DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/395,915 filed on December 26, 2023 is presented for examination by the examiner. The amended claims submitted May 6, 2026 in response to the office action mailed March 5, 2026 are under consideration. Claims 1-16 are pending, of which claims 1-12 are elected and claims 13-16 are withdrawn. All elected claims are amended at least by the amendments to independent claim 1.
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 .
Election/Restriction
Affirmation of the oral provisional election of group I, species A, claims 1-12 was confirmed in the first page of the remarks filed May 6, 2026.
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of copending Application No. 18/392,571 in view of Katsuyama et al. US 2019/0101746 A1 (hereafter Katsuyama). See the explanation in the table below:
Instant Application
Co-pending 18/392,571
Katsuayama or explanation as needed
1. An optical module comprising:
a laser light source part in which a laser light emitting element is formed on one
main surface of a first substrate;
and a mirror part in which an optical scanning mirror element is formed on one main surface of a second substrate,
the first substrate being thicker than the second substrate with the main surface of the first substrate protruding above the main surface of the second substrate
wherein the first substrate and the second substrate are bonded via a metal bonding layer, 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.
1. An optical module comprising:
a laser light source part in which a laser light emitting element is formed on one
main surface of a first substrate;
a mirror part in which an optical scanning mirror element is formed on one main surface of a second substrate;…
wherein the first substrate and the third substrate are bonded via a metal bonding layer, and
2. The optical module according to claim 1, wherein the second substrate and the third substrate are bonded via the metal bonding layer.
the optical module is configured for laser light emitted from the laser light emitting element to be reflected by the optical scanning mirror element …
Katsuyama teaches (paragraphs [0078]. [0118], [0120]) that the thickness of the first and second substrates are both 500 µm. This is infinitesimally close to the first substrate being thicker than the second substrate with the main surface of the first substrate protruding above the main surface of the second substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the thicknesses of the first and second substrates in the manner claimed in order to obtain appropriate alignment of the optical axes of the optical elements of the system.
If the first substrate and the third substrate are bonded by the metal bonding layer and the second and third substrates are bonded by the metal bonding layer, then the first and second substrates are bonded “by the metal bonding layer” at least as mediated by the third substrate.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 2-8 and 10-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 and 9-11 and 13-15 of copending Application No. 18/392,571 in view of Katsuyama et al. US 2019/0101746 A1 (hereafter Katsuyama) and Fukuzaki et al. WO 2021/149450 A1 (hereafter Fukuzaki, where reference will be made to Fukuzaki et al. US 2023/0134378 A1 as the English language equivalent). See the explanation in the table below:
Instant application
Co-pending 18/392571
Katsuyama, Fukuzaki or explanation as needed.
1. An optical module comprising:
a laser light source part in which a laser light emitting element is formed on one
main surface of a first substrate;
and a mirror part in which an optical scanning mirror element is formed on one main surface of a second substrate,
the first substrate being thicker than the second substrate with the main surface of the first substrate protruding above the main surface of the second substrate,
wherein the first substrate and the second substrate are bonded via a metal bonding layer, 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.
1. An optical module comprising:
a laser light source part in which a laser light emitting element is formed on one
main surface of a first substrate;
a mirror part in which an optical scanning mirror element is formed on one main surface of a second substrate;…
wherein the first substrate and the third substrate are bonded via a metal bonding layer, and
2. The optical module according to claim 1, wherein the second substrate and the third substrate are bonded via the metal bonding layer.
the optical module is configured for laser light emitted from the laser light emitting element to be reflected by the optical scanning mirror element …
Katsuyama teaches (paragraphs [0078]. [0118], [0120]) that the thickness of the first and second substrates are both 500 µm. This is infinitesimally close to the first substrate being thicker than the second substrate with the main surface of the first substrate protruding above the main surface of the second substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the thicknesses of the first and second substrates in the manner claimed in order to obtain appropriate alignment of the optical axes of the optical elements of the system.
If the first substrate and the third substrate are bonded by the metal bonding layer and the second and third substrates are bonded by the metal bonding layer, then the first and second substrates are bonded “by the metal bonding layer” at least as mediated by the third substrate.
Claim 1 of the copending application claims the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application except for the first substrate and the second substrate are bonded via a metal bonding layer.
Claim 2 of the copending application teaches that the first substrate and the second substrate are bonded via a metal bonding layer at least indirectly.
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 second substrate (substrate 40).
Fukuzaki further teaches (claim 3) “wherein the first substrate (20) and the second 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]): that such a configuration enables “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.” and that
“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 second substrates as taught by Fukuzaki in the device of of the copending application 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]).
2. The optical module according to claim 1, wherein the metal bonding layer contains at least gold or tin.
3. The optical module according to claim 1, wherein the metal bonding layer contains at least gold or tin.
3. The optical module according to claim 1, wherein each of the first substrate and the second substrate is made of one of a silicon substrate, an aluminum oxide substrate, an aluminum nitride substrate, and a quartz substrate.
4. The optical module according to claim 1, 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.
4. The optical module according to claim 1, 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.
5. The optical module according to claim 1, 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.
5. The optical module according to claim 1, wherein the laser light emitting element are configured to emit near-infrared region laser light in a wavelength range of 800 nm or more and less than 1800 nm.
6. The optical module according to claim 1, 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.
“is” and “are” appear to convey the same limitation.
6. The optical module according to claim 1, wherein a first wiring layer connected to the laser light emitting element is formed on the first substrate.
9. The optical module according to claim 1 wherein a first wiring layer connected to the laser light emitting element is formed on the first substrate.
7. The optical module according to claim 1, wherein a second wiring layer connected to the optical scanning mirror element is formed on the second substrate.
10. The optical module according to claim 1, wherein a second wiring layer connected to the optical scanning mirror element is formed on the second substrate.
8. The optical module according to claim 1, wherein the optical scanning mirror
element is a MEMS device, and is configured to arbitrarily adjust a reflection angle.
11. The optical module according to claim 1, wherein the optical scanning mirror element is a MEMS device, and is configured to arbitrarily adjust a reflection angle.
10. The optical module according to claim 1, 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.
13. The optical module according to claim 1, 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.
11. An optical engine for image projection comprising:
the optical module according to claim 1;
one common substrate on which the first substrate, the second substrate are placed; and
an integrated circuit formed on the common substrate and configured to control
the laser light emitting element and the optical scanning mirror element.
14. An optical engine for image projection comprising:
the optical module according to claim 1;
one common substrate on which the first substrate, the second substrate… are placed;
and
an integrated circuit formed on the common substrate and configured to control the laser light emitting element and the optical scanning mirror element.
12. A glass display comprising:
the optical engine for image projection according to claim 11; and
a frame having an eyeglass shape,
wherein the optical engine for image projection is disposed at a temple part of the frame.
15. 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.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of copending Application No. 18/406,332 (reference application) in view of Katsuyama et al. US 2019/0101746 A1 (hereafter Katsuyama). See explanation below:
Instant Application
Copending 18/406,332
Katsuyama or explanation as needed
1. An optical module comprising:
a laser light source part in which a laser light emitting element is formed on one main surface of a first substrate; and
a mirror part in which an optical scanning mirror element is formed on one main surface of a second substrate,
the first substrate being thicker than the second substrate with the main surface of the first substrate protruding above the main surface of the second substrate,
wherein the first substrate and the second substrate are bonded via a metal bonding layer, 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.
1. An optical module … comprising:
a laser light source part provided with a plurality of laser light emitting elements on a main surface of a first substrate…
a mirror part provided with an optical scanning mirror element on a main surface of a second substrate…
3. wherein the first substrate and the second substrate are bonded via a metal bonding layer.
1. each of the laser light emitting elements being configured to emit each of a plurality of laser lights
a memory configured to store a lookup table that is an array of correspondence relations between each swing position of the optical scanning mirror element and a projection position of each laser light emitted from each of the laser light emitting elements on the image display surface
Katsuyama teaches (paragraphs [0078]. [0118], [0120]) that the thickness of the first and second substrates are both 500 µm. This is infinitesimally close to the first substrate being thicker than the second substrate with the main surface of the first substrate protruding above the main surface of the second substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the thicknesses of the first and second substrates in the manner claimed in order to obtain appropriate alignment of the optical axes of the optical elements of the system.
If the positions of the scanning mirror correspond to projection positions of the laser light emitted from the laser light emitting elements on the image display surface, then the light from the emitting elements must be reflected by the scanning mirror, otherwise the position of the scanning mirror would have no effect on the position on the image display surface.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 4 and 8-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-8 of copending Application No. 18/406,332 in view of Katsuyama et al. US 2019/0101746 A1 (hereafter Katsuyama) and Fukuzaki et al. WO 2021/149450 A1 (hereafter Fukuzaki, where reference will be made to Fukuzaki et al. US 2023/0134378 A1 as the English language equivalent). See the explanation in the table below:
Instant Application
Copending 18/406,332
Katsuyama, Fukuzaki or explanation as needed
1. An optical module comprising:
a laser light source part in which a laser light emitting element is formed on one main surface of a first substrate; and
a mirror part in which an optical scanning mirror element is formed on one main surface of a second substrate,
the first substrate being thicker than the second substrate with the main surface of the first substrate protruding above the main surface of the second substrate,
wherein the first substrate and the second substrate are bonded via a metal bonding layer, 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.
1. An optical module … comprising:
a laser light source part provided with a plurality of laser light emitting elements on a main surface of a first substrate…
a mirror part provided with an optical scanning mirror element on a main surface of a second substrate…
3. wherein the first substrate and the second substrate are bonded via a metal bonding layer.
1. each of the laser light emitting elements being configured to emit each of a plurality of laser lights
a memory configured to store a lookup table that is an array of correspondence relations between each swing position of the optical scanning mirror element and a projection position of each laser light emitted from each of the laser light emitting elements on the image display surface
Katsuyama teaches (paragraphs [0078]. [0118], [0120]) that the thickness of the first and second substrates are both 500 µm. This is infinitesimally close to the first substrate being thicker than the second substrate with the main surface of the first substrate protruding above the main surface of the second substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the thicknesses of the first and second substrates in the manner claimed in order to obtain appropriate alignment of the optical axes of the optical elements of the system.
Claim 1 of the copending application claims the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application except for the first substrate and the second substrate are bonded via a metal bonding layer.
Claim 3 of the copending application teaches that the first substrate and the second 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 second substrate (substrate 40).
Fukuzaki further teaches (claim 3) “wherein the first substrate (20) and the second 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]): that such a configuration enables “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.” and that
“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 second substrates as taught by Fukuzaki in the device of of the copending application 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]).
If the positions of the scanning mirror correspond to projection positions of the laser light emitted from the laser light emitting elements on the image display surface, then the light from the emitting elements must be reflected by the scanning mirror, otherwise the position of the scanning mirror would have no effect on the position on the image display surface.
4. The optical module according to claim 1, 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.
4. The optical module according to claim 1, wherein the laser light emitting elements are configured to emit visible light range laser light in a wavelength range of 380 nm or more and less than 800 nm.
8. The optical module according to claim 1, wherein the optical scanning mirror element is a MEMS device, and is configured to arbitrarily adjust a reflection angle.
5. The optical module according to claim 1, wherein the optical scanning mirror element is a MEMS mirror.
That is what MEMs mirrors are designed to do.
9. The optical module according to claim 1, wherein the laser light source part comprises a plurality of laser light source parts, and
the first substrate constituting each of the laser light source parts is bonded to the second substrate constituting the mirror part via the metal bonding layer.
1.
a laser light source part provided with a plurality of laser light emitting elements on a main surface of a first substrate
This limitation is considered to be met by the combination of references introduced for claim 1, which served to bond the first substrate to the second substrate via a metal bonding layer in view of Fukuzaki
10. The optical module according to claim 1,
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.
6. The optical module according to claim 1,
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.
11. An optical engine for image projection comprising:
the optical module according to claim 1;
one common substrate on which the first substrate, the second substrate are placed;
and an integrated circuit formed on the common substrate and configured to control the laser light emitting element and the optical scanning mirror element.
7. An optical engine for image projection, comprising:
the optical module according to claim 1;
one common substrate on which the first substrate and the second substrate are placed;
and an integrated circuit formed on the common substrate and configured to control the laser light emitting element and the optical scanning mirror element.
12. A glass display comprising:
the optical engine for image projection according to claim 11; and
a frame having an eyeglass shape, wherein the optical engine for image projection is disposed at a temple part of the frame.
8. A glass display comprising: the optical engine for image projection according to claim 7; and
a frame having an eyeglass shape, wherein the optical engine for image projection is disposed at a temple part of the frame.
Claim Objections
The claim objections of the previous office action have been overcome by the amendments to the claims.
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 1-4, 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuyama et al. US 2019/0101746 A1 (hereafter Katsuyama) in view of Katsuyama et al. US 2022/0021854 A1 (hereafter Katsuyama 2022) and Fukuzaki et al. WO 2021/149450 A1 (hereafter Fukuzaki, where reference will be made to Fukuzaki et al. US 2023/0134378 A1 as the English language equivalent).
Regarding claim 1, Katsuyama teaches (Fig. 22) “An optical module (Fig. 22 paragraph [0128]: “the two-dimensional optical scanning device according to Example 12”) comprising:
a laser light source part (light source device 140) in which a laser light emitting element (semiconductor laser chips 147, 148 and 149) is formed on one main surface of a first substrate (Si substrate 141, see Fig. 22 147-149 are on the top main surface of substrate 141); and
a mirror part (two-dimensional optical scanning mirror device 130) in which an optical scanning mirror element (movable mirror unit 10) is formed on one main surface of a second substrate (Si substrate 131 see Fig. 22 the movable mirror unit 10 is on the top main surface of a second substrate 131),…
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 (see path of light from 140 and reflected by 130 in Fig. 22 and corresponding parts in Fig. 7).”
However, Katsuyama fails to explicitly teach “the first substrate being thicker than the second substrate”.
However, Katsuyama does teach that in the manufacturing process of making the mirror of example 7, Figs. 17A through 17I that (paragraph [0106]): “as illustrated in FIG. 17A, a silicon substrate 71 having a thickness of 0.4 mm and of which the main surface is (100) plane”.
Katsuyama also teaches that in the embodiment of Fig. 20 (paragraph [0118]): “a Si substrate 101 having a thickness of 500 μm.” However, in the explanation of Fig. 20/example 10, Katsuyama states that the mirror portion was formed by the process of Figs. 10A through 10I, where in paragraph [0078] the thickness of the silicon substrate was likewise 500 μm. Thus Katsuyama fails to teach a single embodiment wherein “the first substrate being thicker than the second substrate.”
Katsuyama 2022 teaches a light beam emission device (Figs. 1A, 5 and 9A-9C) with a plurality of light sources (see Fig. 1A and paragraph [0045]) that are directed to a MEMS scanning mirror 29 (see Fig. 5 and paragraph [0057]). Katsuyama further teaches that base/substrate, 30/31, can be formed with steps of different heights in order to align the centers of the emission spots to be within an acceptable difference in height of Δh (see Fig. 9A and paragraphs [0080]-[0081]).
Thus Katsuyama discloses the claimed invention except for the thickness of the first substrate being larger than the thickness of the second substrate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adopt the thickness of the second substrate to be 400 μm as taught by Katsuyama Fig. 17 and a thickness of the first substrate to be 500 μm as taught by Katsuyama Fig. 20, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the current instance, the thickness of the first substrate relative to the other optical elements in the system is an art recognized results effective variable in that proper alignment of the plurality of lasers is needed as taught by Katsuyama 2022 (paragraphs [0080]-[0081]. Thus one would have been motivated to optimize the relative thicknesses of the first and second substrates because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Katsuyama teaches that either a thickness of 400 μm or 500 μm is an appropriate choice for the manufacturing of the MEMs mirror portion.
Katsuyama fails to explicitly teach “with the main surface of the first substrate protruding above the main surface of the second substrate.” However, this limitation is considered to naturally flow from the above combination of references because Katsuyama teaches both of the first and second substrates being positioned above a common substrate such that when the second substrate for the MEMs mirror is chosen to be 400 μm, the first substrate for the light sources which has a thickness of 500 μm will naturally protrude above the main surface of the second substrate.
However, Katsuyama also fails to teach “the first substrate and the second 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 second substrate (substrate 40).
Fukuzaki further teaches (claim 1) “wherein the first substrate (20) and the second 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 second substrates as taught by Fukuzaki in the device of Katsuyama 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 2, the Katsuyama – Katsuyama 2022 – 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 [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 gold and/or tin as the material for at least one of the metal bonding layers as taught by Fukuzaki in the device of the Katsuyama – Katsuyama 2022 – 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. In the instant case, Fukuzaki teaches in paragraph [0076] that gold and tin are amongst the preferred materials for the metal bonding layer.
Regarding claim 3, the Katsuyama – Katsuyama 2022 – Fukuzaki combination teaches “The optical module according to claim 1,” and Katsuyama further teaches “wherein each of the first substrate and the second substrate is made of one of a silicon substrate, an aluminum oxide substrate, an aluminum nitride substrate, and a quartz substrate (paragraph [0129]: “Si substrate 141… Here, 131 and 132 in FIG. 22 denote a Si substrate and a SiO2 film, respectively.”).”
Regarding claim 4, the Katsuyama – Katsuyama 2022 – 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 (e.g. paragraph [0130]: “a red semiconductor laser chip 147, a green semiconductor laser chip 148 and a blue semiconductor laser chip 149” 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 8, the Katsuyama – Katsuyama 2022 – Fukuzaki combination teaches “The optical module according to claim 1,” and Katsuyama further teaches “wherein the optical scanning mirror element is a MEMS device (see paragraphs [0002]-[0004] and [0011]-[0012]), and is configured to arbitrarily adjust a reflection angle (paragraph [0068]: “the controller 51 transmits the horizontal signal and the vertical signal to the two-dimensional scanning driver 57 and controls the current to be applied to the magnetic field generator 30, and thus controls the operation of the movable mirror portion 10.”).”
Regarding claim 9, the Katsuyama – Katsuyama 2022 – Fukuzaki combination teaches “The optical module according to claim 1,” and Katsuyama further teaches “wherein the laser light source part comprises a plurality of laser light source parts (susbtrate 141 and 147, 148 and 149 each of which has a laser light emitting element 147, 148 and 149 and a substrate 141), and the first substrate constituting each of the laser light source parts (substrate 141 is the first substrate for all three lasers 147-149. Note that the claim does not preclude a shared substrate because the claim does not recite any limitations such as “wherein the first substrate of each laser light source part is separated from the other first substrates by an air gap” that would require separate substrates.).”
The combination of references introduced for claim 1 further teaches “the first substrate constituting each of the laser light source parts is bonded to the second substrate constituting the mirror part via the metal bonding layer” because Katsuyama was modified in view of Fukuzaki to incorporate a metal bonding layer between substrates 141 and 131.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuyama et al. US 2019/0101746 A1 (hereafter Katsuyama) in view of Katsuyama et al. US 2022/0021854 A1 (hereafter Katsuyama 2022) and Fukuzaki et al. WO 2021/149450 A1 (hereafter Fukuzaki, where reference will be made to Fukuzaki et al. US 2023/0134378 A1 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 5, the Katsuyama – Katsuyama 2022 – Fukuzaki combination teaches “The optical module according to claim 1,” and Katsuyama further teaches “wherein the laser light emitting element are
configured to emit near-infrared region laser light (paragraph [0064]: “an infrared laser may be solely used or may be added to a multicolor visible light laser as described above.”).”
However, Katsuyama does not specify “in a wavelength range of 800 nm or more and less than 1800 nm” and “infrared” can include wavelengths less than 800 nm and does include wavelengths greater 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 are 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 the infrared laser of Katsuyama 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).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuyama et al. US 2019/0101746 A1 (hereafter Katsuyama) in view of Katsuyama et al. US 2022/0021854 A1 (hereafter Katsuyama 2022) and Fukuzaki et al. WO 2021/149450 A1 (hereafter Fukuzaki, where reference will be made to Fukuzaki et al. US 2023/0134378 A1 as the English language equivalent) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Katsuyama et al. US 2021/0400244 A1 (hereafter Katsuyama 2021).
Regarding claim 6, the Katsuyama – Katsuyama 2022 – Fukuzaki combination teaches “The optical module according to claim 1,” however, Katsuyama fails to explicitly teach “wherein a first wiring layer connected to the laser light emitting element is formed on the first substrate.”
Katsuyama 2021 teaches (claim 1) “An optical module (video projection device, which can be a spectacle type display see paragraph [0056]) comprising:
a laser light source part (light source module device 10) in which a laser light emitting element (light source elements 15 which are semiconductor lasers see paragraph [0054]) is formed on one main surface of a first substrate (mounting substrate 30 see Fig. 4); and
a mirror part (two-dimensional optical scanning mirror device 20) in which an optical scanning mirror element (movable mirror 22) is formed on one main surface of a second substrate (optical scanning mirror device substrate 21), …
the optical module is configured for laser light emitted from the laser light emitting element to be reflected by the optical scanning mirror element (see e.g. Fig. 1).”
(claim 6) “wherein a first wiring layer connected to the laser light emitting element is formed on the first substrate (see 16, 17, 18 in Fig. 4 and description thereof in paragraph [0067]).”
Katsuyama 2021 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 2021 in the device of the Katsuyama – Katsuyama 2022 – Fukuzaki combination in order to energize the laser light emitting elements as taught by Katsuyama 2021 (paragraph [0067]).
Regarding claim 7, the Katsuyama – Katsuyama 2022 – Fukuzaki combination teaches “The optical module according to claim 1,” however, Katsuyama fails to explicitly teach “wherein a second wiring layer connected to the optical scanning mirror element is formed on the second substrate.”
Katsuyama 2021 teaches (claim 1) “An optical module (video projection device, which can be a spectacle type display see paragraph [0056]) comprising:
a laser light source part (light source module device 10) in which a laser light emitting element (light source elements 15 which are semiconductor lasers see paragraph [0054]) is formed on one main surface of a first substrate (mounting substrate 30 see Fig. 4); and
a mirror part (two-dimensional optical scanning mirror device 20) in which an optical scanning mirror element (movable mirror 22) is formed on one main surface of a … substrate (substrate 30), …
the optical module is configured for laser light emitted from the laser light emitting element to be reflected by the optical scanning mirror element (see e.g. Fig. 1).”
(claim 7) “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 2021 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 Katsuyama – Katsuyama 2022 – Fukuzaki combination for the purpose of energizing the scanning mirror as taught by Katsuyama 2021 (paragraph [0067]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuyama et al. US 2019/0101746 A1 (hereafter Katsuyama) in view of Katsuyama et al. US 2022/0021854 A1 (hereafter Katsuyama 2022) and Fukuzaki et al. WO 2021/149450 A1 (hereafter Fukuzaki, where reference will be made to Fukuzaki et al. US 2023/0134378 A1 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 10, the Katsuyama – Katsuyama 2022 – 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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuyama et al. US 2019/0101746 A1 (hereafter Katsuyama) in view of Katsuyama et al. US 2022/0021854 A1 (hereafter Katsuyama 2022) and Fukuzaki et al. WO 2021/149450 A1 (hereafter Fukuzaki, where reference will be made to Fukuzaki et al. US 2023/0134378 A1 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 11, the Katsuyama – Katsuyama 2022 – Fukuzaki combination teaches “The optical module according to claim 1,” and Katsuyama further teaches “An optical engine for image projection (Fig. 22 see parts thereof below), comprising:
the optical module according to claim 1 (see claim 1);
one common substrate (mounting substrate 120) on which the first substrate; the second substrate are placed (see 141 and 131 on 120 in Fig. 22).”
However, Katsuyama fails to explicitly teach “an integrated circuit formed on the common substrate and configured to control the laser light emitting element and the optical scanning mirror element.” Note however, that Katsuyama does teach that mounting substrate 120 can be a printed circuit board (see paragraph [0131]).
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]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuyama et al. US 2019/0101746 A1 (hereafter Katsuyama) in view of Katsuyama et al. US 2022/0021854 A1 (hereafter Katsuyama 2022) and Fukuzaki et al. WO 2021/149450 A1 (hereafter Fukuzaki, where reference will be made to Fukuzaki et al. US 2023/0134378 A1 as the English language equivalent) and Sakurai et al. US 2024/0126081 A1 (hereafter Sakurai) as applied to claim 11 above as evidenced by Matsumoto US 2010/0073262 A1 (hereafter Matsumoto).
Regarding claim 12, the Katsuyama combination teaches “the optical engine for image projection according to claim 11” and Katsuyama further teaches “A glass display (Fig. 7 paragraph [0067]: “spectacle-type retina scanning display”) comprising:
the optical engine for image projection according to claim 7 (see claim 7 above); and
a frame having an eyeglass shape (paragraph [0067]: “spectacle-type”),
wherein the optical engine for image projection is disposed at a temple part of the frame (paragraph [0067]: “The image projector according to the embodiment of the present invention is to be worn on the head of a user by using a spectacle-type accessory or the like (see Patent Literature 5).” this is a position on the temple part of the frame as evidence by Patent Literature 5: Matsumoto Fig. 2 that shows the optical engine being attached at two points to the temple).”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Under section A on page 6 of 8 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that the double patenting rejections have been overcome by the amendments to the claims. The examiner agrees that the newly added limitation is not claimed in either of the co-pending applications yet. However, in view of Katsuyama the examiner finds that an obviousness-type double patenting rejection is still appropriate given that an ordinary skilled artisan would know to adjust the substrate thicknesses accordingly to obtain proper alignment of the optical elements supported thereby.
Under section C in the paragraph spanning pages 6 and 7 of 8 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant summarizes the prior art rejections of the previous office action. No argument is made in this paragraph.
In lines 4-8 of page 7 of 8 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant points out that claim 1 has been amended to further recite “the first substrate being thicker than the second substrate with the main surface of the first substrate protruding above the main surface of the second substrate”. No argument is made in this paragraph.
In lines 9-12 of page 7 of 8 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that support for the amendment to claim 1 can be found in the specification at, for example Fig. 2. The examiner agrees that Fig. 2 depicts the first substrate 21 being thicker than 22 such that the upper main surface of 21 protrudes above the upper main surface of 22. The examiner agrees that Fig. 2 provides sufficient support for the amended claim because an ordinary skilled artisan would recognize that the light emitted from 23 is incident on the center of mirror 24b, and thus that the substrate beneath the mirror really is thinner than the substrate beneath the laser.
In lines 13-16 of page 7 of 8 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that this feature is not taught in any of the applied references, in particular that Fig. 22 of Katsuyama shows the first and second substrates level with each other. The examiner agrees that Fig. 20 is disclosed as having the Si substrates of both the mirror and the light source having thicknesses of 500 µm (see paragraphs [0078],[0118] and [0120]). However, as pointed out in the above new grounds of rejection, Katsuyama also teaches that the mirror substrate could be thinner, only 400 µm (see paragraph [0106]). Taking this teaching in light of Katsuyama 2022 (newly cited) the office finds that this new limitation is an obvious optimization of an arts recognized results effective variable.
No further specific arguments are made.
The request for an interview with the examiner in the second paragraph of page 8 of 8 of the applicant’s remarks is denied. The nature and number of the outstanding issues of patentability are such that it does not appear that an interview would result in expediting allowance of the application at this time. See MPEP §713.01 (IV) “An interview should be had only when the nature of the case is such that the interview could serve to develop and clarify specific issues and lead to a mutual understanding between the examiner and the applicant, and thereby advance the prosecution of the application. … Where a complete reply to a first action includes a request for an interview, the examiner, after consideration of the reply, should grant such an interview request if it appears that the interview would result in expediting the allowance of the application.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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