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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the CON application No. 18/767,970 filed on July 09, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. These IDS has been considered.
Specification
4. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “Method of Fabricating Package Structure Comprising Grating Coupler and Reflector Structure Embedded in Dielectric Layer”.
Claims Corrections
5. Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: In the following, the claim should be recited to avoid indefiniteness due to lack of antecedent basis, and/or perform proper alignment along with the prior claim languages:
8. (Currently Amended) A method, comprising:
forming a first package, which comprises:
forming a photonic die, comprising:
forming a grating coupler on a dielectric layer;
forming through dielectric vias passing through the dielectric layer;
forming connection pads over a first surface of the dielectric layer; and
forming conductive pads over a second surface of the dielectric layer,
wherein the second surface is opposite to the first surface, and the conductive pads are electrically connected to the through dielectric vias;
forming an electronic die having a plurality of bonding pads; and
bonding the electronic die to the photonic die by physically and electrically joining the plurality of bonding pads to the connection pads, and physically and electrically joining the plurality of bonding pads to at least one of the through dielectric vias.
Appropriate corrections are needed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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 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.
7. 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 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.
8. Claims 8, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Frankel at al. (US 2016/0238793 A1).
Regarding independent claim 8, Frankel at al. teaches a method, comprising (Fig. 1):
forming a first package, which comprises:
forming a photonic die (120, para [0014]) comprising:
forming a grating coupler (115, para [0015]) on a dielectric layer (137B RDL surrounding with dielectric material, see the annotated figure below);
forming through dielectric vias (see the annotated figure below) passing through the dielectric layer;
forming connection pads (see the annotated figure below) over a first surface (upper surface) of the dielectric layer; and
forming conductive pads (see the annotated figure below) over a second surface (lower surface) of the dielectric layer,
wherein the second surface is opposite to the first surface, and the conductive pads are electrically connected to the through dielectric vias;
forming an electronic die (130B) having a plurality of bonding pads (see the annotated figure below); and
bonding the electronic die (130B) to the photonic die (120) by physically and electrically joining the plurality of bonding pads to the connection pads, and physically and electrically joining the plurality of bonding pads to at least one of the through dielectric vias.
PNG
media_image1.png
472
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Frankel at al. teaches wherein (Fig. 1), further comprises mounting the first package onto an interposer structure (135 PCB), wherein the first package is electrically connected to the interposer structure (135) through a plurality of conductive bumps (see the annotated figure in claim 8) formed on the conductive pads.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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 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.
10. 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.
11. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
12. Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frankel at al. (US 2016/0238793 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Pinguet et al. (US 2010/0111473 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Frankel at al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 from which this claim depends.
Frankel at al. is silent to explicitly disclose wherein, forming the photonic die further comprises forming a reflector structure in the dielectric layer and below the grating coupler.
Pinguet et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 6 upside down), forming the photonic die (130) further comprises forming a reflector structure (501, para [0049]) in the dielectric layer (307, para [0049]) and below the grating coupler (317, para [0049]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the metal reflector under the grating coupler as taught by Pinguet et al. and modify the semiconductor structure of Frankel at al., in order to integrate a highly reflective surface for reflecting any optical signal that passes through the grating coupler and enabling a second pass-through of the light signal through the coupler, a higher coupling efficiency may be obtained (para [0049]).
Regarding claim 13, Frankel at al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 from which this claim depends.
Frankel at al. is silent to explicitly disclose wherein, further comprising forming an auxiliary reflector structure below the grating coupler by joining together two or more of the conductive pads together.
Pinguet et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 6 upside down), further comprising forming an auxiliary reflector structure (see para [0050] the dielectric layers 307 comprises more metal reflectors, also see para [0017]) below the grating coupler (317) by joining together two or more of the conductive pads (309) together.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the additional metal reflector under the grating coupler as taught by Pinguet et al. and modify the semiconductor structure of Frankel at al., in order to integrate a highly reflective surface for reflecting any optical signal that passes through the grating coupler and enabling a second pass-through of the light signal through the coupler, a higher coupling efficiency may be obtained (para [0049]).
13. Claims 15, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinguet et al. (US 2010/0111473 A1).
Regarding independent claim 15, Pinguet et al. teaches a method, comprising (Fig. 6 upside down):
forming a photonic die (130, para [0041]) having a grating coupler (317, para [0043]) and a reflector structure (501, para [0048]) below the grating coupler (317);
placing an electronic die (301/303, para [0039]) on the photonic die (130) and electrically connecting the electronic die (301/303) to the photonic die (130); and
disposing a fiber structure (311, para [0039]) over the photonic die (130) and electronic die (301/303), wherein the fiber structure (311) is overlapped with the grating coupler (317), and a certain fiber tilt angle (shown in the annotated figure below) of the fiber structure (311) relative to a plane (see the annotated figure below) perpendicular to the grating coupler (317).
PNG
media_image2.png
539
610
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Pinguet et al. is explicitly silent of disclosing wherein the fiber tilt angle of the fiber structure relative to a plane perpendicular to the grating coupler is in a range of 5°C to 15°C. It would have been obvious to select intended ‘the fiber tilt angle in a range of 5°C to 15°C’ to be within the quoted range, to optimize incidence of light on the grating coupler. In addition, to an ordinary artisan practicing the invention, absent evidence of disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed fiber tilt angle or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen fiber tilt angle or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen fiber tilt angle is critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 18, Pinguet et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 6 upside down), forming the photonic die (130) further comprises forming an auxiliary reflector structure (see para [0050] the dielectric layers 307 comprises more metal reflectors, also see para [0017]) below the grating coupler (317) and below the reflector structure (501).
Regarding claim 19, Pinguet et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 6 upside down),
further comprises forming a plurality of conductive bumps (603, para [0051]) disposed on and physically connected to the auxiliary reflector structure.
Regarding claim 20, Pinguet et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 6 upside down), further comprising forming a gap filling layer (401 silicon dioxide, para [0048]) aside the electronic die (301/303) and in between the photonic die (130) and the fiber structure (311), wherein a sidewall of the gap filling layer (401) is aligned with a sidewall of the photonic die (130).
Reasons for Indicating Allowable Subject Matter
14. Claims 1-7 are allowed.
15. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 1 is allowed because all prior arts to include those on record either singularly or in combination fail to anticipate or render obvious a method of fabricating a package structure, comprising:
….
a grating coupler having a plurality of first trench patterns with a first depth and a plurality of second trench patterns with a second depth, wherein the first depth is different than the second depth;
16. Claims 9-11, 16-17 are 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.
Claim 9: the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious the method comprising:
…. the grating coupler is formed by forming a silicon layer on the dielectric layer, and patterning the silicon layer to form a grating coupler having a plurality of first trench patterns with a first depth and a plurality of second trench patterns with a second depth, wherein the first depth is different than the second depth.
Claim 16: the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious the method comprising:
…. forming the grating coupler comprises forming a silicon layer on a dielectric layer, and patterning the silicon layer to form a grating coupler having a plurality of first trench patterns with a first depth and a plurality of second trench patterns with a second depth, wherein the first depth is different than the second depth.
17. The prior arts made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: the prior art reference, Pinguet et al., (US 2010/0111473 A1) discloses a package structure, shown in Fig. 6, wherein the silicon layer 305 is patterned to create grating coupler 317 with trenches, the metal reflector 501 embedded in the dielectric layer 307, and the silicon substrate 301 disposed on the CMOS chip 130, metal pads 309 disposed over the dielectric layer 307, however, the package structure does not depict the trenches with different depths. Similar relevant prior art of references, US 2015/0260913 A1, US 2017/0207600 A1, US 2020/0241205 A1, US 2021/0333491 A1 are cited as close prior arts, however, either by itself or in combination with other arts fail to disclose the above allowable limitations in the section 15-16.
Examiner’s Note
18. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP 2111, 2123, 2125, 2141.02 VI, and 2182.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns/lines in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIDARUL MAZUMDER whose telephone number is (571)272-8823. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
20. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Partridge can be reached at 571-270-1402. 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.
/DIDARUL A MAZUMDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights