DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 through 7 originally filed 30 March 2022. By preliminary amendment received 30 March 2022; claims 3 through 6 are amended and claims 8 through 14 are added. By amendment received 30 October 2025; claim 1 is amended and claims 15 through 18 are added. Claims 1 through 18 are addressed by this 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 have been fully considered; they are addressed below.
It is noted that all items submitted to the office are converted into black and white before reaching the examination staff. Because of this, the color markings within the Remarks were simply black and white when the arguments were reviewed. If it is convenient, it would be appreciated if colors are removed from documents prior to submission or if only colors which convert well to black and white are utilized (e.g., darker colors for black regions).
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Inoue (US Pub. 2004/0228378) and Yoshida et al. (Yoshida, US Pub. 2014/0211819) do not teach or render obvious the amended features of the claims. This argument is persuasive. However, upon further search and consideration, additional art has been located which render these features obvious. As such, new rejections have been formulated as set forth below.
As such, all claims are addressed as follows:
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 through 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tajiri et al. (Tajiri, US Patent 5,727,009), in view of Badehi et al. (Badehi, US Pub. 2004/0021214), and further in view of Yoshida et al. (Yoshida, US Pub. 2014/0211819).
Regarding claim 1, Tajiri discloses, "A base member having an upper surface and a slope" (col. 17, lines 2-5 and Fig. 8, pts. 2, 2a, and 2d). "An optical component having a first face and a second face" (col. 17, lines 2-5 and Fig. 8, pt. 6). "The second face being positioned opposite the first face" (col. 17, lines 2-5 and Fig. 8, pt. 6). "Wherein a first part of the second face is at a position higher than the upper surface along the slope" (col. 17, lines 2-5 and Fig. 8, pts. 2a and 6). Tajiri does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a second part of the second face is bonded to the slope with a bonding material." "Wherein the bonding material extends from an area between the second face and the slope up to an area between the second face and the base member to a position that is higher than the upper surface." Badehi discloses, "Wherein a second part of the second face is bonded to the slope with a bonding material" (p. [0157] and Fig. 14D, pts. 630 and 644). "Wherein the bonding material extends from an area between the second face and the slope up to an area between the second face and the base member to a position that is higher than the upper surface" (p. [0154] and Figs. 14A and 14D, pts. 603, 630, and 644). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tajiri with the teachings of Badehi. In view of the teachings of Tajiri regarding a deflecting element attached to a sloped surface, the additional inclusion of chamfering on the adhesion surface as taught by Badehi would enhance the teachings of Tajiri by providing a suitable mechanism for fixing the reflection layer to the sloped surface.
The combination of Tajiri and Badehi does not explicitly disclose, "The slope being continuous with the upper surface and sloping downward in a direction away from the upper surface." Yoshida discloses, "The slope being continuous with the upper surface and sloping downward in a direction away from the upper surface" (p. [0062] and Fig. 10, pt. 13, where this chamfering is applied to the sloped surface of Tajiri). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Tajiri and Badehi with the teachings of Yoshida. In view of the teachings of Tajiri regarding a deflecting element attached to a sloped surface and the teachings of Badehi regarding performing this attachment by an adhesive, the additional inclusion of chamfering on the adhesion surface as taught by Yoshida would enhance the teachings of Tajiri and Badehi by allowing for adhesive spread to be accounted for and thereby improving attachment.
Regarding claim 2, The combination of Tajiri and Badehi does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the bonding material has a thickness that gradually increases from a portion on the slope toward a portion on the upper surface." Yoshida discloses, "Wherein the bonding material has a thickness that gradually increases from a portion on the slope toward a portion on the upper surface" (p. [0062] and Fig. 10, pt. 13, where this chamfering is applied to the sloped surface of Tajiri). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Tajiri and Badehi with the teachings of Yoshida for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Tajiri discloses, "Wherein the optical component is a mirror" (col. 17, lines 2-5 and Fig. 8, pt. 6).
The combination of Tajiri, Badehi, and Yoshida does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the bonding material spreads up to a position farther from the first face of the optical component than a virtual vertical line passing through an upper end of the first face." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the size of the reflector according to the required size thereof and the extent of the adhesive according to a desired adhesion area independent of one another to such an extent that the claimed condition is met, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 4, Tajiri discloses, "Wherein the optical component is a mirror" (col. 17, lines 2-5 and Fig. 8, pt. 6). Tajiri does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein an edge of the bonding material on the second face of the optical component is at a position closer to the first face than a virtual vertical line passing through an upper end of the second face." Badehi discloses, "Wherein an edge of the bonding material on the second face of the optical component is at a position closer to the first face than a virtual vertical line passing through an upper end of the second face" (Fig. 14D, pts. 630 and 644). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tajiri with the teachings of Badehi for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, The combination of Tajiri and Badehi does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a connection between the upper surface and the slope forms a convex curved surface in sectional view." Yoshida discloses, "Wherein a connection between the upper surface and the slope forms a convex curved surface in sectional view" (p. [0062] and Fig. 10, pt. 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Tajiri and Badehi with the teachings of Yoshida for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Tajiri discloses, "An optical device mounted in the optical-device-mounting package" (col. 13, lines 11-16 and Fig. 8, pts. 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 7, The combination of Tajiri, Badehi, and Yoshida does not explicitly disclose, "A module substrate on which the electronic device is mounted." The examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that it was known in the art to provide an electronic device with a mounting surface and employ that mounting surface as a substrate for mounting a packaged laser module. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount the claimed laser package within an electronic device on a mounting surface, since such a provision allows the laser package to be integrated with a larger device.
Regarding claim 8, Tajiri discloses, "Wherein the optical component is a mirror" (col. 17, lines 2-5 and Fig. 8, pt. 6).
The combination of Tajiri, Badehi, and Yoshida does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the bonding material spreads up to a position farther from the first face of the optical component than a virtual vertical line passing through an upper end of the first face." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the size of the reflector according to the required size thereof and the extent of the adhesive according to a desired adhesion area independent of one another to such an extent that the claimed condition is met, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 9, Tajiri discloses, "Wherein the optical component is a mirror" (col. 17, lines 2-5 and Fig. 8, pt. 6). Tajiri does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein an edge of the bonding material on the second face of the optical component is at a position closer to the first face than a virtual vertical line passing through an upper end of the second face." Badehi discloses, "Wherein an edge of the bonding material on the second face of the optical component is at a position closer to the first face than a virtual vertical line passing through an upper end of the second face" (Fig. 14D, pts. 630 and 644). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tajiri with the teachings of Badehi for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, The combination of Tajiri and Badehi does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a connection between the upper surface and the slope forms a convex curved surface in sectional view." Yoshida discloses, "Wherein a connection between the upper surface and the slope forms a convex curved surface in sectional view" (p. [0062] and Fig. 10, pt. 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Tajiri and Badehi with the teachings of Yoshida for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, The combination of Tajiri and Badehi does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a connection between the upper surface and the slope forms a convex curved surface in sectional view." Yoshida discloses, "Wherein a connection between the upper surface and the slope forms a convex curved surface in sectional view" (p. [0062] and Fig. 10, pt. 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Tajiri and Badehi with the teachings of Yoshida for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, The combination of Tajiri and Badehi does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a connection between the upper surface and the slope forms a convex curved surface in sectional view." Yoshida discloses, "Wherein a connection between the upper surface and the slope forms a convex curved surface in sectional view" (p. [0062] and Fig. 10, pt. 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Tajiri and Badehi with the teachings of Yoshida for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, The combination of Tajiri and Badehi does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a connection between the upper surface and the slope forms a convex curved surface in sectional view." Yoshida discloses, "Wherein a connection between the upper surface and the slope forms a convex curved surface in sectional view" (p. [0062] and Fig. 10, pt. 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Tajiri and Badehi with the teachings of Yoshida for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, The combination of Tajiri and Badehi does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a connection between the upper surface and the slope forms a convex curved surface in sectional view." Yoshida discloses, "Wherein a connection between the upper surface and the slope forms a convex curved surface in sectional view" (p. [0062] and Fig. 10, pt. 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Tajiri and Badehi with the teachings of Yoshida for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Tajiri discloses, "Wherein an angle between the second face and an imaginary line extending along the upper surface is less than 90 degrees" (col. 17, lines 13-19 and Fig. 8, pts. 2a, 2d, and 6).
Regarding claim 17, Tajiri discloses, "The first part being at a position higher than the upper surface" (col. 17, lines 2-5 and Fig. 8, pts. 2a and 6). Tajiri does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the bonding material is bonded to at least a portion of the first part of the second face." Badehi discloses, "Wherein the bonding material is bonded to at least a portion of the first part of the second face" (p. [0157] and Fig. 14D, pts. 630 and 644). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tajiri with the teachings of Badehi for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, Tajiri discloses, "Wherein the slope is substantially parallel to the second face" (col. 17, lines 13-19 and Fig. 8, pts. 2a, 2d, and 6).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tajiri, in view of Badehi, in view of Yoshida, and further in view of Takenaka et al. (Takenaka, US Patent 5,278,429).
Regarding claim 16, Tajiri does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein an unbonded surface of the bonding material." "[The unbonded surface] in the area between the second face and the base member that is higher than the upper surface." Badehi discloses, "Wherein an unbonded surface of the bonding material" (p. [0157] and Fig. 14D, pt. 644). "[The unbonded surface] in the area between the second face and the base member that is higher than the upper surface" (p. [0157] and Fig. 14D, pts. 603, 630, and 644). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tajiri with the teachings of Badehi for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Tajiri, Badehi, and Yoshida does not explicitly disclose, "[The unbonded surface] is concave." Takenaka discloses, "[The unbonded surface] is concave" (col. 5, lines 34-42 and Fig. 5, pts. 16 and 16a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Tajiri, Badehi, and Yoshida with the teachings of Takenaka. In view of the teachings of Tajiri regarding a deflecting element attached to a sloped surface and the teachings of Badehi regarding performing this attachment by an adhesive, the alternate inclusion of a concave surface in the exposed portion of the adhesive as taught by Takenaka would enhance the teachings of Tajiri, Badehi, and Yoshida by allowing for a larger attachment surface area and thereby improving adhesion.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean P Hagan whose telephone number is (571)270-1242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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.
/SEAN P HAGAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2828