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 3/20/26 with regard to the Fini reference have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. All of applicant’s argument concern Dutt, which is no longer needed for the rejections since the flip chip bonding limitation has been removed. No arguments concerning Fini are present.
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 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fini et al (US 2018/0217344 A1). Fini teaches:
1. An optical data communication system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a package substrate (100); and
a plurality of optical input/output (I/O) chiplets (103A-D) bonded to the package substrate (100) (P0031), each of the plurality of optical I/O chiplets (103A-D) having at least one supply optical port (part of 104A-D from 101), at least one transmit optical port (part of 104A-D from T), and at least one receive optical port (part of 104A-D from R) (P0033) located on a same side of said each of the plurality of optical I/O chiplets (103A-D) (see Fig. 1), wherein said same side of said each of the plurality of optical I/O chiplets (103A-D) is positioned next to a same side of the package substrate (100) (see Fig. 1), wherein a given I/O chiplet (103, Fig. 2) of the plurality of optical I/O chiplets (103A-D) includes a transmit macro having an optical waveguide (215) that extends from a corresponding one of the at least one supply optical port (at 201) of the given I/O chiplet (103) to a corresponding one of the at least one transmit optical port (at 203) of the given I/O chiplet (103), the transmit macro also having at least one microring resonator modulator (213) disposed within an evanescent optical coupling distance of the optical waveguide (215) (P0049), wherein each of the plurality of optical I/O chiplets (103) is configured in a same manner (Fig. 2, P0049).
11. The optical data communication system as recited in claim 1, further comprising:
a plurality of optical fibers (L, R) respectively optically connected to the at least one supply optical port (part of 104A-D from 101), the at least one transmit optical port (part of 104A-D from T), and the at least one receive optical port (part of 104A-D from R) of the plurality of optical I/O chiplets (103) (Fig. 1).
12. The optical data communication system as recited in claim 11, wherein each of the plurality of optical fibers (L, R) connects to one of the plurality of optical I/O chiplets (103) along said same side of the package substrate (100) (see Fig. 1).
13. The optical data communication system as recited in claim 12, further comprising:
an optical power supply module (101), wherein each of the plurality of optical fibers (L) has a first end optically connected to the at least one supply optical port of any of the plurality of optical IO chiplets (103A-D) and a second end optically connected to the optical power supply module (101) (see Fig. 1).
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 2-4 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fini.
Fini teaches the optical data communication system previously discussed.
Fini does not state explicitly the package substrate includes electrical traces configured to provide electrical connection with each of the plurality of optical I/O chiplets.
Fini does teach the package substrate (100) can be configured for use as an optical switch, with the chiplets (103A-D) connected by electrical links to an ASIC (P0039).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to try having these electrical links to between the chiplets and an ASIC be a part of the package substrate, since it has been held that “it is obvious to try - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success” is a rationale for arriving at a conclusion of obviousness. In re KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. There is no other place for these electrical links to be besides in the package substrate of Fini, so this configuration is predictable and would succeed to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Fini further teaches:
3. The optical data communication system as recited in claim 2, further comprising: a system-on-chip (part of 103, 217 with 219) bonded to the package substrate (100), but does not explicitly state the system-on-chip electrically connected to the electrical traces within the package substrate (100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to try having these electrical links to between the chiplets (which houses the system-on-chip) and substrate be a part of the package substrate, since it has been held that “it is obvious to try - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success” is a rationale for arriving at a conclusion of obviousness. In re KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. There is no other place for these electrical links to be besides in the package substrate of Fini, so this configuration is predictable and would succeed to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Fini further teaches:
4. The optical data communication system as recited in claim 3, wherein the system-on-chip (part of 103, 217 with 219) is positioned on a same side of each of the plurality of optical I/O chiplets (103) (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14: Fini teaches the optical data communication system previously discussed, but does not state there are a plurality of each of the package substrate with each having the chiplets claimed: At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the package substrate of Fini, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. By merely duplicating the taught package substrate of Fini, the limitations of this claim is covered.
Fini further teaches:
15. The optical data communication system as recited in claim 14, wherein the plurality of optical fibers (L, R) are respectively optically connected to the at least one supply optical port (part of 104A-D from 101), the at least one transmit optical port (part of 104A-D from T), and the at least one receive optical port (part of 104A-D from R) of each optical I/O chiplet (103) within the multiple pluralities of optical I/O chiplets (103A-D).
16. The optical data communication system as recited in claim 15, wherein each package substrate (100) of the plurality of package substrates is configured in a same manner (when duplicated), and wherein each optical I/O chiplet of the multiple pluralities of optical I/O chiplets (103) is configured in a same manner (Fig. 2).
17. The optical data communication system as recited in claim 16, wherein the plurality of package substrates (100 when duplicated) are aligned such that photonic interfaces of the multiple pluralities of optical I/O chiplets (103) are aligned and face in a same direction (Fig. 1).
18. The optical data communication system as recited in claim 14, further comprising:
an optical power supply substrate (101), the optical power supply module (part of 101) disposed on the optical power supply substrate (101), wherein the optical power supply substrate (101) is physically separate from each of the plurality of package substrates (100 when duplicated) (each 101 of one package will be separate from the 101 of another 100 when duplicated).
Fini does not state explicitly that:
19. The optical data communication system as recited in claim 18, wherein the optical power supply module is implemented within a single chip disposed on the optical power supply substrate but at the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the power supply a single integral chip, since it has been held that making several parts rigidly secured as a single integral unit involves only routine skill in the art. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965); Schenck v. Nortron Corp., 713 F.2d 782, 218 USPQ 698 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
20. The optical data communication system as recited in claim 18, wherein the optical power supply module is implemented within multiple chips (laser supply may be on a separate PCB) disposed on the optical power supply substrate (101) (P0029). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to try rearranging the power supply within multiple chips, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. All of the components are taught by Fini, therefore it would have been obvious to move the laser chip into multiple chips based on the need for different wavelength channels as needed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-10 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:
These claims would be allowable over the prior art of record if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims because the latter, either alone or in combination, does not disclose nor render obvious an optical data communication system with the claimed package substrate, plurality of I/O chiplets, transmit macro, electrical traces and system-on-chip bonded to the package substrate on a same side of the chiplets wherein each of the plurality of optical I/O chiplets includes an electrical I/O interface electrically connected to a portion of the electrical traces within the package substrate that are configured to provide for conveyance of electrical data signals between the system-on-chip and each of the plurality of optical I/O chiplets,
in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN A LEPISTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1946. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5PM EST M-F.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN A LEPISTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874