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. 18/406332 filed on January 8, 2024 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 25, 2026 has been entered.
The amended claims submitted August 25, 2026 in response to the office action mailed February 17, 2026 are under consideration. Claims 1-2 and 4-8 are pending and amended at least by the amendments to independent claim 1.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 35 USC §112 rejections 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 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuyama et al. US 2019/0101746 A1 (hereafter Katsuyama) in view of Greenberg US 2020/0150428 A1 (hereafter Greenberg), Maier et al. US 2023/0112055 A1 (hereafter Maier) 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”) for displaying an image by projecting laser light onto an image display surface (e.g. paragraph [0132]: “An image projector, comprising: the two-dimensional optical scanning device according to any of (14) through (16); a two-dimensional optical scanning controller for two-dimensionally scanning the emission light emitted from the light source by applying a two-dimensional optical scanning signal to the alternating magnetic field generator; and an image formation unit for projecting the scanned emission light onto a projection surface.” see also paragraph [0016]: “an image formation unit for projecting the emission light that has been scanned onto a projection plane” emphasis added.), comprising:
a laser light source part (light source device 140) provided with a plurality of laser light emitting elements (semiconductor laser chips 147, 148 and 149) on a main surface of a first substrate (Si substrate 141, see Fig. 22 147-149 are on the top main surface of substrate 141), each of the laser light emitting elements being configured to emit each of a plurality of laser lights having different peak wavelengths, respectively (e.g. paragraph [0130]: “a red semiconductor laser chip 147, a green semiconductor laser chip 148 and a blue semiconductor laser chip 149”);
a mirror part (two-dimensional optical scanning mirror device 130) provided with an optical scanning mirror element (movable mirror unit 10) on a 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) that is integrated with the first substrate (see Fig. 22 they are both on top of mounting substrate 120);
a laser drive control part (Fig. 7, paragraph [0068]: “an R laser driver 54, a G laser driver 55, a B laser driver 56”) configured to individually and independently control an intensity of laser light emitted from the laser light emitting elements (paragraph [0068]: “The controller 51 generates an R signal, a G signal, a B signal, a horizontal signal and a vertical signal for forming an image on the basis of the image data that is supplied from an external apparatus such as a PC via the external I/F 53. The controller 51 transmits the R signal to the R laser driver 54, the G signal to the G laser driver 55 and the B signal to the B laser driver 56, respectively.”);
a mirror drive control part (two-dimensional scanning driver 57) configured to control swinging of the optical scanning mirror element (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.” This horizontal and vertical control is of swinging the mirror about two axes.);
a memory (paragraph [0068]: “The controller 51 is formed of a microcomputer that includes a CPU, a ROM, a RAM and the like.”) configured to store (ROM and RAM are both memory and thus are configured to store tables) … 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 (see paragraphs [0068]-[0070] the controller generates an R signal, a G signal, a B signal, a horizontal signal and a vertical signal for forming an image on the basis of the image data… The laser beams respectively generated by the red laser 42, the green laser 43 and the blue laser 44 are multiplexed by the optical multiplexer 41, and after that two-dimensionally scanned by the movable mirror portion 10. The scanned multiplexed laser beam is reflected from a concave reflecting mirror 58 and passes through the pupil 59 so as to form an image on a retina 60”. Therefor the controller stores the relationship between the horizontal and vertical positions of the mirror and the position in the image projected onto the retina. If this were not true, the projector would not be able to form the image based on the image data onto the retina. Note that as disclosed in paragraph [0016] the image display surface is a projection plane.); and
a system control part (control unit 50) configured to control the laser drive control part and the mirror drive control part (see Fig. 7 and paragraph [0068]).”
However, Katsuyama does not explicitly teach “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;…wherein the system control part controls the mirror drive control part on a basis of the lookup table.” The relationship between the horizontal and vertical positions of the mirror and the position on the image display surface could instead be an analytical formula or equation, not a look up table.
Greenberg teaches “An optical module (eye projection system 100) for displaying an image by projecting laser light onto an image display surface (see Fig. 1), comprising:
a laser light source part (light module 114 which can have Red, Green and Blue lasers see paragraph [0119]) provided with a plurality of laser light emitting elements (paragraph [0119]: “Red, Green and Blue lasers”) … each of the laser light emitting elements being configured to emit each of a plurality of laser lights having different peak wavelengths, respectively (red, blue and green);
a mirror part (scanner module 118 which can be a scanning mirror see paragraph [0073]) provided with an optical scanning mirror element (paragraph [0073] scanning mirror)…
a laser drive control part (image generator 116) configured to individually and independently control an intensity of laser light emitted from the laser light emitting elements (paragraph [0076]: “the intensity modulator 117 may be configured and operable to controllably adjust (attenuate/modulate) the intensity Int and possibly also the chromatic/spectral content SPC of the light beam ILB from the light module 114… additionally or alternatively, the intensity modulators may be implemented utilizing controllers adapted to control operation of the light sources/lasers in the light module 114 so as to adjust their output intensity.”);
a mirror drive control part (image scanner 118) configured to control swinging of the optical scanning mirror element (see paragraph [0077]: “The image scanner 118, … may include one or more optical deflectors (e.g., adjustable optical deflectors such as fast scanning/raster mirror(s),… configured and operable to perform image scan and/or spatial modulation to deflect the light beam to propagate along various scan/projection angles α.sub.scn thereby splitting the light beam to plurality of light beam portions corresponding to respective pixels of the image 12.”);
a memory (paragraph [0111]: “one or more controllers of an eye projection system 100” which includes memory see paragraph [0114]: “The image mapping S′ or S may be implemented as functions or lookup data tables (LUTs)”) configured to store a lookup table (paragraph [0114]: “lookup data tables”) 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 (paragraph [0114]: “associating each projection angle α.sub.scn with a corresponding pixel P.sub.i or pixel location in the input image 12.”); and
a system control part (image projection controller 112) configured to control the laser drive control part and the mirror drive control part (see Fig. 1),
wherein the system control part controls the mirror drive control part on a basis of the lookup table (see Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0114],[0116]).”
Maier teaches a head-mounted display having a MEMS mirror assembly 16. Maier further teaches (paragraph [0017]): “The dependency of the modulation signal/s on the detected ROI can be given by an analytical formula programmed into the controller. However, in a practical implementation the controller may have a memory with a look-up table which stores, for each one of a set of different ROIs within the image area, at least a respective first modulation signal dependent on that ROI, and the controller is configured to retrieve at least the first modulation signal dependent on the detected ROI from the look-up table. A look-up table allows for a fast real-time implementation with low processing needs and the use of prestored dependency functions found heuristically or by simulation.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a lookup table that relates the swing position of the scanning mirror and the position on the display surface as taught by Greenberg in the device of Katsuyama because Maier teaches that a look-up table allows for a fast real-time implementation with low processing needs and the use of prestored dependency functions found heuristically or by simulation (Maier paragraph [0017]).
However, Katsuyama fails to teach “and the first substrate and the second substrate are bonded via a metal bonding layer.” In particular, Katsuyama teaches that the first and second substrates are proximate to one another and both positioned on a mounting substrate but does not specify any of the connections therebetween.
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 “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 combination teaches “The optical module according to claim 1,” and Katsuyama further teaches “wherein the system control part is configured to create a light intensity map table from image data that is a pixel value of each pixel of an image to be displayed on the image display surface (paragraph [0068]: “The controller 51 generates an R signal, a G signal, a B signal, a horizontal signal and a vertical signal for forming an image on the basis of the image data”)… and is configured to control the laser drive control part and the mirror drive control part to construct the image on a basis of the light intensity map table (paragraph [0068]: “The controller 51 transmits the R signal to the R laser driver 54, the G signal to the G laser driver 55 and the B signal to the B laser driver 56, respectively. In addition, 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”), the light intensity map table being an intensity ratio of the laser light emitted from each of the laser light emitting elements for each swing position of the optical scanning mirror element (paragraphs [0069]-[0070]: “generate a laser beam having a desired color by adjusting the intensity ratio of the laser beams of the respective colors… The laser beams respectively generated by the red laser 42, the green laser 43 and the blue laser 44 are multiplexed by the optical multiplexer 41, and after that two-dimensionally scanned by the movable mirror portion 10.”).”
However, as noted above for claim 1, Katsuyama fails to explicitly teach a lookup table. The combination of references introduced for claim 1 further teaches “wherein the system control part is configured to create a light intensity map table from image data that is a pixel value of each pixel of an image to be displayed on the image display surface and the lookup table” because Katsuyama was modified in view of Greenberg and Maier to utilize a lookup table that determines the correspondence between the mirror position and the position on the display surface.
Regarding claim 4, the Katsuyama combination teaches “The optical module according to claim 1,” and Katsuyama further teaches “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 (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 5, the Katsuyama combination teaches “The optical module according to claim 1,” and Katsuyama further teaches “wherein the optical scanning mirror element is a MEMS mirror (see paragraphs [0002]-[0004] and [0011]-[0012]).”
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuyama et al. US 2019/0101746 A1 (hereafter Katsuyama) in view of Greenberg US 2020/0150428 A1 (hereafter Greenberg), Maier et al. US 2023/0112055 A1 (hereafter Maier) 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 6, the Katsuyama 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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuyama et al. US 2019/0101746 A1 (hereafter Katsuyama) in view of Greenberg US 2020/0150428 A1 (hereafter Greenberg), Maier et al. US 2023/0112055 A1 (hereafter Maier) 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 7, the Katsuyama 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 and 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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuyama et al. US 2019/0101746 A1 (hereafter Katsuyama) in view of Greenberg US 2020/0150428 A1 (hereafter Greenberg), Maier et al. US 2023/0112055 A1 (hereafter Maier) 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 7 above as evidenced by Matsumoto US 2010/0073262 A1 (hereafter Matsumoto).
Regarding claim 8, the Katsuyama combination teaches “the optical engine for image projection according to claim 7” 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 August 25, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the first two paragraphs of page 5 of 7 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant notes the status of the claims and explains the amendments made to claim 1.
In the third paragraph of page 5 of 7 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that the 35 USC §112 rejections of the previous office action have been overcome by the amendments to the claims. The examiner agrees, these rejections have been withdrawn.
In the fourth and fifth paragraphs of page 5 of 7 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant lists the rejections made in the previous office action and states that these rejections are traversed. No argument is made in these paragraphs.
In the sixth paragraph of page 5 of 7 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant notes the features incorporated from claim 3 into claim 1. No specific argument is made in this paragraph.
In the first paragraph of page 6 of 7 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant notes that “Claim 1 recites two substrates that are each with specific features. In particular, in claim 1, the first substrate is provided with a laser light source unit and the second substrate is a substrate on which an optical scanning mirror element is formed. These two substrates are separate substrates that are bonded together via a metal bonding layer.” This is an accurate assessment of the features recited in claim 1. No specific argument with respect to the rejection is made in this paragraph.
In the second paragraph of page 6 of 7 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant notes an advantage obtained by the presently claimed device relative to conventional optical modules of proper alignment such that the laser light maintains a strong light quantity with high positional accuracy. This argument is not persuasive for at least the following reasons. In response to applicant's argument that the instant device improves the alignment between optical elements thereof, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Moreover, as noted in the rejection maintained above, Fukuzaki already at least partially recognized this potential advantage, see paragraph [0084]: “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” (emphasis added).
In the third paragraph of page 6 of 7 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that none of Katsuyama, Greenberg, Maier, and Specht disclose or suggest that bonding a first substrate provided with a laser light source unit and a second substrate on which an optical scanning mirror element is formed via a metal bonding layer. This argument is moot, because the rejection above does not rely upon Katsuyama, Greenberg, Maier, or Specht as teaching this limitation.
In the fourth paragraph of page 6 of 7 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant admits that Fukuzaki teaches bonding a substrate 20, on which an optical semiconductor device 30 is formed, to a substrate 40, on which an optical waveguide 50 is formed, via metal bonding layers 71 to 73. This is not a point of disagreement.
From the fifth paragraph of page 6 of 7 through the end of page 6 of 7 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues “However, the substrates disclosed in Fukuzaki are different from the substrates specifically defined in claim 1. In particular, as discussed above, the two substrates recited in claim 1 are each with specific features. Fukuzaki neither discloses nor suggests a configuration in which a substrate 20, on which an optical semiconductor device 30 is formed, is bonded to a substrate, on which an optical scanning mirror element is formed, via metal bonding layers 71 to 73. Therefore, the optical semiconductor device 30 of Fukuzaki differs from the optical module recited in claim 1.” (emphasis in the original).
This argument is not persuasive for at least the following reasons. Firstly, only the second underlined feature is missing from Fukuzaki, because, as noted by applicant, Fukuzaki does teach bonding a substrate 20, on which an optical semiconductor device 30 is formed, to another substrate 40.
Secondly, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the instant case, Katsuyama already teaches:
“a laser light source part (light source device 140) provided with a plurality of laser light emitting elements (semiconductor laser chips 147, 148 and 149) on a main surface of a first substrate (Si substrate 141, see Fig. 22 147-149 are on the top main surface of substrate 141)…
a mirror part (two-dimensional optical scanning mirror device 130) provided with an optical scanning mirror element (movable mirror unit 10) on a main surface of a second substrate substrate 131 see Fig. 22 the movable mirror unit 10 is on the top main surface of a second substrate 131) that is integrated with the first substrate (see Fig. 22 they are both on top of mounting substrate 120).”
Thus, the feature of a first substrate on which a laser light source part is provided and a second substrate on which a mirror part is provided is already taught in the primary reference, Katsuyama, and thus is not a deficiency that would need to be taught by the secondary reference, Fukuzaki.
Lastly, Fukuzaki teaches that bonding, via with a metal bonding layer, two substrates, upon which optical elements of the same optical device are formed, has the advantages of suppressing the occurrence of positional deviation due to the heating process compared to an adhesive (Fukuzaki paragraph [0084]) and enables maintaining a high bonding strength and realizes a device having excellent impact resistance (Fukuzaki paragraph [0087]). There is no reason why this advantage would be limited to substrates with only particular optical elements formed on thereon.
In the paragraph spanning pages 6 and 7 of 7 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that “Even if the optical modules of Katsuyama, Greenberg, Maier, and Specht were combined with the optical semiconductor device 30 of Fukuzaki, the optical module recited in claim 1 would not be obtained, nor would the aforementioned unique effects of the claimed invention be achieved.” Since there is no specific explanation in this paragraph for why the optical module of claim 1 would not be obtained, it is assumed that this paragraph is simply summarizing the conclusions made based on the previous arguments which were addressed above.
In line four of page 7 of 7 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant concludes that claim 1 is patentable over the applied references. The arguments that support this conclusion have been addressed above.
In lines 5-7 of page 7 of 7 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that “Claims 2 and 4-8 are also patentable at least in view of the patentability of claim 1, from which they depend, as well as for additional features they recite.” This argument is not persuasive because it fails to specifically point out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
The request for an interview with the examiner in lines 11-13 of page 7 of 7 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
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, Ricky L Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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