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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group IId [i.e., claims 8, 11-12 of the remaining original claims 8-14 is acknowledged; that is, in the 6/1/26 version of the claims Applicant withdrew claims 9-10 and 13-14; furthermore, Applicant indicates only claims 8, 11-12, of the remaining original claims 8-14, as not being withdrawn; so, Applicant elected group IId, not group IIc as group IIc claims 9-10 are indicated as “withdrawn” in the 6/1/26 version of the claims; further discussion of the new claims occurs below] in the reply filed on 6/1/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Additionally, Applicant added new claims 21-34.
New independent claim 21 adds “bonding a first semiconductor device onto the first redistribution layer” as the only additional limitation when compared to original claim 8. This is not considered as a major difference and the examiner agrees to examine non-withdrawn claims 21, 24-25 of new claims 21-27.
New claim 28, however, adds the limitation “bonding the interposer to… a second interposer”. The limitation “a second interposer” belongs in non-elected group IIe. Therefore, claims 28-34 are withdrawn since independent claim 28 (of new claims 28-34) contains the non-elected subject matter from non-elected group IIe. Claims 28-34 are, therefore, withdrawn as containing the non-elected subject matter of a second interposer.
In summary, remaining claims 8, 11-12, 21, 24-25 are considered as elected. The other remaining claims 9-10, 13-14, 22-23, 26-34 are withdrawn. Claims 8, 11-12, 21, 24-25 are, therefore, examined on the merits infra.
Newly submitted claim 28-34 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the elected invention originally claimed for the following reasons: claim 28 adds the limitation “bonding the interposer to… a second interposer” when compared to original claim 8. The limitation “a second interposer” contains non-elected group IIe subject matter {SM}.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 28-34 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
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) 8, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coolbaugh et al. (US 20180143374; “Coolbaugh”) with obviousness evidenced by {OEB} Vodrahalli (US 10535809).
Regarding claim 8, Coolbaugh teaches a method of manufacturing an optical device, the method comprising: forming through vias 130 through a glass material of an interposer 110 (e.g., figs. 5-6); forming a first redistribution layer 122/120 over the glass material 110, the first redistribution layer 122/120 comprising conductive components (e.g., figs. 4-6, elements 134, 1404, 1402) and optical components (e.g., figs. 5-6, elements 150A/1502, 150H); attaching a first optical device 160B (e.g., fig. 6) onto the first redistribution layer 122/120 (e.g., figs. 5-6); and attaching a laser die 160A to the first redistribution layer 122/120 (e.g., fig. 6).
Coolbaugh does not explicitly use/teach the word “bonding” when describing attaching the first optical device 160B to the first redistribution layer 122/120 and when describing attaching a laser die 160A to the first redistribution layer 122/120.
However, Coolbaugh at least describes attaching/attachment via solder reflow at Coolbaugh ¶s 0026, 0041-0042, 0044-0045 and it was well-known to refer to attaching by solder reflow as “bonding” at least as evidenced by Vodrahalli (e.g., Vodrahalli teaches at col. 2, lines 31-33; “reflow solder bonding”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to refer to attaching first optical device 160B to the first redistribution layer 122/120 as “bonding” the first optical device 160B to the first redistribution layer 122/120 and, further, referring to attaching a laser die 160A to the first redistribution layer 122/120 as “bonding” a laser die 160A to the first redistribution layer 122/120 at least for the purpose of using the common practice of referring to mechanically coupling/attachment of objects by means of “reflow”/solder bumps as “bonding”.
Thus claim 8 is rejected under Coolbaugh with OEB Vodrahalli [herein, referred to as simply “Coolbaugh-Vodrahalli”].
Moreover, independent claim 21 is only different from independent claim 8 in that claim 21 adds the additional limitation “bonding a first semiconductor device onto the first redistribution layer”. Coolbaugh teaches attaching a first semiconductor device 160C onto the first redistribution layer 120/122 (e.g., Coolbaugh fig. 6, ¶s 0018, 0042: semiconductor chip 160C). Using analogous reasoning to that applied in claim 8 above under Coolbaugh-Vodrahalli, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to refer to “attaching a first semiconductor device 160C onto the first redistribution layer 120/122” as “bonding a first semiconductor device onto the first redistribution layer”.
Thus claim 21 is rejected under Coolbaugh-Vodrahalli.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12, 24-25 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 prior art, either alone or in combination, does not disclose or render obvious further comprising forming a first lens in the glass material using at least in part a laser ablation process in combination with the rest of respective claim 11, 24.
It is noted that each of respective claims 11, 24 is allowable because the unique combination of each and every specific element stated in the respective claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mr. Michael Mooney whose telephone number is 571-272-2422. The examiner can normally be reached during weekdays, M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). For checking the filing status of an application, please refer to <https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/checking-application-status/check-filing-status-your-patent-application>.
/MICHAEL P MOONEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights