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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
The Office notes that applicant’s response did not address the priority issue and the issue does not appear to be corrected.
Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite features previously found in claim 3 and additional features not previously claimed. Applicant’s amendment appears to have introduced new matter with regards to claim 2.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims 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.
The Office notes that applicant discusses the Ejiri and Krasulick references at pgs. 5-6. However, applicant’s amendment has required Krasulick and Ejiri to be applied in a new way with regard to amended claim 1.
Priority
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”.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a recess” of claim 2 in combination with “a respective groove part…surrounds the respective substrate-side bonding part” of claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 has been amended to include recitations regarding a groove and the groove surrounding the respective substrate-side bonding part. See, e.g., Fig. 8A. Claim 3 requires a recess on the bonding surface. See, e.g., Fig. 8B. Applicant’s specification as originally filed appears to only describe these embodiments in the alternative. Accordingly, the specification as originally filed does not show applicant in possession of using both a groove and a recess together at the time of filing.
Claims 10 and 16 contain new matter at least based on their dependence from claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komaki et al. (JP2021157015A), hereafter Komaki, in view of Ejiri et al. (US20140286607A1), hereafter Ejiri, in further view of Krasulick et al. (US20150098676A1A1), hereafter Krasulick
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]), 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 substrate-side bonding part defined by a respective groove part formed on a bonding surface of the optical waveguide substrate, the respective groove part surrounds the respective substrate-side bonding part. However, Ejiri discloses the substrate-side bonding part defined by a respective groove part formed on a 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 to prevent excess bonding material from interfering with the optical path. Komaki in view of Ejiri do not explicitly disclose the respective groove part surrounds the respective substrate-side bonding part. However, Krasulick discloses a respective groove part surrounds the bonding surface (Fig. 6A elements 304-1 and 304-2 surround 404, 624, and 628; See also Fig. 5 elements 304) provided on the 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 in view of Ejiri with the respective groove part surrounds the respective substrate-side bonding part as disclosed by Krasulick to help with alignment of the light emitting device while preventing the bonding material from interfering with the optical path.
Regarding claim 2, Komaki in view of Ejiri do not explicitly disclose each of the plurality of metal films is arranged in a recess provided on the 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 further modify Komaki in view of Ejiri 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 4, Komaki further discloses the plurality of metal film comprise 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, 10, 12, and 13, Komaki further discloses a laser module having a package (Fig. 6) in which the laser assembly is housed (Fig. 6).
Claims 6, 7, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komaki in view of Ejiri in further view of Krasulick, as applied to claim 1 above, in further 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 in view of Ejiri in further view of Krasulick do 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 in view of Ejiri in further view of Krasulick 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 in view of Ejiri in further view of Krasulick do 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 in view of Ejiri in further view of Krasulick 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).
Claims 9, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komaki in view of Ejiri in further view of Krasulick, as applied to claim 8, 10, 12, and 13 respectively, in view of Tinch (US20160274362A1), hereafter Tinch
Regarding claims 9, 16, 18, and 19, Komaki in view of Ejiri in further 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 modify Komaki in view of Ejiri in further 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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komaki in view of Ejiri in further view of Krasulick in further view of Nakashini, as applied to claim 14 above, in further view of Tinch.
Regarding claim 20, Komaki in view of Ejiri in further view of Krasulick in further 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 Ejiri in further view of Krasulick in further 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
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.
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 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 10/02/2026
Prosecution Insights