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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 27, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 27, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amendment overcomes the art of record. Examiner disagrees. As seen below Claim 1 is still anticipated by Ogami however, it is anticipated by another embodiment of Ogami. See rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “substantially parallel” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially parallel” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such the it is indefinite what is meant by the term “substantially parallel”. For purposes of compact prosecution Examiner has interpreted the limitation to mean “parallel”.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ogami JP 2008211025.
Regarding claim 1, Ogami teaches An optical module (Figs. 1, 3) comprising:
an optical element (Figs. 3, LD Page 4 Paragraph 6 “Here, as shown in FIG. 3, a semiconductor laser element (LD)”); and
a thermoelectric module on which the optical element is mounted (Fig. 1, 20), wherein the thermoelectric module includes a first substrate (Fig. 1, 21), a second substrate disposed to face the first substrate (Fig. 1, 22), and a plurality of thermoelectric elements provided between the first substrate and the second substrate (Fig. 1, 23), and a pattern (Fig. 1, 15) made of a material different from a material of the first substrate (Description Page 5 Paragraph 4 “Here, the upper substrate 21 and the lower substrate 22 are formed of a ceramic material such as alumina (Al2O3), alumina nitride (AlN), or silicon carbide (SiC).” Page 5 Paragraph 2 “The jig 15 is provided to support and fix the semiconductor laser element unit 10. It is made of an iron-nickel-cobalt alloy (for example, Kovar), an iron-based material, a copper-based material, and an aluminum-based material”) is formed on a surface of the first substrate that is opposite to a back surface of the first substrate that faces the second substrate (Fig. 1 shows 15 is formed on the first substrate), and
the optical element is a semiconductor laser element (Description Page 4 Paragraph 6 “Here, as shown in FIG. 3, a semiconductor laser element (LD)”) which is mounted on the first substrate via a submount (Fig. 1, 11. Fig. 1 shows the submount 11 is connected to the substrate via the pattern 15) such that the semiconductor laser element is not directly associated with the pattern (Fig. 1 shows the semiconductor laser element is not directly associated with the pattern) and
the pattern protrudes form the first substrate and is arranged beside the submount such that a side surface of the pattern faces a side surface of the submount. (Fig. 1 shows 15 protrudes from the first substrate and a side surface of the pattern faces a side surface of the submount)
Regarding claim 5, Ogami teaches the submount is fixed to the first substrate with a thermally conductive material. (Fig. 1, 21b Page 6 Paragraph 1 “Here, a metallized layer 21b is formed on the surface of the upper substrate 21 (in this case, the upper surface) in order to facilitate bonding of the jig 15 of the semiconductor laser element unit 10” 21b is a thermally conductive material which fixes the submount to the first substrate with the help of the pattern 15.
Regarding claim 9, Ogami teaches the pattern is a marker configured to position the submount having the semiconductor laser element provided thereon. (Page 5 Paragraph 2 “The concave section 15a has a substantially semicircular cross-sectional shape, and its mounting surface (side surface) is formed to have a flat surface that matches the upper substrate 21 of the thermoelectric module 20 described later. As a result, the base portion 11 of the semiconductor laser element unit 10 is fixed (bonded) to the concave portion 15a of the jig 15, and the jig 15 is disposed on the upper substrate 21 of the thermoelectric module 20, thereby providing the semiconductor laser element. An optical axis (not shown) formed in the unit 11 is parallel to the upper substrate 21.”)
Regarding claim 10, Ogami teaches the side surface of the pattern is substantially parallel to the side surface of the submount. (See annotated Fig. 1 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
443
589
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Ogami teaches the side surface of the pattern is in contact with the side surface of the submount (Fig. 1 shows that the side surface of the pattern 15 is in contact with the side surface of the submount 11)
Regarding claim 12, Ogami teaches the thermally conductive material is interposed between the submount and the surface of the first substrate. (Fig. 1 shows that the thermally conductive material 21b is interposed between the submount 11 and the surface of the first substrate 21)
Regarding claim 13, Ogami teaches the pattern is a flow stopper (15 is made of material that will stop flow) configured to stop flow of thermally conductive material until the thermally conductive material is cured (The limitation “configured to stop flow of thermally conductive material until the thermally conductive material is cured” recites a product by process limitation which does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. The limitation, therefore cannot be relied upon to establish patentability over the prior art. See MPEP 2113.)
Regarding claim 14, Ogami teaches the pattern has a thickness larger than a thickness of the thermally conductive material (Fig. 1 shows the thickness of 15 is larger than 21b) such that the pattern is configured to stop flow of the thermally conductive material. (As stated above in Claim 13 “configured to stop flow of the thermally conductive material” recites a product by process limitation which does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. The limitation, therefore cannot be relied upon to establish patentability over the prior art. See MPEP 2113.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nakae et al. US 20050083568 teaches many of the features found in the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN SUTTON KOTTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1859. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at 571-272-1835. 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.
/STEPHEN SUTTON KOTTER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2828
/MINSUN O HARVEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights