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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites an abbreviation, “SMD” without specifying what it is first. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (US Patent No. 8,947,072) in view of NAIR S PARVATHI ET AL ("3D printed fiber sockets for plug and play micro-optics" INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EXTREME MANUFACTURING, Vol 3, No 1, 18 November 2020 (2020-11-18), page 015301, Retrieved from the Internet https: //iopscience iop org/article/10 1088/2631-7990/abc674, hereinafter “Nair”).
Regarding claims 1, 3-8, 11 and 14-15, Seo teaches a micro-optics module for evaluating optical current sensor, comprising at least one housing (22) that further includes at least one predefined holder for a combination of optical component (24) and an electro-optical component (62);
wherein the at least one housing comprises at least one device (18,20) for fastening the micro-optics module on a circuit boards (34), wherein the micro-optics module is configured for manual or automatic populating of the circuit board [claim 3];
wherein the housing is configured as a surface-mounted device (SMD) or a through-hole component for manual or automatically populating of circuit boards (Fig. 1) [claim 4];
wherein the housing includes a micro-optics having any combination of an optical (24) and an electro-optical component (62) [claim 5];
wherein the housing includes any combination of at least one optical filter, at least one optical lens, at least one beamsplitter plate and at least one polarization beamsplitter as the optical component (col. 6, ll. 3-17) [claim 6];
wherein the housing includes any combination of at least one light emitter (52) and at least one electro-optical sensor, as the electro-optical component (62,64) [claim 7];
wherein the housing includes at least one holder for an optical fiber (Fig. 5, item 22a) [claim 8];
wherein the light emitter is a light-emitting diode (semiconductor laser 52 is a light emitting diode) [claim 14]; and
wherein the electro-optical sensor is a photodiode (62,64) [claim 15],
Seo does not specifically teach the at least one housing is produced by 3D printing.
Nair discloses a micro-optics module comprising at least one housing is produced by 3D printing (abstract). It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture said at least one housing from 3D printing as taught by Nair to simplify and reduce the manufacture cost of the at least one housing.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Seo, as modified by Nair, teaches all the claimed limitations except for the at least one housing is made of a metal, wherein the metal is any combination of aluminum, steel, copper, bronze and tungsten carbide, however it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any suitable well-known material from any combination of aluminum, steel, copper, bronze and tungsten carbide in order to meet a design specifications and achieve weight reduction for the micro-optics module.
Regarding claim 9, Seo, as modified by Nair, teaches all the claimed limitations except for each of a length, a width and a height of the housing is in a range of 1 mm to 10 cm, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture the micro-optics module with the dimension as claimed, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 10, Seo, as modified by Nair, teaches all the claimed limitations except for the micro-optics module has a weight in a range of 1 to 100 grams, however it would have been an obvious for one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the micro-optics module having a weight in the range as claimed in order to obtain a smaller, lighter and compact module.
Regarding claim 12, Seo, as modified by Nair, teaches a method for producing a circuit board that includes at least one micro-optics module according to claim 1 above, the method comprises:
populating the circuit board (34) with the at least one micro-optics module, and configuring the circuit as an SME or a through-hole component (38), by using hand assembly or assembly using a populating machine (col. 5, ll. 12-44).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH Q PHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3898. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at 571-272-3555. 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.
MINH Q. PHAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2852
/MINH Q PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights