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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/392,571 filed on December 21, 2023 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required by the M.P.E.P. 214.03, acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on applications filed on January 4, 2023 (Japan JP2023-000175).
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 37 CFR 1.55, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted on 12/21/2023 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 12/21/2023 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, Species a, Figure 8, claims 1-15 in the reply filed on March 31, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the recitation “wherein the second substrate and the third substrate are bonded via the metal bonding layer” is indefinite because although only a single reference number, 14, is used for the metal bonding layers between substrates 11 and 15 and between substrates 15 and 22, and both metal bonding layers can be constructed from the same materials in the same manner, the two metal bonding layers on either side of substrate 15 are not disclosed as being connected to one another. Thus, the specification as filed would not support the usual meaning of (claim 1) “wherein the first substrate and the third substrate are bonded via a metal bonding layer, and” (claim 2) “wherein the second substrate and the third substrate are bonded via the metal bonding layer” where the metal bonding layer is literally a single layer or a single set of layers. Thus, claim 2 must be interpreted more broadly as requiring two metal bonding layers that share some set of similar properties, materials or construction. However, this raises at least two indefiniteness issues (1) whether a single continuous metal bonding layer is within the scope of claim 2 (2) what properties must be shared by two metal bonding layers in order to be considered “the metal bonding layer” given that no specific properties thereof are claimed. The examiner suggests the following amendment to claim 2 that would correspond to the invention as disclosed and have the broadest scope:
2. (proposed amendment) “The optical module according to claim 1, wherein the second substrate and the third substrate are bonded via a second metal bonding layer.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuyama et al. US 2021/0400244 A1 (hereafter Katsuyama) in view of Fukuzaki et al. WO 2021/149460 A1 (where reference will be made to Fukuzaki et al. US 2023/0134378 A1, hereafter Fukuzaki, as the English language equivalent).
Regarding claim 1, Katsuyama teaches (embodiment 1, Figs. 3 and 4) “An optical module (paragraph [0058]: “two-dimensional optical scanning type video projection device of embodiment 1”) comprising:
a laser light source part (light source module device 10 with at least lasers 15 and light source module device substrate 11) in which a laser light emitting element (lasers 151, 152 and 153) is formed on one main surface of a first substrate (light source module device substrate 11, see Figs. 3 and 4, lasers 151, 152 and 153 are formed on the upper main surface of 11);
a mirror part (two-dimensional optical scanning mirror device 20) in which an optical scanning mirror element (movable mirror 22, a movable outer frame member 23 and a non-movable outer frame member 24) is formed on one main surface of a second substrate (two-dimensional optical scanning mirror device substrate 21, see Figs. 3 and 4, mirror parts 22, 23 and 24 are formed on the upper main surface of substrate 21); and
a lens part (condensing lens 251) in which an optical lens (condensing lens 251) is formed on one main surface of a third substrate (mounting substrate 30, see Fig. 3 251 is formed on the upper main surface of 30),
wherein the first substrate and the third substrate are bonded (paragraph [0067]: “the light source module device 10 and the two-dimensional optical scanning mirror device 20 are die-bonded onto the common mounting substrate 30”)… and
the optical module is configured for laser light emitted from the laser light emitting element to be reflected by the optical scanning mirror element via the optical lens (see light path in Fig. 3).”
However, Katsuyama fails to explicitly teach “wherein the first substrate and the third substrate are bonded via a metal bonding layer.”
Fukuzaki teaches an optical system (Figs. 1, 4, 5a and 10) involving a three semiconductor-based light sources LD 30-1, LD30-2 and LD 30-3 chips which emit red, green and blue light respectively (see paragraph [0066]) provided on substrates (subcarriers 20)
Fukuzaki teaches wherein the laser chips and the supporting substrate “are bonded via a metal bonding layer (paragraph [0068]: “The LD 30 is a bare chip mounted on the subcarrier 20. The subcarrier 20 is made of, for example, aluminum nitride (AlN), aluminum oxide (Al2O3), silicon (Si), or the like. As shown in FIG. 4, metal layers 75 and 76 are provided between the subcarrier 20 and the LD 30. The subcarrier 20 and the LD 30 are connected to each other via the metal layers 75 and 76.”).”
Katsuyama teaches the optical module of claim 1, except for specifying that a metal bonding layer is utilized in the die-bonding between the laser light source part and the third substrate. Fukuzaki teaches that a pair of metal layers is appropriate for this purpose.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a pair of metal bonding layers as taught by Fukuzaki in the optical module of Katsuyama for the purpose of die-bonding the laser light source part and the third substrate. One would have been motivated to make such a choice because Katsuyama does not specify the precise choice of the method of die-bonding and Fukuzaki teaches that a pair of metal layers is appropriate to properly position a laser chip on its supporting substrate.
Regarding claim 2, the Katsuyama – Fukuzaki combination teaches “The optical module according to claim 1,” and Katsuyama further teaches “wherein the second substrate and the third substrate are bonded (paragraph [0067]: “the light source module device 10 and the two-dimensional optical scanning mirror device 20 are die-bonded onto the common mounting substrate 30”).”
However, Katsuyama fails to explicitly teach “wherein the second substrate and the third substrate are bonded via the metal bonding layer.”
However, Katsuyama does teach that the second substrate is silicon (paragraph [0055]: “For the light source module device substrate 11 and the two-dimensional optical scanning mirror device substrate 21, an Si substrate,”)
Fukuzaki teaches wherein the laser chips and the supporting substrate “are bonded via a metal bonding layer (paragraph [0068]: “The LD 30 is a bare chip mounted on the subcarrier 20. The subcarrier 20 is made of, for example, aluminum nitride (AlN), aluminum oxide (Al2O3), silicon (Si), or the like. As shown in FIG. 4, metal layers 75 and 76 are provided between the subcarrier 20 and the LD 30. The subcarrier 20 and the LD 30 are connected to each other via the metal layers 75 and 76.”).”
Katsuyama teaches the optical module of claim 2, except for specifying that a metal bonding layer is utilized in the die-bonding between the mirror source part and the third substrate. Fukuzaki teaches that a pair of metal layers is appropriate to bond two substrates where one of them is silicon (paragraph [0068]: “The subcarrier 20 is made of… silicon (Si), or the like.”) and the other is a semiconductor (paragraph [0086] “optical semiconductor device (LD) 30”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a pair of metal bonding layers as taught by Fukuzaki in the optical module of Katsuyama for the purpose of die-bonding the mirror substrate and the third substrate. One would have been motivated to make such a choice because Katsuyama does not specify the precise choice of the method of die-bonding and Fukuzaki teaches that a pair of metal layers is appropriate to properly position a semiconductor device on its supporting silicon substrate.
Regarding claim 3, the Katsuyama – Fukuzaki combination teaches “The optical module according to claim 1,” however, Katsuyama fails to teach “wherein the metal bonding layer contains at least gold or tin.”
Fukuzaki teaches “wherein the metal bonding layer contains at least gold or tin (paragraph [0068]: “The metal layers 75 and 76 may contain one or more metals selected from the group composed of, for example, gold (Au), platinum (Pt), silver (Ag), lead (Pb), indium (In), nickel (Ni), titanium (Ti), tantalum (Ta), tungsten (W), an alloy of gold (Au) and tin (Sn), tin (Sn)-silver (Ag)-copper (Cu)-based solder alloys (SAC), SnCu, InBi, SnPdAg, SnBiln, and PbBiln and may be made of one or more metals selected from the group.” emphasis added).”
It is a well-established proposition that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In reLeshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). MPEP §2144.07.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a metal containing at least gold or tin as the material for the metal bonding layer as taught by Fukuzaki in the optical module of the Katsuyama – Fukuzaki combination since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In reLeshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 5, the Katsuyama – Fukuzaki combination teaches “The optical module according to claim 1,” and Katsuyama further teaches “wherein the laser light emitting element is configured to emit visible light range laser light in a wavelength range of 380 nm or more and less than 800 nm (paragraph [0054] “The light source elements 15 in this case are typically a blue semiconductor laser 151, a green semiconductor laser 152, and a red semiconductor laser 153” Red, green and blue are all within the visible light range and thus in a wavelength range of 380 nm or more and less than 800 nm.).”
Regarding claim 9, the Katsuyama – Fukuzaki combination teaches “The optical module according to claim 1” and Katsuyama further teaches “wherein a first wiring layer connected to the laser light emitting element is formed on the first substrate (see 16, 17 and 18 in Fig. 4 and description thereof in paragraph [0067]).”
Regarding claim 10, the Katsuyama – Fukuzaki combination teaches “The optical module according to claim 1,” and Katsuyama further teaches “wherein a second wiring layer connected to the optical scanning mirror element is formed on the second substrate (see 36, 37 and 39 in Fig. 4 and description thereof in paragraph [0067]).”
Regarding claim 11, the Katsuyama – Fukuzaki combination teaches “The optical module according to claim 1,” and Katsuyama further teaches “wherein the optical scanning mirror element is a MEMS device (paragraph [0062]: “the two-dimensional optical scanning mirror device 20, of which dimensions are 7 mm (length)×5 mm (width)×0.7 mm (height), is formed by performing a MEMS processing on an Si wafer.”), and is configured to arbitrarily adjust a reflection angle (paragraph [0047]: “two-dimensional optical scanning type video projection device… two-dimensional optical scanning mirror device 20 including a movable mirror 22” A two-dimensional scanning mirror can “arbitrarily” adjust the reflection angle by moving the mirror).”
Regarding claim 12, the Katsuyama – Fukuzaki combination teaches “The optical module according to claim 1,” however, Katsuyama embodiment 1 of Figs. 3-5 fails to teach “wherein the laser light source comprises a plurality of laser light source parts, and the first substrate constituting each of the laser light source parts is bonded to the third substrate constituting the lens part via the metal bonding layer individually.”
Katsuyama (Fig. 32) teaches “wherein the laser light source comprises a plurality of laser light source parts (paragraph [0005]: “A three primary color light source module device 140 is constituted of a combination of a red semiconductor laser chip 147, a green semiconductor laser chip 148, a blue semiconductor laser chip 149”), and the first substrate constituting each of the laser light source parts is bonded to the third substrate… individually (given that Fig. 32 is a variation on the two-dimensional optical scanning type video projection device proposed by the present inventor, see paragraph [0005] one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably deduce that those aspects not disclosed with respect to Fig. 32 are the same as the previous embodiments where paragraph [0067]: teaches “the light source module device 10 and the two-dimensional optical scanning mirror device 20 are die-bonded onto the common mounting substrate 30,”).”
It is a well-established proposition that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961); Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. MPEP §2144.04(V).
Katsuyama, Figs. 3-5 discloses the claimed invention except for a plurality of light source parts, each with its own first substrate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the three light sources as a plurality of light source parts as taught by Katsuyama Fig. 32, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961); Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
However, Katsuyama fails to teach “the first substrate constituting each of the laser light source parts is bonded to the third substrate constituting the lens part via the metal bonding layer.”
Fukuzaki teaches an optical system (Figs. 1, 4, 5a and 10) involving a three semiconductor-based light sources LD 30-1, LD30-2 and LD 30-3 chips which emit red, green and blue light respectively (see paragraph [0066]) provided on substrates (subcarriers 20)
Fukuzaki teaches wherein the laser chips and the supporting substrate “are bonded via a metal bonding layer (paragraph [0068]: “The LD 30 is a bare chip mounted on the subcarrier 20. The subcarrier 20 is made of, for example, aluminum nitride (AlN), aluminum oxide (Al2O3), silicon (Si), or the like. As shown in FIG. 4, metal layers 75 and 76 are provided between the subcarrier 20 and the LD 30. The subcarrier 20 and the LD 30 are connected to each other via the metal layers 75 and 76.”).”
The Katsuyama -Fukuzaki combination introduced for claim 1 teaches the optical module of claim 12, except for specifying that a metal bonding layer is utilized in the die-bonding between the laser light source parts and the third substrate. Fukuzaki teaches that a pair of metal layers is appropriate for this purpose.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a pair of metal bonding layers as taught by Fukuzaki in the optical module of Katsuyama for the purpose of die-bonding the laser light source parts and the third substrate. One would have been motivated to make such a choice because Katsuyama does not specify the precise choice of the method of die-bonding and Fukuzaki teaches that a pair of metal layers is appropriate to properly position a laser chip on its supporting substrate.
Claims 1, 3, 5 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reitterer et al. US 2020/0110331 A1 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Reitterer) in view of Katsuyama et al. US 2021/0400244 A1 (hereafter Katsuyama) and Fukuzaki et al. WO 2021/149460 A1 (where reference will be made to Fukuzaki et al. US 2023/0134378 A1, hereafter Fukuzaki, as the English language equivalent).
Regarding claim 1, Reitterer teaches “An optical module (apparatus 1 of Fig. 1 with the lens arrangement of Figs. 9a or 9b) comprising:
a laser light source part (light source 3, paragraph [0049]: “light source 3 are semiconductor light sources such as… laser diodes”) in which a laser light emitting element (paragraph [0049]: “laser diodes”) is formed on one main surface of a first substrate (submount 7, 3 are on the top main surface of 7 in Fig. 1);
a mirror part (MEMs mirror 5) in which an optical scanning mirror element is formed (MEMs mirror 5 which oscillates to deflect the light beam see paragraph [0051]) on one main surface of a second substrate (substrate 6, see Fig. 1 mirror 5 is on the top main surface of 6, albeit mounted at an angle); and
a lens part (Figs. 9a or 9b two cylindrical lenses 4 and 14 and spacer 15) in which an optical lens (two cylindrical lenses 4 and 14) is formed on one main surface of a third substrate (spacer 15 serves as a substrate for 4 and 14 in Figs. 9a and 9b),
wherein…
the optical module is configured for laser light emitted from the laser light emitting element to be reflected by the optical scanning mirror element via the optical lens (see light path in Fig. 1).”
However, Reitterer fails to teach “wherein the first substrate and the third substrate are bonded via a metal bonding layer”.
Katsuyama teaches (embodiment 1, Figs. 3 and 4) “An optical module (paragraph [0058]: “two-dimensional optical scanning type video projection device of embodiment 1”) comprising:
a laser light source part (light source module device 10 with at least lasers 15 and light source module device substrate 11) in which a laser light emitting element (lasers 151, 152 and 153) is formed on one main surface of a first substrate (light source module device substrate 11, see Figs. 3 and 4, lasers 151, 152 and 153 are formed on the upper main surface of 11);
a mirror part (two-dimensional optical scanning mirror device 20) in which an optical scanning mirror element (movable mirror 22, a movable outer frame member 23 and a non-movable outer frame member 24) is formed on one main surface of a second substrate (two-dimensional optical scanning mirror device substrate 21, see Figs. 3 and 4, mirror parts 22, 23 and 24 are formed on the upper main surface of substrate 21); and
a lens part (condensing lens 251) in which an optical lens (condensing lens 251) is formed on one main surface of a third substrate (mounting substrate 30, see Fig. 3 251 is formed on the upper main surface of 30),
wherein the first substrate and the third substrate are bonded (paragraph [0067]: “the light source module device 10 and the two-dimensional optical scanning mirror device 20 are die-bonded onto the common mounting substrate 30”)… and
the optical module is configured for laser light emitted from the laser light emitting element to be reflected by the optical scanning mirror element via the optical lens (see light path in Fig. 3).”
Katsuyama further teaches (paragraphs [0067]-[0068]): “As illustrated in FIG. 4, the light source module device 10 and the two-dimensional optical scanning mirror device 20 are die-bonded onto the common mounting substrate 30, and pads 161 to 163 and wires on substrate 171 to 174 are disposed on one side of the edges of the mounting substrate 30. The blue semiconductor laser 151, the green semiconductor laser 152 and the red semiconductor laser 153 are connected to the pads 161 to 163 via bonding wires 181 to 183 so as to be energizable. The pads 361 to 364 and wires on substrate 371 to 374 are disposed on the other side of the edges of the mounting substrate 30. Pads 381 to 384 disposed on the surface of the non-movable outer frame member 24 are connected to the pads 361 to 363 via bonding wires 391 to 394 so as to be energizable.
Since the light source module device 10 and the two-dimensional optical scanning mirror device 20 have already been disposed in parallel on the common mounting substrate 30, the wire bonding at this time can be performed virtually under the same bonding conditions, without changing the direction of bonding, for example. As a result, wires are formed easily and fabrication cost can be reduced.”
Reitterer fails to teach sufficient details about the laser light source part and the mirror part to demonstrate that the laser light source part has a first substrate and the mirror part has a second substrate which are both placed on a common substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the laser light source part and the mirror part to have first and second substrates respectively placed on a common substrate as taught by Katsuyama in order to fabricate the connections necessary to energize the laser and mirror easily and at reduced cost as taught by Katsuyama.
Note that in the above combination, there is no reason why the spacer 15 which positions 4 and 14 appropriately together prior to positioning them relative to the laser as taught by Reitterer cannot be retained. Thus the Reitterer – Katsuyama combination has a first, a third and a second substrate all positioned on a common substrate.
However, the Reitterer – Katsuyama combination fails to teach “wherein the first substrate and the third substrate are bonded via a metal bonding layer.”
Fukuzaki teaches an optical system (Figs. 1, 4 and 7) involving a three semiconductor based light sources LD 30-1, LD30-2 and LD 30-3 which emit red, green and blue light respectively (see paragraph [0066]) provided on first substrates (subcarriers 20) adjacent to another optical element on a third substrate (substrate 40).
Fukuzaki further teaches (claim 1) "wherein the first substrate (20) and the third substrate (40) are bonded via a metal bonding layer (first, second and third metal layers 71, 72 and 73 see Figs. 4 and 7 which are a metal bonding layer in that they connect 20 and 40 see e.g. paragraph [0084]: "the subcarrier (mounting base) 20 and the substrate 40 are connected through the metal layer")."
Fukuzaki further teaches (paragraphs [0084] and [0087]): "As shown in FIG. 4, in the integrated optical device 10 of this embodiment, a bottom surface (mounting base bottom surface) 23 facing the upper surface (surface) 21 of the subcarrier (mounting base) 20 and a bottom surface (substrate bottom surface) 43 facing the upper surface (surface) 41 of the substrate 40 are provided to be located on the substantially same plane S. In the integrated optical device 10 of this embodiment, since the subcarrier (mounting base) 20 and the substrate 40 are connected through the metal layer, the occurrence of positional deviation due to the heating process is remarkably suppressed compared with the hybrid integrated optical module of Patent Document 4 having a structure connected by an adhesive."
"Further, since the bottom surface 23 of the subcarrier 20 and the bottom surface 43 of the substrate 40 are provided on the substantially same plane S in this embodiment, both the bottom surface 23 of the subcarrier 20 and the bottom surface 43 of the substrate 40 can be bonded to one plane of the substrate or the like when the integrated optical device 10 is bonded to one plane of another substrate or the like. Accordingly, it is possible to maintain a high bonding strength and to realize the integrated optical device 10 having excellent impact resistance."
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate metal bonding layers between the side surfaces of the first and third substrates as taught by Fukuzaki in the device of the Reitterer – Katsuyama combination because Fukuzaki teaches that the metal bonding connection between the first and second substrates suppresses the occurrence of positional deviation due to the heating process compared to an adhesive (Fukuzaki paragraph [0084]) and configuring all of the first and second substrates and the metal layers to be on substantially the same plane and bonded to the same lower substrate enables maintaining a high bonding strength and realizes a device having excellent impact resistance (Fukuzaki paragraph [0087]).
Regarding claim 3, the Reitterer – Katsuyama – Fukuzaki combination teaches “The optical module according to claim 1,” however, Reitterer fails to teach “wherein the metal bonding layer contains at least gold or tin.”
Fukuzaki teaches “wherein the metal bonding layer contains at least gold or tin (paragraph [0076] "The first metal layer 71 may contain one or more metals selected from the group composed of, for example, gold (Au) Preferably, AuSn, SnAgCu, and SnBiln are used for the third metal layer 73." Where Sn is the symbol for tin, thus the third layer 73 can have both gold and tin.)."
It is a well-established proposition that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In reLeshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). MPEP §2144.07.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a metal containing at least gold or tin as the material for the metal bonding layer as taught by Fukuzaki in the optical module of the Reitterer – Katsuyama – Fukuzaki combination since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In reLeshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 5, the Reitterer – Katsuyama – Fukuzaki combination teaches “The optical module according to claim 1,” and Reitterer further teaches “wherein the laser light emitting element is configured to emit visible light range laser light in a wavelength range of 380 nm or more and less than 800 nm (paragraph [0049] “each light source 3 is configured to emit a light beam 8 having a different wavelength λ, e.g., to emit a red, a green, and a blue light beam 8.” Red, green and blue are all within the visible light range and thus in a wavelength range of 380 nm or more and less than 800 nm.).”
Regarding claim 9, the Reitterer – Katsuyama – Fukuzaki combination teaches “The optical module according to claim 1” however, Reitterer fails to teach “wherein a first wiring layer connected to the laser light emitting element is formed on the first substrate.”
Katsuyama teaches “wherein a first wiring layer connected to the laser light emitting element is formed on the first substrate (see 16, 17 and 18 in Fig. 4 and description thereof in paragraph [0067]).”
Katsuyama further teaches (paragraph [0067]): "The blue semiconductor laser 151, the green semiconductor laser 15₂ and the red semiconductor laser 15₃ are connected to the pads 16₁ to 163 via bonding wires 18₁ to 183 so as to be energizable."
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a first wiring layer connected to the laser light emitting element on the first substrate as taught by Katsuyama in the device of the Reitterer – Katsuyama – Fukuzaki combination in order to energize the laser light emitting elements as taught by Katsuyama (paragraph [0067]).
Regarding claim 10, the Reitterer – Katsuyama – Fukuzaki combination teaches “The optical module according to claim 1,” however, Reitterer fails to teach “wherein a second wiring layer connected to the optical scanning mirror element is formed on the second substrate.”
Katsuyama teaches “wherein a second wiring layer connected to the optical scanning mirror element is formed on the second substrate (see 36, 37 and 39 in Fig. 4 and description thereof in paragraph [0067]).”
Katsuyama further teaches (paragraph [0067]): "The pads 36₁ to 36₄ and wires on substrate 37₁ to 37₄ are disposed on the other side of the edges of the mounting substrate 30. Pads 381 to 38₄ disposed on the surface of the non-movable outer frame member 24 are connected to the pads 36₁ to 36₃ via bonding wires 39₁ to 39₄ so as to be energizable."
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a second wiring layer connected to the optical scanning mirror element on the second substrate as taught by Katsuyama 2021 in the device of the Reitterer – Katsuyama – Fukuzaki combination for the purpose of energizing the scanning mirror as taught by Katsuyama (paragraph [0067]).
Regarding claim 11, the Katsuyama – Fukuzaki combination teaches “The optical module according to claim 1,” and Katsuyama further teaches “wherein the optical scanning mirror element is a MEMS device (e.g. paragraph [0048]: “a MEMS (micro-electro-mechanical system) mirror 5”), and is configured to arbitrarily adjust a reflection angle (paragraph [0051] “According to FIGS. 3 and 5, the MEMS mirror 5 is arranged in the path of the light beam 8 to deflect the light beam 8 about a deflection angle α. MEMS mirrors 5 can be actuated electronically to oscillate along an angle α, i.e., (symmetrically) about a nominal deflection angle α.sub.0, wherein the oscillation can be about one or two axes. This is used to project the light spot 2 along a line or area, creating a dynamic projection for the viewer.” A two-dimensional scanning mirror can “arbitrarily” adjust the reflection angle by moving the mirror).”
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuyama et al. US 2021/0400244 A1 (hereafter Katsuyama) in view of Fukuzaki et al. WO 2021/149460 A1 (where reference will be made to Fukuzaki et al. US 2023/0134378 A1, hereafter Fukuzaki, as the English language equivalent) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sekikawa US 2008/0239520 A1 (hereafter Sekikawa).
Regarding claim 4, the Katsuyama – Fukuzaki combination teaches “The optical module according to claim 1,” and Katsuyama further teaches “wherein each of the first substrate, the second substrate… is made of one of a silicon substrate (paragraph [0055]: “For the light source module device substrate 11 and the two-dimensional optical scanning mirror device substrate 21, an Si substrate… may be used”), an aluminum oxide substrate (this is optional), an aluminum nitride substrate (this is optional), and a quartz substrate (this is optional).”
However, Katsuyama is silent as to the material of the third substrate and thus fails to explicitly teach “and the third substrate is made of one of a silicon substrate, an aluminum oxide substrate, an aluminum nitride substrate, and a quartz substrate.”
Sekikawa an optical module having a semiconductor laser 60 and a lens element 40 arranged on a shared substrate 20.
Sekikawa teaches “the third substrate is made of one of a silicon substrate (paragraph [0092]: “the substrate 20 is of silicon,”), an aluminum oxide substrate (this is optional), an aluminum nitride substrate (this is optional), and a quartz substrate (this is optional).”
Sekikawa further teaches (paragraph [0093]): “The lens mounting groove 24 and the support groove 26 in the substrate 20 may be formed remarkably accurately by, for example, a wafer process in the usual manner. Specifically, the conventional photolithographic process for forming a resist pattern and etching process using a resist pattern as a mask may be used to pattern the wafer 20 into a desired size and shape. The desired size and shape are determined taking into account the optical path length and the optical properties of the light-emitting device 60 and the lens element 40 and the like.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose silicon as the material of the third substrate that supports the lens as taught by Sekikawa because Sekikiawa teaches that silicon enables the lens mounting groove 24 to be formed remarkably accurately by a conventional photolithographic wafer processes in the usual manner (Sekine paragraph [0093]), which would facilitate the accuracy of the relative positioning of the optical elements of the optical module of Katsuyama.
Regarding claim 7, the Katsuyama – Fukuzaki combination teaches “The optical module according to claim 1,” however, Katsuyama fails to explicitly teach “wherein the lens part includes the optical lens and a lens holder made of silicon that supports the optical lens.”
Sekikawa an optical module having a semiconductor laser 60 and a lens element 40 arranged on a shared substrate 20.
Sekikawa further teaches “wherein the lens part includes the optical lens (lens per se 42) and a lens holder (lens support portion 44) made of silicon (paragraph [0075]: “the lens element 40, preferably applicable is, for example, a silicon micro lens made of silicon fabricated through the wafer process.”) that supports the optical lens (lens support portion 44, see Fig. 5A).”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an optical lens and a lens holder made of silicon as taught by Sekikawa so that the lens can be mounted appropriately in a lens mounting groove support while the support portion is mounted in a support groove to enable appropriate positioning of the lens as taught by Sekikawa.
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reitterer et al. US 2020/0110331 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Reitterer) in view of Katsuyama et al. US 2021/0400244 A1 (hereafter Katsuyama) and Fukuzaki et al. WO 2021/149460 A1 (where reference will be made to Fukuzaki et al. US 2023/0134378 A1, hereafter Fukuzaki, as the English language equivalent) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sekikawa US 2008/0239520 A1 (hereafter Sekikawa).
Regarding claim 4, the Reitterer – Katsuyama – Fukuzaki combination teaches “The optical module according to claim 1,” however, Reitterer fails to teach “wherein each of the first substrate, the second substrate, and the third substrate is made of one of a silicon substrate, an aluminum oxide substrate, an aluminum nitride substrate, and a quartz substrate.”
Katsuyama teaches “wherein each of the first substrate, the second substrate… is made of one of a silicon substrate (paragraph [0055]: “For the light source module device substrate 11 and the two-dimensional optical scanning mirror device substrate 21, an Si substrate… may be used”), an aluminum oxide substrate (this is optional), an aluminum nitride substrate (this is optional), and a quartz substrate (this is optional).”
Sekikawa an optical module having a semiconductor laser 60 and a lens element 40 arranged on a shared substrate 20.
Sekikawa teaches “the third substrate is made of one of a silicon substrate (paragraph [0092]: “the substrate 20 is of silicon,”), an aluminum oxide substrate (this is optional), an aluminum nitride substrate (this is optional), and a quartz substrate (this is optional).”
It is a well-established proposition that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In reLeshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). MPEP §2144.07.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose silicon as the material for all of the substrates as taught by Katsuyama and Sekikawa in the optical module of the Reitterer combination since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In reLeshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 7, the Reitterer – Katsuyama – Fukuzaki combination teaches “The optical module according to claim 1,” and Reitterer further teaches “wherein the lens part includes the optical lens (4 and 14) and a lens holder (spacer 15) … that supports the optical lens (see Figs. 9a and 9b).”
However, Reitterer fails to explicitly teach “a lens holder made of silicon.”
Sekikawa an optical module having a semiconductor laser 60 and a lens element 40 arranged on a shared substrate 20.
Sekikawa further teaches “wherein the lens part includes the optical lens (lens per se 42) and a lens holder (lens support portion 44) made of silicon (paragraph [0075]: “the lens element 40, preferably applicable is, for example, a silicon micro lens made of silicon fabricated through the wafer process.”) that supports the optical lens (lens support portion 44, see Fig. 5A).”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an optical lens and a lens holder made of silicon as taught by Sekikawa so that the lens can be mounted appropriately in a lens mounting groove support while the support portion is mounted in a support groove to enable appropriate positioning of the lens as taught by Sekikawa.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuyama et al. US 2021/0400244 A1 (hereafter Katsuyama) in view of Fukuzaki et al. WO 2021/149460 A1 (where reference will be made to Fukuzaki et al. US 2023/0134378 A1, hereafter Fukuzaki, as the English language equivalent) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsuo et al. JP 2020170159 A (hereafter Matsuo, where reference will be made to the attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 6, the Katsuyama – Fukuzaki combination teaches “The optical module according to claim 1,” however, Katsuyama is silent regarding “wherein the laser light emitting element is configured to emit near-infrared region laser light in a wavelength range of 800 nm or more and less than 1800 nm.”
Matsuo teaches a head mounted display (see Fig 10 and e.g. page 8 paragraphs 5, 7 and 9) that uses an infrared detection system for eyetracking (e.g. page 8 paragraph 7).
Matsuo further teaches "wherein the laser light emitting element is configured to emit near- infrared region laser light in a wavelength range of 800 nm or more and less than 1800 nm (page 5 second paragraph "The wavelength of infrared rays emitted from the infrared emitting unit is preferably the peak wavelength of infrared rays exists in the range of 900 nm to 1800 nm. Examples of the infrared peak wavelength include wavelengths such as 850 nm, 905 nm, 940 nm, 1050 nm, 1200 nm, 1300 nm, 1450 nm, 1550 nm, 1650 nm, and 1720 nm.)"
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose as the wavelength of an infrared laser of the Katsuyama – Fukuzaki combination a peak wavelength in the range of 900 nm to 1800 nm such as 850 nm, 905 nm, 940 nm, 1050 nm, 1200 nm, 1300 nm, 1450 nm, 1550 nm, 1650 nm, and 1720 nm as taught by Matsuo because Matsuo teaches that such wavelengths are appropriate for eyetracking in a head mounted display (Fig. 10 and page 8 paragraph 7).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reitterer et al. US 2020/0110331 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Reitterer) in view of Katsuyama et al. US 2021/0400244 A1 (hereafter Katsuyama) and Fukuzaki et al. WO 2021/149460 A1 (where reference will be made to Fukuzaki et al. US 2023/0134378 A1, hereafter Fukuzaki, as the English language equivalent) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsuo et al. JP 2020170159 A (hereafter Matsuo, where reference will be made to the attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 6, the Reitterer – Katsuyama – Fukuzaki combination teaches “The optical module according to claim 1,” however, Reitterer is silent regarding “wherein the laser light emitting element is configured to emit near-infrared region laser light in a wavelength range of 800 nm or more and less than 1800 nm.”
Matsuo teaches a head mounted display (see Fig 10 and e.g. page 8 paragraphs 5, 7 and 9) that uses an infrared detection system for eyetracking (e.g. page 8 paragraph 7).
Matsuo further teaches "wherein the laser light emitting element is configured to emit near- infrared region laser light in a wavelength range of 800 nm or more and less than 1800 nm (page 5 second paragraph "The wavelength of infrared rays emitted from the infrared emitting unit is preferably the peak wavelength of infrared rays exists in the range of 900 nm to 1800 nm. Examples of the infrared peak wavelength include wavelengths such as 850 nm, 905 nm, 940 nm, 1050 nm, 1200 nm, 1300 nm, 1450 nm, 1550 nm, 1650 nm, and 1720 nm.)"
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose as the wavelength of an infrared laser of the Reitterer combination a peak wavelength in the range of 900 nm to 1800 nm such as 850 nm, 905 nm, 940 nm, 1050 nm, 1200 nm, 1300 nm, 1450 nm, 1550 nm, 1650 nm, and 1720 nm as taught by Matsuo because Matsuo teaches that such wavelengths are appropriate for eyetracking in a head mounted display (Fig. 10 and page 8 paragraph 7).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuyama et al. US 2021/0400244 A1 (hereafter Katsuyama) in view of Fukuzaki et al. WO 2021/149460 A1 (where reference will be made to Fukuzaki et al. US 2023/0134378 A1, hereafter Fukuzaki, as the English language equivalent) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kadowaki US 2018/0348525 A1 (hereafter Kadowaki).
Regarding claim 8, the Katsuyama – Fukuzaki combination teaches “The optical module according to claim 1,” and Katsuyama further teaches “wherein the laser light emitting element comprises a plurality of laser light emitting elements (paragraph [0054] “The light source elements 15 in this case are typically a blue semiconductor laser 151, a green semiconductor laser 152, and a red semiconductor laser 153”), and the optical lens is configured such that the laser light emitted from each of the laser light emitting elements is refracted (condensing lens 251. Lenses act by refraction, and “condensing” indicates that the lens converges the light.).”
However Katsuyama fails to explicitly teach “refracted to be focused on one point on the optical scanning mirror element.”
Kadowaki teaches (claim 1) “An optical module (paragraph [0001]: “head-mounted display”) comprising:
a laser light source part (laser light sources 111, 112 and 113, paragraph [0023]) in which a laser light emitting element is formed (paragraph [0023]: “Each of light sources 111, 112, 113 is a laser light source”)…
a mirror part (micro electro mechanical systems (MEMS) mirror 131) in which an optical scanning mirror element is formed (micro electro mechanical systems (MEMS) mirror 131)… and
a lens part (condensing lens 126) in which an optical lens is formed (condensing lens 126)…
wherein … the optical module is configured for laser light emitted from the laser light emitting element to be reflected by the optical scanning mirror element via the optical lens (see Fig. 1).”
(claim 8) “wherein the laser light emitting element comprises a plurality of laser light emitting elements (paragraph [0023]: “Each of light sources 111, 112, 113 is a laser light source”), and the optical lens is configured such that the laser light emitted from each of the laser light emitting elements is refracted to be focused on one point on the optical scanning mirror element (paragraphs [0025]-[0029]: “The light beams are converted into a convergent light beam by condensing lens 126, and then is incident on MEMS mirror 131… Reflective surface 131a has a circular shape with a diameter about 1 mm. The light beams collected on reflective surface 131a by condensing lens 126 has a smaller size than an area of reflective surface 131a… A focal position of condensing lens 126 is preferably set near MEMS mirror 131. Setting the focal position of condensing lens 126 near MEMS mirror 131 can decrease a size of the light beam on reflective surface 131a, which is a constituent element of MEMS mirror 131. By decreasing the size of the light beam on reflective surface 131a, reflective surface 131a can be downsized.” Thus condensing lens 126 refracts the laser light to be focused to a small beam “near” the MEMs mirror. In the instant case, “near” the MEMs mirror and the light beams being collected to a small size are considered to meet “to be focused on one point on the optical scanning mirror element” because both “one point” and “on” are construed as to be within normal optical parameters rather than literally.).”
Kadowaki further teaches (paragraph [0029]): “Setting the focal position of condensing lens 126 near MEMS mirror 131 can decrease a size of the light beam on reflective surface 131a, which is a constituent element of MEMS mirror 131. By decreasing the size of the light beam on reflective surface 131a, reflective surface 131a can be downsized. Smaller-sized reflective surface 131a can be driven at a higher speed. Therefore, the downsizing of reflective surface 131a contributes to the provision of a high-resolution display device.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the condensing lens of Katsuyama to refract the laser light onto a beam spot on the MEMs mirror as taught by Kadowaki because Kadowaki teaches that such a choice enables downsizing of the mirror such that the mirror can be driven at a higher speed, thereby contributing to a higher resolution display device (Kadowaki paragraph [0029]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuyama et al. US 2021/0400244 A1 (hereafter Katsuyama) in view of Fukuzaki et al. WO 2021/149460 A1 (where reference will be made to Fukuzaki et al. US 2023/0134378 A1, hereafter Fukuzaki, as the English language equivalent) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Freedman et al. US 2019/0235252 A1 (hereafter Freedman).
Regarding claim 13, the Katsuyama – Fukuzaki combination teaches “The optical module according to claim 1,” however, Katsuyama fails to teach “wherein a surface of a mirror surface portion of the optical scanning mirror element is a concave mirror of which a cross section passing through a center point forms a parabola.”
Freedman teaches a head-mounted display device having a plurality of laser light source (four sets of red, green, and blue (RGB) laser diodes 341A, 341B, 341C, and 341D) and a 2-D scanning mirror (350).
Freedman further teaches (claim 6) "wherein a surface of a mirror surface portion of the optical scanning mirror element (paragraph [0057]: "scanning mirror 350 having a surface with positive optical power, e.g., parabolic mirror 351") is a concave mirror (e.g. paragraph [0027]: "the surface with positive optical power includes a concave mirror." see also Fig. 7) of which a cross section passing through a center point forms a parabola ([0066]: "The scanning mirror surface with positive optical power, e.g., a parabolic mirror". If the mirror is parabolic, then its cross section forms a parabola including at any center point thereof. Note that as written the claim does not exclude off-axis parabolas. Firstly, the term "center" can be the center of the mirror, and is not necessarily the vertex of the parabola. Secondly, the claim does not recite that the surface of the mirror includes the vertex of the parabola, only that a cross- section of the mirror forms a parabola.)."
Freedman further teaches (paragraphs [0060] and [0066]): "The scanning mirror 350 can be a mirror with positive optical power. In the field of optics, the term optical power (also referred to as dioptric power, refractive power, focusing power, or convergence power) is the degree to which a lens, mirror, or other optical system converges or diverges light... For example, the scanning mirror can be a curved mirror, a parabolic mirror, a spherical mirror approximating a parabolic mirror, an aspheric mirror, or the like. Mirrors of other shapes can be formed using optical design methods for optimization."
"The scanning mirror surface with positive optical power, e.g., a parabolic mirror, is configured to collimate light emitted by the plurality of point light sources."
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the shape of the surface of the scanning mirror to be parabolic as taught by Freedman in the device of Katsuyama for the purpose of providing positive focusing power to converge the light, for example to collimate the light from the plurality of light sources (Freedman paragraphs [0060] and [0066]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reitterer et al. US 2020/0110331 A1 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Reitterer) in view of Katsuyama et al. US 2021/0400244 A1 (hereafter Katsuyama) and Fukuzaki et al. WO 2021/149460 A1 (where reference will be made to Fukuzaki et al. US 2023/0134378 A1, hereafter Fukuzaki, as the English language equivalent) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Freedman et al. US 2019/0235252 A1 (hereafter Freedman).
Regarding claim 13, the Reitterer – Katsuyama – Fukuzaki combination teaches “The optical module according to claim 1,” and Reitterer further teaches “wherein a surface of a mirror surface portion of the optical scanning mirror element is a concave mirror (paragraph [0052]: “the curvature R of the mirror surface 9 can be either convex or concave… The disclosed subject matter can, however, also be utilized for mirrors 5 whose surface curvature R has been manufactured by choice.” emphasis added).”
However, Reitterer fails to teach “a concave mirror of which a cross section passing through a center point forms a parabola.”
Freedman teaches a head-mounted display device having a plurality of laser light source (four sets of red, green, and blue (RGB) laser diodes 341A, 341B, 341C, and 341D) and a 2-D scanning mirror (350).
Freedman further teaches (claim 6) "wherein a surface of a mirror surface portion of the optical scanning mirror element (paragraph [0057]: "scanning mirror 350 having a surface with positive optical power, e.g., parabolic mirror 351") is a concave mirror (e.g. paragraph [0027]: "the surface with positive optical power includes a concave mirror." see also Fig. 7) of which a cross section passing through a center point forms a parabola ([0066]: "The scanning mirror surface with positive optical power, e.g., a parabolic mirror". If the mirror is parabolic, then its cross section forms a parabola including at any center point thereof. Note that as written the claim does not exclude off-axis parabolas. Firstly, the term "center" can be the center of the mirror, and is not necessarily the vertex of the parabola. Secondly, the claim does not recite that the surface of the mirror includes the vertex of the parabola, only that a cross- section of the mirror forms a parabola.)."
Freedman further teaches (paragraphs [0060] and [0066]): "The scanning mirror 350 can be a mirror with positive optical power. In the field of optics, the term optical power (also referred to as dioptric power, refractive power, focusing power, or convergence power) is the degree to which a lens, mirror, or other optical system converges or diverges light... For example, the scanning mirror can be a curved mirror, a parabolic mirror, a spherical mirror approximating a parabolic mirror, an aspheric mirror, or the like. Mirrors of other shapes can be formed using optical design methods for optimization."
"The scanning mirror surface with positive optical power, e.g., a parabolic mirror, is configured to collimate light emitted by the plurality of point light sources."
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the shape of the surface of the scanning mirror to be parabolic as taught by Freedman in the device of Reitterer for the purpose of providing positive focusing power to converge the light, for example to collimate the light from the plurality of light sources (Freedman paragraphs [0060] and [0066]).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reitterer et al. US 2020/0110331 A1 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Reitterer) in view of Katsuyama et al. US 2021/0400244 A1 (hereafter Katsuyama) and Fukuzaki et al. WO 2021/149460 A1 (where reference will be made to Fukuzaki et al. US 2023/0134378 A1, hereafter Fukuzaki, as the English language equivalent) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sakurai et al. US 2024/0126081 A1 (hereafter Sakurai).
Regarding claim 14, the Reitterer – Katsuyama – Fukuzaki combination teaches “the optical module according to claim 1” and Reitterer further teaches “An optical engine for image projection (paragraph [0090]: “Applications of the disclosed apparatus 1 include, e.g., the projection of a light spot 2 onto a viewing zone… augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), and mixed reality (MR) head-mounted displays (HMD),… the light spot 2 being scanned by the oscillating mirror projects an image onto a screen, onto an optical combiner such as a waveguide or reflector (e.g., in “birdbath” or “bug eye” configuration), or even directly into a human's eye.” emphasis added) comprising: the optical module according to claim 1; (see claim 1 above).”
Further, the combination introduced for claim 1 teaches “one common substrate (Katsuyama mounting substrate 30) on which the first substrate (Katsuyama substrate 11), the second substrate (Katsuyama substrate 21), and the third substrate (Reitterer spacer 15) are placed (see Katsuyama Figs. 3-5).”
However, Reitterer, Katsuyama and Fukuzaki fail to teach “and an integrated circuit formed on the common substrate and configured to control the laser light emitting element and the optical scanning mirror element.”
Sakurai teaches an eyeglass-type video display device having laser light source (VCSEL 17) and a scanning MEMs mirror (20).
Sakurai further teaches (Figs. 1, 2B, 6 and 7B) "An optical engine for image projection (eyeglass- type video display device 55), comprising:
one common substrate (substrate 15) on which the [laser light source] (VCSEL 17) and the [mirror] (MEMs deflector 20) are placed (see Figs. 2B, 6 and 7B), and
an integrated circuit (video processing driver 85, laser drive unit LDD 84 and MEMS Driver 80) formed on the common substrate (see Fig. 7B and paragraph [0089]: "In the video generation device 10b, the MEMS optical deflector 20, the VCSEL 17, the LDD 84, the video processing unit 85, the MEMS driver 89, the communication unit 88, and the battery 90 are mounted on the substrate 15 in a row in the order from the front end to the rear end.") and configured to control the laser light emitting element (The video processing unit 85 generates control signals to the LDD 84 which controls the VCSEL) and the optical scanning mirror element (MEMs driver 89 controls the MEMs and must do so in synchronously with the VCSEL in order to make an image, thus 85 must control 89 at least to some extent)."
Sakurai further teaches (paragraph [0089]): "The VCSEL 17, the LDD 84, and the video processing unit 85 constitute a high-speed signal processing unit 86 in the video generation device 10b, and therefore are placed close to each other to reduce the wiring length on the substrate 15."
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the controller as an integrated circuit mounted on the same substrate as the laser light source and the mirror as taught by Sakurai in the device of Katsuyama in order to mount all of the necessary components on the temple of the head-mounted display and to reduce the wiring lengths between the controllers and the controlled devices as taught by Sakurai (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0089]).
Regarding claim 15, the Reitterer – Katsuyama – Fukuzaki – Sakurai combination teaches “the optical engine for image projection according to claim 14” however, Reitterer fails to explicitly teach “A glass display comprising: the optical engine for image projection according to claim 14; and
a frame having an eyeglass shape,
wherein the optical engine for image projection is disposed at a temple part of the frame.”
Note that Reitterer teaches (paragraph [0090]): “Applications of the disclosed apparatus 1 include, e.g., the projection of a light spot 2 onto a viewing zone, may it be a screen or directly onto an audience, augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), and mixed reality (MR) head-mounted displays (HMD), head-up displays (HUD), pico projectors, etc., where the light spot 2 being scanned by the oscillating mirror projects an image onto a screen, onto an optical combiner such as a waveguide or reflector (e.g., in “birdbath” or “bug eye” configuration), or even directly into a human's eye.” Many of the above would often be constructed as a glasses display.
Sakurai teaches “A glass display (eyeglass-type video display device 55) comprising: the optical engine for image projection (video generation device 10) … and
a frame having an eyeglass shape (eyeglass body 60),
wherein the optical engine for image projection is disposed at a temple part of the frame (left and right arms 61a and 61b support 10 in Fig. 1).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the optical engine for image projection of the Reitterer combination onto a temple arm of an eyeglass type head-mounted display as taught by Sakurai because Reitterer teaches the use of their optical engine in augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), and mixed reality (MR) head-mounted displays where light from the mirror is projected onto an optical combiner, and Sakurai demonstrates that a position on the temple of eyeglasses enables this functionality.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Asatani WO 2023/187872 A1 “Projector Module and Retinal Projection Display Device Comprising Same” Fig. 4 pertinent to the state of the art.
Asatani US 2024/0419004 A1 “Projector Module and Retinal Projection Display Device Comprising Same”, English language equivalent of Asatani.
Fukuzawa et al. US 2024/0272421 A1 “Optical Module, Optical Engine for Image Projection, and Glass Display” co-pending application disclosing many of the same features. No double patenting issues with the current claims. Not prior art.
Fukuzawa et al. US 2024/0219709 A1 “Optical Module, Optical Engine for Image Projection, Glass Display, Sample Testing Device, and Method for Manufacturing Optical Module” co-pending application disclosing many of the same features. No double patenting issues with the current claims. Not prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARA E RAKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-4206. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-4PM ET M-F.
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, Thomas Pham can be reached at 571-272-3689. 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.
/CARA E RAKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights