DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “a configuration of the second light absorbing/reflecting unit is similar to a configuration of the first light absorbing/reflecting unit” is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. Specifically, “similar” is a relative term and it is unclear what parts of the two units need to be “similar” and to what degree at the very least. This limitation could mean a large variety of things and is thus unclear and indefinite. Accordingly, to examine the claims currently pending this limitation will be interpreted to mean “the first and second absorbing/reflecting units have a configuration”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burch (US 3,850,515).
Regarding claim 1, Burch teaches an optical module comprising:
a beam splitter having a first surface, a second surface facing the first surface, a third surface intersecting with the first surface, a fourth surface facing the third surface, and an inner surface formed within a region defined by the first surface, the second surface, the third surface, and the fourth surface (See, e.g., beam splitter member 40 in Fig. 3 and here the first-fourth surfaces correspond to the right/left/top/bottom surfaces respectively, the inner surface corresponds to the diagonal surface inside the beam splitter); and
a light receiving unit arranged at a position facing the third surface of the beam splitter (See, e.g., lens 24d in Fig. 3 which receives light and faces the beamsplitter, i.e. the third surface),
wherein the beam splitter splits first incident light incident from the first surface into first split light transmitted through the inner surface and emitted from the second surface and second split light reflected on the inner surface and emitted from the third surface (See, e.g., Fig. 3), and
wherein the optical module comprises a light absorbing/reflecting unit provided on the fourth surface (See, e.g., mirror 42 in Fig. 3 which is reflective and note that insofar as these elements are all connected to a housing, i.e. not floating in free space, they are all “on” each other via direct contact or the housing etc.).
Burch lacks an explicit disclosure wherein a light transmittance of the light absorbing/reflecting unit is less than 0.1%, and a light reflectance of the light absorbing/reflecting unit is less than 2%.
However, the transmittance/reflectance of a layer/surface corresponds to a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, in the instant case these values directly impact the efficiency of the device and the profile of light that passes the device. Further, as a result-effective variable, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of such things involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify these values to be within the claimed range for the purpose of optimizing the profile of light that passes the device, among other things.
Regarding claim 2, Burch teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the light absorbing/reflecting unit is coated with a light absorbing film or a light reflecting film (Note this is how mirrors work, even if the mirror is a simple polished metal sheet the reflecting surface can be said to be a light reflecting film that corresponds to the polished surface).
Regarding claim 3, Burch teaches the device set forth above and further teaches an optical modulation element, wherein the optical modulation element is input with continuous light to an input port, and the first incident light is output from an output port as modulated signal light (See, e.g., the combination of beam splitters 44 and 46 in Fig. 3 which receives continuous laser light from laser 38 at the rightmost surface and outputs modulated light from the leftmost surface).
Regarding claim 4, Burch teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the light absorbing/reflecting unit absorbs or reflects the continuous light (See, e.g., Fig. 3 which shows mirror 42 reflecting the continuous light from the laser 38).
Regarding claim 5, Burch teaches the device set forth above and further teaches another beam splitter having a fifth surface, a sixth surface facing the fifth surface, a seventh surface intersecting with the fifth surface, an eighth surface facing the seventh surface, and an inner surface formed within a region defined by the fifth surface, the sixth surface, the seventh surface, and the eighth surface (See, e.g., beam splitter 48 in Fig. 3, here the fifth-eighth surfaces correspond to the right/left/bottom/top surfaces respectively, and the inner surface corresponds to the diagonal surface inside the beam splitter), wherein the other beam splitter is connected to the fourth surface of the beam splitter via the light absorbing/reflecting unit at the eighth surface (Note that all of these elements are connected either directly or via the housing) and splits the second incident light incident from the fifth surface into third split light transmitted through the inner surface and emitted from the sixth surface and fourth split light reflected on the inner surface and emitted from the seventh surface (See, e.g., Fig. 3 which shows this).
Regarding claim 6, Burch teaches an optical module comprising:
an optical modulation element having an input port input with continuous light and an output port outputting modulated signal light (See, e.g., the combination of beam splitters 44 and 46 in Fig. 3 which receive continuous light from laser 38 and output a modulated light);
a beam splitter having a first surface, a second surface facing the first surface, a third surface intersecting with the first surface, a fourth surface facing the third surface, and an inner surface formed within a region defined by the first surface, the second surface, the third surface, and the fourth surface and splitting the modulated signal light incident from the first surface into first split light transmitted through the inner surface and emitted from the second surface and second split light reflected on the inner surface and emitted from the third surface (See, e.g., beam splitter member 48 in Fig. 3 and here the first-fourth surfaces correspond to the right/left/top/bottom surfaces respectively, the inner surface corresponds to the diagonal surface inside the beam splitter);
a light receiving unit arranged at a position facing the third surface of the beam splitter and receiving the second split light (See, e.g., lens 24d in Fig. 3 which receives light); and
a light absorbing/reflecting unit provided on the fourth surface and absorbing or reflecting the continuous light (See, e.g., mirror 50 and note that insofar as these elements are all connected to a housing, i.e. not floating in free space, they are all “on” each other via direct contact or the housing etc.)
Burch lacks an explicit disclosure wherein a light transmittance of the light absorbing/reflecting unit is less than 0.1%, and a light reflectance of the light absorbing/reflecting unit is less than 2%.
However, the transmittance/reflectance of a layer/surface corresponds to a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, in the instant case these values directly impact the efficiency of the device and the profile of light that passes the device. Further, as a result-effective variable, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of such things involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify these values to be within the claimed range for the purpose of optimizing the profile of light that passes the device, among other things.
Regarding claim 7, Burch teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the optical module comprises a second light absorbing/reflecting unit provided on the first surface, and a configuration of the second light absorbing/reflecting unit is similar to a configuration of the first light absorbing/reflecting unit (See, e.g., mirror 50 and note that insofar as these elements are all connected to a housing, i.e. not floating in free space, they are all “on” each other via direct contact or the housing etc.. Further, note that this limitation is met in light of the 112 rejection above because the two absorbing/reflecting units have a configuration).
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 MITCHELL OESTREICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-11:00 MT.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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.
/MITCHELL T OESTREICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872