DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended the independent claims to recite that the optical package is on a different package than the resonator ring. It is noted that the claims only mention that these are to be separated with no connection relationship structure or steps. A simple prior art disclosure of separate or even duplicate components would meet these limitations. Such is seen in Ahn figure 3 where the ring modulator structure (315) is separated from the other components. Further, even the duplicated, individual components shown in Figure 1 would be on different dies from one another. Therefore, Examiner maintains the prior rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-8, 12-15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2024/0264393 to Ahn et al.
Ahn discloses in the abstract and figures 4-5, an optical device comprising:
A first optical package (455) located over and bonded to an interposer substrate (550), the interposer substrate comprising a semiconductor substrate (paragraph 76 describes the silicon and photonic components); and
A cavity ring located over the semiconductor substrate (ring resonator disclosed in paragraph 72).
As to claims 7, 12 and 20, a laser is disclosed and bonded to the interposer substrate (“LD”; figure 5)
Claim 1 is similar to claim 15 above except that it is a method claim that recites the basic “forming” of the structure above without any specific steps. Since the structure is present, the formation of such would also be anticipated. Similarly, claims 5-8 and 12-14 disclose general packaging of a chip to a substrate via Ahn’s bonding pads (solder array 512).
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) 2-4, 9-11, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn in view of US 10/951,248 to Kamgiang et al.
As to claims 2-4, 9-11 and 18-19, Ahn discloses the invention as claimed except for specific materials such as lithium niobate and silicon nitride which are common in the art. Ahn does disclose lithium niobate as a modulator material (paragraph 71).
Claims 16-17 relate to ring cavity locations or with respect to claim 17 that the ring resonator is within a cavity resonant die. Ahn generally discloses ring resonators which would inherently have a cavity but lacks the resonant die.
Kamgiang discloses silicon nitride finishes for the resonator (column 7, line 47) as well as a resonant cavity die (411).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use known semiconductor materials to produce components as a matter of design choice to optimize said components.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2022/0045780 (separate units 35 and 369).
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 Eric K Wong whose telephone number is (571)272-2363. The examiner can normally be reached M-Tu, Th-F 8A-6P.
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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached at 571-270-1739. 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.
ERIC K. WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2874
/Eric Wong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights