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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the Applicant Election filled on 04/10/2026. Currently, claims 1, 4-5, 7-9, 12-13, 15-17 and 21-29 are pending in the application. Claims 2-3, 6, 10-11, 14 and 18-20 have been withdrawn and cancelled from consideration. Claims 21-29 have been added new.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Species I (Figures 1A-1B), claims 1, 4-5, 7-9, 12-13, 15-17 and 21-29, in the reply filed on 04/10/2026 is acknowledged, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7, 9, 12, 21-23, 26 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as TSOU et al (US 20220140172 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Figure 1/2 of TSOU discloses an optical package structure, comprising:
a first substrate (10, [0019]);
a second substrate (50, [0021]) over the first substrate, wherein the first substrate and the second substrate collectively define a first cavity (at 42 for 30);
a first optical component (30, [0020]) disposed in the first cavity;
a second optical component (20, [0020]) disposed over the first substrate; and
an electrical shielding element (51, [0022]) disposed adjacent to a sidewall of the first cavity and between the first optical component (30) and the second optical component (20).
Regarding claim 4, Figure 1 of TSOU discloses that the optical package structure as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a conductor (31, [0019]) directly connected to the first optical component (30) and the second substrate (50).
Regarding claim 5, Figure 1/2 of TSOU discloses that the optical package structure as claimed in claim 4, wherein the second substrate (50) is electrically connected to the first substrate (10) and the first optical component (30).
Regarding claim 7, Figure 1/2 of TSOU discloses that the optical package structure as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a connection element (60, [0024]) electrically connecting the electrical shielding element (51) to a ground element of the first substrate (10).
Regarding claim 9, Figure 1/2 of TSOU discloses that the optical package structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein the second substrate (50) defines a second cavity ( at 40) for accommodating the second optical component (20).
Regarding claim 12, Figure 1/2 of TSOU discloses that the optical package structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first substrate (10) comprises a conductive layer (layers in direction contact with the upper surface of 10) exposed to the first cavity and spaced apart from the electrical shielding element by a protective layer (42, [0021]).
Regarding claim 21, Figure 1 of TSOU discloses that the optical package structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein the electrical shielding element (51) comprises a vertical portion (vertical portion of 51) disposed adjacent to the sidewall of the first cavity and a horizontal portion (horizontal portion of 51) disposed on a surface of the second substrate facing the first substrate (10).
Regarding claim 22, Figure 1 of TSOU discloses that the optical package structure as claimed in claim 21, wherein the vertical portion ( of 51) comprises a vertical part covering the sidewall of the first cavity (at 42) and an extension partially covering a top surface of the second substrate (portion is not defined by boundary in the claim and hence considering the upper portion of 51 having a horizontal section covering a portion of the second substrate 50).
Regarding claim 23, Figure 1 of TSOU discloses that the optical package structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein the electrical shielding element (considering 55/51) surrounds the first optical component (30) from a top view perspective.
Regarding claim 26, Figure 1 of TSOU discloses that the optical package structure as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a via portion (60, [0023]) disposed in the first substrate (10) and penetrating a base layer of the first substrate (10, PCB, [0019]), the via portion electrically connecting the electrical shielding element to a ground element of the first substrate (10).
Regarding claim 29, Figure 1 of TSOU discloses that the optical package structure as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a first protective layer (layers between 42 and 50) between the second substrate (50) and a light block structure (51) disposed over the second substrate.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as MATSUNAGA et al (US 20230349738 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Figures 2 of MATSUNAGA disclose an optical package structure, comprising:
a first substrate (4+5, [0024]) comprising a first circuit structure;
a second substrate (30, [0033]) comprising a second circuit structure;
an adhesive layer (2, [0024]) between the first substrate and the second substrate; and
a shielding structure (321, [0058]) at least partially encapsulated (321 going through 2) by the adhesive layer (2) and configured to reduce an electromagnetic interference between the first circuit structure and the second circuit structure ([0078], 321 is capable of performing this claimed function).
Regarding claim 16, Figures 2 of MATSUNAGA discloses that the optical package structure as claimed in claim 15, further comprising: an optical emitter (31, [0030]) disposed on the first circuit structure (4+5, [0024]); and an optical receiver (32, [0030]) disposed on the second circuit structure (30), wherein the shielding structure (321) comprises a portion between the optical emitter (31) and the optical receiver (32) and configured to reduce a light interference therebetween ([0078]-[0079]).
Regarding claim 17, Figures 2 of MATSUNAGA discloses that the optical package structure as claimed in claim 16, wherein the shielding structure (321) further comprises a connection portion extending into the first substrate (4+5) and electrically connected to a ground element (22) of the first substrate ([0058] and [0078]).
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over TSOU et al (US 20220140172 A1) in view of SHIRAI et al (US 20080172871 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Figure 1 of TSOU does not explicitly teach that the optical package structure as claimed in claim 7, further comprising an adhesive layer between the first substrate and the second substrate and encapsulating the connection element.
However, SHIRAI is a pertinent art which teaches a printed wiring board includes a plurality of conductor plates that includes at least one conductor plate that is used as a lead for electrical connection with an external circuit, the conductor plates being separated spatially from one another; an insulating layer formed on or across the conductor plates or both on and across the conductor plates; and a plurality of wiring patterns formed on the insulating layer. At least one of the conductor plates is electrically connected with at least one of the wiring patterns through a via-hole. Figure 10 of SHIRAI teaches such a printed wiring board with an adhesive layer (10) on the board for encapsulating connection elements (11) ([0049]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical package structure of TSOU with an adhesive layer between the first substrate and the second substrate and encapsulating the connection element according to the teaching of SHIRAI in order to insulate and protect the connection elements between the first substrate and the second substrate ([0050] of SHIRAI).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 24-25 and 27-28 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, 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:
Regarding claim 13, there is no prior art available nor obvious motivation to combine elements of prior art which teaches a optical package structure, comprising: “an adhesive layer configured to adhere the first substrate and the second substrate and directly contacting the protective layer, the electrical shielding element, and the conductive layer” in combination with other limitations of the claim it depends on.
Regarding claim 24, there is no prior art available nor obvious motivation to combine elements of prior art which teaches a optical package structure, comprising: “a light block structure disposed over the second substrate and between the first optical component and the second optical component, the light block structure comprising a first through hole over the first optical component and a second through hole over the second optical component” in combination with other limitations of the claim it depends on.
Regarding claim 25, this claim is allowed as it depends on an allowable claim.
Regarding claim 27, there is no prior art available nor obvious motivation to combine elements of prior art which teaches a optical package structure, comprising: “wherein the second optical component is flip-chip bonded to the second substrate, and the second optical component comprises two electrodes on a same surface of the second optical component facing the second substrate” in combination with other limitations of the claim it depends on.
Regarding claim 28, there is no prior art available nor obvious motivation to combine elements of prior art which teaches a optical package structure, comprising: “wherein an elevation of a top surface of the second optical component is higher than an elevation of a top portion of the first cavity with respect to the first substrate” in combination with other limitations of the claim it depends on.
Examiner Notes
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck& Co. v. BiocraftLabs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHAJA AHMAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7991. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern Time).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, GAUTHIER STEVEN B, can be reached on (571)270-0373. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 .
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KHAJA AHMAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights