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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on 07/21/2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Figure 1A, 1B, 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1-2, 15 objected to because of the following informalities:
“the array of laser” should read “the array of lasers” claim 1 line 5
“astigmatism of the laser beams” should read “astigmatism of the incident laser beams” claim 2 line 2
“optically cover” should read “optical cover” claim 15 line 7
. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 8, 18-20 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.
Claim 6, 18 recites the limitation "the inside wall" in lines 1-2, line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner interprets “the inside wall” of the frame to be the surface equivalent to the innermost surface (closest to center of figure) of frame F in Applicant’s fig. 4E.
Claim 8, 20 indefinite due to “the frame” in line 3, lines 2-3, respectively. “an outer frame” is introduced in line 2, lines 1-2, respectively. It is unclear whether the later use of “the frame” in claims 8, 20 is meant to refer to the “outer frame” from claims 8, 20 or to the “frame” from claims 1, 3, 5-6, 10, 15, 17-18. Examiner interprets “the frame” in claims 8, 20 to be equivalent to “outer frame” from claims 8, 20 and not to the “frame” from claims 1, 3, 5-6, 10, 15, 17-18.
Claim 19 indefinite due to “the angled surface of the monolithic block” in claim 19 line 4. The “angled surface” is introduced in claim 19 lines 1-2 as belonging to the mirror array block, not the monolithic block. Examiner interprets the monolithic block to be the portion of the mirror array block that comprises the angled surface.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-10, 13, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorg (US-20220295023-A1) in view of Miyata (US-20160248222-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sorg discloses a laser beam module package, comprising: an array of lasers outputting incident laser beams having an elliptical cross-sectional beam profile (fig. 4 array of lasers 21-23 output incident elliptical beams (L1-L3 before+during incidence upon 41-43), respectively, 0091); a housing having a substrate supporting a frame having a top side (fig. 6 + annotated fig. 4 housing (substrate 30 + frame/outer ring 34 + cover 32) has substrate 30 supporting a frame 34 with a top side (top half of Outer Ring/”Frame” 34 in annotated fig. 4), 0092-0093), wherein the housing has a space bounded by the frame receiving the array of lasers and supporting the array of laser on the substrate within the space (annotated fig. 4 housing (30+34+32) has space bounded by 34 with 21-23 and supporting 21-23 on 30 within space); an optically transparent cover hermetically sealed to the top side of the frame (annotated fig. 4 cover 32 optically transparent + sealed to top of 34, housing ring 33 comprises 34, 0092); and a mirror array comprising a mirror body of a metal material having a plurality of mirrors defined on a surface of the mirror body by metal stamping the surface of the mirror body to form an array of smooth freeform reflective surfaces of the array of mirrors (figs. 4+6 mirror array/inner ring 35 comprising mirror body 35 of metal material having plurality of mirrors 41-43 defined on annotated fig. 4 Surface of 35 by metal stamping Surface to form array of smooth freeform reflective surfaces for 41-43, 0026, 0091-0093), wherein the mirror body is supported by, and received within the space of, the housing (annotated fig. 4 mirror body 35 supported by and received within space of 30+34+32), wherein the array of mirrors are optically aligned to the array of lasers (fig. 4 41-43 optically aligned with 21-23, 0081, 0091), wherein the freeform reflective surfaces are configured to reflect and reshape the beam profile of the corresponding incident laser beams to produce corresponding output laser beams that are directed towards the cover to be output from the laser beam module package (fig. 4,6 surfaces of 41-43 reflect + reshape beam profile of incident L1-L3 to produce output beams (L1-L3 after incidence upon 41-43) directed towards 32, 0091).
Sorg does not disclose the elliptical beam profile being due to astigmatism of the incident laser beams.
Miyata discloses a laser source device with a laser source element that produces an elliptical beam due to astigmatism (fig. 2 laser element 30, 0038, 0092).
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 elliptical beam profile be a result of astigmatism of the incident laser beam to allow for use of the cheaper + more readily available lasers with inherent astigmatism + elliptical profiles.
Although it is addressed in the rejection, “by metal stamping the surface of the mirror body” is interpreted as a product-by-process limitation.
PNG
media_image1.png
775
981
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 4 (35 is the non-34 region of 33, see fig. 6)
Regarding claim 2, modified Sorg discloses the laser beam module package as in claim 1, wherein the freeform reflective surfaces are configured to correct astigmatism of the laser beams to produce output laser beams that are closer to collimated beams (41-43 surfaces collimate L1-L3, 0091, claim 1 modification corrects astigmatism).
Regarding claim 3, modified Sorg discloses the laser beam module as in claim 2, wherein the mirror body is supported by the substrate and/or the frame (annotated fig. 4 35 supported by 30 and/or 34).
Regarding claim 4, modified Sorg discloses the laser beam module package as in claim 1, wherein the mirror body comprises a monolithic block of metallic material (annotated fig. 4 + fig. 6 35 comprises monolithic Al block, 0093), wherein the mirrors are separate and discrete (fig. 6 41-43 separate and discrete), each facing a corresponding laser in the array of lasers (fig. 4+6 41-43 face 21-23, respectively, 0081, 0091), and wherein the mirrors are integrally defined by stamping a surface of the monolithic block (annotated fig. 4+6 mirrors integrally defined by stamping Surface of 35’s Al block, 0093).
Modified Sorg does not disclose all mirrors being stamped/defined simultaneously.
Sorg discloses a desire to reduce manufacturing cost and improve efficiency, precision, compactness (0006, 0015).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to stamp all mirrors simultaneously to reduce manufacturing cost/time and increase manufacturing efficiency (Sorg 0006, 0015).
Although it is addressed in the rejection, “simultaneously defined by stamping a surface of the monolithic block” is interpreted as a product-by-process limitation.
Regarding claim 9, modified Sorg discloses the laser beam module package as in claim 1, wherein the housing comprises a first material and the mirror body comprises a second material; wherein the second material is different from the first material (fig. 6 + annotated fig. 4 housing 30+32+34 comprises first material FeNiCo, mirror body 35 comprises different second material Al, 0093).
Regarding claim 10, modified Sorg discloses the laser beam module package as in claim 9, wherein the substrate and the frame are separate components comprise different materials, and wherein the frame is hermetically sealed to the substrate (figs. 4+6 30 is AlN and separate from FeNiCo frame 34, 30 + 34 hermetically sealed, 0092-0093).
Regarding claim 13, modified Sorg discloses the laser beam module package as in claim 1, wherein the freeform reflective surfaces of the mirror array are configured such that the output laser beams converge to a spot at a target plane at a reference distance from the laser beam module package (fig. 5 reflective surfaces on 41-43 configured to converge L1-L3 to spot at target plane (top to bottom in fig. 5 at imaging unit 6) at a reference distance D2 from package, 0087-0088).
Regarding claim 15, Sorg discloses a method of assembling a laser beam module package (fig. 4), comprising: providing an array of lasers outputting incident laser beams having an elliptical cross-sectional beam profile (fig. 4 array of lasers 21-23 output incident elliptical beams (L1-L3 before+during incidence upon 41-43), respectively, 0091); providing a housing having a substrate supporting a frame having a top side (fig. 6 + annotated fig. 4 housing (substrate 30 + frame/outer ring 34 + cover 32) has substrate 30 supporting a frame 34 with a top side (top half of Outer Ring/”Frame” 34 in annotated fig. 4), 0092-0093), wherein the housing has a space bounded by the frame receiving the array of lasers (annotated fig. 4 housing (30+34+32) has space bounded by 34 with 21-23); supporting the array of laser on the substrate within the space (annotated fig. 4 30+34+32 supporting 21-23 on 30 within space); providing an optically transparent cover and hermetically sealing the optically cover to the top side of the frame (annotated fig. 4 cover 32 optically transparent + sealed to top of 34, housing ring 33 comprises 34, 0092); and providing a mirror array comprising a mirror body of a metal material having a plurality of mirrors defined on a surface of the mirror body, wherein the mirrors are formed by metal stamping the surface of the mirror body to form an array of smooth freeform reflective surfaces of the array of mirrors (figs. 4+6 mirror array/inner ring 35 comprising mirror body 35 of metal material having plurality of mirrors 41-43 defined on annotated fig. 4 Surface of 35 by metal stamping Surface to form array of smooth freeform reflective surfaces for 41-43, 0026, 0091-0093), wherein the mirror body is supported by, and received within the space of, the housing (annotated fig. 4 mirror body 35 supported by and received within space of 30+34+32), wherein the array of mirrors are optically aligned to the array of lasers (fig. 4 41-43 optically aligned with 21-23, 0081, 0091), wherein the freeform reflective surfaces are configured to reflect and reshape the beam profile of the corresponding incident laser beams to produce corresponding output laser beams that are directed towards the cover to be output from the laser beam module package (fig. 4,6 surfaces of 41-43 reflect + reshape beam profile of incident L1-L3 to produce output beams (L1-L3 after incidence upon 41-43) directed towards 32, 0091).
Sorg does not disclose the elliptical beam profile being due to astigmatism of the incident laser beams.
Miyata discloses a laser source device with a laser source element that produces an elliptical beam due to astigmatism (fig. 2 laser element 30, 0038, 0092).
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 elliptical beam profile be a result of astigmatism of the incident laser beam to allow for use of the cheaper + more readily available lasers with inherent astigmatism + elliptical beams.
Regarding claim 16, modified Sorg discloses the method as in claim 15, wherein the mirror body comprises a monolithic block of metallic material (annotated fig. 4 + fig. 6 35 comprises monolithic Al block, 0093), wherein the mirrors are integrally defined by stamping a surface of the monolithic block (annotated fig. 4+6 mirrors integrally defined by stamping Surface of 35’s Al block, 0093), and wherein the mirrors are defined on a surface of the mirror body facing corresponding lasers in the array of lasers (fig. 6 + annotated fig. 4 mirrors 41-43 defined on Surface, which faces corresponding lasers 21-23, 0081, 0091).
Modified Sorg does not disclose all mirrors being stamped/defined simultaneously.
Sorg discloses a desire to reduce manufacturing cost and improve efficiency, precision, compactness (0006, 0015).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to stamp all mirrors simultaneously to reduce manufacturing cost/time and increase manufacturing efficiency (Sorg 0006, 0015).
Claim(s) 5-7, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorg in view of Miyata and Li (US-20160016218-A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Sorg discloses the laser beam module package as in claim 4, wherein the monolithic block is a base that is inserted through an opening in the frame,
Modified Sorg does not disclose the base is structurally coupled to the frame, wherein the base is structurally coupled to the frame upon stamping to define the mirrors on the body.
Li discloses an optical device with a composite structure including a base and auxiliary portion of dissimilar materials, where the auxiliary portion is structurally coupled/interlocked the base upon stamping the auxiliary portion (figs. 1a-d, 3a-c structure 10 has base 16 and auxiliary portion 14 of dissimilar materials, fig. 1d 14 interlocked with 16 upon stamping with the same ‘rivet-like’ arrangement + chamfers 26+27, Abstract, 0016, 0036, 0049).
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 base structurally coupled to the frame, wherein the base is structurally coupled (with chamfers) to the frame upon stamping to define the mirrors on the body to consolidate production steps and improve connection between base and frame by allowing for more precise contour alignment between base and frame (Li 0049).
Although it is addressed in the rejection, “upon stamping to define the mirrors on the body” is interpreted as a product-by-process limitation.
Regarding claim 6, modified Sorg discloses the laser beam module package as in claim 5, wherein the base surrounds the inside wall of the opening in the frame (fig. 6 base/monolithic Al block of 35 surrounds inside wall of opening in 34), defining an opening in the mirror body to receive the array of lasers (figs 4+6 opening within 35 receives lasers 21-23).
Regarding claim 7, modified Sorg discloses the laser beam module package as in claim 4, wherein the mirror body comprises a mirror array block having a bottom surface for attachment to the substrate and an angled surface facing the array of lasers (annotated fig. 4X mirror body 35 comprises mirror array block 35/itself with bottom surface Bottom for attachment to 30 and angled surface Angled facing 21-23, 0089), wherein the mirror array block comprises the monolithic block and wherein the mirrors are integrally defined by stamping the angled surface of the monolithic block (fig. 6 + annotated fig. 4x 35 comprises monolithic Al block with 41-43 integrally defined by stamping angled surface, 0024, 0093).
Modified Sorg does not disclose the mirrors being simultaneously defined.
Li discloses an optical coupling device with multiple simultaneously stamped/defined reflective surfaces (fig. 2A-D surfaces 12, 0043).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to stamp/define the mirrors simultaneously to maintain and ensure the proper dimensional relationship of the mirrors and consolidate manufacturing steps (Li 0043, 0050).
Although it is addressed in the rejection, “simultaneously defined by stamping” is interpreted as a product-by-process limitation.
PNG
media_image2.png
485
759
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 4X
Regarding claim 17, modified Sorg discloses the method as in claim 16, wherein the monolithic block is a base that is inserted through an opening in the frame,
Modified Sorg does not disclose the base is structurally coupled to the frame, wherein the base is structurally coupled to the frame upon stamping to define the mirrors on the body.
Li discloses an optical device with a composite structure including a base and auxiliary portion of dissimilar materials, where the auxiliary portion is structurally coupled/interlocked the base upon stamping the auxiliary portion (figs. 1a-d, 3a-c structure 10 has base 16 and auxiliary portion 14 of dissimilar materials, fig. 1d 14 interlocked with 16 upon stamping with the same ‘rivet-like’ arrangement + chamfers 26+27, Abstract, 0016, 0036, 0049).
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 base structurally coupled to the frame, wherein the base is structurally coupled (with chamfers) to the frame upon stamping to define the mirrors on the body to consolidate production steps and improve connection between base and frame by allowing for more precise contour alignment between base and frame (Li 0049).
Regarding claim 18, modified Sorg discloses the method as in claim 17, wherein the base surrounds the inside wall of the opening in the frame (fig. 6 base/monolithic Al block of 35 surrounds inside wall of opening in 34), defining an opening in the mirror body to receive the array of lasers (figs 4+6 opening within 35 receives lasers 21-23).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorg in view of Miyata, Li, and Green (CA-2400294-A1).
.
Regarding claim 8, modified Sorg discloses the laser beam module package as in claim 7.
Modified Sorg does not disclose wherein the mirror array block further comprises an outer frame covering the surfaces of the monolithic block except the angled surface, wherein the frame defines the bottom surface of the mirror array block for attachment onto the substrate.
Green discloses a mirror array with a frame/substrate that covers the unused sides of the mirrors in the mirror array (figs. 1a-b mirror array with mirrors 18 within substrate 16, substrate 16 includes 28 + 30 + 32 to house/cover mirrors 18, pg. 3 lines 1-5, pg. 5 line 30 – pg. 6 line 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an outer frame covering the surfaces of the monolithic block except the angled surface, wherein the frame defines the bottom surface of the mirror array block for attachment onto the substrate to the mirror array block to protect/increase durability of the mirror array block.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorg in view of Miyata and Bagschik (US-20170235150-A1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Sorg discloses the laser beam module package as in claim 1.
Modified Sorg does not disclose wherein the mirror array comprises a first mirror array comprising a first set of freeform mirrors and a second mirror array comprising a second set of freeform mirrors corresponding to and facing the first set of mirrors, wherein incident laser beams are directed to the first set of mirrors, wherein the first set of mirrors collimates and reflects the incident laser beams to the second set of mirrors, wherein the second set of mirrors further collimates and direct the collimated output laser beams to the cover to be output from the laser beam module package.
Bagschik discloses a device for shaping laser radiation with a mirror array that comprises a first mirror array comprising a first set of freeform mirrors and a second mirror array comprising a second set of freeform mirrors corresponding to and facing the first set of mirrors (figs. 1+2 mirror array 7+8 comprises first mirror array 7 with first set of freeform mirrors 9 and second mirror array 8 with second set of freeform mirrors 10 corresponding to and facing 9, 0021-0030, claim 29 “free-form”), wherein incident laser beams are directed to the first set of mirrors (figs. 1+2 incident laser beams from 1 directed to set of 9s, 0025), wherein the first set of mirrors collimates and reflects the incident laser beams to the second set of mirrors (figs. 1+2 9s collimate and reflect beams 2 to 10s, 0035-0041), wherein the second set of mirrors further collimates and direct the collimated output laser beams to an output of the device (figs. 1+2 10s further collimate and direct beams to an output of the device/input of optical fiber 11, 0035-0041).
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 mirror array comprise a first mirror array comprising a first set of freeform mirrors and a second mirror array comprising a second set of freeform mirrors corresponding to and facing the first set of mirrors, wherein incident laser beams are directed to the first set of mirrors, wherein the first set of mirrors collimates and reflects the incident laser beams to the second set of mirrors, wherein the second set of mirrors further collimates and direct the collimated output laser beams to the cover to be output from the laser beam module package to provide more control over the beam and improve focus/precision in a low-cost manner (Bagschik 0041).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorg in view of Miyata, Bagschik, and Nielson (WO-03084006-A2).
Regarding claim 12, modified Sorg discloses the laser beam module package as in claim 11.
Modified Sorg does not disclose wherein the first set of mirrors are freeform aspherical cylindrical mirrors, and the second set of mirrors are freeform aspherical cylindrical mirrors.
Nielsen discloses a laser system with a laser beam incident upon an aspherical cylindrical lens for fast axis collimation and one for slow axis collimation (figs. 4b-c aspherical lenses 104 + 108 collimate beam in FA and SA, respectively, pg. 30 lines 15-end).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use freeform aspherical cylindrical mirrors in the sets of mirrors to minimize spherical aberration and allow for more precise tuning of mirrors.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorg (figs. 4+6) in view of Miyata and Sorg (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, modified Sorg discloses the laser beam module package as in claim 13, wherein the mirror array comprises aspherical reflective surfaces of the mirror body (figs. 4+6 mirror array 41-43 comprises aspherical reflective surfaces, 0026).
Modified Sorg does not disclose these surfaces being concave.
Sorg discloses a separate embodiment with a concave redirecting optical element (fig. 2 redirecting element 4 has concave side 40, 0080-0081).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the aspherical reflective surface concave to assist in beam focusing and profile size reduction.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorg in view of Miyata, Li, and Nishikawa (US-20210384698-A1).
Regarding claim 19, modified Sorg discloses the method as in claim 16, wherein the mirror body comprises a mirror array block having a bottom surface for attachment to the substrate and an angled surface facing the array of lasers (annotated fig. 4X mirror body 35 comprises mirror array block 35/itself with bottom surface Bottom for attachment to 30 and angled surface Angled facing 21-23, 0089), wherein the mirror array block comprises the monolithic block and wherein the mirrors are defined by stamping the angled surface of the monolithic block to integrally form the plurality of mirrors (fig. 6 + annotated fig. 4x 35 comprises monolithic Al block with 41-43 integrally defined by stamping angled surface, 0024, 0093).
Modified Sorg does not disclose defining the mirrors simultaneously and prior to attaching the bottom surface of the mirror array block onto the substrate.
Li discloses an optical coupling device with multiple simultaneously stamped/defined reflective surfaces (fig. 2A-D surfaces 12, 0043).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to stamp/define the mirrors simultaneously to maintain and ensure the proper dimensional relationship of the mirrors and consolidate manufacturing steps (Li 0043, 0050).
Modified Sorg does not disclose defining the mirrors prior to attaching the bottom surface of the mirror array block onto the substrate.
Nishikawa discloses a semiconductor laser module with a reflective element with a mirror surface that is formed prior to the reflective element being attached to a substrate (method shown figs. 9-17, in fig. 11-13 reflective element 50 with (pre-formed) mirror surface 50r attached to fig. 13 substrate 22, 0160).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to define the mirrors prior to attaching the bottom surface of the mirror array block onto the substrate to facilitate proper alignment with the lasers and not disrupt substrate/mirror array block connection.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorg in view of Miyata, Li, Nishikawa, and Green.
Regarding claim 20, modified Sorg discloses the method as in claim 19.
Modified Sorg does not disclose wherein the mirror array block further comprises an outer frame covering the surfaces of the monolithic block except the angled surface, wherein the frame defines the bottom surface of the mirror array block for attachment onto the substrate.
Green discloses a mirror array with a frame/substrate that covers the unused sides of the mirrors in the mirror array (figs. 1a-b mirror array with mirrors 18 within substrate 16, substrate 16 includes 28 + 30 + 32 to house/cover mirrors 18, pg. 3 lines 1-5, pg. 5 line 30 – pg. 6 line 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an outer frame covering the surfaces of the monolithic block except the angled surface, wherein the frame defines the bottom surface of the mirror array block for attachment onto the substrate to the mirror array block to protect/increase durability of the mirror array block.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alex Ehrlich whose telephone number is (703)756-5716. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, 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.
/A.E./Examiner, Art Unit 2828
/MINSUN O HARVEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2828