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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/26/2022, 10/25/2023, and 02/14/2024 have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-3, 5-7, and 15-17 in the reply filed on 08/11/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 8, 10-13, 21, 23-26, and 33 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 17 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.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “a metal substrate having a large circular hole opened in a center portion is additionally used” raises clarity issues. It is unclear how this limitation should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the above claim limitations.
It is unclear whether the metal substrate is a new substrate in addition to the existing lower substrate, or if this limitation means that the lower substrate is made of metal. Based on ¶153 and Fig. 27, which shows an optical scanner package including a chip carrier as required by the claim, this limitation is interpreted as the lower substrate being metal.
For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes “a metal substrate having a large circular hole opened in a center portion is additionally used” as “the lower substrate is made of a metal material and has
Applicant should clarify the claim limitations as appropriate. Care should be taken during revision of the description and of any statements of problem or advantage, not to add subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application (specification) as originally filed.
If the language of a claim, considered as a whole in light of the specification and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See MPEP 2173.05(a), MPEP 2143.03(I), and MPEP 2173.06.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Quenzer et al. (US 20200159006 A1), hereinafter Quenzer.
Regarding independent claim 1, Quenzer discloses an optical scanner package (Fig. 1) including:
a MEMS scanner element (Fig. 1; ¶0061) including a mirror (2; Fig. 1; ¶0061), a spring (3; Fig. 1; ¶0061), a driver (“the mirror 2 is driven via a drive” in ¶0061; Fig. 1), and a fixed body (upper part of substrate 1; Fig. 1; ¶0061);
a lower substrate (1; Fig. 1; ¶0061) positioned at a lower portion of the MEMS scanner element (Fig. 1) and supporting the MEMS scanner element in a form bonded to the MEMS scanner element (Fig. 1); and
a transmissive window (4; Fig, 1; ¶0062) having a shell shape corresponding to a portion of a semi-sphere or ellipsoid in outward appearance (6; Fig. 1; ¶0062), and having a bonding surface (5; Fig. 1; ¶0062) continuously connected to the lower portion (Fig. 1),
wherein the transmissive window (4) has a structure having curvatures in two axes (Fig. 1; ¶0062).
Regarding claim 2, Quenzer discloses the optical scanner package of claim 1, as set forth above , and further including a lens (6) or an optical element in a partial region of the transmissive window (4) through which incident light and emission light pass (“the inner dome shell 9 and the other dome shell 10 of the dome 6, acting as a scatter lens” in ¶0073; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Quenzer discloses the optical scanner package of claim 2, as set forth above, and further wherein the lens (6) is formed integrally with the transmissive window (4) (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.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quenzer (US 20200159006 A1) in view of Toyotaka et al. (US 20220037475 A1), hereinafter Toyotaka.
Regarding claim 5, Quenzer discloses the optical scanner package of claim 1, as set forth above, and further wherein an inner space is formed at an upper portion of the lower substrate (1) (Fig. 1).
Quenzer is silent on the material of the lower substrate, particularly Quenzer does not disclose the lower substrate being made of a glass material.
However, Toyotaka teaches a similar device comprising a MEMS element (121; Figs. 1, 3) and a lower substrate (101; Figs. 1, 3), wherein the lower substrate (101) is made of a glass material (¶0211).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the lower substrate to be made of a glass material, since it has been held to be within the ordinary skill in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. Sinclair and Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quenzer (US 20200159006 A1) in view of Toyotaka (US 20220037475 A1) and further in view of Peterson et al. (US 6661084 B1), hereinafter Peterson.
Regarding claim 6, Quenzer in view of Toyotaka disclose the optical scanner package of claim 5, as set forth above. Neither Quenzer nor Toyotaka disclose a via metal filled in an up-down direction of the lower substrate.
However, Peterson teaches a similar MEMS device package comprising a MEMS device (100; Fig. 3) and a lower substrate (16; Fig. 3), and further comprising a via metal (54; Fig. 3; col. 9 lines 50-59) filled in an up-down direction (Fig. 3) of the lower substrate (16) (Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Quenzer and Toyotaka to incorporate the via of Peterson for the purpose of providing an electrical connection through the lower substrate.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quenzer (US 20200159006 A1) in view of Otaka (JP 2002296519 A).
Regarding claim 7, Quenzer discloses the optical scanner package of claim 1, as set forth above. Quenzer does not disclose an opaque blocking film is formed in a region excluding incident light and emission light regions in the transmissive window.
However, Otaka teaches a similar device comprising a transmissive window (6; Fig. 1; ¶0009), and further teaches an opaque blocking film (6d; Fig. 1; ¶0013) is formed in a region excluding incident light and emission light regions in the transmissive window (6) (Fig. 1; ¶0013).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Quenzer to incorporate the light blocking film of Otaka for the purpose of preventing stray light and increasing light use efficiency (¶0013 of Otaka).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quenzer (US 20200159006 A1) in view of Peterson (US 6661084 B1).
Regarding claim 15, Quenzer discloses the optical scanner package of claim 1, as set forth above. Quenzer does not disclose a chip carrier attached to an underside of the lower substrate.
However, Peterson teaches a similar MEMS device package comprising a MEMS device (100; Fig. 3) and a lower substrate (16; Fig. 3) and further comprising a chip carrier (col. 3 lines 23-28). Peterson does not explicitly teach the chip carrier is attached to an underside of the lower substrate.
However, there are only two possibilities as to the placement of the chip carrier – attaching it to the side of the package, or attaching it to the bottom of the package, i.e. to the underside of the lower substrate. It has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to attach the chip carrier to an underside of the lower substrate for the purpose of providing a better mechanical base and providing better access to the active area by light.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Quenzer to incorporate the chip carrier of Peterson for the purpose of reduce package manufacturing costs (col. 3 lines 23-28 of Peterson), and to attach the chip carrier to an underside of the lower substrate since there are only two possible solutions and since it has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within one’s technical grasp for the purpose of providing a better mechanical base and providing better access to the active area by light.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quenzer (US 20200159006 A1) in view of Peterson (US 6661084 B1) and further in view of Kono (JP 2011112807 A).
Regarding claim 16, Quenzer in view of Peterson discloses the optical scanner package of claim 15, as set forth above. Neither Quenzer nor Peterson disclose the lower portion of the transmissive window has a square or rectangular shape.
However, it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being with in the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. In re Dailey 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the lower portion of the transmissive window be a square or rectangular shape.
Additionally, Kono teaches a similar optical scanner package comprising a MEMS mirror (20; Figs. 1-2), a lower substrate (300; Figs. 1-2), and a transmissive window (6; Figs. 1-2), wherein the lower portion of the transmissive window (6) has a square or rectangular shape (Figs. 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Quenzer and Peterson to incorporate the rectangular shape of the lower portion of the transmissive window for the purpose of allowing the light to reach the corners of the mirror in a raster scan.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quenzer (US 20200159006 A1) in view of Peterson (US 6661084 B1) and further in view of Toyotaka (US 20220037475 A1), as evidenced by Wikipedia (Wikipedia Contributors. “Chip Carrier.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 22 Mar. 2020.).
Regarding claim 17, Quenzer in view of Peterson discloses the optical scanner package of claim 15, as set forth above. Quenzer further discloses a substrate (1; Fig. 1; ¶0061) having a large circular hole opened in a center portion is additionally used (Fig. 1).
Neither Quenzer nor Peterson explicitly disclose an inner shape of the chip carrier is a quadrangle, however, the examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art that an inner shape of a chip carrier generally is a quadrangle, as evidenced by Wikipedia.
Quenzer is silent on the material of the substrate, particularly that the substrate is a metal substrate.
However, Toyotaka teaches a similar device comprising a MEMS element (121; Figs. 1, 3) and a substrate (101; Figs. 1, 3), wherein the substrate (101) is a metal substrate (¶0211).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the inner shape of the chip carrier to be the standard shape, and for the lower substrate to be a metal substrate, since it has been held to be within the ordinary skill in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. Sinclair and Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liao et al. (US 20210043552 A1) discloses a chip carrier with a quadrangular shape.
Tseng et al. (US 20200402879 A1) discloses a similar optical scanner package comprising a lower substrate and a MEMS device, wherein the lower substrate is made of a glass material.
Choi et al. (US 20070024549 A1), cited in the IDS filed 09/26/2022, discloses a similar optical scanner package comprising a transparent window, wherein the lower portion of the transparent window has a rectangular shape.
Glenn et al. (US 6455927 B1) discloses a similar optical scanner package comprising a lower substrate and vias in the lower substrate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA NIGAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/NATASHA NIGAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 August 29th, 2025
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872