DETAILED ACTIONNotice 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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's Amendment filed 12/03/2025 has been fully considered and entered.
The original objections to the claims, which were set forth in the Office Action mailed 9/8/2025, have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s Amendment, however, new objections are placed forth. See section below for details.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites:
“a first wiring pattern provided on a frame body of the housing and connected to a first bonding pad of the optical element through the first bonding wiring”
and should instead state:
“a first wiring pattern provided on a frame body of the housing and connected to the first bonding pad of the optical element through a first bonding wiring”.
Claim 6 recites:
“wherein a spacing between a plurality of Peltier elements located on a first heat capacity portion side is narrower than a spacing between a plurality of Peltier elements located on a second heat capacity portion side”
and should instead state
“wherein a spacing between the plurality of Peltier elements located on a first heat capacity portion side is narrower than a spacing between the plurality of Peltier elements located on a second heat capacity portion side”.
Claims 1 and 6 newly recite:
“wherein, among the plurality of Peltier elements, a spacing between each of all of Peltier elements located closest to the second side and each adjacent Peltier element in a direction of the first side is narrower than a spacing between remaining adjacent Peltier elements in the direction of the first side.”
and should instead state:
“wherein, among the plurality of Peltier elements, a spacing between each of all Peltier elements located closest to the second side and each adjacent Peltier element in a direction of the first side is narrower than a spacing between remaining adjacent Peltier elements in the direction of the first side.” (Note: the deleted “of”; alternatively, the Examiner would accept “all of the”;).
These changes have been adopted in the remainder of the Office Action. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 6 newly recite: “wherein, among the plurality of Peltier elements, a spacing between each of all of Peltier elements located closest to the second side and each adjacent Peltier element in a direction of the first side is narrower than a spacing between remaining adjacent Peltier elements in the direction of the first side.”
The claimed limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear which Peltier elements are considered as located closest to the second side and which Peltier elements are considered as remaining elements, i.e., beside the closest element, how many more elements are considered as the closest, and how many are considered as remaining elements? What is the cut-off point for the “closest”? Furthermore, “in a direction of the first side” is also unclear because it could mean “a direction parallel to the edge of the first side” or “a direction moving towards the first side”. For the purpose of examination, the examiner is interpreting the claimed limitation “in the direction of the first side” as if it meant in a direction parallel to the edge of the first side.
Accordingly, claims 2-5 are rejected due to their ultimate dependency upon a rejected claim.
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) 1-2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanobe et al. in US 20220357629 A1 – Embodiment 2 (hereinafter "Tanobe 2") in view of Konishi in US 20100252084 A1 (hereinafter "Konishi") and in further view of Saeki et al. in US 20170184802 A1 (hereinafter "Saeki”).
Regarding claim 1, Tanobe 2 discloses an optical module comprising:
an optical element (optical semiconductor element 3 is interpreted as the optical element) having a first side (the side in the +X direction as viewed in Fig. 4B is interpreted as the first side), a second side (the side in the -Y direction as viewed in Fig. 4B is interpreted as the second side) intersecting the first side (the side in the +X direction as viewed in Fig. 4B), and a third side (the side in the +Y direction as viewed in Fig. 4B is interpreted as the third side) facing the second side (the side in the -Y direction as viewed in Fig. 4B);
a housing (housing 2) accommodating the optical element (3);
a thermoelectric cooler (Peltier module 12a is interpreted as the thermoelectric cooler) mounted inside the housing (2) and with the optical element (3) being mounted on the thermoelectric cooler (12a; see Fig. 4A);
a driving circuit (driver 4 is interpreted as the driving circuit) arranged on a side of the first side (the side in the +X direction as viewed in Fig. 4B) of the optical element (3);
wherein the thermoelectric cooler (12a) has a plurality of Peltier elements (p-type and n-type thermoelectric semiconductors 13 and 14 respectively are is interpreted as the plurality of Peltier elements) arranged with spacings (the gaps between 13 and 14 are interpreted as the spacings; see Fig. 4B), and
Tanobe 2 does not disclose a first bonding pad arranged on a side of the second side of the optical element; and a first wiring pattern provided on a frame body of the housing and connected to the first bonding pad of the optical element through a first bonding wiring.
Saeki discloses a first bonding pad (the first bonding pad is interpreted as the wiring substrates 90b; see Para. 106) arranged on a side of the second side (90b are interpreted as being arranged on any side of the entire device, including the second side of the optical element) of the optical element (laser 100 is interpreted as the optical element); and
a first wiring pattern (the collection of DC terminals 5b is interpreted as the first wiring pattern; see Fig. 2) provided on a frame body (side wall 2C is interpreted as the frame body) of the housing (housing 2) and connected to the first bonding pad (wiring substrates 90b; see Para. 106) of the optical element (laser 100) through a first bonding wiring (wires W2 are interpreted as the first bonding wiring; see Fig. 20-21).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the electrical arrangement of Saeki in the optical module of Tanobe 2 for the purpose of providing an optimized electrical connection thereby achieving high-speed signal connection performance, reducing size and costs, and enhancing electrical performance.
Tanobe 2/Saeki fail to teach an optical module:
wherein a spacing (hereinafter “first spacing”) between the plurality of Peltier elements located on the side of the second side is narrower than a spacing (hereinafter “second spacing”) between the plurality of Peltier elements located in a center of the optical element, and wherein, among the plurality of Peltier elements, a spacing (hereinafter “third spacing”) between each of all Peltier elements located closest to the second side and each adjacent Peltier element in a direction of the first side is narrower than a spacing (hereinafter “fourth spacing”) between any two remaining adjacent Peltier elements in the direction of the first side.
Konishi teaches an arrangement in an optical module:
wherein a first spacing between the plurality of Peltier elements located on the side of the second side is narrower than a second spacing between the plurality of Peltier elements located in a center of the optical element (see Annotated Fig. 3A (left) below; note that the interpreted second spacing is more “central” than the interpreted first spacing), and
wherein, among the plurality of Peltier elements,
a third spacing between
each of all Peltier elements located closest to the second side and
each adjacent Peltier element in a direction of the first side (in a direction of the first side is interpreted as moving parallel to the second and third sides towards the first side)
is narrower than a fourth spacing between any two remaining adjacent Peltier elements in the direction of the first side (see Annotated Fig. 3A (right) below; note that third spacings all involve the Peltier element closest to the interpreted second side; note that for the fourth spacing, “remaining adjacent” is interpreted as elements not used for measuring the third spacing and that all Peltier elements are interpreted as “adjacent” since they are in the same device; note the grey central arrow identifies an instance where there are no remaining adjacent Peltier elements in the same row).
PNG
media_image1.png
298
365
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
298
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Konishi also teaches that this arrangement is beneficial for equalizing temperature distribution, reducing warp damage, and/or reducing manufacturing damage (see Para. 7, 28-29, and 41).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the arrangement of Peltier elements in the optical module suggested by Tanobe 2/Saeki for the purpose of preventing unwanted damage thereby achieving a better-functioning optical module.
Regarding claim 2, Tanobe 2/Saeki/Konishi discloses the optical module according to claim 1 as discussed above,
wherein the optical element (3) is a multimode interferometer (see Mach-Zehnder optical modulator 30 in Fig. 3; see Para. 42) having a first optical waveguide (34) with a first signal light (see Para. 8-10 which disclose how modulation occurs by demultiplexing a light signal and altering the light to necessarily create two distinct signals) propagating in the first optical waveguide (34) and a second optical waveguide (33) with a second signal light (necessarily created within a functioning Mach-Zehnder optical modulator) different from the first signal light propagating in the second optical waveguide (33),
wherein the first optical waveguide (34) is provided closer to the side of the second side (waveguide 34 is closer to the side that is in the -Y direction as viewed in Fig. 3; further, regions 131 and 133 correspond to regions 132 and 134 in Fig. 4A and 132 and 134 can be seen in Fig. 4B to be on the interpreted second side) than the center (the middle of Fig. 3 in-between 33 and 34 as well as 35 and 36 is interpreted as the center) of the multimode interferometer (30), and
wherein the second optical waveguide (33) is provided closer to the side of the third side (the +Y direction in Fig. 3 and 4B) than the center (the middle of Fig. 3 in-between 33 and 34 as well as 35 and 36 is interpreted as the center) of the multimode interferometer (30).
Regarding claim 4, Tanobe 2/Saeki/Konishi discloses the optical module according to claim 1 as discussed above, further comprising (according to Saeki):
a third bonding pad (RF pad 41 to 44 is interpreted as the third bonding pad) arranged on the side of the first side (see Fig. 2 where the optical modulator 20 is on the first side of 100 and 20 is where the bond occurs) of the optical element (100); and
a third wiring pattern (the collection of radio-frequency terminals 4 is interpreted as the third wiring pattern) provided in the driving circuit (any circuit connecting 4 and 100 is interpreted as the driving circuit) and connected to the third bonding pad (41 to 44) of the optical element (100) through a third bonding wiring (see Para. 178),
and further comprising (according to Tanobe 2):
wherein a spacing (the gap between 13 and 14) between the plurality of Peltier elements (13 and 14) located on the side of the first side (the +X direction) is narrower than the spacing (the gap between 13 and 14) between the plurality of Peltier elements (13 and 14) located in the center of the optical element (note region 138 in Fig. 6B where 13 and 14 are more densely packed than the region between 137 and 138 which contains the center of 15 which is equivalent to the center of 3).
Regarding claim 5, Tanobe 2/Saeki/Konishi discloses the optical module according to claim 4 as discussed above, wherein the driving circuit (4) is a heating element (see Para. 47).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanobe et al. in US 20220357629 A1 – Embodiment 2 (hereinafter "Tanobe 2") in view of Saeki et al. in US 20170184802 A1 (hereinafter "Saeki”) in view of Konishi in US 20100252084 A1 (hereinafter "Konishi"), as applied above, and in further view of Tanobe et al. in US 20220357629 A1 – Embodiment 3 (hereinafter "Tanobe 3").
Regarding claim 3, Tanobe 2/Saeki/Konishi discloses the optical module according to claim 1 as discussed above, further comprising:
a second bonding pad (the second bonding pad is interpreted as the wiring substrates 90a; see Para. 106) arranged on the side of the third side (the side opposite of 5a; see Fig. 2) of the optical element (100); and
a second wiring pattern (the collection of DC terminals 5a is interpreted as the second wiring pattern; see Fig. 2) provided on the frame body (side wall 2D is interpreted as the frame body) of the housing (housing 2) and connected to the second bonding pad (wiring substrates 90a; see Para. 106) of the optical element (laser 100) through the second bonding wiring (wires W2 are interpreted as the second bonding wiring; see Fig. 20-21),
Tanobe 2/Saeki/Konishi do not suggest that a spacing between the plurality of Peltier elements located on the side of the third side is narrower than the spacing between the plurality of elements located in the center of the optical element.
Tanobe 3 suggests that wherein a spacing (a gap between 13 and 14) between the plurality of Peltier elements (13 and 14) located on any side may be narrower than the spacing (the gaps between 13 and 14) between the plurality of Peltier elements (13 and 14) located in the center of the optical element (note region 138 in Fig. 6B where 13 and 14 are more densely packed than the region between 137 and 138 which contains the center of 15 which is equivalent to the center of 3).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the desired orientation and spacing of Tanobe 3 in the optical module of Tanobe 2/Saeki for the purpose of selectively changing the cooling/heating performance of the module thereby achieving higher cooling/heating performance in desired regions.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipates by Tanobe et al. in US 20220357629 A1 – Embodiment 2 (hereinafter "Tanobe 2") in view of Konishi in US 20100252084 A1 (hereinafter "Konishi").
Regarding claim 6, Tanobe 2 discloses an optical module comprising:
an optical element (optical semiconductor element 3 is interpreted as the optical element) having a first side (the side in the +X direction as viewed in Fig. 4B is interpreted as the first side), a second side (the side in the -Y direction as viewed in Fig. 4B is interpreted as the second side) intersecting the first side (the side in the +X direction as viewed in Fig. 4B), and a third side (the side in the +Y direction as viewed in Fig. 4B is interpreted as the third side) facing the second side (the side in the -Y direction as viewed in Fig. 4B);
a housing (housing 2) accommodating the optical element (3);
a thermoelectric cooler (Peltier module 12a is interpreted as the thermoelectric cooler; see Para. 61) disposed inside the housing (2), with the optical element (3) being mounted on the thermoelectric cooler (12a; see Fig. 4A);
a first heat capacity portion (the first heat capacity portion is interpreted as the portion near or including region 134 in Fig. 4B and which is capable of generating higher temperatures in corresponding region 133; see Fig. 4A and Para. 62) located around the optical element (everything in the device is interpreted as being located around, near, or within the vicinity of 3; see also Fig. 4A); and
a second heat capacity portion (the second heat capacity portion is interpreted as the portion not including region 134; see Fig. 4B) located around the optical element (3; see Fig. 4A) and at a position different from the first heat capacity portion (the location of region 134 and the regions without 134 are automatically located at different positions; see Para. 62)
wherein heat capacity of the first heat capacity portion is larger than heat capacity of the second heat capacity portion (region 134 which corresponds to high-temperature region 133 must obviously have a higher heat capacity than the regions without, or not corresponding to, 134),
wherein the thermoelectric cooler (12a) has a plurality of Peltier elements (p-type and n-type thermoelectric semiconductors 13 and 14 respectively are interpreted as the plurality of Peltier elements) arranged with spacings (the gaps between 13 and 14 are interpreted as the spacings; see Fig. 4B), but fails to teach an arrangement of Peltier elements:
wherein a spacing (hereinafter "first spacing") between the plurality of Peltier elements located on a first heat capacity portion side is narrower than a spacing (hereinafter "second spacing") between the plurality of Peltier elements located on a second heat capacity portion side, and
wherein, among the plurality of Peltier elements,
a spacing (hereinafter "third spacing") between
each of all Peltier elements located closest to the second side and
each adjacent Peltier element in a direction of the first side
is narrower than a spacing (hereinafter "fourth spacing") between any two remaining adjacent Peltier elements in the direction of the first side.
Konishi teaches a similar Peltier element arrangement in an optical module:
wherein a first spacing between the plurality of Peltier elements (31 and 32 are interpreted as the Peltier elements) located on a first heat capacity portion side (see annotated Fig. 3A (left) below) is narrower than a second spacing between the plurality of Peltier elements (31 and 32) located on a second heat capacity portion side (see annotated Fig. 3A (left) below; note that the interpreted first heat capacity portion side has more Peltier elements per area than the interpreted second heat capacity portion side and thus has a higher heat capacity than the second heat capacity portion side), and
wherein, among the plurality of Peltier elements,
a third spacing between
each of all Peltier elements located closest to the second side and
each adjacent Peltier element in a direction of the first side (in a direction of the first side is interpreted as moving parallel to the second and third sides towards the first side)
is narrower than a fourth spacing between any two remaining adjacent Peltier elements in the direction of the first side (see Annotated Fig. 3A (right) below; note that third spacings all involve the Peltier element closest to the interpreted second side; note that for the fourth spacing, “remaining adjacent” is interpreted as elements not used for measuring the third spacing and that all Peltier elements are interpreted as “adjacent” since they are in the same device; note the grey central arrow identifies an instance where there are no remaining adjacent Peltier elements in the same row).
PNG
media_image3.png
321
437
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
298
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Konishi also teaches that this arrangement is beneficial for equalizing temperature distribution, reducing warp damage, and/or reducing manufacturing damage (see Para. 7, 28-29, and 41).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the arrangement of Peltier elements in the optical module suggested by Tanobe 2 for the purpose of preventing unwanted damage thereby achieving a better-functioning optical module.
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.
This prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20080047598 A1 discloses an alternative Peltier arrangement in Fig. 8B.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARBY M THOMASON whose telephone number is (703)756-5817. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8am-5pm.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (571) 272-2397. 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.
/DARBY M. THOMASON/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874