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 .
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.
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) 21, 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by U.S. PGPub 2015/0117821 A1 by Aoki et al.
Regarding claim 21, Aoki teaches a co-packaged optics device, comprising: a package substrate (package substrate 10); an electronic component (LSI chip 11) disposed on the package substrate (10); optical transceivers (13) disposed on the package substrate, arranged around the electronic component (Fig. 1A), wherein the electronic component is electrically connected to the optical transceivers (via electrical interconnection structures in a package substrate and illustrated solder bumps, Fig. 1B); and a waveguide component (a plurality of waveguides 14) disposed on the package substrate and comprising: a waveguide bulk (cladding layer of the waveguides 14, Fig. 6) having an inward surface (left surface of the waveguides 14, Figs. 3A-C) facing the electronic component (11) and continuously extending between the optical transceivers (13) and an outward surface (right surface of the waveguides 14, Figs. 3A-C) opposite to the inward surface; waveguide channels (defined by waveguide cores 61) embedded in the waveguide bulk, wherein each of the waveguide channels extends from the outward surface to the inward surface (Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 24, Aoki further teaches an interposer substrate (board 2), wherein the electronic component and the optical transceivers are disposed on the interposer substrate (Fig. 1B) and the interposer substrate is bonded onto the package substrate (via solder bumps 16).
Regarding claim 25, Aoki further teaches a material of the waveguide bulk comprises a transparent material (as illustrated in Figs. 3B, 3C, light from/to the transceiver 13 is coupled into/out of the waveguide core 61 laterally by a mirror, and through the lens and cladding 62, and the cladding therefore must be at least transparent to the light applicable to the device).
Regarding claim 26, Aoki further teaches wherein the first waveguide channel and the second waveguide channel have a refractive index greater than the waveguide bulk (the channels or cores 61 have greater refractive index than the bulk or cladding 62 as required for total internal reflection by optical waveguides).
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.
Claim(s) 22, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PGPub 2015/0117821 A1 by Aoki et al. in view of WO 2022176804 A1 by Oda.
Regarding claim 22, Aoki teaches a co-packaged optics device comprising the waveguide bulk (14) and waveguide channels (61), wherein the waveguides (14) are coupled to optical fibers held in grooves (41) but does not teach a design in which the first waveguide channel and the second waveguide channel are intersected and directed to different ones of the optical transceivers. Oda also teaches a device (Fig. 2) for transmitting optical signals comprising a substrate (10), optical transmitter and receiver devices (20, 30, equivalent in function that can be performed by transceivers), a multi-core optical fiber (200) the connects to the optical devices (20, 30), a waveguide bulk (optical path converter 102) having a plurality of waveguide channels (waveguides 41, 42) with inward (right side) and outward (left side) surfaces, wherein inward ends of the waveguide channels directing to the optical transceivers and outward ends of the waveguide channels opposite to the inward ends are arranged in different sequences (e.g., the first and third waveguides 412 of the converter 102 are connected to the first and second waveguides 411 of the transceiver section 101), and wherein two of the waveguide channels are intersected and directed to different ones of the optical transceivers (the first waveguide channel (41) and the second waveguide channel (42) are intersected (see Fig. 2 and its description in the English translation) and directed to different ones of the optical transceivers (20, 30, respectively). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the waveguide component (14) and the embedded waveguide channels (61) in Aoki’s invention, by alternating and intersecting the waveguide channels that couple the optical fibers to the different transceivers (13), in the design suggested by Oda in Fig. 2, since, “compared to the case where the waveguides do not intersect each other, the degree of freedom in arranging the transmission waveguides and the reception waveguides can be increased, and the density of the waveguides can be increased.”
Regarding claim 23, Aoki further suggest, in a different embodiment illustrated in Fig. 3, two of the waveguide channels are positioned at different levels above the package substrate, so as to match locations of cores (201, 202) of the multi-core fiber (200).
Allowable Subject Matter
Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims are allowed. Aoki is the closest prior art and discloses using a lens in a gap between the optical transceivers (13) and the waveguide bulk (62), it is thus the examiner’s position that additional modification to place an intermediate waveguide channel surrounded by the gap extending in such a gap would not have been obvious or reasonable to a person of ordinary skill in the art, when considered in view of the rest of the limitations of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 15 and its dependent claims are allowed. Aoki is the closest prior art and discloses a plurality of optical transceivers arranged around an electronic component but not a waveguide bulk having a ring-like shape surrounding the optical transceivers. Additional prior art also fails to teach or fairly suggest a reasonable modification to arrive at the claimed invention, when considered in view of the rest of the limitations of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO 2006035499 discloses an opto-electric integrated circuit.
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 CHARLIE PENG whose telephone number is (571)272-2177. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 6PM.
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.
/CHARLIE Y PENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights