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. By amendment received 10 June 2026; claims 1, 5, 7, 11, 12, and 15 are amended and claims 22 and 23 are added. Claims 1 and 3 through 23 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered; they are addressed below.
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Yamaguchi et al. (Yamaguchi, JP Pub. 2020-145291 A) and Tayebati et al. (Tayebati, US Pub. 2013/0215517) does not teach or render obvious the amended limitation "A part of the first light traveling directly along the first optical axis and a part of the second light traveling directly along the second optical axis intersect each other beyond the lens member and continue following the intersection; and a part of the first light traveling directly along the first optical axis and a part of the third light traveling directly along the third optical axis intersect each other beyond the lens member and continue following the intersection". This argument is persuasive and the prior art rejection of claim 1 and claims dependent therefrom are withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, Huang et al. (Huang, US Pub. 2011/0096298) has been found to render this feature obvious in light of 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 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" because, according to applicant, Tayebati teaches away from the claimed arrangement. To support this argument, applicant contends that Tayebati teaches that the first function of the lens of Tayebati is to cause the chief rays of all diode elements thereof to overlap onto the dispersive element and that this teaching, according to applicant, requires the chief rays entering lens 110 to be parallel.
Initially, this argument will be addressed as it applies to the current rejection on the basis of the combined teachings of Yamaguchi, Tayebati, and Huang. Additionally, this argument is set forth with reference to an embodiment of Tayebati other than the embodiment cited in either the previous or present rejection. Accordingly, references to embodiments of Tayebati other than the embodiment employed in the rejection are considered only in so far as they inform or limit the present combination.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because this argument is not textually supported by and does not logically flow from the statements of Tayebati (MPEP §2145XD1). Specifically, Tayebati does not state that use of a lens 110 requires the incoming rays to be parallel. As argued, Tayebati provides an arrangement that implies that if A) a lens is not present, then B) the emitters must be physically arranged to converge the chief rays (Tayebati, Fig. 3 depicting this arrangement). However, this presentation of Tayebati does not establish the inverse statement that if ¬B) the emitters are not physically arranged to converge the chief rays, then ¬A) a lens must not be present. Since the embodiment of Tayebati encompassed by Figure 3 thereof does not criticize or discourage the claimed arrangement, this different embodiment of Tayebati cannot teach away from modifying the device of Yamaguchi to employ the features of the different embodiment encompassed by Figure 1B of Tayebati in the combination of Yamaguchi, Tayebati, and Huang in a manner that reads on the claimed arrangement. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
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" is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Yamaguchi, Tayebati, and Huang (see below). Applicant's argument that Tayebati teaches away from the claimed arrangement is not persuasive because this argument is not textually supported by and does not logically flow from the statements of Tayebati (MPEP §2145XD1).
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Yamaguchi and Tayebati does not teach or render obvious the amended limitation "The first light-emitting element, the second light-emitting element, and the third light-emitting element are physically separate bodies from each other". This argument is persuasive and the prior art rejection of claim 15 and claims dependent therefrom are withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, Huang has been found to render this feature obvious in light of 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 does 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 feature. To support this argument, applicant contends that Tayebati states in ¶28 that the light between facets 104 and 108 is the light that is collimated.
Initially, this argument will be addressed as it applies to the current rejection on the basis of the combined teachings of Yamaguchi, Tayebati, and Huang. Additionally, this argument is set forth with reference to an embodiment of Tayebati other than the embodiment cited in either the previous or present rejection. Accordingly, references to embodiments of Tayebati other than the embodiment employed in the rejection are considered only in so far as they inform or limit the present combination.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because Tayebati directly contradicts the statements of the argument. Specifically, the argued section of Tayebati corresponds to an embodiment in which it is explicitly indicated that light diverges from the emission facet to the lens (Tayebati, ¶28 discussing the arrangement of Figure 2B in which the chief beam 160 is depicted as diverging between output facet 108 and lens 110 as shown by the dashed line marked 162). Since the embodiment of Tayebati encompassed by Figure 2B thereof aligns with the claimed arrangement, this different embodiment of Tayebati cannot rebut the obviousness of modifying the device of Yamaguchi to employ the features of the different embodiment encompassed by Figure 1B of Tayebati in the combination of Yamaguchi, Tayebati, and Huang in a manner that reads on the claimed arrangement. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
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" is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Yamaguchi, Tayebati, and Huang (see below). Applicant's argument that Tayebati does not teach this feature is not persuasive because Tayebati directly contradicts the statements of the argument.
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 10, and 14 through 22 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), and further in view of Huang et al. (Huang, US Pub. 2011/0096298).
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.
The combination of Yamaguchi and Tayebati does not explicitly disclose, "A part of the first light traveling directly along the first optical axis and a part of the second light traveling directly along the second optical axis intersect each other beyond the lens member and continue following the intersection." "A part of the first light traveling directly along the first optical axis and a part of the third light traveling directly along the third optical axis intersect each other beyond the lens member and continue following the intersection." Huang discloses, "A part of the first light traveling directly along the first optical axis and a part of the second light traveling directly along the second optical axis intersect each other beyond the lens member and continue following the intersection" (p. [0032] and Figs. 1 and 2A, pts. 224, 221a, and 222a). "A part of the first light traveling directly along the first optical axis and a part of the third light traveling directly along the third optical axis intersect each other beyond the lens member and continue following the intersection" (p. [0032] and Figs. 1 and 2A, pts. 224, 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 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, Tayebati, and Huang 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, Tayebati, and Huang does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a difference between an absolute value of an inclination of the second optical axis with respect to the first optical axis and an absolute value of an 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, Tayebati, and Huang 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).
The combination of Yamaguchi and Tayebati does not explicitly disclose, "The part of the first light traveling directly along the first optical axis, the part of the second light traveling directly along the second optical axis, and the part of the third light traveling directly along the third optical axis intersect each other before reaching the optical control unit." Huang discloses, "The part of the first light traveling directly along the first optical axis, the part of the second light traveling directly along the second optical axis, and the part of the third light traveling directly along the third optical axis intersect each other before reaching the optical control unit" (p. [0032] and Fig. 2A, pts. 24, 26, 28, 221a, 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 1.
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 for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
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 1.
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 1.
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 1.
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.
The combination of Yamaguchi and Tayebati does not explicitly disclose, "The first light-emitting element, the second light-emitting element, and the third light-emitting element are physically separate bodies from each other." Huang discloses, "The first light-emitting element, the second light-emitting element, and the third light-emitting element are physically separate bodies from each other" (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 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, Tayebati, and Huang 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, Tayebati, and Huang 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, Tayebati, and Huang 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).
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 1.
Regarding claim 22, Yamaguchi discloses, "Wherein the first light, the second light, and the third light emitted from the lens member are collimated only in the fast-axis direction" (p. [0037], where the system is arranged to only collimate light along the fast axis).
Claims 11 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi, in view of Tayebati, in view of Huang, and further in view of Liu et al. (Liu, US Pub. 2021/0132202).
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).
The combination of Yamaguchi, Tayebati, and Huang does not explicitly disclose, "A package in which the submount is disposed." "The lens member disposed outside the package." Liu discloses, "A package in which the submount is disposed" (p. [0162] and Figs. 15C and 15D, pts. 1541, where laser dies 1541 are positioned side by side on the substrate which serves as a submount). "The lens member disposed outside the package" (Fig. 3C, pt. 301, where the lens of Tayebati may be located outside of a laser package in like manner to how the lens of Liu is located outside of the package of Liu in this arrangement). 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 Huang with the teachings of Liu. In view of the teachings of Yamaguchi regarding lasers mounted on a mounting block, the additional inclusion of a package for containing the laser elements as well as the additional indication of how a lens may be arranged relative to such a package as taught by Liu would enhance the teachings of Yamaguchi, Tayebati, and Huang by allowing laser devices to be contained independent of the further optical components.
Regarding claim 23, The combination of Yamaguchi, Tayebati, and Huang does not explicitly disclose, "A package including the first light-emitting element, the second light-emitting element, and the third light-emitting element." Liu discloses, "A package including the first light-emitting element, the second light-emitting element, and the third light-emitting element" (p. [0162] and Figs. 15C and 15D, pts. 1541). 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 Huang with the teachings of Liu for the reasons provided above regarding claim 11.
The combination of Yamaguchi, Tayebati, Huang, and Liu does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein in the top view, a distance between both ends of the collimating lens is smaller than a distance between both ends of the package in a direction perpendicular to the first optical axis." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the lens and the package to individually have dimensions which, when taken together, fall within the claimed range as a matter of selecting suitably dimensioned elements, 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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi, in view of Tayebati, in view of Huang, in view of Liu, 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, Tayebati, Huang, and Liu 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, Tayebati, Huang, and Liu 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, Tayebati, Huang, and Liu 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, Huang, Liu, and Powers does not explicitly disclose, "In the 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 the 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, Huang, Liu, 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, Huang, Liu, 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, in view of Huang, in view of Liu, and further in view of Gen-ei.
Regarding claim 13, The combination of Yamaguchi, Tayebati, Huang, and Liu 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, Tayebati, Huang, and Liu 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, Huang, and Liu by allowing light that accidentally impinges on the mounting block to be deflected away from the intended emissions.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
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
Prosecution Insights