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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 23, 2026, with respect to claims 1-7 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Previously cited US 2010/0144084 (“DOAN”) teaches a first optical signal (1014) input (via lens 1008) and output (to photodetector 204).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 8-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DOAN in view of US 2020/0067173 (“CHUANG”).
Regarding claim 1, DOAN teaches a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device (200), the method comprising: receiving a multi-tier connection unit (300, 700, 900), the multi-tier connection unit comprising: a first tier (300) comprising a first mirror (trenches 404-1 filled with reflecting material 500; FIG. 5) with a first orientation; a second tier (700) comprising a second mirror (404-2) with a second orientation the same as the first orientation (FIG. 10); and a third tier (900) comprising a third mirror (404-3); a first optical signal (1014) input (via lens 1008); and a first optical signal output (to photodetector 204); and attaching the multi-tier connection unit to a first optical package, the first optical package (202, 204) comprising a semiconductor die (202).
DOAN does not teach that the third mirror has a third orientation different from the first orientation. CHUANG teaches a third mirror (162a) of a third tier (154) that has a different orientation from a second mirror (162b) of a second tier (152; FIG. 1C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the third mirror orientation of DOAN to be different from that of the second mirror, as taught by CHUANG. The motivation would have been to improve a coverage range and optical efficiency of the device (par. [0039]).
Regarding claim 2, DOAN teaches that the third tier further comprises fan-in waveguides (1010, 1012).
Regarding claim 3, DOAN teaches that the second mirror comprises multiple, separated portions (FIG. 10).
Regarding claim 4, DOAN teaches that the first mirror is a single unit (FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 5, CHUANG teaches that the multi-tier connection unit has a constant width (FIG. 1C).
Regarding claim 6, DOAN teaches that the first mirror is located within a semiconductor substrate (202).
Regarding claim 7, DOAN teaches that the first tier further comprises waveguides (1010, 1012) aligned with the first mirror.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CHUANG in view of DOAN.
Regarding claim 8, CHUANG teaches a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device (FIG. 1C), the method comprising: attaching an electrical integrated circuit (130) to an optical interposer (112b); and bonding a first tier active layer (152) over the electrical integrated circuit and the optical interposer, the first tier active layer comprising: first optical components (164a, 166a); and a first mirror (162b) aligned with the first optical components.
CHUANG does not teach that the first optical components comprise at least one waveguide. DOAN teaches first optical components comprising at least one waveguide (1010, 1012). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the first optical components of CHUANG to comprise at least one waveguide, as taught by DOAN. The motivation would have been to more efficiently guide the optical signal.
Regarding claim 9, CHUANG teaches that after the bonding the first mirror is aligned with a second mirror (162a) located on an opposite side of the electrical integrated circuit from the first mirror (FIG. 1C), the second mirror being located in a first active layer (154) of second optical components (164a, 166a).
Regarding claim 10, CHUANG teaches attaching a multi-tier connection unit (152, 154) to the optical interposer.
Claims 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DOAN in view of US 2002/0028045 (“YOSHIMURA”).
Regarding claim 15, DOAN teaches a semiconductor device (200) comprising: a multi-tier connection unit (300, 700, 900), the multi-tier connection unit comprising: a first tier (300) comprising a first mirror (trenches 404-1 filled with reflecting material 500; FIG. 5); a second tier (900) comprising a second mirror (404-3), a first lens (1008), and a second lens (also, 1008); and a third tier (700) comprising a third mirror (404-2); and a first optical package (202, 204) attached to the multi-tier connection, the first optical package comprising a semiconductor die (202).
DOAN does not teach that the third tier comprises a third lens. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that placement of an additional lens in the third tier would facilitate additional focusing of light into optical components 204, as desired. Furthermore, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to duplicate a third lens in the third tier of DOAN so as to facilitate desired light focusing.
DOAN also does not teach that the first optical package is attached to the multi-tier connection unit with an optical glue. YOSHIMURA teaches attaching optical components using an optical glue (par. [0331]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to attach the components of DOAN using an optical glue, as taught by DOAYOSHIMURA. The motivation would have been to improve transmission efficiency
(par. [0331]).
Regarding claim 16, DOAN teaches that the first lens and the second lens are adjacent to the second mirror (indirectly, via elements 1002, 1004).
Regarding claim 17, DOAN teaches that the first lens and the second lens are offset from the second mirror (via elements 1002, 1004).
Regarding claim 18, DOAN teaches that the third tier comprises a fourth mirror (as there are multiple segments of element 404-3) aligned with the first lens and the second lens (FIG. 10).
Regarding claim 20, DOAN teaches that the first tier further comprises first optical components (204) adjacent to the first mirror.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-14 and 19 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 11-14, the prior art of record, whether taken individually or in combination, when considered in light of the claimed subject matter as a whole as interpreted in light of the present Specification, fails to disclose or render obvious that the multi-tier connection unit comprises: a first optical fiber aligned with the first mirror; and a second optical fiber aligned with the second optical components.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art of record, whether taken individually or in combination, when considered in light of the claimed subject matter as a whole as interpreted in light of the present Specification, fails to disclose or render obvious a multiple row connector attached to the multi-tier connection unit, wherein a first row of optical fibers is aligned with the first mirror and wherein a second row of optical fibers is aligned with the second mirror.
Conclusion
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 JERRY M BLEVINS whose telephone number is (571)272-8581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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.
/JERRY M BLEVINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874