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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 20-22, 24, 25, 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (2015/0375672) found in IDS, hereinafter ‘672, and further in view of Raring et al. (2017/0051884) found in IDS, hereinafter ‘884.
Regarding claim 20, Figs 11-12 of ‘672 disclose a lighting system comprising:
20. “a light source comprising:
a first laser diode [25] configured as a first pump-light device, the first laser diode having an optical cavity, the first laser diode configured to output first directional electromagnetic radiation [blue], the first directional electromagnetic radiation from the first laser diode [25] characterized by a first peak wavelength [405 nm];
a first wavelength converter [33] optically coupled to a first pathway to receive the first directional electromagnetic radiation [405 nm] from the first pump-light device [25], wherein the first wavelength converter is configured to convert at least a fraction of the first directional electromagnetic radiation with the first peak wavelength [405 nm] to at least a second peak wavelength [yellow] that is longer than the first peak wavelength [yellow wavelength is longer than blue] and to generate a visible white light emission [white] comprising at least the second peak wavelength [blue + yellow = white];
a second laser diode [7] configured to provide an infrared emission [IR], the second laser diode configured to output a second directional electromagnetic radiation characterized by a third peak wavelength [850 nm] in an infrared portion of the electromagnetic spectrum; and
wherein the first laser diode [25] is arranged so that the first directional electromagnetic radiation is transmitted from the first laser diode to the first wavelength converter [33], and
the second laser diode [7] is arranged so that the second directional electromagnetic radiation is transmitted from the second laser diode to the first wavelength converter [33], and
the first directional electromagnetic radiation [blue] and the second directional electromagnetic radiation [IR] are incident on substantially the same spot [front surface] on the first wavelength converter [33].”
‘672 discloses a lighting system as described above, but is silent about the structure of the first laser diode that emits the first wavelength:
20. “the first laser diode having an optical cavity with an optical waveguide region and one or more facet regions, the first laser diode configured to output first directional electromagnetic radiation through at least one of the facet regions.”
However, laser diodes that have an optical cavity, a waveguide and facets for outputting laser radiation are well known in the art, as evidenced by APA1. In fact, this is one of the most common laser configurations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of ‘672 by using this structure of a laser diode, since the combination would yield the predictable result of producing desired laser radiation.
Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because “all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
‘672 discloses a lighting system as described above, but does not disclose:
20. “wedge shaped members disposed around the first wavelength converter, wherein the first laser diode is coupled to a first one of the wedge shaped members and arranged so that the first directional electromagnetic radiation is transmitted unguided through free space from the first laser diode to the first wavelength converter,
and the second laser diode is coupled to a second one of the wedge shaped members and arranged so that the second directional electromagnetic radiation is transmitted unguided through free space from the second laser diode to the first wavelength converter”
‘672 discloses that the first and second laser light are guided to the wavelength converter through various optical elements. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to not use these optical elements, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function if the function of the element is not desired involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04 II.
Also, such wedge-shaped support members 401 for mounting laser diodes 402 and a wavelength converter 406 in a laser system so that the laser light 407 is transmitted unguided through free space are well known in the art as evidenced by Fig 28a of ‘884.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of ‘884 into the device of ‘672 by using this type of system packaging, since the combination would yield the predictable result of providing support for the laser diodes and a wavelength converter in a compact configuration.
Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because “all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Regarding claims 21, 22, 24, 25, 28-30, ‘672 discloses a lighting system as described above, in addition:
21. “wherein the first peak wavelength from the first laser diode [25] is in a violet wavelength region of 390 nm to 430 nm [405 nm]; or
wherein the first laser diode is a gallium and nitrogen containing laser diode and the first peak wavelength is in a green wavelength region from 430 nm to 480 nm.”
22. “wherein the first wavelength converter [33] is configured to reflect and/or scatter the infrared emission [S] from the second laser diode [7]; and
wherein the infrared emission [S] and the visible white light emission [A] are overlapping within a same spatial area.” See Fig 12
24. “configured for use in one or more applications including portable spotlighting, large spotlighting, search lighting, outdoor lighting, indoor lighting, detection, imaging, projection display, spatially dynamic lighting devices, LIDAR, LiFi, visible white light communication, general lighting, commercial lighting and display, automotive lighting, automotive communication and/or detection, defense and security, search and rescue, industrial processing, internet communications, or agriculture or horticulture.” See paragraphs 0145-0146
25. “wherein the second laser diode [7] is configured for a night vision or IR illumination application and is configured to operate independently from the first laser diode [25].” See paragraphs 0132, 0134, 0145-0146
28. “A mobile machine using the lighting system of claim 20, wherein the mobile machine is one of a car, a drone, an unmanned vehicle, a plane, a boat, an underwater vehicle, an off-road vehicle, or a truck.” See paragraphs 0145-0146
29. “wherein the first wavelength converter [33] is comprised of a phosphor material; and wherein the phosphor material includes a ceramic yttrium aluminum garnet (YAG) doped with Ce, or a single crystal YAG doped with Ce, or a powdered YAG comprising a binder material;” See paragraph 0030
30. “wherein the second laser diode [7] is configured to emit the third peak wavelength in a wavelength range of 700 nm to 1100 nm [850 nm], a wavelength range of 1100 to 2500 nm, or a wavelength range of 2500 nm to 15000 nm.”
Regarding claim 31, ‘672 discloses a lighting system as described above, but does not disclose the material composition of the IR semiconductor laser diode:
31. “wherein the second laser diode is based on a material system comprising at least one of GaAs, InP, InGaAs, InAs, InAlAs, AlGaAs, AlInGaP, InGaAsP, or InGaAsSb.”
However, IR laser diodes made of these materials are well known in the art, as evidenced by APA3.
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time the of the invention to make the second laser of these known materials/elements, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material/element on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Admitted Prior Art
The rejections of claim 20 (structure of the laser diode), claim 29 (phosphor material has an optical conversion efficiency of at least 50 lumen per optical watt) and claim 31 (IR laser diodes made of various III-V materials) based on the well-known in the art statements are taken to be admitted prior art (hereinafter APA1, APA2 and APA3, respectively) because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notices or that the traverse was inadequate, see MPEP 2144.03.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant’s attention is drawn to the references cited on form PTO-892 in the previous office action, which lists other references with similar features as the invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 20, filed on 03/23/26 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The limitations directed to unguided transmission through free space of laser light 407 from the first and second laser diodes 402 to the wavelength converter 406 are already disclosed in the ‘884 reference.
Conclusion
All claims are patentably indistinct from claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Info
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. A. GOLUB-MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8602. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MinSun Harvey can be reached on (571) 272-1835. 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. 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. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/M. A. Golub-Miller/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights