DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 through 14 originally filed 24 March 2022. By amendment received 22 September 2025; claims 1 and 3 are amended, claim 2 is cancelled, and claims 15 through 21 are added. By amendment received 12 February 2026; claims 1 and 13 are amended. Claims 1 and 3 through 21 are addressed by this 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12 February 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered; they are addressed below.
Applicant argues that Yamaguchi et al. (Yamaguchi, JP Pub. 2020-145291 A) does not teach or render obvious the limitation "The first light, the second light, and the third light at positions incident on the incident surface of the lens member are each divergent light that is divergent in both a fast-axis direction and a slow axis direction" as required by amended claim 1 and dependent claims thereof. This argument is persuasive and the corresponding rejections are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, it is determined that Tayebati et al. (Tayebati, US Pub. 2013/0215517) renders obvious this feature in combination with the previously cited art. As such, new rejections have been formulated as set forth below.
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Yamaguchi and Tayebati do not teach or render obvious the limitation "A collimating lens having an incident surface on which the first light, the second light, and the third light respectively emitted from the first light-emitting element, the second light-emitting element, and the third light-emitting element are incident" because, according to applicant, Tayebati does not teach this limitation. To support this argument, applicant contends that combining lens 110 of Tayebati does not perform a collimating function but that the combination of combining lens 110 and dispersive element 112 achieves this function as shown in Figure 2A by light becoming narrower in the region between the combining lens 110 and the dispersive element 112 collimating the light.
Applicant's argument is persuasive in so far as Figure 2A of Tayebati cited in the previous office action does not teach this feature. Accordingly, the previous rejection is withdrawn. However, upon review, it is determined that a different configuration described in Tayebati renders obvious the argued feature. As such, a new rejection has been formulated on this basis as set forth below.
In light of the above argument, additional explanation is provided as to how the new citation of Tayebati is not rebutted by the above argument. Specifically, Tayebati identifies that the conventional configuration described therein positions the combining optical element to also collimate light from the beams on both axes (Tayebati, ¶24 describing the operation of lens 110 shown in Figure 1B). Further, Tayebati identifies in relation to a similar configuration that this placement causes the combining optical element to collimate light from each diode element (Tayebati, ¶28 describing how placing optic 110 a focal length from the front facet 108 causes the optic to collimate each beam and ¶23 which identifies that the conventional configuration depicted in Figure 1B places optic 110 a focal length from the front facet 108). Additionally, the dispersive element Tayebati does not have a collimating function in any embodiment and collimation within Tayebati is either performed by the combining optical element or by additional collimating optics (Tayebati, ¶30 & 31 describing the configurations of 2A, 2B, and 2C, in which collimating lenses 124 or 124a are employed, collimation is performed by combining optic 110, or collimation lens 224 is employed). Particularly, while the figures of Tayebati show solid beams converging on the dispersive element and a combined beam emerging from the dispersive element, these solid beams indicate the overall direction of the beams and the divergence or convergence of any given beam is indicated by dashed lines (Tayebati, ¶27 & 32 identifying that the divergence of rays is illustrated by the dashed lines 161 and 162). Since Tayebati identifies that the conventional configuration employs the combining optic for collimating light, the argued feature is rendered obvious by a combination of Yamaguchi and Tayebati. As such, the above argument does not overcome this new rejection.
As such, all claims are addressed as follows:
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3 through 7, 11, and 15 through 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al. (Yamaguchi, JP Pub. 2020-145291 A) in view of Tayebati et al. (Tayebati, US Pub. 2013/0215517).
Regarding claim 1, Yamaguchi discloses, "A first light-emitting element including a first light-emission surface through which first light is emitted along a first optical axis" (p. [0026] and Fig. 1, pt. 120). "A second light-emitting element" (p. [0026] and Fig. 1, pt. 120). "[The second light-emitting element] disposed apart from the first light-emitting element in a first direction" (p. [0026] and Fig. 1, pt. 120). "[The first direction] is perpendicular to the first optical axis" (p. [0026] and Fig. 1, pt. 120). "[The second light-emitting element disposed] such that a reference plane parallel to the first light-emission surface and intersecting the first light-emitting element intersects the second light-emitting element" (p. [0026] and Fig. 1, pt. 120). "The second light-emitting element including a second light-emission surface through which second light is emitted along a second optical axis" (p. [0026] and Fig. 1, pt. 120). "[The second optical axis] is inclined with respect to the first optical axis in a second direction opposite to the first direction" (p. [0026] and Fig. 1, pt. 120). "A third light-emitting element disposed apart from the first light-emitting element in the second direction" (p. [0026] and Fig. 1, pt. 120). "[The third light-emitting element disposed] such that the reference plane intersects the third light-emitting element" (p. [0026] and Fig. 1, pt. 120). "Wherein the third light-emitting element includes a third light-emission surface through which third light is emitted along a third optical axis" (p. [0026] and Fig. 1, pt. 120). "[The third optical axis] is inclined with respect to the first optical axis in the first direction" (p. [0026] and Fig. 1, pt. 120). "A lens member having an incident surface on which the first light, the second light, and the third light respectively emitted from the first light-emitting element, the second light-emitting element, and the third light-emitting element are incident" (p. [0036] and Fig. 1, pts. 120 and 130). "Wherein two of (i) a first point of incidence at which the first light traveling along the first optical axis is incident on the incident surface of the lens member, (ii) a second point of incidence at which the second light traveling along the second optical axis is incident on the incident surface of the lens member, and (iii) a third point of incidence at which the third light traveling along the third optical axis is incident on the incident surface of the lens member, are closer to each other than corresponding two of (i) a first point of emission at which the first light traveling along the first optical axis is emitted through the first light-emission surface, (ii) a second point of emission at which the second light traveling along the second optical axis is emitted through the second light-emission surface, and (iii) a third point of emission at which the third light traveling along the third optical axis is emitted through the third light-emission surface" (p. [0036] and Fig. 1, pts. 120 and 130). Yamaguchi does not explicitly disclose, "The first light, the second light, and the third light at positions incident on the incident surface of the lens member are each divergent light that is divergent in both a fast-axis direction and a slow axis direction." Tayebati discloses, "The first light, the second light, and the third light at positions incident on the incident surface of the lens member are each divergent light that is divergent in both a fast-axis direction and a slow axis direction" (p. [0024] and Fig. 1B, pts. 105 and 110). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yamaguchi with the teachings of Tayebati. In view of the teachings of Yamaguchi regarding a laser device in which adjacent beams are multiplexed together in a manner that involves a collecting lens, the alternate construction of the collecting lens to additionally operate as a collimating lens as taught by Tayebati would enhance the teachings of Yamaguchi by allowing the overlapped rays to be entirely collimated without additional elements.
Regarding claim 3, Yamaguchi discloses, "Wherein the lens member has a single lens surface through which the first light, the second light, and the third light are emitted" (p. [0026] and Fig. 1, pts. 120 and 130).
Regarding claim 4, The combination of Yamaguchi and Tayebati does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the second optical axis has an inclination with respect to the first optical axis of greater than 0 degrees and 30 degrees or less." "The third optical axis has an inclination with respect to the first optical axis of greater than 0 degrees and 30 degrees 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 adjust the angles of the emission from the laser devices within the claimed range so as to achieve a desired degree of convergence, 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.
Regarding claim 5, The combination of Yamaguchi and Tayebati does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a difference between an absolute value of the inclination of the second optical axis with respect to the first optical axis and an absolute value of the inclination of the third optical axis with respect to the first optical axis is 0 degrees or greater and 5 degrees 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 adjust the angles of the emission from the laser devices within the claimed range so as to achieve a desired degree of convergence, 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.
Regarding claim 6, The combination of Yamaguchi and Tayebati does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a difference between an absolute value of the inclination of the second optical axis with respect to the first optical axis and an absolute value of the inclination of the third optical axis with respect to the first optical axis is 0 degrees or greater and 5 degrees 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 adjust the angles of the emission from the laser devices within the claimed range so as to achieve a desired degree of convergence, 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.
Regarding claim 7, Yamaguchi discloses, "An optical control unit on which the first light, the second light, and the third light having passed through the lens member are incident" (p. [0039] and Fig. 2, pt. 142). "Wherein the optical control unit is configured to parallelize the first light, the second light, and the third light" (p. [0039] and Fig. 2, pt. 142).
Regarding claim 11, Yamaguchi discloses, "A submount on which the first light-emitting element, the second light-emitting element, and the third light-emitting element are disposed" (p. [0027] and Fig. 1, pts. 110 and 120).
Regarding claim 15, Yamaguchi discloses, "A first light-emitting element including a first light-emission surface through which first light is emitted along a first optical axis" (p. [0026] and Fig. 1, pt. 120). "A second light-emitting element" (p. [0026] and Fig. 1, pt. 120). "[The second light-emitting element] disposed apart from the first light-emitting element in a first direction" (p. [0026] and Fig. 1, pt. 120). "[The first direction] is perpendicular to the first optical axis" (p. [0026] and Fig. 1, pt. 120). "[The second light-emitting element disposed] such that a reference plane parallel to the first light-emission surface and intersecting the first light-emitting element intersects the second light-emitting element" (p. [0026] and Fig. 1, pt. 120). "The second light-emitting element including a second light-emission surface through which second light is emitted along a second optical axis" (p. [0026] and Fig. 1, pt. 120). "[The second optical axis] is inclined with respect to the first optical axis in a second direction opposite to the first direction" (p. [0026] and Fig. 1, pt. 120). "A third light-emitting element disposed apart from the first light-emitting element in the second direction" (p. [0026] and Fig. 1, pt. 120). "[The third light-emitting element disposed] such that the reference plane intersects the third light-emitting element" (p. [0026] and Fig. 1, pt. 120). "Wherein the third light-emitting element includes a third light-emission surface through which third light is emitted along a third optical axis" (p. [0026] and Fig. 1, pt. 120). "[The third optical axis] is inclined with respect to the first optical axis in the first direction" (p. [0026] and Fig. 1, pt. 120). "Wherein two of (i) a first point of incidence at which the first light traveling along the first optical axis is incident on the incident surface of the… lens, (ii) a second point of incidence at which the second light traveling along the second optical axis is incident on the incident surface of the… lens, and (iii) a third point of incidence at which the third light traveling along the third optical axis is incident on the incident surface of the… lens, are closer to each other than corresponding two of (i) a first point of emission at which the first light traveling along the first optical axis is emitted through the first light-emission surface, (ii) a second point of emission at which the second light traveling along the second optical axis is emitted through the second light-emission surface, and (iii) a third point of emission at which the third light traveling along the third optical axis is emitted through the third light-emission surface" (p. [0036] and Fig. 1, pts. 120 and 130). Yamaguchi does not explicitly disclose, "A collimating lens having an incident surface on which the first light, the second light, and the third light respectively emitted from the first light-emitting element, the second light-emitting element, and the third light-emitting element are incident." "In a top view, an end of the… lens in the first direction is located at a position farther in the first direction than is an end of the second light-emission surface of the second light-emitting element." "In the top view, an end of the… lens in the second direction is located at a position farther in the second direction than is an end of the third light-emission surface of the third light-emitting element." Tayebati discloses, "A collimating lens having an incident surface on which the first light, the second light, and the third light respectively emitted from the first light-emitting element, the second light-emitting element, and the third light-emitting element are incident" (p. [0024] and Fig. 1B, pts. 105 and 110). "In a top view, an end of the… lens in the first direction is located at a position farther in the first direction than is an end of the second light-emission surface of the second light-emitting element" (p. [0024] and Fig. 1B, pts. 105 and 110, where the top of lens 110 is located further in the upward direction than the top of top emission region 105). "In the top view, an end of the… lens in the second direction is located at a position farther in the second direction than is an end of the third light-emission surface of the third light-emitting element" (p. [0024] and Fig. 1B, pts. 105 and 110, where the bottom of lens 110 is located further in the downward direction than the bottom of bottom emission region 105). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yamaguchi with the teachings of Tayebati for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Yamaguchi discloses, "Wherein the… lens has a single lens surface through which the first light, the second light, and the third light are emitted" (p. [0026] and Fig. 1, pts. 120 and 130).
Regarding claim 17, The combination of Yamaguchi and Tayebati does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the second optical axis has an inclination with respect to the first optical axis of greater than 0 degrees and 30 degrees or less." "The third optical axis has an inclination with respect to the first optical axis of greater than 0 degrees and 30 degrees 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 adjust the angles of the emission from the laser devices within the claimed range so as to achieve a desired degree of convergence, 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.
Regarding claim 18, The combination of Yamaguchi and Tayebati does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a difference between an absolute value of the inclination of the second optical axis with respect to the first optical axis and an absolute value of the inclination of the third optical axis with respect to the first optical axis is 0 degrees or greater and 5 degrees 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 adjust the angles of the emission from the laser devices within the claimed range so as to achieve a desired degree of convergence, 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.
Regarding claim 19, The combination of Yamaguchi and Tayebati does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a difference between an absolute value of the inclination of the second optical axis with respect to the first optical axis and an absolute value of the inclination of the third optical axis with respect to the first optical axis is 0 degrees or greater and 5 degrees 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 adjust the angles of the emission from the laser devices within the claimed range so as to achieve a desired degree of convergence, 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.
Regarding claim 20, Yamaguchi discloses, "An optical control unit on which the first light, the second light, and the third light having passed through the… lens are incident" (p. [0039] and Fig. 2, pt. 142). "Wherein the optical control unit is configured to parallelize the first light, the second light, and the third light" (p. [0039] and Fig. 2, pt. 142).
Claims 8 through 10, 14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi, in view of Tayebati, and further in view of Huang et al. (Huang, US Pub. 2011/0096298).
Regarding claim 8, The combination of Yamaguchi and Tayebati does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the second light traveling along the second optical axis is incident on the optical control unit at a position that is separated in the second direction from the first optical axis." "The third light traveling along the third optical axis is incident on the optical control unit at a position that is separated in the first direction from the first optical axis." Huang discloses, "Wherein the second light traveling along the second optical axis is incident on the optical control unit at a position that is separated in the second direction from the first optical axis" (p. [0032] and Fig. 2A, pts. 26, 28, 221a, and 222a). "The third light traveling along the third optical axis is incident on the optical control unit at a position that is separated in the first direction from the first optical axis" (p. [0032] and Fig. 2A, pts. 24, 26, 222a, and 223a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Yamaguchi and Tayebati with the teachings of Huang. In view of the teachings of Yamaguchi regarding a laser device in which different colored beams are multiplexed together, the alternate use of dichroic mirrors to multiplex the beams and the alternate configuration of the device as separate lasers that are externally multiplexed rather than a single external cavity laser as taught by Huang would enhance the teachings of Yamaguchi and Tayebati by allowing for greater control over the angles at which the laser emitters are disposed and by reducing the risk of misalignment within the laser cavities.
Regarding claim 9, The combination of Yamaguchi and Tayebati does not explicitly disclose, "A plurality of dichroic mirrors on which the first light, the second light, and the third light having passed through the lens member are incident." "Wherein the plurality of dichroic mirrors are configured to parallelize the first light, the second light, and the third light." Huang discloses, "A plurality of dichroic mirrors on which the first light, the second light, and the third light having passed through the lens member are incident" (p. [0032] and Fig. 2A, pts. 24, 26, and 28). "Wherein the plurality of dichroic mirrors are configured to parallelize the first light, the second light, and the third light" (p. [0032] and Fig. 2A, pts. 24, 26, and 28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Yamaguchi and Tayebati with the teachings of Huang for the reasons provided above regarding claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, The combination of Yamaguchi and Tayebati does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the second light traveling along the second optical axis is incident on a surface of the plurality of dichroic mirrors at a position that is separated in the second direction from the first optical axis." "The third light traveling along the third optical axis is incident on a surface of the plurality of dichroic mirrors at a position that is separated in the first direction from the first optical axis." Huang discloses, "Wherein the second light traveling along the second optical axis is incident on a surface of the plurality of dichroic mirrors at a position that is separated in the second direction from the first optical axis" (p. [0032] and Fig. 2A, pts. 26, 28, 221a, and 222a). "The third light traveling along the third optical axis is incident on a surface of the plurality of dichroic mirrors at a position that is separated in the first direction from the first optical axis" (p. [0032] and Fig. 2A, pts. 24, 26, 222a, and 223a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Yamaguchi and Tayebati with the teachings of Huang for the reasons provided above regarding claim 8.
Regarding claim 14, The combination of Yamaguchi and Tayebati does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the first light-emitting element, the second light-emitting element, and the third light-emitting element are semiconductor laser elements." Huang discloses, "Wherein the first light-emitting element, the second light-emitting element, and the third light-emitting element are semiconductor laser elements" (p. [0028] and Fig. 1, pts. 22, 221, 222, and 223). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Yamaguchi and Tayebati with the teachings of Huang for the reasons provided above regarding claim 8.
Regarding claim 21, The combination of Yamaguchi and Tayebati does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the second light traveling along the second optical axis is incident on the optical control unit at a position that is separated in the second direction from the first optical axis." "The third light traveling along the third optical axis is incident on the optical control unit at a position that is separated in the first direction from the first optical axis." Huang discloses, "Wherein the second light traveling along the second optical axis is incident on the optical control unit at a position that is separated in the second direction from the first optical axis" (p. [0032] and Fig. 2A, pts. 26, 28, 221a, and 222a). "The third light traveling along the third optical axis is incident on the optical control unit at a position that is separated in the first direction from the first optical axis" (p. [0032] and Fig. 2A, pts. 24, 26, 222a, and 223a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Yamaguchi and Tayebati with the teachings of Huang for the reasons provided above regarding claim 8.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi, in view of Tayebati, in view of Powers et al. (Powers, US Pub. 2004/0195297), and further in view of Gen-ei et al. (Gen-ei, US Pub. 2002/0105981).
Regarding claim 12, Yamaguchi discloses, "Wherein the submount has an upper surface and a lateral surface intersecting the upper surface" (p. [0027] and Fig. 1, pts. 110 and 111).
The combination of Yamaguchi and Tayebati does not explicitly disclose, "The first light-emitting element [is] disposed so that, in a top view, (i) the first point of emission at which the first light traveling along the first optical axis is emitted through the first light-emission surface [is] located outward of an outer edge that is located at a boundary between the upper surface and the lateral surface of the submount." "The second light-emitting element [is] disposed so that, in a top view, (ii) the second point of emission at which the second light traveling along the second optical axis is emitted through the second light-emission surface [is] located outward of an outer edge that is located at a boundary between the upper surface and the lateral surface of the submount." "The third light-emitting element [is] disposed so that, in a top view, (iii) the third point of emission at which the third light traveling along the third optical axis is emitted through the third light-emission surface [is] located outward of an outer edge that is located at a boundary between the upper surface and the lateral surface of the submount." Powers discloses, "The first light-emitting element [is] disposed so that, in a top view, (i) the first point of emission at which the first light traveling along the first optical axis is emitted through the first light-emission surface [is] located outward of an outer edge that is located at a boundary between the upper surface and the lateral surface of the submount" (p. [0019] and pts. 32, 34, and OH34, where this overhang is applied to every laser element of Yamaguchi). "The second light-emitting element [is] disposed so that, in a top view, (ii) the second point of emission at which the second light traveling along the second optical axis is emitted through the second light-emission surface [is] located outward of an outer edge that is located at a boundary between the upper surface and the lateral surface of the submount" (p. [0019] and pts. 32, 34, and OH34, where this overhang is applied to every laser element of Yamaguchi). "The third light-emitting element [is] disposed so that, in a top view, (iii) the third point of emission at which the third light traveling along the third optical axis is emitted through the third light-emission surface [is] located outward of an outer edge that is located at a boundary between the upper surface and the lateral surface of the submount" (p. [0019] and pts. 32, 34, and OH34, where this overhang is applied to every laser element of Yamaguchi). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Yamaguchi and Tayebati with the teachings of Powers. In view of the teachings of Yamaguchi regarding lasers mounted on a mounting block, the additional mounting adjustment such that the laser emitters overhang the mounting block as taught by Powers would enhance the teachings of Yamaguchi and Tayebati by allowing heat to be efficiently extracted from the laser device while avoiding the risk of the mounting interfering with the emission from the laser device.
The combination of Yamaguchi, Tayebati, and Powers does not explicitly disclose, "In a top view, the first optical axis direction and a direction in which the outer edge extends intersect each other at an angle other than 90°." Gen-ei discloses, "In a top view, the first optical axis direction and a direction in which the outer edge extends intersect each other at an angle other than 90°" (p. [0030] and Fig. 1, pts. 101 and 111). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Yamaguchi, Tayebati, and Powers with the teachings of Gen-ei. In view of the teachings of Yamaguchi regarding laser devices mounted atop a mounting block, the alternate construction of the mounting block to include angled surfaces near the emission surfaces of the lasers as taught by Gen-ei would enhance the teachings of Yamaguchi, Tayebati, and Powers by allowing light that accidentally impinges on the mounting block to be deflected away from the intended emissions.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi, in view of Tayebati, and further in view of Gen-ei.
Regarding claim 13, The combination of Yamaguchi and Tayebati does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein an upper surface of the submount has a shape of a parallelogram having vertex angles." "None of the vertex angles being 90 degrees." Gen-ei discloses, "Wherein an upper surface of the submount has a shape of a parallelogram having vertex angles" (p. [0030] and Fig. 1, pts. 101 and 111). "None of the vertex angles being 90 degrees" (p. [0030] and Fig. 1, pts. 101, 102, and 111). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Yamaguchi and Tayebati with the teachings of Gen-ei. In view of the teachings of Yamaguchi regarding laser devices mounted atop a mounting block, the alternate construction of the mounting block to include angled surfaces near the emission surfaces of the lasers as taught by Gen-ei would enhance the teachings of Yamaguchi and Tayebati by allowing light that accidentally impinges on the mounting block to be deflected away from the intended emissions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean P Hagan whose telephone number is (571)270-1242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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.
/SEAN P HAGAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2828