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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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, 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watanabe et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,917,643.
Regarding Claim 1, Watanabe discloses: An optical module comprising (the Office notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features):
a light source configured to output light (the optical component of semiconductor laser 11 which emits light towards lens 12; column 4, lines 33-58 and FIG. 1 of Watanabe);
an isolator configured to have magnetic force and transmit the light (a magnetic field is established within optical isolator 1, wherein the optical isolator transmits light from the semiconductor laser 11 towards the light-output side [optical material 6]; column 4, line 33 – column 5, line 11 and FIG. 1 of Watanabe);
a housing configured to have a plurality of surfaces and accommodate the light source and the isolator (a housing which accommodates the semiconductor laser 11 and optical isolator 1 is formed of two parts [including isolator tube 2] joined by an annular cap 15 through laser welding, and such housing has a plurality of inner surfaces; column 4, line 33 – column 5, line 37 and FIGS. 1-3 of Watanabe); and
a magnetic body configured to be positioned between at least one of the plurality of surfaces of the housing and the isolator (cylindrical hollow magnet 4 is positioned between an inner surface of isolator tube 2 and the Faraday's rotator 5 of isolator 1; FIGS. 1, 3 of Watanabe).
Regarding Claim 2, Watanabe discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the magnetic body is at least positioned between a surface having a shortest distance to the isolator among the plurality of surfaces of the housing and the isolator (cylindrical hollow magnet 4 is positioned between an inner surface of isolator tube 2 having the shortest distance to the Faraday's rotator 5 of isolator 1; FIGS. 1, 3 of Watanabe).
Regarding Claim 10, Watanabe discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the optical module is a laser unit (semiconductor laser 11 which emits light towards lens 12; column 4, lines 33-58 and FIG. 1 of Watanabe).
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Yahagi et al., U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2026/0267178 A1.
Regarding Claim 8, Watanabe discloses the limitations of Claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the magnetic body is made of a material containing 40% or more of Kovar or iron.
Yahagi is related to Watanabe with respect to optical isolator device.
Yahagi teaches: wherein the magnetic body is made of a material containing 40% or more of Kovar or iron (hollow magnet 7 is preferably made of a neodymium-iron-boron (NdFeB)-based magnet [iron content approximately 65%]; paragraphs [0023], [0080] and FIGS. 1, 2 of Yahagi; the Office notes that this claim is interpreted as requiring a material which is 40% or more of kovar, or a material which is 40% or more of iron).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the neodymium-iron-boron [NdFeB] of Yahagi for the magnet of Watanabe because such a strong magnet enables a smaller, more compact size, to be used but still attain a high magnetic flux density, as taught in paragraphs [0024], [0080] of Yahagi.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Zhang et al., U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2005/0025211 A1.
Regarding Claim 9, Watanabe discloses the limitations of Claim 1, but does not appear to disclose: wherein the housing is made of a material containing at least Kovar.
Zhang is related to Watanabe with respect to laser and isolator configuration.
Zhang teaches: wherein the housing is made of a material containing at least Kovar (housing 501 made of copper or kovar; paragraph [0029] and FIG. 5 of Zhang; the Office notes that although the term “Kovar” may be a trademark name, it is believed, based on the relevant patent literature, that such term is also a generic term for iron—nickel—cobalt [Fe—Ni—Co] alloys which have a thermal expansion similar to glass).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the kovar material of Zhang for the device of Watanabe because such material has a good thermal conducting property, which is important for heat dissipation, as evidenced by Abstract and paragraphs [0005], [0006], [0021], [0029], [0030], [0037] of Zhang.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would each be allowable if amended to include all of the limitations of their base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
With respect to Claim 3, although the prior art discloses various optical modules which include a magnet that can be identified as either the claimed “magnetic body” or the claimed “magnet”, and thus disclose Claim 1 as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
184
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The prior art does not appear to disclose or suggest two different magnets which would correspond to the claimed “magnetic body” and the claimed “magnet”, respectively, such that the features of Claim 3 would be further disclosed as follows:
PNG
media_image2.png
106
548
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to Claims 4-7, these claims each depend from Claim 3 and are therefore allowable for at least the reasons explained above.
Examiner Note – Consider Entirety of References
Although various text and figures of the cited references have been specifically cited in this Office Action to show disclosures and teachings which correspond to specific claim language, Applicant is advised to consider the complete disclosure of each reference, including portions which have not been specifically cited by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN S DUNNING whose telephone number is 571-272-4879. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 10:30AM to 7:00PM Eastern Time Zone. 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, BUMSUK WON can be reached at 571-272-2713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN S DUNNING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights