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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/29/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Yamamoto et. al. (US 2011/0013063 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Yamamoto teaches (figs. 1A-1B, 2, and 6A-7B) an optical module comprising:
a casing (300) that houses an optical component (para. 0050; see figs. 1A and 1B);
a first cushioning material (70) to be provided between the optical component and a first surface on an inner side of the casing (para. 0055);
and a piezoelectric element (60) that is provided between the first cushioning material and the first surface (para. 0055) and is capable of expanding and contracting in a direction from the first surface to the optical component (para. 0087 (examiner notes that expanding part 613b is part of actuator 60 as noted on figs. 6A-6C)).
Regarding claim 2 Yamamoto teaches (figs. 1A-1B, 2, and 6A-7B) an optical module, where a voltage to be applied to the piezoelectric element is adjusted based on an optical signal to be output from the optical component, and the piezoelectric element expands and contracts according to magnitude of the adjusted voltage (para. 0098).
Regarding claim 3 Yamamoto teaches (figs. 1A-1B, 2, and 6A-7B) an optical module, further comprising a second cushioning material (90) that is provided between the optical component and a second surface facing the first surface among inner surfaces of the casing (para. 0055).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et. al. (US 2011/0013063 A1) in view of Kim et. al. (US 2021/0014416 A1)
Regarding claim 4 Yamamoto teaches (figs. 1A-1B, 2, and 6A-7B) an optical module, where the optical component is an optical isolator, an optical coupler, or an optical filter.
Kim teaches where the optical component is an optical isolator, an optical coupler, or an optical filter (112; para. 0009 and 0081).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the optical system as taught by Yamamoto with a filter as taught by Kim for the benefit of further control of the image location on the imager.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Further prior art that teaches similar systems include Tanimura et. al. (US 2011/0026148 A1) and Liu et. al. (US 2023/0152668 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E TALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 a.m. -6 p.m..
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/Robert E. Tallman/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872