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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 9 and 10 – 15 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1 – 9:
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method of forming a package assembly comprising, among other things, bonding the first die and the second die to the interposer structure with the first substrate and the second substrate facing up, so that a light beam from an optical fiber over the first die is reflected by the third tilted metal layer. The closest relevant prior art of record, Zhang et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2023/0091050 A1), fails to teach or suggest an optical fiber capable of being over the first die and light from the optical fiber reflected by the third tilted metal layer.
Regarding claims 10 – 15:
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method of forming a package assembly comprising, among other things, forming a blanket bonding structure over the first glass substrate and the second glass substrate. The closest relevant prior art of record, Komada et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2007/0297729 A1), teaches glass substrates (136, par. 0037) having tilted sidewalls coated with mirror (436, par. 0036, 0422), but the blanket bonding structure (234) is not over the glass substrates but rather encircles them as seen in at least fig. 10).
Thus, with no teaching from the prior art, and without the benefit of applicant's teachings, there is no motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine/modify the prior art of record in a manner so as to create the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 16 – 20 are are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2023/0091050 A1).
In Re claim 10, ‘050 teaches a package assembly (figs. 7E, 7K), comprising: an interposer structure (775), having a first tilted layer (left mirror 752 or 753) and a second tilted layer (right mirror 752 or 753) embedded therein and facing each other; a first die (790), located on the interposer structure, wherein the first die comprises a first optical integrated circuit (PIC) and a third tilted layer (reflector 798), and the third tilted layer of the first die corresponds to the first tilted layer of the interposer structure; and a second die (792), located on the interposer structure, wherein the second die comprises a second optical integrated circuit (PIC) and a fourth tilted layer (reflector 798), and the fourth tilted layer of the second die corresponds to the second tilted layer of the interposer structure.
‘050 is silent to the tilted layers being metal.
However, it is well known in the art to use metal as mirrors or reflectors to redirect light.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use metal at the mirrors and reflectors of ‘505 so as to ensure optimum optical coupling as metal is a cost efficient and readily available material for use a mirror or reflector as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
In Re claim 17, ‘050 a first optical lens (788), located on the first die; and a second optical lens (788), located on the second die (when 7K is inverted as claim does not recite directly on or contacting).
In Re claim 18, ‘050 teaches the assembly of claim 16, but is silent to third and fourth dies as claimed. However, embodiments of fig. 10 and pars. 0078 – 0084 describe multiple dies to form an electronic system upon a glass substrate with optical coupling.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have additional dies as claimed so as to allow for an more versatile compact optical circuit as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
In Re claim 19, ‘050 teaches at least one optical component (730 or 756 and 730) disposed between the first tilted metal layer and the second tilted metal layer.
In Re claim 20, ‘050 teaches wherein the at least one optical component comprises a first edge coupler (left 730), a second edge coupler (right 730) and a waveguide structure (730) between the first edge coupler and the second coupler, the first edge coupler is laterally aligned with the first tilted metal layer, and the second edge coupler is laterally aligned with the second tilted metal layer (fig. 7k).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1294. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5.
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 1-571-272-2397. 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.
/CHAD H SMITH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights