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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-13 are currently pending. In response to the Office Action mailed 7/23/2025 Applicant amended claim 1.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200310107 A1 to Kojima as applied in view of US 20200241289 A1 to Morinaga et al.
Regarding Claim 1. Kojima discloses an optical module comprising: a mirror unit including a mirror device (at least Fig. 7 reflection surface 450) including a support portion (See at least Fig. 7 support 452) and a movable mirror portion provided and connected to the support portion so as to be oscillatable (para 60 and Fig. 8); a magnet unit having an upper surface, a bottom surface, and a side surface extending from the upper surface to the bottom surface, and configured to generate a magnetic field acting on the movable mirror portion (See at least Fig. 7 magnet 455 and electromagnetic coil 456 para 39); and a package including a recess accommodating the magnet unit (as shown in Fig. 7), wherein the magnet unit includes a plurality of magnets arranged along a first direction (see Fig. 7), the recess includes a base wall portion which extends along the first direction and to which the upper surface of the magnet unit is fixed (See at least Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 mirror 451), and a side wall portion extending along a second direction intersecting the first direction, and facing the side surface of the magnet unit (Fig. 7 member 458), when a side on which the magnet unit is located with respect to the base wall portion in the second direction is defined as a lower side, the recess includes an opening portion that is delimited by the side wall portion and open to the lower side (See Fig. 7 recess is open to the surface of 458), the mirror unit is disposed on a second surface on an opposite side of the base wall portion from a first surface to which the magnet unit is fixed (See Fig. 7 location of reflection surface 450), and the side wall portion protrudes to the lower side with respect to the bottom surface of the magnet unit (Fig. 7 member 457 protrudes to the lower side with respect to the bottom surface of magnet 455).
Kojima does not specifically disclose that the movable mirror portion provided with a coil connected to the support portion.
However, Morinaga discloses the movable mirror portion provided with a coil connected to the support portion (See at least Fig. 5 coil 11 connected to support portion 2), as the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP2143(I)(B), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include that the movable mirror portion provided with a coil connected to the support portion.
Regarding Claim 2. Kojima further discloses the upper surface of the magnet unit is fixed to the base wall portion by an adhesive material (para 86), and a gap is formed between the magnet unit and the side wall portion (as shown in Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 3. Kojima further discloses when viewed in the second direction, the gap includes a first portion extending along one direction, and a second portion extending along a direction intersecting an extending direction of the first portion (as shown in Fig. 7 where the thickness of 457 includes the thickness of 458).
Regarding Claim 4. Kojima further discloses the side wall portion includes a first side wall portion and a second side wall portion facing the first side wall portion, the gap is formed between the magnet unit and the first side wall portion, and a thickness of the second side wall portion is thicker than a thickness of the first side wall portion (See Fig. 7 and Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 5. Kojima further discloses the magnet unit includes two side portions forming one corner when viewed in the second direction, and at least one of the two side portions is separated from the side wall portion (See Fig. 7 magnet 455).
Regarding Claim 6. Kojima further discloses a groove portion extending along the second direction is formed in the side wall portion at a position corresponding to a corner of the magnet unit (See at least Fig. 7 spacing between magnet 455 and member 457 and member 458).
Regarding Claim 9. Morinaga further discloses the plurality of magnets are arranged in a Halbach array (See para 49).
Regarding Claim 11. Kojima further discloses a region where the mirror unit is disposed on the second surface of the base wall portion is formed flat (See Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 12. Kojima further discloses when viewed in the second direction, an outer edge of the mirror unit is located inside an outer edge of the magnet unit (See Fig. 7 magnet 4562).
Regarding Claim 13. Kojima further discloses the plurality of magnets include a first magnet and a second magnet, and a step portion is formed on at least one of the upper surface and the bottom surface of the magnet unit due to a positional difference in the second direction between a surface of the first magnet and a surface of the second magnet (See Fig. 7 magnet 455 and magent 4562).
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima and Morinaga as applied to claim 1 in view of US 20170168349 A1 to Sakai et al. further in view of US 20160197112 A1 to Masuda.
Regarding Claim 7. As stated above, Kojima and Morinaga discloses all the limitations of base claim 1.
Kojima and Morinaga do not specifically disclose that the mirror unit is fixed to the second surface of the base wall portion by an adhesive material, and a fillet is formed at a boundary portion between a side surface of the mirror unit and the second surface of the base wall portion by the adhesive material.
However, Sakai discloses a mirror unit is fixed to a surface of a substrate by an adhesive material (See Fig. 1 adhesive 4), in order to bond a reflective surface to a substrate.
Further, Masuda discloses a fillet is formed at a boundary portion between a side surface of an optical substrate and a surface of a substrate by an adhesive material (See Fig. 10B) to increase the surface area contact between the adhesive and the bonding surfaces.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include that the mirror unit is fixed to the second surface of the base wall portion by an adhesive material, and a fillet is formed at a boundary portion between a side surface of the mirror unit and the second surface of the base wall portion by the adhesive material.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima and Morinaga as applied to claim 1 in view of US 20170168349 A1 to Sakai et al.
Regarding Claim 8. As stated above, Kojima and Morinaga discloses all the limitations of base claim 1.
Kojima and Morinaga do not specifically disclose that the mirror unit is fixed to the second surface of the base wall portion by an adhesive material, and a thickness of the adhesive material between the mirror unit and the second surface of the base wall portion is 10 µm to 30 µm.
However, Sakai discloses a mirror unit is fixed to a surface of a substrate by an adhesive material (See Fig. 1 adhesive 4), and a thickness of the adhesive material between the mirror unit and the second surface of the base wall portion is 10 µm to 30 µm (para 23) in order to bond a reflective surface to a substrate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include that the mirror unit is fixed to the second surface of the base wall portion by an adhesive material, and a thickness of the adhesive material between the mirror unit and the second surface of the base wall portion is 10 µm to 30 µm.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima and Morinaga as applied to claim 1 in view of US 20170168349 A1 to Sakai et al.
Regarding Claim 10. As stated above, Kojima discloses all the limitations of base claim 1.
Morinaga further discloses a wire for electrically connecting the mirror unit to an outside (Fig. 3 wire W), and the wire is connected to the mirror unit at a position overlapping the adhesive region when viewed in the second direction (See Fig. 3 where wire overlaps mirror 1) to electrically connect and drive the moveable mirror.
Kojima and Morinaga do not specifically disclose the mirror unit is fixed to the second surface of the base wall portion in a predetermined adhesive region by an adhesive material.
However, Sakai discloses a mirror unit is fixed to a surface of a substrate by an adhesive material (See Fig. 1 adhesive 4), in order to bond a reflective surface to a substrate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include that the mirror unit is fixed to a surface of a substrate by an adhesive material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 EDMOND C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-5859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm EST.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/EDMOND C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights