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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 23 July 2023 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner has considered the information disclosure statement; please see attached forms PTO-1449.
Drawings
The drawings submitted have been reviewed and determined to facilitate understanding of the invention. The drawings are accepted as submitted.
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 1-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2020/0284981 to Harris et al. (hereinafter “US1”).
Regarding Claim 1, US1 describes a photonic system (see Fig 8), comprising:
a photonic interposer patterned on a substrate (see [0146]), the photonic interposer having a plurality of sites (722), wherein each of at least some of the plurality of sites comprises:
an optical flow switch (104, see Figs 3A, 3D, 5A) having an input waveguide (110, 111) and a plurality of output waveguides (112, 114), wherein at least some of the output waveguides couple the site to one or more other sites of the plurality of sites (see Fig 3D, 5B);
a fiber coupler (105, 710) coupled to the optical flow switch;
a plurality of optical modulators (704, see [0132]) coupled to the input waveguide;
a first plurality of electrical connections (324) configured to connect to a corresponding processor die (320, 322, see [0105]); and
a second plurality of electrical connections configured to connect to a corresponding router die (740), wherein the optical modulators are coupled to the second plurality of electrical connections (see [0117]).
Regarding Claim 2, US1 describes each of the at least some of the plurality of sites further comprises a plurality of photodetectors (706) coupled to an output waveguide of the plurality of output waveguides (see Figs 5A-B, 6A-B, [0132]).
Regarding Claim 3, US1 describes the fiber coupler is arranged to couple to a plurality of optical fibers (see [0147]).
Regarding Claim 4, US1 describes a controller (322) configured to control the optical flow switches of the at least some of the plurality of sites to transfer data generated by the processor die of a first site to the processor die of a second site (see [0106]).
Regarding Claim 5, US1 describes a controller (322) configured to control the optical flow switches of the at least some of the plurality of sites to transfer data generated by the processor die of a first site to the fiber coupler of a second site (see Fig 8A, [0106]-[0107]).
Regarding Claim 6, US1 describes the controller further configured to transfer the data generated by the processor die of the first site to a first optical fiber of a plurality of optical fibers coupled to the fiber coupler of the second site (see Fig 8A and [0147]).
Regarding Claim 7, US1 describes a controller (322) configured to control the optical flow switches of the at least some of the plurality of sites to transfer data from the fiber coupler of a first site to the fiber coupler of a second site (see Fig 8A, [0106]-[0107]).
Regarding Claim 8, US1 describes the controller is further configured to transfer the data to a first optical fiber of a plurality of optical fibers coupled to the fiber coupler of the second site (see Fig 8A, [0147]).
Regarding Claim 9, US1 describes the plurality of optical modulators configured to modulate light at mutually different wavelengths (see [0124], [0125, [0127], [0130], [0132]).
Regarding Claim 10, US1 describes the fiber coupler comprising an edge coupler positioned at an edge of the photonic interposer (see Fig 8A, [0147]).
Regarding Claim 11, US1 describes a computing system (700/800), comprising:
a plurality of processor dies (320) and a plurality of router dies (740) comprising electronic routers;
a photonic interposer patterned on a substrate (see [0146]), the photonic interposer having a plurality of sites (722), wherein the plurality of processor dies and the plurality of router dies are mounted on the photonic interposer (see Figs 3C, 8A), wherein each of at least some of the plurality of sites comprises:
an optical flow switch (104, see Figs 3A, 3D, 5A) having an input waveguide (110, 111) and a plurality of output waveguides (112, 114), wherein at least some of the output waveguides couple the site to one or more other sites of the plurality of sites (see Fig 3D, 5B);
a fiber coupler (105, 710) coupled to the optical flow switch;
a plurality of optical modulators (704, see [0132]) coupled to the input waveguide;
a first plurality of electrical connections (324) configured to connect to a corresponding processor die (320, 322, see [0105]); and
a second plurality of electrical connections configured to connect to a corresponding router die (740), wherein the optical modulators are coupled to the second plurality of electrical connections (see [0117]).
Regarding Claim 12, US1 describes each of the at least some of the plurality of sites further comprises a plurality of photodetectors (706) coupled to an output waveguide of the plurality of output waveguides (see Figs 5A-B, 6A-B, [0132]).
Regarding Claim 13, US1 describes the fiber coupler is arranged to couple to a plurality of optical fibers (see [0147]).
Regarding Claim 15, US1 describes the router die further comprises a controller configured to control the optical flow switches of the at least some of the plurality of sites and the electronic router of a first site to transfer data generated by the processor die of the first site to the processor die of a second site (see [0106]).
Regarding Claim 16, US1 describes the router die further comprising a controller (322) configured to control the optical flow switches of the at least some of the plurality of sites and the electronic router of a first site to transfer data generated by the processor die of the first site to the fiber coupler of a second site (see Fig 8A, [0106]-[0107]).
Regarding Claim 17, US1 describes the router die further comprising a controller (322) configured to control the optical flow switches of the at least some of the plurality of sites and the electronic router of a first site to transfer data from the fiber coupler of a first site to the fiber coupler of a second site (see Fig 8A, [0106]-[0107]).
Regarding Claim 18, US1 describes the plurality of optical modulators configured to modulate light at mutually different wavelengths (see [0124], [0125, [0127], [0130], [0132]).
Regarding Claim 19, US1 describes the fiber coupler comprising an edge coupler positioned at an edge of the photonic interposer (see Fig 8A, [0147]).
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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US1 as applied to Claim 11 above.
US1 does not describe the router die connected to the second plurality of electrical connections comprises a plurality of serializers/deserializers (SerDes). However, the use of SerDes between components in communication systems is well-known in the art. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the router die connected to the second plurality of electrical connections comprising a plurality of serializers/deserializers (SerDes) coupled to the plurality of optical modulators via the second plurality of electrical connections. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable efficient data transfer over limited physical channels.
Conclusion
The prior art cited in the attached form PTO-892 are made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art describes various photonic systems including waveguides, switches, and/or processors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY RAHLL whose telephone number is (571)272-2356. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm.
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 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.
/JERRY RAHLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874