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 12, 2023.
The earliest effective filing date of this AIA application is seen as August 8, 2022, the date of the earliest priority application (JAPAN 2022-126513) for any claims which are fully supported under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) by the parent application.
The effective filing date of this AIA application is seen as July 12, 2023, the actual filing date, for any claims that are not fully supported by the foregoing application(s).
The present application is also related to the applications giving rise to the following patent publication(s):
Office
Application
App. Date
Pub. #
Pub. Date
JP
2022126513
08/08/2022
JP 2024023002 A
02/21/2024
CN
202310827354
07/06/2023
CN 117538998 A
02/09/2024
The claims filed June 16, 2026 are entered, currently outstanding, and subject to examination.
This action is in response to the filing of the same date.
The current status and history of the claims is summarized below:
Last Amendment/Response
Previously
Amended:
1 and 13
1, 5-7, 9, 12, and 13
Cancelled:
none
none
Withdrawn:
none
none
Added:
16 and 17
15
Claims 1-17 are currently pending and outstanding. However, new claims 16 and 17 are restricted by original presentation.
Regarding the last reply:
Claims 1 and 13 were amended.
No claims were cancelled.
No claims were withdrawn. However, claims 16 and 17 have been withdrawn due to election by original presentation MPEP § 821.03. See below.
Claims 16 and 17 were added.
Claims 1-17 are currently pending and outstanding. However, new claims 16 and 17 are withdrawn. Claims 1-15 are currently outstanding and subject to examination.
This is a final action and is the third 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.
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 June 16, 2026 has been entered.
Election by Original Presentation
Claims 16 and 17 are withdrawn due to election by original presentation.
Newly submitted claims 16 and 17 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
A. Claims 1-15 are drawn to an optical module with a reflecting lens module, classified in CPC group G02B 6, subgroup 4214.
B. Claims 16 and 17 are drawn to an adhesion portion fixing an optical component with a lens, classified in CPC group G02B 6, subgroup 4239.
No claims link the two inventions. Invention B is distinct from invention A as they are directed to different inventions of different subject matters..
Inventions A and B are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed are drawn to different kinds of optical modules with invention A having a reflecting lens module that is absent from B and invention B having an adhesion portion missing from invention A. Because these inventions are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious burden on the examiner if restriction is not required because the inventions require a different field of search (see MPEP § 808.02), restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions require a different field of search, for example, searching different classes/subclasses, or electronic resources, or employing different search queries.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention A, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 16 and 17 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
Claims 1-15 are outstanding.
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).
To date, Applicant has provided no indication of special definitions.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20010048792 of Shishikura et al. (Shishikura) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20090047024 of Wang et al. (Wang), U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20020181853 of Ido et al. (Ido), U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20010041033 of Lecocq et al. (Lecocq), and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20050117847 of Ono et al. (Ono).
With respect to claim 1, Shishikura discloses an optical module (Fig. 1, ¶ 23, optical module 23) comprising:
a substrate (substrate 20) including a main surface (top surface);
an optical component (optical device 21) including a bottom surface (facing away from viewer), and
a first side surface and a second side surface each extending in a direction intersecting the bottom surface and facing each other (per Fig. 1),
the optical component being mounted on the substrate such that the bottom surface faces the main surface (per Fig. 1, ¶ 27, "An optical device 21 is … and is also mounted on the substrate 20.").
Shishikura as set forth above does not disclose:
the optical component being a lens module having a mirror surface that is configured to reflect light incident on the optical component and to change a traveling direction of the light, and
an adhesion portion fixing the optical component to the substrate, wherein:
the adhesion portion includes a plurality of first adhesion portions provided along the first side surface and between the main surface of the substrate and the bottom surface of the optical component and a plurality of second adhesion portions provided along the second side surface and between the main surface of the substrate and the bottom surface of the optical component,
the main surface of the substrate includes a first uneven portion,
the bottom surface of the optical component includes a second uneven portion,
and an arithmetic mean roughness of the first uneven portion is smaller than an arithmetic mean roughness of the second uneven portion.
Wang discloses an optical transceiver module having a front facet reflector and methods for making and using a front facet reflector that includes (¶ 15):
The of [sic] making a 45° reflector for use in an optical transceiver module comprises placing a metal layer on at least a portion of a polished surface of a wafer, using a blade having sides that are at a 45° angle relative to each other to cut at least partially through the wafer, and dicing the wafer with a straight blade to singulate the wafer into multiple 45° reflectors.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reflective inclined component surfaces in an optical component along the lines of Wang in a system according to Shishikura as set forth above in order to provide additional optical adjustment options and mechanical support between components and adhesive. 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 references) to yield predictable results (an optical module) 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 optical component being a lens module having a mirror surface that is configured to reflect light incident on the optical component and to change a traveling direction of the light,
The foregoing obviousness analysis is referred to in summary fashion in the rejections below.
Ido discloses an optical module and optical communication system that includes (Fig. 1, ¶ 47):
an adhesion portion (conductive adhesive 4) fixing a component (metal cap 5) of an optical module (module 2) to the substrate (main body/module 2),
wherein the adhesion portion (4) includes a plurality of first adhesion portions (per Fig. 1) provided along the first side surface (upper right surface) and a plurality of second adhesion portions provided along the second side surface (lower left surface).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an adhesion configuration along the lines of Ido in a system according to Shishikura in view of Wang as set forth above in order to mount one article to another. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), prior art elements (listed above) are combined according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (an optical module) 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:
an adhesion portion fixing the optical component to the substrate,
wherein the adhesion portion includes a plurality of first adhesion portions provided along the first side surface and a plurality of second adhesion portions provided along the second side surface.
Lecocq discloses an arrangement consisting of a photodiode and an optical fiber that includes(Figs. 2-5):
adhesion portions (CG) provided along the first side surface (the cylindrical exterior of optical fiber OF) and between the main surface of the substrate (here, photodiode PD) and the bottom surface (OF end face) of the optical component (optical fiber OF).
¶ 21, “Photodiode PD has been attached to the end of the fiber with adhesive. The adhesive joint is designated CG.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adhere optical elements together on both sides of a corner or edge along the lines of Lecocq in a system according to Shishikura in view of Wang and Ido as set forth above in order to adhere, protect, and/or insulate the optical components. 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 references) to yield predictable results (an optical module) 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 of Shishikura in view of Wang and Ido and Lecocq as set forth above would then provide:
an adhesion portion fixing the optical component to the substrate, wherein:
the adhesion portion includes
a plurality of first adhesion portions provided along the first side surface and between the main surface of the substrate and the bottom surface of the optical component and
a plurality of second adhesion portions provided along the second side surface and between the main surface of the substrate and the bottom surface of the optical component,
Ono discloses an optical waveguide module that includes (Fig. 7, ¶ 49):
"According to the present embodiment, the end surface 41b and the end surface 51a correspond to roughened surfaces, and thereby, convex portions of the end surface 41b and the end surface 51a may be faced with each other and concave portions of the end surface 41b and the end surface 51a may be faced opposite to each other."
Ono discloses opposing uneven portions in Fig. 7.
¶ 50 provides:
"However, according to the present embodiment, even when the loading direction of the load impinged upon arranging the end surfaces 41b and 51a to face each other deviates from the desired direction, the adhesive may penetrate through and spread across the connecting portion between the end surfaces 41b and 51a owing to the capillary effect, and surplus adhesive may stick out evenly around the periphery of the end surfaces 41b and 51a. In this embodiment, the narrow space between the end surfaces 41b and 51a may enable position fixing of the adhesive, and the adhesive may be hardened in this state to be formed into the adhesive part 70. It is noted that, through testing, the inventors of the present invention have discovered that the capillary effect may occur in the adhesive when the average roughness Ra of the end surfaces 41b and 51a is 0.1 µm or greater."
Ono (¶ 50) discloses the range where "the capillary effect may occur in the adhesive when the average roughness Ra of the end surfaces 41b and 51a is 0.1 µm or greater" which includes the range of an arithmetical mean roughness Ra of the first uneven portion is equal to or greater than 0.4 μm and equal to or less than 0.7 μm.
Examiner sees that each surface has a range of roughness that is independent of, and consequently different from, the opposing surface. They could also be the same within the scope of the Ono disclosure.
Further, as roughness is seen as a random and unstructured feature, over time, the distribution of roughness for the relevant surface would occur randomly and, at times and with certainty, would be so distributed as to meet the claimed subject matter.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use opposing uneven surfaces with a variety of roughnesses of 0.1 µm or greater for adhesion along the lines of Ono in a system according to Shishikura in view of Wang, Ido, and Lecocq as set forth above in order to provide good and/or greater strength and to take advantage of capillary action. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), prior art elements (listed above) are combined according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (an optical module) 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 of Shishikura in view of Wang, Ido, Lecocq, and Ono as set forth above would then provide:
the optical component being a lens module having a mirror surface that is configured to reflect light incident on the optical component and to change a traveling direction of the light, and
an adhesion portion fixing the optical component to the substrate, wherein:
the adhesion portion includes a plurality of first adhesion portions provided along the first side surface and between the main surface of the substrate and the bottom surface of the optical component and a plurality of second adhesion portions provided along the second side surface and between the main surface of the substrate and the bottom surface of the optical component,
the main surface of the substrate includes a first uneven portion,
the bottom surface of the optical component includes a second uneven portion,
and an arithmetic mean roughness of the first uneven portion is smaller than an arithmetic mean roughness of the second uneven portion.
With respect to claim 2, Shishikura in view of Wang, Ido, Lecocq, and Ono as set forth above discloses the optical module according to claim 1, including one wherein
the plurality of first adhesion portions and the plurality of second adhesion portions are disposed to be line-symmetric with respect to a center line (Ido, Fig. 1, conductive adhesive 4),
the centerline passing through a center of the optical component in a direction in which the first side surface and the second side surface face each other and extending in a direction parallel to an optical axis of the optical component (generally along the lines of the axis defined by optical fiber 1).
With respect to claim 3, Shishikura in view of Wang, Ido, Lecocq, and Ono as set forth above discloses the optical module according to claim 1, including one wherein
the plurality of first adhesion portions are provided between the main surface and at least one of a portion of the first side surface close to the bottom surface and a portion of the bottom surface close to the first side surface,
and wherein the plurality of second adhesion portions are provided between the main surface and at least one of a portion of the second side surface close to the bottom surface and a portion of the bottom surface close to the second side surface.
In a line drawn between a propitious portion of either the first or second side surfaces and the main surface, the adhesion portions of Ido would be between them.
With respect to claim 4, Shishikura in view of Wang, Ido, Lecocq, and Ono as set forth above discloses the optical module according to claim 1, including one wherein
the plurality of first adhesion portions are provided between the main surface and a portion of the first side surface close to the bottom surface and between the main surface and a portion of the bottom surface close to the first side surface,
and wherein the plurality of second adhesion portions are provided between the main surface and a portion of the second side surface close to the bottom surface and between the main surface and a portion of the bottom surface close to the second side surface.
In a line drawn between a propitious portion of either the first or second side surfaces and the main surface, the adhesion portions of Ido would be between them. The same is similarly true for the main and bottom surfaces.
With respect to claim 5, Shishikura in view of Wang, Ido, Lecocq, and Ono as set forth above discloses the optical module according to claim 1 including one wherein
the first uneven portion is provided in at least a part of a portion where the main surface is in contact with the adhesion portion.
Ono per claim 1, above.
With respect to claim 6, Shishikura in view of Wang, Ido, Lecocq, and Ono as set forth above discloses the optical module according to claim 5 including one wherein
the arithmetic mean roughness Ra of the first uneven portion is equal to or greater than 0.4 pm and equal to or less than 0.7 pm.
Ono, ¶ 50 per claim 1, above.
With respect to claim 7, Shishikura in view of Wang, Ido, Lecocq, and Ono as set forth above discloses the optical module according to claim 1 including one wherein
the second uneven portion is provided in at least a part of a portion where the bottom surface is in contact with the adhesion portion.
Per claim 1, above, Ono discloses opposing uneven portions in Fig. 7.
With respect to claim 8, Shishikura in view of Wang, Ido, Lecocq, and Ono as set forth above discloses the optical module according to claim 7 including one wherein
the second uneven portion includes protrusions each having a rectangular cross section, a corrugated shape, or a trapezoid cross section.
Ono, Fig. 7 shows a corrugated shape for the uneven portions.
Further, Applicant should not that changes in shape are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed shape was significant [in a way that contributes and/or provides progress in the useful arts, i.e., unique, unpredictable, advantageous, or the like per below]. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B). This is particularly true when the specification gives little or no description of why such changes in shape are unique, unpredictable, advantageous, or the like.
With respect to claim 9, Shishikura in view of Wang, Ido, Lecocq, and Ono as set forth above discloses the optical module according to claim 5 including one wherein
the second uneven portion is provided in at least a part of a portion where the bottom surface is in contact with the adhesion portion.
Per claim 1, above, Ono Fig. 7 shows opposing uneven portions.
With respect to claim 10, Shishikura in view of Wang, Ido, Lecocq, and Ono as set forth above discloses the optical module according to claim 1 including one wherein
the first side surface and the second side surface of the optical component each are provided with a third uneven portion in at least a part of a portion where the first side surface or the second side surface is in contact with the adhesion portion.
Per claim 1, above, Ono discloses an optical waveguide module that includes (Fig. 7, ¶ 49):
"According to the present embodiment, the end surface 41b and the end surface 51a correspond to roughened surfaces, and thereby, convex portions of the end surface 41b and the end surface 51a may be faced with each other and concave portions of the end surface 41b and the end surface 51a may be faced opposite to each other."
With respect to claim 11, Shishikura in view of Wang, Ido, Lecocq, and Ono as set forth above discloses the optical module according to claim 1 including one wherein
the first side surface and the second side surface are inclined such that a distance between the first side surface and the second side surface decreases away from the bottom surface, and
wherein the adhesion portion is provided on the inclined first side surface and the inclined second side surface.
Per claim 1, above, Wang discloses an optical transceiver module having a front facet reflector and methods for making and using a front facet reflector that includes (¶ 15):
The of making a 45° reflector for use in an optical transceiver module comprises placing a metal layer on at least a portion of a polished surface of a wafer, using a blade having sides that are at a 45° angle relative to each other to cut at least partially through the wafer, and dicing the wafer with a straight blade to singulate the wafer into multiple 45° reflectors.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have inclined component surfaces along the lines of Wang in a system according to Shishikura in view of Wang, Ido, Lecocq, and Ono as set forth above in order to provide additional mechanical support between components and adhesive. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), prior art elements (listed above) are combined according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (an optical module) 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 side surface and the second side surface are inclined such that a distance between the first side surface and the second side surface decreases away from the bottom surface.
Ido Fig. 7 at 70b top and bottom shows adhesive extending to adjacent surfaces.
With respect to claim 12, Shishikura in view of Wang, Ido, Lecocq, and Ono as set forth above discloses the optical module according to claim 1, including one wherein
the adhesion portion further includes at least one third adhesion portion provided along a front side surface or a rear side surface of the optical component (Ido, per the analysis of claim 1, upper left and lower right sides of the electrode pattern 3-0 surface of Fig. 1 with conductive adhesive 4),
each of the front side surface and the rear side surface extending in a direction in which the first side surface and the second side surface face each other (per above, Ido Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 13, Shishikura in view of Wang, Ido, Lecocq, and Ono as set forth above discloses a method of manufacturing an optical module, the method comprising:
preparing a substrate including a main surface;
preparing an optical component including a bottom surface, and
a first side surface and a second side surface each extending in a direction intersecting the bottom surface and facing each other, the optical component being a lens module having a mirror surface that is configured to reflect light incident on the optical component and to change a traveling direction of the light;
disposing the optical component on the main surface of the substrate such that the bottom surface faces the main surface;
and fixing the optical component to the substrate by applying a first adhesive to a plurality of portions along the first side surface and between the main surface of the substrate and the bottom surface of the optical component,
by applying a second adhesive to a plurality of portions along the second side surface and between the main surface of the substrate and the bottom surface of the optical component, and
by curing the first adhesive and the second adhesive, wherein:
the main surface of the substrate includes a first uneven portion, the bottom surface of the optical component includes a second uneven portion, and
an arithmetic mean roughness of the first uneven portion is smaller than an arithmetic mean roughness of the second uneven portion.
The method of claim 13 would naturally arise by the construction of a device according to claim 1.
With respect to claim 14, Shishikura in view of Wang, Ido, Lecocq, and Ono as set forth above discloses the method of manufacturing an optical module according to claim 13 wherein,
in the fixing,
the first adhesive is applied between the main surface and at least one of a portion of the first side surface close to the bottom surface and a portion of the bottom surface close to the first side surface,
the second adhesive is applied between the main surface and at least one of a portion of the second side surface close to the bottom surface and a portion of the bottom surface close to the second side surface, and
the first adhesive and the second adhesive are applied to be line-symmetric with respect to a center line,
the center line passing through a center of the optical component in a direction in which the first side surface and the second side surface face each other and extending in a direction parallel to an optical axis of the optical component.
See claim 2, above. The method of claim 14 would naturally arise by the construction of a device according to claim 2.
With respect to claim 15, Shishikura in view of Wang, Ido, Lecocq, and Ono as set forth above discloses the optical module according to claim 1, including one wherein
the arithmetic mean roughness of the first uneven portion is equal to or greater than 0.4 µm and equal to or less than 0.7 µm,
and the arithmetic mean roughness of the second uneven portion is equal to or greater than 10 µm and equal to or less than 50 µm.
As set forth in claim 1, Ono (¶ 50) discloses the range where "the capillary effect may occur in the adhesive when the average roughness Ra of the end surfaces 41b and 51a is 0.1 µm or greater" which includes the range of an arithmetical mean roughness Ra of the first uneven portion is equal to or greater than 0.4 μm and equal to or less than 0.7 μm.
Examiner sees that each surface has a range of roughness that is independent of, and consequently different from, the opposing surface. They could also be the same within the scope of the Ono disclosure.
Both of the ranges set forth in claim 15 are 0.1 µm or greater. As such, Ono (in the combination of Shishikura in view of Wang, Ido, Lecocq, and Ono as set forth above) is seen to read on these ranges.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and the claim rejections are not rebutted.
Applicant argues that:
In rejecting claim 1, the Office alleges that the optical device 21 in Shishikura corresponds to the claimed optical component (Office Action page 5). However, optical device 21 in Shishikura is described as a light-emitting or light-receiving device (see Shishikura paragraph [0027]), not a lens module having a mirror surface that reflects incident light and changes its traveling direction. In contrast, in the present application, the optical component is a lens module having a mirror surface that is configured to reflect light incident on the optical component and to change a traveling direction of the light (see paragraphs [0036], [0038], [0041], [0042], and Fig. 2 of the publication). Thus, Shishikura fails to disclose "the optical component is a lens module having a mirror surface that is configured to reflect light incident on the optical component and to change a traveling direction of the light". Ido, Lecocq, Ono, and Wang do not cure the deficiencies of Shishikura.
Examiner response: A reference of record, Wang, provides "reflectors used in optical transceiver modules to reflect light" per its abstract. As such, it is seen as a lens module easily adapted for use in the combination with Shishikura.
Furthermore, in rejecting claim 1, the Office alleges that the corrugated surfaces of the opposing end surfaces 41b and 51a of Ono correspond to the claimed roughened surfaces (Office Action page 9). The Office argues that Ono discloses surfaces having different arithmetic mean roughness, because Ono states that the Ra of the end surfaces is 0.1 pm or greater, which allows for the possibility of them being different. The Office also asserts that Ono discloses those two roughened surfaces having different roughness because each surface has a range of roughness that is independent and thus different from the opposing surface (Office Action page 10). However, Ono merely discloses the lower limit (0.1 pm or greater) for causing the capillary effect (see paragraph [0050] of Ono). Ono discloses end surfaces 41b and 51a (where the adhesive layer is applied in between) having an average roughness Ra of 0.2pmf0.1p m (paragraph [0047] and Fig. 6 of Ono). Ono does not disclose "an arithmetic mean roughness of the first uneven portion is smaller than an arithmetic mean roughness of the second uneven portion". Even assuming arguendo that Ono could be interpreted to disclose the two surfaces having different roughness values, it does not disclose or teach the bottom surface of the optical component (i.e., the bottom surface of the lens module), which does not even exist in Ono, having a greater roughness than the other surface.
Examiner response: Per the rejection, examiner sees the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as understanding that if one side can be subject to adhesion, then any side can be, too.
Further, as roughness is seen as a random and unstructured feature, over time, the distribution of roughness for the relevant surface would occur randomly and, at times and with certainty, would be so distributed as to meet the claimed subject matter.
In contrast, in the present application, the arithmetic mean roughness of the first uneven portion is smaller than the arithmetic mean roughness of the second uneven portion (see paragraphs [0038], [0040], [0044] and [0064] of the publication). As a non-limiting example, the first uneven portion's roughness, for example, can be between 0.4 pm and 0.7 pm, to allow the adhesion portion to easily flow into the depressions while preventing the optical axis from deviating (see paragraph [0064] of the publication). The second uneven portion, for example, has significantly larger protrusions with height between 10 pm and 50 pm, allowing increased adhesion due to the anchor effect and thus increased reliability (see paragraphs [0040] and [0065] of the publication).
Examiner response: Per above, roughness would distribute itself to meet the language of the claims.
Thus, Ono does not disclose "an arithmetic mean roughness of the first uneven portion is smaller than an arithmetic mean roughness of the second uneven portion". Shishikura, Ido, Lecocq, and Wang do not cure the deficiencies of Ono.
Examiner response: Per above, Ono does so disclose so as to inform the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Accordingly, none of the applied art disclose "the optical component being a lens module having a mirror surface that is configured to reflect light incident on the optical component and to change a traveling direction of the light" and "an arithmetic mean roughness of the first uneven portion is smaller than an arithmetic mean roughness of the second uneven portion". Accordingly, claims 1 and 13 are patentable over the applied art. Claims 2-12 and 14-15 are patentable over the applied art for at least their respective dependency from claims 1 or 13. Withdrawal of the rejections is respectfully requested.
Examiner response: Due to the foregoing, examiner believes that all the limitations and elements of the claims have been met by the cited prior art.
Applicant's arguments with regards to the remaining claims all rely upon the arguments set forth above. Consequently, these remaining arguments as seen as being addressed by the examiner's corresponding remarks.
Applicant’s remaining arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. As such, the examiner makes no remarks regarding them.
Conclusion
Applicant’s publication US 20240045150 A1 published February 8, 2024 was previously cited.
No new art is cited.
This is a request for continued examination/RCE of the current application . All claims are drawn to the same invention claimed in the earlier application and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action in this case. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 extension fee 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 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 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights