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 view of the appeal brief filed on 9/18/2024, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645 Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 9/16/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-9, 12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warren (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0164261) in view of Joseph (United States Patent No. 8,848,757).
With respect to claim 1, Warren discloses: A Vertical Cavity Surface Emitting Laser (VCSEL) array [ taught by figure 4], the VCSEL array comprising: at least two VCSEL sub-arrays [ figure 5 shows a plurality of subarrays; also see paragraph [0009]] each of the VCSEL sub-arrays comprising a plurality of VCSELs arranged on a substrate [ taught by figures 5A and 5B; paragraph [0007]] wherein the at least two VCSEL sub-arrays are electrically contacted by a first electrical contact arrangement common to the VCSELs within a respective VCSEL sub-array, of the VCSEL sub-arrays [ figure 5A shows the cathode sub mount (525) being common to the plurality of VCSEL elements ], and a second electrical contact arrangement, wherein the second electrical contact arrangement comprises a plurality of second electrical contacts, each of the second electrical contacts contacting a respective single VCSEL within the respective VCSEL sub-array, individually, wherein each of the second electrical contacts comprises a second metal- semiconductor interface to a second semiconductor layer of an associated VCSEL of the plurality of VCSELs [ figure 5A shows the anode sub mount (530) individually driving the plurality of VCSEL elements ], wherein the second electrical contacts are arranged to electrically pump the associated VCSEL along a respective current path, of a plurality of current paths, to the first electrical contact arrangement
[ read on the operation of the device wherein current flows between and anode and a
cathode ], wherein the current paths between the first electrical contact arrangement common
to the VCSELs within the respective VCSEL sub-array and the second electrical contacts via the
plurality of VCSELs are characterized by at least one symmetry selected out of the group of
rotation symmetry, mirror symmetry, and translation symmetry, and wherein the first electrical contact arrangement and the second electrical contact arrangement are arranged on the same side of the substrate [ figure 5A shows that anode and cathode sub mounts in the same side of the device].
Warren does not explicitly disclose wherein the current paths between the first electrical contact arrangement common to the VCSELs within the respective VCSEL sub-array and the second electrical contacts via the plurality of VCSELs are characterized by at least one symmetry selected out of the group of rotation symmetry, mirror symmetry, and translation symmetry.
Figures 3A, 3B and 5 of Joseph teach that it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have used electrical contacts (204 and 202) to apply current to an array of VCSELs wherein current contacts create current paths between the first electrical contact arrangement common to the VCSELs within the respective VCSEL sub-array and the second electrical contacts via the plurality of VCSELs are characterized by at least one symmetry selected out of the group of rotation symmetry, mirror symmetry, and translation symmetry.
Also, paragraph [0073] of Warren states, “…One example of an illumination module 300a is described in more detail in commonly owned U.S. Pat. No. 8,848,757, issued Sep. 30, 2014, filed Mar. 31, 2011 and entitled “Multibeam Arrays of Optoelectronic Devices for High Frequency Operation.”…”
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used the electrical contact mounting structure disclosed by Joseph in the device of Warren because Joseph taught this was a known means to apply current to an array of VCSEL; and also, that this type of contact structure was suggested as an example by Warren.
Claim 14 is rejected by the combination of Warren and Joseph, as applied to claim 1.
With respect to claim 2, Warren discloses: The VCSEL array according to claim 1,
wherein the substrate of the at least two VCSEL sub-arrays is a common substrate [ paragraph
[0073] states, “…The laser arrays 505 are fabricated on one surface of a Gallium Arsenide die
510 in a process that allows both the cathode 515 and anode 520 contacts to be made on the
same surface of the die..."], and wherein the current paths between the first electrical contact
arrangement of a first VCSEL sub-array, of the VCSEL sub-arrays, and the second electrical
contacts via the plurality of VCSELs of the first VCSEL sub-array and the second electrical
contact arrangement of the second VCSEL sub-array, of the VCSEL sub-arrays, and the second
electrical contacts via the plurality of VCSELs of the second VCSEL sub -array are
characterized by at least one symmetry selected out of the group of rotation symmetry, mirror
symmetry, and translation symmetry [ met by using the electrical contact structure disclosed by Joseph for the reasons to combine as set forth with respect to claim 1 ].
With respect to claim 3, Warren discloses: The VCSEL array according to claim 1,
wherein the first electrical contact arrangement comprises at least one first electrical contact [
met by the cathode submount (525) ], wherein the at least one first electrical contact
comprises a first metal-semiconductor interface to a first semiconductor layer of the VCSEL
array [ the cathode submount (525) is a metal ], and wherein the current paths are defined
between the first metal-semiconductor interface and the second metal-semiconductor interface [
current flows to the GaAs laser array die (510) ].
Therefore, claim 3 is met by the combination of Warren and Joseph, as applied to claim 1.
With respect to claim 8, Warren discloses: The VCSEL array according to claim 1,
wherein the VCSELs are bottom emitters [ figure 5A shows light propagating out of the top
of GaAs laser array die (510) ].
Therefore, claim 8 is met by the combination of Warren and Joseph, as applied to claim 1.
With respect to claim 12, Warren discloses: A light emitting device comprising the
VCSEL array according to claim 1 and an electrical driver for providing an electrical drive
current to the VCSELs [ taught by the laser driver electronics (230), in figure 2].
Therefore, claim 12 is met by the combination of Warren and Joseph, as applied to claim 1.
The limitations recited by claims 4-7, 15 and 16 would have been met by a skilled artisan
because it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in electrical and optical engineering to have had a reasonable expectation of success in optimizing the impedance of
the array elements disclosed by the device of Warren.
Note the cited prior art demonstrates that the level of skill in the art would have required
expertise in the design and fabrication of electronic circuits - impedance matching was known
to improve efficiency.
Therefore, claims 4-7, 15 and 16 would have been met by a skilled artisan producing the device created by the combination of Warren and Joseph, as applied to claim 1.
Claim 9 would have been met by using flip chip methods in the construction of the
device of Warren.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had
a reasonable expectation of success in using a flip chip process to fabricate the device of
Warren, as motivated by paragraph [0073], which states, " The two die 510, 535 are aligned
and bonded using conventional EES chip bonding processes. "
As a result, claim 9 is met by a skilled artisan fabricating the device produced by the combination of Warren and Joseph, as applied to claim 1.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warren (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0164261) in view of Joseph (United States Patent No. 8,848,757), as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Hellmig et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0038944).
Claim 13 recites: A time-of-flight camera comprising the light emitting device according
to claim 12, the time-of-flight camera further comprising a light detector for detecting laser light
reflected by an object and an evaluator, wherein the evaluator is configured to determine a
distance to the object based on the laser light detected by the light detector.
The modification of the combination of Warren and Joseph, as applied to claim 12, that would have produced claim 13, would have required the use of its illuminator in a time-of-flight camera system.
Hellmig et al discloses an illumination system similar to Warren and also teaches that
this type of illuminator can be used in a time-of-flight camera system.
Paragraph [0004] states, " The illumination device may be suitable for camera systems
and time of fight based distance detection devices...”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had
a reasonable expectation of success in using the illuminator produced by the combination of Warren and Joseph, as applied to claim 12, in a time-of-flight camera system because Hellmig et al taught that this was a known use for this type of device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to MARK HELLNER at telephone number (571)272-6981.
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/MARK HELLNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645