the composite die and an optical die (2201A in Fig. 24) to a top interposer (2100 in Fig. 24) by a hybrid bonding structure (i.e. electrical / optical hybrid bonding structure), wherein the top interposer is shared by the optical die and the composite die (Fig. 24), and bonding the top interposer to a bottom interposer (i.e. bottom interposer is shown in 2603 in Fig. 26).
Regarding claim 19, Yu discloses a bridge structure (105 in Fig. 24) formed on the first die and the optical die, wherein the bridge structure comprises a waveguide (paragraph [0158]).
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.
Claim(s) 4, 8, 9, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu.
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Yu discloses the package structure as claimed in claim 1 as already discussed above. While Yu discloses the use of a waveguide formed adjacent to the composite die, it does not explicitly disclose the use of an optical array formed adjacent to the composite die, and a supporting substrate comprising a lens or a mirror as claimed in claims 4 and 18. On the other hand the use of an optical array, a lens or a mirror is well known and common in the optical package art. Such optical elements are advantageously used in the art to effectively route optical signals to multiple destinations within the optical package for robust optical routing and coupling capabilities. 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 Yu to have an optical array formed adjacent to the composite die, and a supporting substrate comprising a lens or a mirror as claimed in the present application.
Regarding claim 8 and 20, Yu discloses an optical package structure according to claim 1 as discussed above. Also, Yu discloses the use of a bottom interposer (e.g. 2603 in Fig. 26). However, it does not explicitly disclose that the bottom interposer comprises a memory layer as claimed in the present application. On the other hand, the use of a memory component in an optoelectronic package is well known and common in the art. Inclusion of a memory layer in an interposer would have been readily recognized as advantageous and desirable to one of ordinary skill in the art since it would allow for electronic programmable data to be stored within an interposer layer, thereby eliminating the need for additional external memory component to be coupled to the optical package. 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 Yu to have the bottom interposer comprising a memory layer as claimed in the present application.
Regarding claim 9, Yu discloses an optical package structure according to claim 1 as already discussed above. Although Yu discloses the use of a second die having an identical structure as the first die, such that the second die comprises an optical package structure, and an electronic die bonded to the optical package structure (i.e. see 300 on the left and right side of Fig. 25), it does not explicitly disclose the use of such a second die along with the use of an optical die adjacent to the first die, in the manner claimed in claim 1 of the present application. However, duplication of composite dies would have been readily recognized as advantageous and desirable to one of ordinary skill in the art since it would allow for the optical package structure with increased optical bandwidth capable of simultaneously processing multiple optical signals within a package. 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 Yu to have a second die in the manner claimed in claim 9 of the present application.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of US Patent Application Publication No. US 2014/0321804 A1 to Thacker et al (hereinafter “Thacker”).
Yu discloses an optical package structure according to claim 1 as discussed above. However, it does not explicitly disclose the use of a cooler formed on the first die and the optical die as claimed in the present application. On the other hand, the use of a thermo-cooling mechanism is known in the art. For example, Thacker discloses an optical package structure, wherein photonic chip dies comprise thermos-cooling mechanisms disposed thereon (e.g. 162 in Fig. 1; paragraph [0059]). One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize the advantage of using such a thermo-cooling mechanism, as they would ensure lower temperature operations of photonic circuits and increase reliability of the optical package 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 Yu to have a cooler formed on the first die and the optical die as claimed in the present application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 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.
Claims 10-16 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: as discussed above, an optical package structure comprising a top interposer formed on a substrate, a first composite die comprising an optical package structure and an electronic die bonded to the optical package structure is known in the art. However, it does not explicitly disclose such a package structure, further comprising a bottom interposer formed below a top interposer, and a semiconductor die formed adjacent to the top interposer, wherein the semiconductor die and the top interposer are bonded to the bottom interposer, in the manner claimed in the present application. While the use of multiple interposers is known in the art, none of the prior art fairly teaches or suggests the use of a composite die, and optical die, and a semiconductor die arranged on a first and second interposer with particular bonding relationship as that 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