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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/19/25 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges and accepts the amendment filed on 08/19/25.
Claims 1-8 are amended;
Claims 9-10 are canceled;
Claims 11-13 are newly added; and
Claims 1-8 and 11-13 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
The previous objection to claim 10 has been withdrawn in view of the amendment filed on 08/19/25.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites “a light-emitting layer having light-emitting regions” in lines 5-6 and subsequently “wherein the light-emitting layer has a plurality of light-emitting regions” in lines 10-11. The latter limitation is considered redundant and should be removed for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “the single laser chip” in Step a) lacks antecedent basis and should be changed to “a single laser chip” in order to avoid a potential 112 indefiniteness rejection. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/19/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, the Applicant argues that “the Huang prior art reference appears irrelevant with respect to the combined patentable features of “setting a predetermined difference to 1.5 nm or more between a first peak wavelength ... and a second peak wavelength” and “oscillating all of the emitted laser beams in a single transverse mode” of the newly amended independent method claim.” (last paragraph on page 11 bridging pages 11-12 of 08/19/25 Remarks)
The Examiner disagrees that HUANG is irrelevant to both of the above limitations. Although HUANG does not disclose the first part of the above limitations pertaining to a difference between the first/second peak wavelengths being 1.5 nm or more, HUANG does explicitly disclose the second part of the limitations regarding to oscillating all of the emitted laser beams in a single transverse mode. In particular, HUANG discloses “The high-order mode is suppressed by the modification for etching depth and etching technique. Only the fundamental mode has priority over other modes for lasing due to a much larger gain for the fundamental mode under current injection” ([0030]), and “The high-order Bragg grating laser array may comprise at least two laser diodes in the parallel alignment. Each laser diode has an individual single-mode wavelength lasing.” ([0032]) As a result, HUANG clearly discloses each light emitting regions of the laser array is configured to emit a single transverse mode. In addition, since TAKIGAWA discloses the first part of the limitations, when modified by HUANG, the combination therefore discloses both of the above limitations.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claims 1-8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAKIGAWA et al. (US PG Pub 2020/0227895 A1) in view of HUANG (US PG Pub 2020/0335940 A1).
Regarding claim 1, TAKIGAWA discloses a method of oscillating laser beams using a semiconductor laser device (1, FIG. 1, [0051]) having a substrate (20, FIG. 1, [0052]), a first cladding layer (11, FIG. 1, [0053]) with a first conductive type (11 is an n-type cladding layer, [0067]) and a second cladding layer (15, FIG. 1, [0053]) with a second conductive type (15 is a p-type cladding layer, [0067]) and a light-emitting layer (13, FIG. 1, [0053]) having light-emitting regions that are formed on the first cladding layer between the first cladding layer and the second cladding layer, wherein the light-emitting layer has a plurality of light-emitting regions (30, FIG. 1, [0052]), the method of emitting laser beams comprising the steps of: Step a) of emitting the laser beams from the plurality of light-emitting regions provided within the single laser chip (all light emitting regions 30 are within a single laser chip); and step b) of setting a predetermined difference to 1.5 nm or more between a first peak wavelength in an optical spectrum of at least one of the laser beams and a second peak wavelength in the optical spectrum of another one of the laser beams (a light-emitting region corresponding to Rl2 emits a wavelength of 630 nm and another light-emitting region corresponding to Rl1 emits a wavelength of 632.5 nm wavelength; therefore, a wavelength difference is 2.5 nm, [0084]).
TAKIGAWA does not disclose step c) of oscillating all of the emitted laser beams in a single transverse mode.
HUANG discloses a high-order Bragg grating single-mode laser array (FIG. 1, [0076]) comprising a plurality of ridges (112, FIG. 1, [0080]), wherein the plurality of ridges are configured so that only fundamental mode are emitted ([0030]-[0032] and also see Response to Arguments above).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ridge portions of TAKIGAWA with modification of etching depth and etching technique so that only fundamental mode is emitted as taught by HUANG in order to ensure that high reflection and small scattering loss are provided to realize stable single-mode lasing ([0029] of HUANG).
Regarding claim 2, TAKIGAWA discloses the laser beam emitted in the step a) each have a wavelength of 600 nm or more and 700 nm or less ([0084]).
Regarding claim 3, TAKIGAWA discloses the laser beam emitted in the step a) from at least three light-emitting regions (five light-emitting regions 30, FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination has disclosed the semiconductor laser device outlined in the rejection to claim 1 above except among the laser beams emitted from the light-emitting regions, the predetermined difference is set to 3 nm or more and 30 nm or less between the first peak wavelength in the optical spectrum of at least one of the laser beams and the second peak wavelength in the optical spectrum of another one of the laser beams. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the predetermined difference between the first peak wavelength in the optical spectrum of at least one of the laser beams and the second peak wavelength in the optical spectrum of another one of the laser beams of the combination with a range of 3 nm or more and 30 nm or less in order to obtain a wider wavelength range for a particular display application, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)
Regarding claim 5, TAKIGAWA discloses among the laser beams emitted from the light-emitting regions, the predetermined difference is set to 1.5 nm or more and 30 nm or less between a first peak wavelength in the optical spectrum of a first laser beam having a longest wavelength and a second peak wavelength in the optical spectrum of a second laser beam having a shortest wavelength (a light-emitting region corresponding to Rl2 emits a shortest wavelength of 630 nm and another light-emitting region corresponding to Rl1 emits a longest wavelength of 632.5 nm; therefore, a wavelength difference is 2.5 nm, [0084]).
Regarding claim 6, TAKIGAWA discloses the light-emitting regions are spaced apart with an interval of 5 µm or more and 100 µm or less between two adjacent ones of the light-emitting regions ([0072]).
Regarding claims 7-8, the combination has disclosed the semiconductor laser device outlined in the rejection to claim 1 above except each of the laser beams emitted from the light-emitting regions has a spectral linewidth of 0.01 nm or more and 1 nm or less, or a spectral linewidth of 0.0001 nm or more and 0.01 nm or less. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified each of the laser beams emitted from the light-emitting regions of the combination with a spectral linewidth of 0.01 nm or more and 1 nm or less, or a spectral linewidth of 0.0001 nm or more and 0.01 nm or less in order to maximize optical efficiency by minimizing cross-talks between adjacent light-emitting emission regions, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)
Regarding claim 13, TAKIGAWA discloses the step a) further comprising a step f) of driving all of the laser beams at the same time (laser beams 10L output at the same time, FIG. 1).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAKIGAWA et al. and HUANG et al. as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Mizuuchi et al. (US PG Pub 2007/0165685 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination has disclosed the method of oscillating laser beams outlined in the rejection to claim 2 above except the step a) further comprising a step d) of expanding a spectral width of the laser beams by applying a current superimposed with a high frequency current to the light-emitting regions. Mizuuchi discloses a drive circuit (11-14, FIG. 2b, [0144]) that drives a semiconductor laser device (10a, FIG. 2b, [0165]) by applying a current to the semiconductor laser device; a high frequency superimposition circuit (23-24, FIG. 2b, [0165]) that is connected to the drive circuit; and the laser beams have spectral widths that are expanded by superimposing a high frequency current on the current by the high frequency superimposition circuit ([0054]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of oscillating laser beams of the combination with applying a current via a drive circuit superimposed with a high frequency current via a high frequency superimposition circuit to the light-emitting regions as taught by Mizuuchi in order to expand the spectrum of the emitted laser light and significantly reduce speckle noise ([0054] of Mizuuchi).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAKIGAWA et al. and HUANG et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO2011/121678A1 (herein WO’678).
Regarding claim 12, the combination has disclosed the method of oscillating laser beams outlined in the rejection to claim 1 above except the step a) further comprising a step e) of independently driving each of the laser beams. WO’678 discloses a stable high-output semiconductor laser array (FIG. 1) comprising a plurality of laser elements (100a-100c, FIG. 1) having ridge portions (113a-113c, FIG. 1), wherein each of the laser elements can be driven and controlled independently (see underlined portion on page 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of oscillating laser beams of the combination with driving the laser beams independently as taught by WO’678 in order to obtain desired modulated output.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
MURATA et al. (US PG Pub 2020/0185883 A1) discloses a semiconductor laser device having a plurality of ridge structures similar to the claimed invention (see FIG. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUANDA ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1439. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 AM - 6:30 PM.
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, MINSUN HARVEY can be reached at (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 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.
/YUANDA ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828