DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 through 6 originally filed 30 June 2023. By preliminary amendment received 30 June 2023; claims 4 through 6 are amended. Claims 1 through 6 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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
The claim term "lens cap" is interpreted as generally referring to a sealed cap structure without implying that the cap actually includes a lens. This understanding derives from the statements in the disclosure and dependent claim 6 that the "lens cap" may employ a plate of glass rather than a lens (see ¶57 of the pre-grant publication of the original disclosure). While the claim and the original disclosure also states that this plate of glass is a "lens", this statement is contrary to the conventional meaning of the term "lens" in that the disclosure characterizes the described "lens" as not altering optical characteristics like focal length when displaced which would not be possible with a "lens" as conventionally understood. Accordingly, since original disclosure employs the term "lens cap" to broadly encompass a cap that does not contain a lens, as conventionally understood, the term "lens cap" is interpreted as not strictly requiring the presence of a lens (MPEP §2111.01IVA).
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 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 6, this claim requires "Wherein a lens of the lens cap is a plate glass." As explained in the original disclosure, a plate glass is characterized by not altering optical characteristics like focal length when displaced (see ¶57 of the original disclosure). However, a "lens", as conventionally understood, is defined by optical properties which must alter these optical characteristics when displaced. Accordingly, a "lens", as conventionally understood, can never be a plate glass as set forth in the original disclosure. Since the original disclosure does not clearly and explicitly redefine the term "lens" in a manner that would allow the definition thereof to encompass elements that do not perform actions by which lenses are defined, the meaning of this term within the claim is contradictory (MPEP §2173.05(a)III). As such, this claim is 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. For the remainder of this action, this claim will be interpreted as meaning "transparent element" when the term "lens" is employed.
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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada (US Pub. 2012/0045161), in view of Yamanaka et al. (Yamanaka, US Pub. 2014/0241388), and further in view of Takizawa et al. (Takizawa, US Pub. 2017/0093123).
Takizawa was initially cited in the IDS received 30 June 2023.
Regarding claim 1, Okada discloses, "A metal stem" (p. [0019] and Fig. 1, pt. 1). "A lead pin penetrating through the metal stem" (p. [0019] and Fig. 1, pts. 1 and 2). "A first metal block mounted on an upper surface of the metal stem" (p. [0020] and Fig. 1, pts. 1 and 5). "A first dielectric substrate mounted on a side surface of the first metal block" (p. [0021] and Fig. 1, pts. 5 and 6). "A first signal line provided on the first dielectric substrate" (p. [0022] and Fig. 1, pts. 6 and 7). "A temperature control module mounted on the upper surface of the metal stem" (p. [0020] and Fig. 1, pts. 1 and 4). "A second metal block mounted on the temperature control module" (p. [0021] and Fig. 1, pts. 4 and 9). "A second dielectric substrate mounted on a side surface of the second metal block" (p. [0021] and Fig. 1, pts. 9 and 10). "A second signal line provided on the second dielectric substrate" (p. [0023] and Fig. 1, pts. 10 and 11). "A semiconductor optical modulation device mounted on the second dielectric substrate" (p. [0021] and Fig. 1, pts. 10 and 13). "A connection member connecting the lead pin and one end of the first signal line" (p. [0026] and Fig. 1, pts. 2, 7, and 14). "A first bonding wire connecting the other end of the first signal line and one end of the second signal line" (p. [0026] and Fig. 1, pts. 7, 11, and 15). "A second bonding wire connecting the other end of the second signal line and the semiconductor optical modulation device" (p. [0026] and Fig. 1, pts. 11, 13, and 17). Okada does not explicitly disclose, "A lens cap joined to the upper surface of the metal stem." "[The lens cap] electrically connected to the metal stem." "[The lens cap] airtightly sealing the first and second metal blocks, the first and second dielectric substrates, the temperature control module, the first and second signal lines, the semiconductor optical modulation device, the connection member, and the first and second bonding wires." Yamanaka discloses, "A lens cap joined to the upper surface of the metal stem" (p. [0066] and Fig. 2A, pts. 11 and 31). "[The lens cap] electrically connected to the metal stem" (p. [0064], [0066], and Fig. 2A, pts. 11, 12, 13, and 31c, where welding metals together provides an electrical connection between these elements). "[The lens cap] airtightly sealing the first and second metal blocks, the first and second dielectric substrates, the temperature control module, the first and second signal lines, the semiconductor optical modulation device, the connection member, and the first and second bonding wires" (p. [0004] and [0066]). 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 Okada with the teachings of Yamanaka. In view of the teachings of Okada regarding a TO-can including a laser device, the additional inclusion of a cap welded to the base as taught by Yamanaka would enhance the teachings of Okada by allowing the top of the device to be sealed.
The combination of Okada and Yamanaka does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a minimum distance between the first metal block and an inner wall of the lens cap is less than 0.37 mm." "A minimum distance between the second metal block and the inner wall of the lens cap is less than 1.36 mm." Takizawa discloses, "Wherein a minimum distance between the first metal block and an inner wall of the lens cap is less than 0.37 mm" (p. [0063] and Fig. 1A, pts. 102 and 104c, where the metal blocks of Okada are expanded to fill the internal area in the described manner). "A minimum distance between the second metal block and the inner wall of the lens cap is less than 1.36 mm" (p. [0063] and Fig. 1A, pts. 102 and 104c, where the metal blocks of Okada are expanded to fill the internal area in the described manner). 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 Okada and Yamanaka with the teachings of Takizawa. In view of the teachings of Okada regarding a TO-can including a laser device and the teachings of Yamanaka regarding a cap covering the TO-can, the alternate construction of the metal blocks backing the mounted components so as to fill the volume of the can as taught by Takizawa would enhance the teachings of Okada and Yamanaka by allowing for improved heat dissipation.
Regarding claim 6, Okada does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a lens of the lens cap is a plate glass." Yamanaka discloses, "Wherein a lens of the lens cap is a plate glass" (p. [0080] and Fig. 2A, pt. 32). 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 Okada with the teachings of Yamanaka for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Claims 2 through 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada, in view of Yamanaka, in view of Takizawa, and further in view of Bean et al. (Bean, US Pub. 2011/0122905).
Regarding claim 2, The combination of Okada, Yamanaka, and Takizawa does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a part of the inner wall of the lens cap protrudes toward the first metal block." Bean discloses, "Wherein a part of the inner wall of the lens cap protrudes toward the first metal block" (p. [0057] and Fig. 14, pts. 104 and 601, where extending the metal wall in this manner in a configuration according to Okada and Takizawa results in the metal wall extending toward the metal blocks). 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 Okada, Yamanaka, and Takizawa with the teachings of Bean. In view of the teachings of Okada regarding a TO-can including a laser device and the teachings of Takizawa regarding increasing the size of metal blocks backing mounted components, the alternate construction of the cap to extend toward and contact the stem as taught by Bean would enhance the teachings of Okada, Yamanaka, and Takizawa by allowing for improved heat dissipation through the cap as well as by allowing improved alignment of the cap to the mounted components.
Regarding claim 3, The combination of Okada, Yamanaka, and Takizawa does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a part of the internal wall of the lens cap protrudes toward the first and the second metal blocks." Bean discloses, "Wherein a part of the internal wall of the lens cap protrudes toward the first and the second metal blocks" (p. [0057] and Fig. 14, pts. 104 and 601, where extending the metal wall in this manner in a configuration according to Okada and Takizawa results in the metal wall extending toward the metal blocks). 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 Okada, Yamanaka, and Takizawa with the teachings of Bean for the reasons provided above regarding claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, The combination of Okada, Yamanaka, and Takizawa does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the first metal block is in contact with the inner wall of the lens cap." Bean discloses, "Wherein the first metal block is in contact with the inner wall of the lens cap" (p. [0047] and Fig. 14, pts. 104 and 601). 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 Okada, Yamanaka, and Takizawa with the teachings of Bean for the reasons provided above regarding claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, The combination of Okada, Yamanaka, and Takizawa does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the first and second metal blocks are in contact with the inner wall of the lens cap." Bean discloses, "Wherein the first and second metal blocks are in contact with the inner wall of the lens cap" (p. [0047] and Fig. 14, pts. 104 and 601, where both mounting blocks of Okada are brought into contact with the cap to dissipate heat). 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 Okada, Yamanaka, and Takizawa with the teachings of Bean for the reasons provided above regarding claim 2.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights