CTNF 18/521,217 CTNF 82736 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. Priority 02-25 Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 04/03/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of JP2023060193 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. The Office notes that an attempt to retrieve the application via the Priority Document Exchange was attempted, but that attempt failed on 09/03/2024. Additional information is available in the file history in the document titled “Document Indicating Retrieval Request was Unsuccessful”. Information Disclosure Statement 06-52 The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/28/2023 was filed on the filing date of this application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Applicant is encouraged to review MPEP 2001. The Office has cited numerous references with at least a common assignee/applicant that appear to anticipate the independent claim but were not disclosed to the Office. See, e.g., JP2021157013A, JP2021157014A, WO2020196489A1, and JP2021157012A. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 4, 5, 8, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Komaki et al. (JP2021157015A), hereafter Komaki . Regarding claim 1 , Komaki discloses a laser assembly (Abstract) comprising: a plurality of laser light sources (Fig. 1 element 30-1 to 30-3); a plurality of laser light source bases having main surfaces on which the plurality of laser light sources are placed and arranged apart from each other (Fig. 1 elements 201- to 20-3); an optical waveguide substrate (Fig. 2 element 40) having a main surface on which an optical waveguide layer having optical waveguides configured to guide laser light output from the plurality of laser light sources is provided (Fig. 2 element 51; Fig. 1 elements 51-1 to 51-4); and a plurality of metal films configured to bond the plurality of laser light source bases with the optical waveguide substrate (Fig. 2 elements 71-73), wherein the plurality of metal films correspond to the plurality of laser light source bases and are arranged apart from each other (Fig. 6 elements 71-1 to 73-3; [0048]-[0049]). Regarding claim 4 , Komaki further discloses the metal film includes Sn ([0041]) and a metal that can be eutectic with Sn ([0041]). Regarding claim 5 , Komaki further discloses an antireflection film is formed between the bonding surface of the optical waveguide substrate and the metal film (Fig. 2 element 81; [0032]). Regarding claims 8, 12, and 13 , Komaki further discloses a laser module having a package (Fig. 6) in which the laser assembly is housed (Fig. 6) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komaki in view of Krasulick et al. (US20150098676A1A1), hereafter Krasulick . Regarding claim 2 , Komaki does not explicitly disclose each of the plurality of metal films is arranged in a recess provided on a bonding surface of the optical waveguide substrate. However, Krasulick discloses each of the plurality of metal films (Fig. 6A elements 404, 624, and 628) is arranged in a recess (Fig. 6A; Fig. 4 element 408; [0056]) provided on a bonding surface of the optical waveguide substrate (Fig. 6A element 104). An advantage is to help with alignment of the light emitting device ([0063]) while preventing the bonding material from interfering with the optical path ([0052]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Komaki with each of the plurality of metal films is arranged in a recess provided on a bonding surface of the optical waveguide substrate as disclosed by Krasulick in order to help with alignment of the light emitting device while preventing the bonding material from interfering with the optical path. Regarding claim 10 , Komaki further discloses a laser module having a package in which the laser assembly is housed (Fig. 6) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komaki in view of Ejiri et al. (US20140286607A1), hereafter Ejiri . Regarding claim 3 , Komaki further discloses each of the plurality of metal films is arranged on a substrate-side bonding part (Figs. 2, 5, and 6 elements 71-73). Komaki does not explicitly disclose the bonding part is defined by a groove part formed on the bonding surface of the optical waveguide substrate. However, Ejiri discloses forming a bonding part defined by a groove part formed on the bonding surface of the optical waveguide substrate (Figs. 11 and 12 element 7 defines a bonding surface 14a). An advantage is to prevent excess bonding material from interfering with the optical path ([0055]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Komaki with a bonding part defined by a groove part formed on the bonding surface of the optical waveguide substrate as disclosed by Ejiri in order to prevent excess bonding material from interfering with the optical path. Regarding claim 11 , Komaki further discloses a laser module having a package in which the laser assembly is housed (Fig. 6) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6, 7, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komaki in view of Nakashini et al. (JP2015197616A), hereafter Nakashini . Regarding claim 6 , Komaki further discloses the optical waveguide layer is a planar Lightwave circuit (PLC) ([0025]). Komaki does not explicitly disclose the PLC is made of a glass material. However, Nakashini discloses the PLC is made of a glass material ([0028]). An advantage is to make a smaller and less expensive PLC ([0016]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Komaki with the PLC is made of a glass material as disclosed by Nakashini in order to make a smaller and less expensive PLC and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Regarding claim 7 , Komaki further discloses the optical waveguide layer is a planar Lightwave circuit (PLC) ([0025]). Komaki does not explicitly disclose the PLC is made of a lithium niobate film. Nakashini discloses the PLC is made of a lithium niobate film ([0035]). An advantage is to make a smaller and less expensive PLC ([0016]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Komaki with the PLC is made of a lithium niobate film as disclosed by Nakashini in order to make a smaller and less expensive PLC and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Regarding claims 14 and 15 , Komaki further discloses a laser module having a package in which the laser assembly is housed (Fig. 6) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 9, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komaki in view of Tinch (US20160274362A1), hereafter Tinch Regarding claims 9, 18, and 19 , Komaki does not explicitly disclose XR glasses comprising the laser module. However, Tinch discloses a similar laser module (Fig. 4) for use in XR glasses ([0004]). An advantage is to improve the size and weight of the device to allow for better comfort while using the glasses ([0009]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Komaki with XR glasses comprising the laser module in order to improve the size and weight of the device to allow for better comfort while using the glasses . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komaki in view of Krasulick, as applied to claim 10 above, in further view of Tinch Regarding claim 16 , Komaki in view of Krasulick do not explicitly disclose XR glasses comprising the laser module. However, Tinch discloses a similar laser module (Fig. 4) for use in XR glasses ([0004]). An advantage is to improve the size and weight of the device to allow for better comfort while using the glasses ([0009]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Komaki in view of Krasulick with XR glasses comprising the laser module in order to improve the size and weight of the device to allow for better comfort while using the glasses . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komaki in view of Ejiri, as applied to claim 11 above, in further view of Tinch . Regarding claim 17 , Komaki in view of Ejiri do not explicitly disclose XR glasses comprising the laser module. However, Tinch discloses a similar laser module (Fig. 4) for use in XR glasses ([0004]). An advantage is to improve the size and weight of the device to allow for better comfort while using the glasses ([0009]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Komaki in view of Ejiri with XR glasses comprising the laser module in order to improve the size and weight of the device to allow for better comfort while using the glasses . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komaki in view of Nakashini, as applied to claim 14 above, in further view of Tinch . Regarding claim 20 , Komaki in view of Nakashini do not explicitly disclose XR glasses comprising the laser module. However, Tinch discloses a similar laser module (Fig. 4) for use in XR glasses ([0004]). An advantage is to improve the size and weight of the device to allow for better comfort while using the glasses ([0009]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Komaki in view of Nakashini with XR glasses comprising the laser module in order to improve the size and weight of the device to allow for better comfort while using the glasses . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited. See, e.g., JP2021157013A, JP2021157014A, WO2020196489A1, and JP2021157012A. US20240142787, US20240283215, US20230134378, and US20240255828 are related cases by a common assignee/applicant but do not appear to constitute prior art . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA KING whose telephone number is (571)270-1441. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10am-5pm 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, Min Sun Harvey can be reached at (571) 272-1835. 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. /Joshua King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828 06/16/2026 Application/Control Number: 18/521,217 Page 2 Art Unit: 2828 Application/Control Number: 18/521,217 Page 3 Art Unit: 2828 Application/Control Number: 18/521,217 Page 4 Art Unit: 2828 Application/Control Number: 18/521,217 Page 5 Art Unit: 2828 Application/Control Number: 18/521,217 Page 6 Art Unit: 2828 Application/Control Number: 18/521,217 Page 7 Art Unit: 2828 Application/Control Number: 18/521,217 Page 8 Art Unit: 2828 Application/Control Number: 18/521,217 Page 9 Art Unit: 2828 Application/Control Number: 18/521,217 Page 10 Art Unit: 2828
Prosecution Insights