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
Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/04/2025 has been entered into this application. Claim 12 is/are cancelled. Claim 15 has/have been added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mogi et al. (JPH08313746 (A), Applicant cited reference Translation. Previously cited reference).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Mogi discloses an optical alignment apparatus/method (1) of a surface mountable optical module with an optical waveguide element mounted on a mounting substrate (figs. 1-5), the optical alignment apparatus comprising:
a substrate support (5/11) on which a mounting substrate is secured;
a holder which holds an optical waveguide element (5) to be mounted on the mounting substrate (4);
a transport device (12) which transports the optical waveguide element held by the holder;
a camera (21) which outputs image information obtained by capturing an image of an interference pattern generated by light incident (a light emitting/light emitting probe 31) on the optical waveguide element (5); 15. wherein the camera (21) implicitly captures the image of the interference pattern generated according to an inclination between the optical waveguide element (5) and the mounting substrate (4) (claim 15); and
image processing device 52 a controller configured to perform recognition of the interference pattern included in the image information received from the camera (21), observe parallelism between the substrate support and the mounting substrate and between the mounting substrate and the optical waveguide element using the recognized pattern, control computer 51 generate a control signal to control the transport device according to the observed parallelism, and transmit the control signal to the transport device to perform control of the optical waveguide element [pars, 0011-26].
For the purposes of clarity, the method claim 10 is taught/suggested by the functions shown/stated/set forth with regards to the apparatus claim 1 as rejected above as being anticipated by Mogi. In addition, substrate support is considered as a structure designed to hold, protect, and/or manipulate a substrate material during processing, or other applications given the BRI.
As to claims 2 and 3, Mogi also discloses a structure that is use in a method/system that is implementing limitations such as, wherein the substrate support is manufactured of a transparent material (i.e. glass 11) [pars. 0013, 0016] (claim 2); wherein the camera (21) is positioned under the substrate support and captures the image of the interference pattern through the transparent substrate support (i.e. glass 11) (claim 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As to claim 4, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious wherein the substrate support includes a reflective layer which reflects light to a surface in contact with the mounting substrate, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim.
As to claim 5, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious wherein the interference pattern recognition, the control signal generation, and the control of the optical waveguide element performed by the controller are performed through an artificial intelligence technique, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim.
As to claim 6, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious wherein, when the controller performs recognition of the interference pattern, the parallelism between the substrate support and the mounting substrate and between the mounting substrate and the optical waveguide element is observed whether the interference pattern is formed in a uniform gap, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim.
Claims 7-11 and 13-14 are allowed.
As to claim 7, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious further comprising a load sensor which measures a load applied to the mounting substrate by the optical waveguide element, wherein load data obtained by measuring the load when the optical waveguide element comes into contact with the mounting substrate is transmitted to the controller, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim. Claims 8 and 9 are allowable by virtue of their dependency.
As to claim 10, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious wherein, when the controller performs the interference pattern recognition, the parallelism between the substrate support and the mounting substrate and between the mounting substrate and the optical waveguide element is observed using whether gaps of interference patterns are uniformly formed, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim. Claim 11, 13, and 14 are allowable by virtue of their dependency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/remarks, (see pages 6-9), filed on 12/04/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3 have been fully considered have been fully considered but are not persuasive. As to the newly added claim(s) 15, the newly added claim is/are rejected as explained above.
Applicant’s arguments:
a) Applicant argues that That is, Mogi discloses that the camera 21 captures the physical image of the optical element 1. See the above right figure. The physical image of Mogi cannot be reasonably construed as corresponding to the claimed interference pattern that is a fringe pattern created when coherent waves (e.g., light) overlap. Therefore, the camera 21 of Mogi does not correspond to the claimed camera "which outputs image information obtained by capturing an image of an interference pattern generated by light incident on the optical waveguide element," as recited in claim 1.
Examiner's response:
With respect to argument (a), it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that this argument is not persuasive because based on the context of the applicant disclosure as found in specification as published [pars. 0011-12], Applicant has described an interference pattern is an image generated by light incident on the optical waveguide element, as such, since Mogi clearly discloses light from (a light emitting/light emitting probe 31) that is incident on an optical waveguide (5) and a camera capture the image generated by the incident light that is incident on the optical waveguide, then the image is equivalent to an interference pattern, and the image as interference pattern is pass to image processing device 52 for processing by image processing device 52 [par. 0017]. Therefore, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that this argument (a) is not persuasive, because one of ordinary skill in the art would know/recognized that the feature as recited in independent claims 1 is anticipated by Mogi considering the BRI. Further, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that part of the inherent function of a camera is to capture image generated by structure(s) without discrimination (in this an image). The claim only required a camera, any camera would/will have captured the image/pattern because the limitation of the camera is not limited to any camera with any particular structure, and the claim(s) invention is not limited to such embodiment as claimed/argued. Therefore, the limitation is within the scope and analysis of Mogi system configuration as detailed above, considering the (BRI). Additionally, the prior art device/camera is the same as a device/camera described in the specification for carrying out the claimed capture, as such, the claim is considered to be anticipated by Mogi camera.
In addition, Applicant is reminded that the teachings or suggestions of the prior art that have been used as evidence within a rejection of the claimed invention in view of the prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103, as set forth by the Court, are to be evaluated and determined not just from one or more specifically identified quotes to individual sections of the text of the prior art document but are in fact to be evaluated and determined from all that the prior art document teaches or suggests, In re BODE et al, 193 USPQ 12 at 17 (CCPA, 1977), with some reliance on the knowledge of one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made in order to provide an enabling disclosure, In re BODE et al, 193 USPQ 12 at 16 (CCPA, 1977). In this case, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that this argument is not persuasive because the claimed language only claimed “a camera” such as disclosed by Moji, as such, Moji anticipated the claim limitation.
b) Applicant argues that starting from page 7, paragraph 3 to page 9, paragraph 2 Claim 1 also recites "a controller configured to perform recognition of the interference pattern included in the image information received from the camera, ……………………………………….., and transmit the control signal to the transport device to perform control of the optical waveguide element."
In fact, Mogi does not mention an interference pattern at all. Therefore, Mogi also fails to disclose "a controller configured to perform recognition of the interference pattern included in the image information received from the camera, ………….. and between the mounting substrate and the optical waveguide element using the recognized pattern, generate a control signal to control the transport device according to the observed parallelism, and transmit the control signal to the transport device to perform control of the optical waveguide element."
Accordingly, Mogi does not disclose at least "a camera which outputs image information obtained by capturing an image of an interference pattern generated by light incident on the optical waveguide element" and "a controller configured to ……….., and transmit the control signal to the transport device to perform control of the optical waveguide element," as recited in claim 1.
In addition, The Examiner is …… …………………………………………………………………..
That is, Mogi discloses detecting tilt of the optical element 1 using the physical contact between the electrodes 3 and 6 as a fundamental operation. Accordingly, a person of skill in the art would not have been motivated to change the fundamental detection operation of Mogi (using the physical contact) into a totally different operation (e.g., using interference pattern) to reach the above features of claim 1. See MPEP $2143.01.VI.
For at least the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, Mogi does not disclose or teach each and every element. Claim 1 is allowable for at least this reason. Claims 2-6 and 15 depend from claim 1, and are allowable for at least this reason.
Examiner's response:
With respect to argument (b), it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that for the same reasons as discussed above in relation to argument (a), applicant argument (b) is/are not persuasive.
In addition, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that these arguments is/are not persuasive because Moji clearly discloses an image processing device is a controller that is configured to performed recognition of the “interference pattern”….in this case “the image” the camera captured “image” that is generated by the incident light that is incident on the optical waveguide, which the image processing device process the image to determine that information present in the image is accepted and/or identify and signifying that the image is value/valid and/or proper or accurate to measure and allow accurate position on the substrate (i.e. correct position) [pars. 0012, 0014, 0017, 0023, 0025].
For the purposes of clarity, Moji discloses using image signal [par. 001] ……the measuring the optical output value emitted from the waveguide, …...is used to position and fix with high precision an optical element having two electrodes on its underside on a substrate having an optical waveguide, this is equivalent to controller generate a control signal to control………. as claimed in claim 1.
In conclusion, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that this argument is not persuasive because one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and/or at the time the invention was made would have fairly and reasonably recognized that the prior art does properly support a rejection of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102.
Finally, Applicant has argued the patentability of dependent claims, based solely upon the patentability of independent claim(s) 1, and has presented no additional arguments exclusively pertaining to the dependent claims, since the applicant has not argued the examiner’s position about the rejection(s) regarding the dependent claims, in the previous Official action. The applicant has acquiesced.
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 Isiaka Akanbi whose telephone number is (571) 272-8658. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur R. Chowdhury can be reached on (571) 272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ISIAKA O AKANBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877