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 Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the photonic die” should read “the first photonic die”. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18 – 20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious an integrated photonic system comprising, among other things, a wedge-shaped portion of a first photonic die, and a first side of the second photonic die is shaped to define a first set of protrusions contacting the first side of the wedge-shaped portion; and a second side of the second photonic die is shaped to define a second set of protrusions contacting the second side of the wedge-shaped portion.
The closest relevant prior art of record, Aalto et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2020/0278506 A1), teaches a first photonic die (203), but fails to teach or suggest that its wedge shaped nor does it teach protrusion on the second photonic die (201) as claimed.
Thus, with no teaching from the prior art, and without the benefit of applicant's teachings, there is no motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine/modify the prior art of record in a manner so as to create the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aalto et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2020/0278506 A1).
In Re claim 1, ‘506 teaches an integrated photonic system, comprising: a first photonic die (203, 303); and a second photonic die (201, 301) defining a cavity (figs. 7, 9, pars. 0019, 0034) extending at least partially therethrough, wherein: the first photonic die extends at least partially into the cavity and is bonded (par. 0024) to the second photonic die along a vertical direction; and one or more vertical surfaces (210, 311) of first photonic die contact one or more vertical surfaces (212, 310) of the second photonic die to form multiple noncontiguous (edges are in close proximity to one another, par.0036) contact points (at each 212 or 310, respectively) between the first photonic die and the second photonic die, thereby laterally aligning the first photonic die and the second photonic die (figs. 7 or 9).
In Re claim 2, ‘506 teaches a portion of a first side of the first photonic die is shaped to define a first cavity (210); a portion of a first side of the second photonic die is shaped to define a first protrusion (212); and the first photonic die is positioned such that the first protrusion is positioned at least partially inside the first cavity to contact the first side of the second photonic die (par. 0014).
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aalto et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2020/0278506 A1).
In Re claim 8, ‘506 teaches the system of claim 1, but is silent to wherein: a portion of a first side of the first photonic die is shaped to define a first protrusion; a portion of a first side of the second photonic die is shaped to define a first cavity; and the first photonic die is positioned such that the first protrusion is positioned at least partially inside the first cavity to contact the first side of the first photonic die.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘506 to switch the protrusions and cavities of 212 and 210, respectively, thus allowing for an alternative alignment whereby the real estate of the second photonic die is reduced thus allowing for material savings in manufacture since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claims 3 – 7, 9 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aalto et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2020/0278506 A1) in view of Vermeulen et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2020/0292766 A1).
In Re claims 13, 14, 16 and 17, ‘506 teaches an integrated photonic system, comprising: a first photonic die (203, 303); and a second photonic die (201) defining a cavity (figs. 7, 9, pars. 0019, 0034) extending at least partially therethrough, wherein: the first photonic die extends at least partially into the cavity and is bonded (par. 0024) to the second photonic die along a vertical direction; a first pair of vertical engagement surfaces (210 and 212) provides at least one contact point between the first photonic die and the second photonic die (par. 0016, claim 6); the first pair of vertical engagement surfaces are formed in a pair of adjacent sides of the first photonic die and the second photonic die (fig. 7); a first side of the pair of adjacent sides is shaped to define a first protrusion (fig. 7); a second side of the pair of adjacent sides is shaped to define a first cavity (fig. 7); and the first protrusion extends at least partially into the first cavity to contact the second side at one or more noncontiguous contact points (par. 0032, claim 6); wherein: a surface of the first cavity (on 210) forms a facet for a first set of waveguides (interpreted as for alignment of waveguides 204); a surface of the first protrusion (on 212) forms a facet for a second set of waveguides (interpreted as for alignment of waveguides 205).
‘506 is silent to the first pair of vertical engagement surfaces providing at least one noncontiguous contact point between the first photonic die and the second photonic die.
‘766 teaches engagement surfaces (par. 0050) each contacting at noncontiguous contact points (figs. 5B, 5C) in a manner that provides for controlled movement in the event of a uniform fabrication error (par. 0050).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘506 to make the grooves and protrusions to be shaped as shown in fig. 5B, 5C of ‘766 so as to allow for controlled movement in the event of a uniform fabrication error as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
In Re claims 3 – 7, 9 – 12 and 15, ‘506 teaches the system of claim 2, and two protrusions and cavities as claimed (figs. 7, 9), but is silent to the first protrusion has a curved cross-sectional shape; and the first cavity has a rectangular cross-sectional shape.
‘766 teaches alignment grooves (par. 0050) and protrusions (par. 0050) to align waveguides (waveguides 1 and 2, fig. 5B) whereby a first protrusion has a curved cross-sectional shape (when viewing from above, fig. 5B) or rectangular shape cross-section (when viewing figs. 5B and 5C perpendicular to the top view); and the first cavity has a rectangular cross-sectional shape (when viewing one of the flat portions of one of the grooves head on which is perpendicular to the top surface); a triangular cross-sectional shape (when viewing figs. 5B and 5C); and a curved cross-sectional area (when viewing figs. 5B and 5C) so as to allow for controlled movement in the event of a uniform fabrication error (par. 0050); wherein the second protrusion contacts the first side of the second photonic die at two non-contiguous points of contact (as seen in fig. 5B and 5C on the right).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘506 to make the grooves and protrusions to be shaped as shown in fig. 5B, 5C of ‘766 so as to allow for controlled movement in the event of a uniform fabrication error as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1294. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5.
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 1-571-272-2397. 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.
/CHAD H SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874