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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 11-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2016/0238793 (“FRANKEL”).
Regarding claim 1, FRANKEL teaches an interposer (340) comprising: a transparent core (pars. [0013], [0020], [0023], [0027], [0031], [0042]) comprising a cavity (FIG. 3) and an optical waveguide (325) formed in a surface of the cavity (FIG. 3); an optical source (355) disposed within the cavity and coupled with the optical waveguide (FIG. 3); a photonic integrated circuit (320) disposed within the cavity and coupled with the optical waveguide (FIG. 3), the photonic integrated circuit, the optical source, and the transparent core being co-planar to each other (FIG. 3); and a redistribution layer (137) disposed on the transparent core (FIG. 1) and comprising metal traces coupled with the optical source (FIG. 1; par. [0016]).
Regarding claim 14, FRANKEL teaches a chip assembly (FIG. 1) comprising: an integrated circuit (IC) die stack (130) comprising a plurality of IC dies (130A, 130B); an interposer (140) disposed under the IC die stack and comprising a transparent core (pars. [0013], [0020], [0023], [0027], [0031], [0042]); and a package substrate (145) disposed under the interposer, the interposer coupling the IC die stack with the package substrate (FIG. 1), wherein the transparent core comprises: a cavity (FIG. 3) and an optical waveguide (325) formed in a surface of the cavity; an optical source (355) disposed within the cavity and coupled with the optical waveguide (FIG. 3); a photonic integrated circuit (320) disposed within the cavity and coupled with the optical waveguide, the photonic integrated circuit, the optical source, and the transparent core being co-planar to each other (FIG. 3); and a redistribution layer (137) disposed on the transparent core and comprising metal traces coupled with the optical source (FIG. 1; par. [0016]).
Regarding claims 2 and 15, FRANKEL teaches that the optical waveguide includes a vertical segment (325) and a horizontal segment (315) and flushes with the surface of the cavity (FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 3, FRANKEL teaches that the optical waveguide is formed on the surface of the cavity (FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 4, FRANKEL teaches that the optical waveguide has a refractive index ranging between about 1.4 and about 2.4 (par. [0023]).
Regarding claim 6, FRANKEL teaches that the optical waveguide couples to a bottom surface of the optical source (FIG. 3).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, FRANKEL teaches an adhesion film securing the optical source to the surface of the cavity (pars. [0018], [0044]).
Regarding claim 11, FRANKEL teaches a first via (127) passing through the transparent core (FIG. 1).
Regarding claims 12 and 19, FRANKEL teaches that the first via is coupled with a second via disposed in the redistribution layer (FIG. 1; par. [0016]).
Regarding claim 13, FRANKEL teaches that the first via is coupled with a third via disposed in the photonic integrated circuit (FIG. 1; par. [0016]).
Regarding claim 20, FRANKEL teaches a method for making an integrated chip (IC) chip assembly (FIGs. 1, 3), the method comprising: forming an interposer (340) that comprises an optical waveguide (325) coupled with an optical source (355) and a photonic integrated circuit (320), wherein forming the interposer comprises: forming a cavity within a transparent core (pars. [0013], [0020], [0023], [0027], [0031], [0042]); forming a through via (127) in the transparent core; forming the optical waveguide within the cavity; disposing the optical source within the cavity; and disposing the photonic integrated circuit within the cavity (FIG. 3); mounting the interposer on a package substrate (145); positioning an IC die stack (130) on the interposer (FIG. 1); and coupling the optical waveguide of the interposer with an IC die stack of the IC chip assembly (FIG. 1).
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.
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FRANKEL.
FRANKEL teaches that the optical waveguide has a refractive index ranging between about 1.4 and about 2.4 (par. [0023]). The additional limitations that the optical waveguide has a thickness ranging between about 5 mm and about 15 mm appears to involve mere optimization. It has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to optimize the waveguide thickness of FRANKEL so as to be within the claimed range of between about 5 mm and about 15 mm.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FRANKEL in view of US 2023/0092821 (“KARHADE”).
FRANKEL teaches the limitations of the respective base claims. FRANKEL does not teach a lens coupled with the optical waveguide. KARHADE teaches an optical interposer wherein a lens is coupled with an optical waveguide (par. [00150]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the interposer of FRANKEL such that a lens is coupled with the optical waveguide, as taught by KARHADE. The motivation would have been to improve optical efficiency.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FRANKEL in view of US 2025/0017110 (“SU”).
FRANKEL teaches the limitations of the base claim 1. FRANKEL does not teach the redistribution layer comprises a heat sink coupled with the optical source, wherein the heat sink comprises a plurality of vias and pads. SU teaches a redistribution layer (60) comprising a heat sink (50) coupled with an optical source, wherein the heat sink comprises a plurality of vias (414) and pads (613, 614). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the interposer of FRANKEL such that the redistribution layer comprises a heat sink coupled with the optical source, as taught by SU. The motivation would have been to achieve desired heat dissipation.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights