DETAILED ACTION
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 "optical component is a splitter for splitting light having the same wavelength" 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 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.
Claim 4 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.
Re claim 4, the claim recites “wherein the optical component is an element in which functions of the modulator and a multiplexer (MUX) are simultaneously implemented in one element”, but claim 1, which claim 4 depends, does not recite a modulator. Hence, it is unclear what “the modulator” is referring to. Claim 2 recites “a modulator” such that is unclear whether claim 4 was supposed to be dependent upon claim 2, rather than claim 1.
Re claim 11, the claim recites “an optical fiber block coupled to one end of the optical transmission module in correspondence to the output waveguide and accommodating the optical fiber, wherein the optical fiber block aligns the optical fibers by using the wiring layer to correspond to the output waveguide.” However, claim 1, from which claim 11 depends, does not recite “a wiring layer” such that it is unclear what is being referred to when stating “the wiring layer”. Additionally, claim 9, which is also dependent upon claim 1, recite “a wiring layer” such that it is unclear whether claim 11 is supposed to be dependent upon claim 9 or not.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Itakura US PG PUB 2023/0213699.
Re claim 1, Itakura discloses an optical transmission module (light emitting device 1, Fig. 2) comprising:
a mold body having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface (cladding 11, Fig. 3, is a mold body having a first and second surface);
a plurality of edge-type light emitting elements (light emitting elements 3R, 3G, and 3B, Fig. 2, such that there are a plurality of them and they are near the edge of the device ¶ [0037[), each of which is molded inside the mold body by fitting same to the first surface so as to match with the first surface and generates an optical signal in an edge direction of a chip (as it can be seen in Fig. 3, that the cladding layer is such that the elements of light emitting, 3R, 3G, and 3B are within the element 11); and
an optical component disposed on one side of the plurality of edge-type light emitting elements and molded inside the mold body (core 12 is located in the cladding 11. The core 12 and the cladding 11 form an optical waveguide ¶ [0041]), the optical component includes, on one side thereof, a plurality of input waveguides corresponding to the plurality of edge-type light emitting elements, and optically processes or transmits the plurality of optical signals incident through the plurality of input waveguides (the core 12 includes multiple incident end faces 17 and one emission end face 18. The core 12 defines, between the incident end faces 17 and the emission end face 18, a merging path including multiple branching paths 19, a merging portion 20, and a joined path 21. The branching path 19 include the corresponding incident end faces at one end. ¶ [0042], such that there the plurality of light emitting elements output signals that are processed through the waveguides) , and
an optical axis of each of the light emitting elements and an optical axis of each of the input waveguides of the optical component is optically aligned (The optical waveguide package 2 includes the optical waveguide, the light-emitting elements 3R, 3G, and 3B, and the condenser lens 4 assembled together to align the optical axis of each branching path 19 with the center of a light emitter in the corresponding light-emitting element 3R, 3G, or 3B ¶ [0045], such that the light emitting elements are aligned to the waveguide as the signals are aligned to be output through the branch paths, which are part of the core 12 within the cladding).
Re claim 8, Itakura discloses all the elements of claim 1, which claim 8 is dependent. Furthermore, Itakura discloses wherein a three-dimensional (3D) optical alignment between the light emitting element and the optical component is achieved by a passive alignment (Fig. 3 shows Red (R) light, green (G) light, and blue (B) light emitted from the respective light-emitting elements 3R, 3G, and 3B enter the respective branching paths 19 through the incident end faces 17 and pass through the merging portion 20 and the joined path 21 to the condenser lens 4, through which the light is condensed and emitted. ¶ [0044], such that the signals going into the said path of end face is achieved through the structure of the system attaining passive alignment).
Re claim 9, Itakura discloses all the elements of claim 1, which claim 9 is dependent. Furthermore, Itakura discloses further comprising:
a wiring layer formed of an insulating material on the first surface of the mold body (there exists a substrate layer 7, Fig. 3, and wherein there is also a first conductor 15 which extends through the substrate ¶ [0047], such that the substrate is not conducting);
a wiring metal which is formed inside the wiring layer and connects the light emitting elements encapsulated in the mold body to outside of the wiring layer (the light-emitting device 1a according to the present embodiment, each first metal member 14 includes a first area 14a, which is the element mount 13, and a second area 14b other than the first area 14a. Each first via conductor 15 is in contact with the corresponding first metal member 14 on the second area 14b); and
an external connection terminal exposed on a surface of the wiring layer and connected to the light emitting elements encapsulated inside the mold body through the wiring metal (first metal members 14 each area connected to a second mental member 16 with a first via conductor 15 extending through the substrate 7 from the first surface 5 to the second surface 6 of the substrate 7. The substrate allows connection to a power supply through secondary mounting and eliminates complicated conductor stacking between the lid 23 and the cladding 11. This structure also achieves electrical connection while providing sufficient airtightness and electrical insulation ¶ [0047], such that the system is able to be connected through the conductor 15 to external elements from secondary exterior members).
Re claim 10, Itakura discloses all the elements of claim 1, which claim 10 is dependent. Furthermore, Itakura discloses wherein the optical component performs a wavelength multiplexer (WDMMUX) function for collecting signals of a plurality of channels having different wavelengths and transmitting the collected signals to one optical fiber (Red (R) light, green (G) light, and blue (B) light emitted from the respective light-emitting elements 3R, 3G, and 3B enter the respective branching paths 19 through the incident end faces 17 and pass through the merging portion 20 and the joined path 21 to the condenser lens 4, through which the light is condensed and emitted ¶ [0044], wherein red, green, and blue lights are different wavelength ranges such that they are different wavelengths that are combined together such that they are multiplexed).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) s 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itakura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Naito US Patent 5,877,879.
Re claim 2, Itakura discloses all the elements of claim 1, which claim 2 is dependent. Furthermore, Itakura does not explicitly disclose wherein the optical component is a modulator having an input waveguide. However, Naito discloses “the modulating means 12 performs both intensity modulation and phase modulation to each optical signal, thereby giving a predetermined frequency shift to each optical signal. FIGS. 6A, 6B, and 6C show some examples of the electro-optical converter 10. The electro-optical converter 10 shown in FIG. 6A as an example is composed of a light source 14 for emitting continuous light and an intensity modulator 16 for modulating the continuous light output from the light source 14 according to an electrical signal. The intensity modulator 16 is adapted to perform both intensity modulation and phase modulation to the continuous light. The intensity modulator 16 is configured by a Mach-Zehnder optical modulator, for example. Thus, the intensity modulator 16 performs both intensity modulation and phase modulation to the continuous light, thereby giving a predetermined frequency shift to the optical signal.” Col 6, lines 43-58. Additionally, Referring to FIGS. 7A and 7B, there are shown different Mach-Zehnder optical modulators 20A and 20B employable as the intensity modulator 16. The Mach-Zehnder optical modulator 20A shown in FIG. 7A has a waveguide 24 formed on a substrate 22 of lithium niobate (LiNbO3) or the like and a pair of branched waveguides 26a and 26b connected to the waveguide 24. Col 7, lines 13-19. Hence, the system discloses the use of a modulator following the light source to be placed along the waveguide as it is made of waveguide prior to combination through the optical multiplexer, Fig. 5.
Itakura and Naito are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, optical transmission device. At the time filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Itakura and Naito before him or her, to modify the waveguide between laser and the combination portion or part of Itakura to include the modulator after the source of Naito because it combines prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield predictable results, in this case, enabling the system to modify or change the intensity of the signal as desired.
Re claim 3, Itakura and Naito discloses all the elements of claim 2, which claim 3 is dependent. Furthermore, Naito discloses wherein the modulator is a Mach-Zehnder interferometer (MZI) (Referring to FIGS. 7A and 7B, there are shown different Mach-Zehnder optical modulators 20A and 20B employable as the intensity modulator 16. The Mach-Zehnder optical modulator 20A shown in FIG. 7A has a waveguide 24 formed on a substrate 22 of lithium niobate (LiNbO3) or the like and a pair of branched waveguides 26a and 26b connected to the waveguide 24. Col 7, lines 13-19, such that the modulator structure is that of a waveguide such that it could be easily incorporated through a modulator) or a ring modulator.
Re claim 4, Itakura and Naito discloses all the elements of claim 1, which claim 4 is dependent. Furthermore, Natido discloses wherein the optical component is an element in which functions of the modulator and a multiplexer (MUX) are simultaneously implemented in one element (Naito discloses An optical transmitting device 2A includes a plurality of electro-optical converters 10.sub.1 to 10.sub.n for converting electrical signals into a plurality of optical signals different in wavelength and an optical multiplexer 8 connected to the plural electro-optical converters 101 to 10n, for multiplexing the optical signals output from the electro-optical converters 101 to 101. Each of the electro-optical converters 101 to 10n has modulating means 12 for performing both intensity modulation and phase modulation to each optical signal. Col 6, lines 33-42, such that all of these elements are part of the optical transmitting device).
Itakura and Naito are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, optical transmission device. At the time filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Itakura and Naito before him or her, to modify the waveguide between laser and the combination portion or part of Itakura to include the modulator after the source of Naito because it combines prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield predictable results, in this case, enabling the system to modify or change the intensity of the signal as desired.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itakura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kameyama et al (herein Kameyama) US PG PUB 2007/0215795.
Re claim 5, Itakura discloses all the elements of claim 1, which claim 5 is dependent. However, while Itakura discloses a structure to house multiple source, it does not disclose wherein the optical component is used as a component for a vehicle Lidar for optical beam formation. However, Kameyama discloses differential absorption lidar apparatus according to Embodiment 1 includes a light source 1 (1a and 1b), a wavelength lock circuit 2, a light distributor 3 (3a and 3b), a light intensity modulator 4 (4a and 4b), an oscillator 5 (5a and 5b), a light multiplexer 6, a light amplifier 7, a transmission optical system 8, a reception optical system 9, a light receiver 10, an electric signal distributor 11, a filter 12 (12a and 12b), and a signal processor 13. ¶ [0023]
Itakura and Kameyama are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, an optical apparatus that uses multiple light sources. At the time filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Itakura and Kameyama before him or her, to modify the optical transmission device of Itakura to include the ability to be used in a differential absorption lidar system of Kameyama because it enables the system to be part to a system to determine the characteristics of a target.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itakura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kelly et al (herein Kelly) US PG PUB 2012/0038786.
Re claim 6, Itakura discloses all the elements of claim 1, which claim 6 is dependent. Furthermore, Itakura does not explicitly disclose wherein the optical component is a splitter for splitting light having the same wavelength. However, Kelly discloses system 100 may include an optical mechanism (e.g., a mechanism including one or more beam splitters) for splitting or separating the modulated light stream MLS into two or more separate streams, e.g., where each of the streams have the same (or approximately the same) spectral characteristics or wavelength range. The separate streams may then pass through respective bandpass filters to obtain corresponding modified streams, wherein each modified stream is restricted to a corresponding band of wavelengths. ¶ [0136].
Itakura and Kelly are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, optical transmission systems. At the time filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Itakura and Kelly before him or her, to modify the optical transmission unit of Itakura to include the splitter of Kelly because it combines prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield predictable results, in this case, enables the system to generate additionally copy of a signal along a different path to be modified as desired.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itakura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ido et al (herein Ido) US Patent 6,356,692.
Re claim 7, Itakura discloses all the elements claim 1, which claim 7 is dependent. Furthermore, Itakura discloses a system with a laser is an core are operating such that the light is transmitted into the waveguide. However, it is not explicitly disclose wherein the height of the light emitting spot of the light emitting element is set to the same height as the core of the input waveguide and the light emitting element is a distributed feedback laser (DFB laser) . However, Ido discloses the height from the SiO2 surface of the DFB laser active layer in the center portion is about 8 mm, which is almost aligned to the height of the core layer of the polymer waveguide in the center portion. The loss of the coupling between the laser and the polymer waveguide thus becomes 10 dB or under, Col 6, line 64 – Col 7, line 2.
Itakura and Ido are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, optical transmission system. At the time filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Itakura and Ido before him or her, to modify the design of the optical transmitter and laser of Itakura to include the DFB discpolsed at the correct height to the core of the waveguide of Ido because it combines prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield predictable results, in this case, enabling for better coupling and less loss of light from the signal being transmitted to the fiber or waveguide.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itakura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee US PG PUB 2022/0057583.
Re claim 11, Itakura discloses all the elements of claim 1, which claim 11 is dependent. However, Itakura does not explicitly disclose an optical fiber block coupled to one end of the optical transmission module in correspondence to the output waveguide and accommodating the optical fiber, wherein the optical fiber block aligns the optical fibers by using the wiring layer to correspond to the output waveguide.
However, Lee discloses optical device module 101 of the second embodiment differs from that of the first embodiment in that the optical fiber alignment guide member required to fix the optical fibers 301 to 304 exposed by the optical fiber lines 301a to 304a is not directly formed on the upper part of the wiring layer 120 and is formed in the optical fiber fixing block 430, and then assembled to the optical device module 101. ¶ [0223].
Itakura and Lee are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, optical systems. At the time filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Itakura and Lee before him or her, to modify the optical transmission module of Itakura to include the alignment guide or block to help with the alignment to the fibers or waveguides of Lee because it combines prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield predictable results, in this case, enabling better coupling to the wiring layer and the fiber system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANYA MOTSINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-7488. The examiner can normally be reached 9-4.
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, David Payne can be reached at (571)272-3024. 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.
TANYA MOTSINGER
Examiner
Art Unit 2637
/TANYA T MOTSINGER/Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights