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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
This is an AIA application filed July 19, 2024.
The earliest effective filing date of this AIA application is seen as July 20, 2023, the date of the earliest priority application (United States provisional patent application serial number 63/514,584) for any claims which are fully supported under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) by the provisional application.
The effective filing date of this AIA application is seen as July 19, 2024, the actual filing date, for any claims that are not fully supported by the foregoing provisional or non-provisional application(s).
The claims originally filed July 19, 2024 are entered, currently outstanding, and subject to examination.
This action is in response to the information disclosure statement/IDS filing of January 10, 2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and outstanding.
No claims have been amended, cancelled, withdrawn, or added.
Claims 1-20 are currently outstanding and subject to examination.
This is a non-final action and is the first action on the merits.
Allowable subject matter is not indicated below.
Often, in the substance of the action below, formal matters are addressed first, claim rejections second, and any response to arguments third.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Applicant should check the claims closely for all structures, steps, and relationships to ensure that they are present in the drawings.
The following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim(s)
Feature Not Shown
2, 13, & 18
"wherein the first and second spacer are adhered together" and related text in the claims
Applicant may have other claimed configurational and/or geometrical features that are not shown in the drawings. Examiner suggests that Applicant review its claims and drawings to ensure that all claimed features are shown. While examiner endeavors to ensure all issues in all actions are fully and completely addressed, examiner’s additional scrutiny of the present application may reveal other drawing objections. Applicant should note this well and make sure that this application conforms to the rules as to both form and substance.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant must provide the same terminology/vocabulary/phrasing in the specification that is present in the claims. At least one term or phrase is missing from the specification present in the claim(s).
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).
Correction is required as the following amendment(s)/text in the claims find(s) no antecedent in the specification.
Claim(s)
Antecedent Missing For
4
"electrical through vias"
4
"solder bumps"
5
"silicon substrates"
5
"glass substrates"
6 & 7
"component package"
11
"memory module"
14
"second spacers"
As set forth in MPEP § 608.01(o):
The meaning of every term used in any of the claims should be apparent from the descriptive portion of the specification with clear disclosure as to its import; and in mechanical cases, it should be identified in the descriptive portion of the specification by reference to the drawing, designating the part or parts therein to which the term applies. A term used in the claims may be given a special meaning in the description. See MPEP § 2111.01 and § 2173.05(a).
Usually the terminology of the original claims follows the nomenclature of the specification, but sometimes in amending the claims or in adding new claims, new terms are introduced that do not appear in the specification. The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
. . . While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure [sic, ensure] certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification, Ex parte Kotler, 1901 C.D. 62, 95 O.G. 2684 (Comm’r Pat. 1901). See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP §§ 608.01(i), § 1302.01.
Consequently, identity between terms and phrases in the specification and claims is preferred and is seen as mandatory to ensure “certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification”.
Further, under 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(e) regarding disclosure consistency:
The disclosure must be amended, when required by the Office, to correct inaccuracies of description and definition, and to secure substantial correspondence between the claims, the remainder of the specification, and the drawings.
Examiner considers direct correspondence between the specification and the claims to be important with respect to determining the scope of the claims.
Examiner strongly urges Applicant to review its claims with a fine-toothed comb and scrutinize them for any discrepancies between claim language and language that is used in the written description/specification as originally filed. Applicant is responsible for what it drafts. Discrepancies may be interpreted to Applicant’s detriment.
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(IV)
No special definitions as defined by MPEP § 2111.01(IV) are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given their plain meaning. MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01.
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring those to the attention of the examiner and the prosecution history with its next response in a manner both specific and particular. In doing so, there will be no mistake, confusion, and/or ambiguity as to what constitutes the special definition(s). Per above, such special definitions must conform to the requirements of MPEP § 2111.01(IV).
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, 2, 5, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20070102733 of Zhou et al. (Zhou).
With respect to claim 1, Zhou discloses a system (Fig. 2A through 2C, ¶¶ 20 et seq.) comprising:
a semiconductor package (multi-chip package 200) comprising optical and electrical connections ("having optically coupled die"), the semiconductor package comprising:
a first die (first substrate 210) and a second die (second substrate 220),
the first die (210) and the second die (220) being in optical and electrical communication (like substrates 110 and 120 per ¶ 17, ¶ 16, and "The exchange of optical signals is represented schematically in FIG. 2A by arrows 205." per ¶ 25);
a spacer disposed between the first die and the second die (¶ 22, "one or more spacers 240"),
the spacer configured to facilitate electrical connection and configured to facilitate an optical connection between the first die and the second die (seen as so configured as providing space for optical transception and the power connection for the right spacer 240 at power connector 250).
With respect to claim 2, Zhou as set forth above discloses the system of claim 1, including one wherein
the spacer comprises a first spacer adhered to the first die and a second spacer adhered to the second die,
wherein the first and second spacer are adhered together.
¶ 22, "For example, the substrates 210, 220 may be interconnected using adhesives (e.g., epoxies) and/or mechanical fasteners (e.g., spring clips. screws, bolts. etc.). To maintain the desired separation between the spaced-apart surfaces 212, 222 of the first and second substrates 210, 220, respectively, one or more spacers 240 may be disposed between these two substrates."
The first and second spacers are adhered to each other via the attachments to the substrates/dies.
With respect to claim 5, Zhou as set forth above discloses the system of claim 1, including one wherein
the spacer comprises:
one or more glass substrates;
or one or more silicon substrates.
¶ 21, "In one embodiment, a substrate 210, 220 may comprise silicon, and in another embodiment a substrate 210, 220 may comprise a ceramic material."
With respect to claim 10, Zhou as set forth above discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising:
a multi-chip module (MCM),
wherein the second die is connected to the MCM; and
an integrated circuit connected to the MCM,
the integrated circuit being electrically connected to the semiconductor package.
¶ 11:
Any suitable type and combination of die 130 may be disposed on each of the substrates 110, 120, and each substrate may have any desired number of die (e.g., one or more). …For example, a die 130 may comprise a processing device, such as a microprocessor, a network processor, an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field programmable gate array (FPGA), etc. Alternatively, a die 130 may comprise a memory device, such as a static random access memory (SRAM), a dynamic random access memory (DRAM), a synchronous DRAM (SDRAM), a double data rate DRAM (DDRDRAM), a flash memory, etc. In other embodiments, a die 130 may comprise a wireless communication device, a graphics processor, a network interface device, or a chip set, as well as any other type of integrated circuit device. Any combination of die 130 may be disposed in the multi-chip package 100. For example, the multi-chip package may include one or more processing devices in combination with one or more memory devices, as well as other types of integrated circuit devices. Also, the number of die 130 on the first and second substrates 110, 120 does not need to be equal, although in some embodiments these substrates may have the same number of die.
The ASIC covers the integrated circuit and the “chip set” and “Any combination of die” are seen to cover MCM and its connection with any other die, including an IC/ASIC.
With respect to claim 11, Zhou as set forth above discloses the system of claim 10, including one wherein
the integrated circuit comprises a memory module.
Memory is addressed directly in the quote of ¶ 11 in claim 10.
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 of this title, 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 3, 4, 6-9, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou as set forth above.
With respect to claim 3, Zhou as set forth above discloses the system of claim 2, including one wherein
the second spacer comprises electrical components (power connector 250) effecting an electrical connection of the first die and the second die.
Zhou as set forth above does not disclose:
the first spacer comprises electrical components effecting an electrical connection of the first die and the second die.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide additional electrical connection for the first spacer along the lines of the second spacer in a system according to Zhou as set forth above in order to provide more and/or distribute electrical power. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), the combining of prior art elements (listed above) according to known methods (per the reference) to yield predictable results (an opto-electronic system) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
the first spacer comprises electrical components effecting an electrical connection of the first die and the second die.
The foregoing obviousness analysis is referred to in summary fashion in the rejections below.
With respect to claim 4, Zhou as set forth above discloses the system of claim 1, but not one wherein
the electrical connections comprise one or more solder bumps or electrical through vias.
Zhou provides for (¶ 21):
"According to another embodiment, a substrate 210, 220 may comprise multiple levels of metallization (e.g., a number of conductive traces) separated from one another by intervening layers of a dielectric material and interconnected by vias, wherein the alternating layers of metallization and dielectric material may be built up over a core layer of dielectric material (or perhaps a metal core)."
Per the analysis above, it would have been obvious to use interconnecting vias for spacers as well as in the substrates to provide electric power and distribution.
With respect to claim 6, Zhou as set forth above discloses the system of claim 1, but not one wherein the component package further comprises:
an optical fiber connected to a photonic substrate,
the optical fiber being optically connected to the second die.
De Dobbelaere discloses an integrated transceiver with lightpipe coupler that includes (Fig. 1):
"For example, the multi-fiber assembly [108] can be any one of mini-MT or MT type connectors."
Per the analyses above, it would have been obvious to use to provide optical communication for one or more of the dies of Zhou as set forth above via an optical connection using industry-standard optical fibers and connections per De Dobbelaere to provide optical reception and transmission for the device..
With respect to claim 7, Zhou in view of De Dobbelaere as set forth above discloses the system of claim 6, including one wherein
the photonic substrate is detachably connected to the component package.
Per regular MT connections.
With respect to claim 8, Zhou in view of De Dobbelaere as set forth above discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the second die further comprises a waveguide optically connected to the first die and to an optical fiber.
De Dobbelaere ¶ 111 provides:
"In one embodiment, the waveguide structure 372 can be a planar waveguide formed on the planar surface of the die 362."
Per the analyses above, it would have been obvious to use a waveguide along the lines of De Dobbelaere for a device according to Zhou in view of De Dobbelaere as set forth above to provide optical communication.
With respect to claim 9, Zhou in view of De Dobbelaere as set forth above discloses the system of claim 8, including one wherein
the second die further comprises a laser optically connected to the waveguide.
De Dobbelaere ¶ 111, "In one embodiment, as shown in FIGS. 11A-11C, a laser 364 can couple light into a waveguide structure 372 having an output disposed with respect to the second end of the light pipe, to thereby couple light into the second end of the light pipe."
Per the analyses above, it would have been obvious to use a laser along the lines of De Dobbelaere for a device according to Zhou in view of De Dobbelaere as set forth above to provide an optical signal source.
With respect to claim 12, Zhou in view of De Dobbelaere as set forth above discloses a method comprising:
configuring an optically and electrically connected semiconductor package by:
disposing, at a first side of a spacer, a first semiconductor die;
disposing, at a second side of the spacer, substantially opposed to the first side of the spacer, a second semiconductor die;
configuring the spacer to facilitate optical and electrical connection between the first dies and the second dies; and
optically connecting, via a photonic substrate, an optical fiber to the second semiconductor die.
The process for making a device according to Zhou in view of De Dobbelaere as set forth above would naturally occur in making a device according to claim 6, above.
With respect to claim 13, Zhou in view of De Dobbelaere as set forth above discloses the method of claim 12, including one wherein
the spacer comprises a first spacer and a second spacer, the method further comprising:
attaching the first spacer to the first semiconductor die;
attaching the second spacer to the second semiconductor die; and
adhering the first spacer to the second spacer.
Per claim 2, above.
With respect to claim 14, Zhou in view of De Dobbelaere as set forth above discloses the method of claim 13, including one further comprising:
disposing, in the first and second spacers,
electrical components to effect an electrical connection of the first semiconductor die and the second semiconductor die.
Per claim 3, above.
With respect to claim 15, Zhou in view of De Dobbelaere as set forth above discloses the method of claim 12, including one further comprising:
detachably connecting, via the photonic substrate,
the optical fiber to the second semiconductor die.
Per claim 7 above.
With respect to claim 16, Zhou in view of De Dobbelaere as set forth above discloses the method of claim 12, including one further comprising:
disposing, in the second semiconductor die,
a waveguide for optical connection to the first semiconductor die and the optical fiber.
Per claim 8 above.
With respect to claim 17, Zhou in view of De Dobbelaere as set forth above discloses an apparatus comprising:
a first semiconductor die;
a second semiconductor die;
a spacer disposed between the first and second semiconductor dies,
wherein the spacer is configured to optically and electrically couple the first and second semiconductor dies; and
a photonic substrate configured to detachably connect an optical fiber to the first semiconductor die and the second semiconductor die.
Per claim 6, above.
With respect to claim 18, Zhou in view of De Dobbelaere as set forth above discloses the apparatus of claim 17, including one wherein:
the spacer comprises a first spacer substrate and a second spacer substrate;
the first spacer substrate is connected to the first semiconductor die and the second spacer substrate is connected to the second semiconductor die; and
the first and second spacer substrates are adhered to each other.
Per claim 2, above.
With respect to claim 19, Zhou in view of De Dobbelaere as set forth above discloses the apparatus of claim 17, including one further comprising
an multi-chip module (MCM),
wherein the MCM is configured to detachably connect the photonic substrate.
Per claim 10.
With respect to claim 20, Zhou in view of De Dobbelaere as set forth above discloses the apparatus of claim 17, including one wherein
the spacer comprises one or more of:
glass;
or silicon.
Per claim 5.
Conclusion
Applicant’s publication US 20250028131 A1 published January 23, 2025 is cited.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references have elements related to Applicant’s disclosure and/or claims or are otherwise associated with the other cited references, particularly with respect to related die-based opto-electronic systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW JORDAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1571. The examiner can normally be reached most days 1000-1800 PACIFIC TIME ZONE (messages are returned).
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. While examiner does not examine over the phone (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.2), examiner is glad to clarify or discuss issues so long as it forwards prosecution.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas (Tom) 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.
/Andrew Jordan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
V: (571) 270-1571 (Pacific time)
F: (571) 270-2571
June 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights