DETAILED ACTION
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. PGPub 2023/0185033 A1 by Darmawikarta et al.
Regarding claim 1, Darmawikarta teaches a package (Fig. 1A, 1B) comprising: a first interconnect structure (electrical and optical connecting features within a multi-layer die subassembly 104 and below dies 102, 118) comprising a plurality of conductive features (electrical interconnects 130, 150) and a plurality of first waveguides (while Fig. 1A illustrates a single PIC die 102 in the subassembly 104 coupled to a single waveguide 131, between 3 to 20 layers of dies or a layer of 2 to 50 dies may be included, each of the PIC dies would be optically coupled to its corresponding one of a plurality of waveguides, ¶[0044]); a plurality of package modules (XPU 118, which, similar to above, may exist in plural in 3 to 20 layers and/or 2 to 50 dies) attached to the first interconnect structure; and a plurality of optical bridge modules (PICs 102 including optical elements 106, 108, 110 and optically coupling to an integrated optical surface component 140 and the optical waveguide 131) attached to the first interconnect structure, wherein the optical bridge modules (102) are optically coupled to the plurality of first waveguides (131, with an optical signal indicated by an arrow), wherein the optical bridge modules are electrically connected to the corresponding package modules through the first interconnect structure (the electrical interconnects 130 may enable electrical coupling between PIC 102, EIC 114, and XPU 118, ¶[0040]).
Regarding claim 2, Darmawikarta further teaches the plurality of package modules and the plurality of optical bridge modules are attached to opposite sides (left and right sides, Fig. 1A) of the first interconnect structure.
Regarding claim 3, Darmawikarta further teaches the first interconnect structure is an interposer (offers electrical connections between the dies and a package substrate 124 by way of TGVs 192).
Regarding claim 4, Darmawikarta further teaches the first interconnect structure laterally surrounds respective optical bridge modules of the plurality of optical bridge modules (the interconnect structure, including an underfill material 127 extend laterally beyond the optical bridge module 102 as illustrated in Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 6, Darmawikarta further teaches the plurality of optical bridge modules is sandwiched between the first interconnect structure and a second interconnect structure (when the subassembly has between 3 and 20 layers, the interconnect structures and the modules of the subassembly 104 are duplicated in each layer and thus arranged sandwiching each other).
Regarding claim 7, Darmawikarta further teaches each optical bridge module respectively comprises a plurality of photonic components and a plurality of second waveguides, wherein the respective plurality of second waveguides is optically coupled to the respective plurality of photonic components (see Fig. 1B, in which optical components 106, 108 are connected to each other and to external components by waveguide segments 110).
Regarding claim 8, Darmawikarta further teaches an encapsulant laterally separates package modules from adjacent optical bridge modules (step 412, Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 9-12, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. PGPub 2023/0366913 A1 by Kamineni et al.
Regarding claim 9, Kamineni teaches a package (Fig. 1A) comprising: an interposer (optical interposer or backplane 120, ¶[0046]) comprising a first waveguide (122); a first package module (electronic backplane device 140 on right) attached to a front side (top side) of the interposer; and a first optical package module (a middle one of three illustrated EPIC die stacks 110) comprising a second waveguide (waveguide coupler 116 on the left, expanded illustration in Fig. 1B), wherein the second waveguide is optically coupled (indicated by arrows on the left, Fig. 1B) to the first waveguide (122); and a second optical package module (a right one of the three illustrated EPIC die stacks 110) comprising a third waveguide (waveguide coupler 116 on the right, Fig. 1B), wherein the third waveguide is optically coupled to the first waveguide (indicated by arrows on the right).
Regarding claim 10, Kamineni further teaches the first optical package module and the second optical package module are attached to the front side of the interposer (top side, Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 11, Kamineni further teaches the first optical package module and the second optical package module are within the interposer (lateral disposed within the interposer 120).
Regarding claim 12, Kamineni further teaches the first waveguide (122, between two 116s) is between the first optical package module (central 110) and the first package module (right 140).
Regarding claims 14, 15, Kamineni further teaches the interposer comprises a glass substrate, wherein the first optical package module and the second optical package module are attached to the glass substrate, and the first waveguide is within the glass substrate (waveguides are formed within a BOX layer oxidized on a silicon wafer, ¶[0055]).
Regarding claim 16, Kamineni further teaches top surfaces of the first package module, the first optical package module, and the second optical package module are level (three die stacks 110, Fig. 1A).
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) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamineni as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of U.S. PGPub 2023/0185033 A1 by Darmawikarta et al.
Regarding claim 13, Kamineni teaches the first and second optical package modules on the interposer but does not specify using an encapsulant to laterally surround the modules. Darmawikarta also teaches a package (Fig. 1) comprising an interposer on which optical packages (multiple PIC dies 102) are disposed and further teaches an encapsulant laterally separates package modules from adjacent optical bridge modules (step 412, Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kamineni’s invention, by encapsulating the first and second optical package modules (110) with an insulative material, for the purpose of protecting and insulating the modules, as is very commonly known and practiced in the art.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2 of copending Application No. 18/659,287 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the terms used in claim 1 such as “interconnect structure” and “package modules” are fully disclosed by corresponding terms “redistribution structure” and “dies”.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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. Darmawikarta is considered the closest identified prior art and while Darmawikarta discloses using multiple dies in each layer or multiple layers of dies, interconnects between one or more dies, or non-adjacent layers, are said to be conductive interconnects and/or conductive pathways, and thus fails to disclose or render obvious that at least one first waveguide of the plurality of first waveguides is optically coupled to two or more optical bridge modules of the plurality of optical bridge modules, when considered in view of the rest of the limitations of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-24 are allowed. Prior art of record fails to teach or suggest all of the claimed features including an optical bridge structure comprising a plurality of first waveguides; a plurality of photonic components over the plurality of first waveguides; an interconnect structure over the plurality of photonic components; and a first semiconductor die bonded to the interconnect structure; an interposer structure bonded to the optical bridge, wherein the interposer structure comprises a plurality of second waveguides and a plurality of conductive features within a plurality of insulating layers, wherein the optical bridge structure is bonded to the interposer structure using metal-to-metal bonding, wherein the plurality of first waveguides are optically coupled to the plurality of second waveguides after bonding; and a second semiconductor die bonded to the interposer structure with metal-to-metal bonding. Darmawikarta does not use both an interconnect structure over the plurality of photonic components and an interposer; Kamineni does not use an interposer having a plurality of second waveguides and a plurality of conductive features within a plurality of insulating layers, with which the optical bridge structure if bonded metal-to-metal.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPub 20250123449, 20250253276 disclose relevant and related inventions but do not qualify as prior art due to having a common inventorship.
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