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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/03/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amending of claims 1, 20 and the cancellation of claim 17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant has argued (Remarks pg.9) the amendments overcome the art of record as “neither Sadaka nor Zhu explicitly disclose or teach that the block separation portion is provided in a curved shape, wherein the curved shape is along an array of constriction grooves along a light emitting element, and an array of constriction grooves of another light emitting element adjacent to the light emitting element”.
The Examiner does not agree. Sadaka teaches “the block separation portion (fig.1a #140s encircling 1 or more emitters) is provided in a curved shape (each #140 is a circle, thereby curved; in the annotated figure below- 3 circles of #140 around the 3 emitters collectively form a block separation groove as the 3 circles intersect each other at inflection points, the circles being curved), wherein the curved shape is along an array of constriction grooves along a light emitting element (each emitter has an array of 6 grooves #130), and an array of constriction grooves of another light emitting element adjacent to the light emitting element (see annotated figure)”.
PNG
media_image1.png
402
1233
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Although the same art, and grounds of rejection, is being used in the current Office action, qualifying the action to be made first action Final (see MPEP 706.07b), the action is instead made non-Final in an effort to further clarify the Examiner’s interpretations/position.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner notes the term “light emitting layer” used in the claims is interpreted to mean any of the semiconductor layers making up the light emitting element structure. Typically, this term refers to the single layer(s) in which recombination of electron-hole pairs occur and photons are generated (e.g. quantum well). In the instant application this term is meant to be inclusive of other layers of the light emitter (e.g. see spec [0061]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous 112 rejections are withdrawn due to the current amendments.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 10, 15-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadaka et al. (US 2022/0102940) in view of Zhu et al. (US 2022/0344909).
With respect to claim 1, Sadaka discloses a light-emitting element array (fig.1a) comprising: a substrate (fig.2 #102); a plurality of light-emitting elements (fig.1a #150s) arranged on the substrate, a plurality of constriction grooves being provided in a periphery of each of the plurality of light- emitting elements (fig.1a #130s) and forming a current constriction layer that constricts a current flowing through a light-emitting layer (fig.2 #110+#180+#120) by oxidizing the light-emitting layer (fig.2/3a #123 formed via #130); and a block separation portion (fig.1a #140s encircling 1 or more emitters) that is provided in a curved shape (each #140 is a circle, thereby curved; in the annotated figure below- 3 circles of #140 around the 3 emitters collectively form a block separation groove as the 3 circles intersect each other at inflection points, the circles being curved) so as to include at least one inflection point at which a sign of curvature changes along some positions where the plurality of light-emitting elements are arranged (see annotated fig.1a below), and separates the plurality of light-emitting elements into a plurality of blocks (trenches #140 separate emitters into blocks by being connected by the #140(s) and physical separation), wherein the curved shape is along an array of the constriction grooves arranged along a light emitting element of the plurality of light emitting elements (6 #130s surrounding central emitter in group of 3 emitters in annotated figure) and an array of the constriction grooves of another light emitting element of the plurality of light emitting elements adjacent to the light emitting element (6 #130s surrounding lower emitter in group of 3 emitters in annotated figure), the at least one inflection point is formed near a portion of the array of constriction grooves arranged along the light emitting element and the array of the constriction grooves of the another light emitting element of the plurality of light emitting elements adjacent to the light emitting element (as seen in annotated figure). Sadaka does not teach the inflection point is formed at an overlap portion of the two arrays of constriction grooves. Zhu teaches a similar emitter array (fig.1/2) with separation block grooves (fig.1/2 #130/220) as well as arrays of constriction grooves around the emitters (fig.2a #230s) and one constriction groove of one array is found to overlap another constriction groove of another array between two adjacent light-emitting elements (fig.2a one #230 shared between an upper and a lower emitter). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Sadaka such that a constriction groove is provided in common (i.e. overlapped), and at the inflection point, between two adjacent light-emitting elements as demonstrated by Zhu in order to provide a dense rectangular grid array (Zhu, [0014]; Sadaka, [0049]) and to reduce the number of trenches needed to be provided to simplify processing.
Note that when the adjacent constriction grooves are formed to be overlapped after modifying Sadaka the indicated inflection point of Sadaka would be “at” the overlap point (further note that “at” can mean “on, in, or near”) as the claim has not defined the meaning of “at”.
Please see following annotated figure 1a’s of Sadaka demonstrating a “block”, an “inflection point”, and example region where #130s could be combined as outlined in the combination above:
PNG
media_image2.png
604
883
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
618
769
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
402
1233
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 4, Sadaka discloses the block separation portion is configured to pass through a substantially intermediate point between two adjacent light-emitting elements arranged in different blocks (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image5.png
668
560
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 7, Sadaka discloses the block separation portion is a block separation groove configured with a groove (fig.3a/3b #140), and emission of the light-emitting element is not influenced by oxidization from the block separation groove (fig.3a/3b oxidation does not occur in groove #140).
With respect to claim 15, Sadaka discloses the block separation portion is a block separation groove configured with a groove (fig.3a/3b #140), and a width of the constriction groove is greater than a width of the block separation groove ([0047]).
With respect to claim 16, Sadaka discloses the plurality of constriction grooves are provided on a circle with the light-emitting element as a center in a periphery in which the light-emitting element is arranged (see fig.1a #130s).
With respect to claim 18, Sadaka discloses an optical device (fig.15) comprising: the light-emitting element array according to claim 1 ([0077]); a drive unit that drives the plurality of light- emitting elements configured on the light-emitting element array (fig.15 #1580); and a controller that controls the drive unit to execute processing using light generated by the light-emitting element array (fig.15 #1520).
With respect to claim 20, Sadaka discloses a method for manufacturing a light-emitting element array (fig.1a/3a/6/7 [0054-61]), comprising: forming a plurality of constriction grooves (fig.1a #130s) in a periphery of each of locations where light-emitting elements (fig.1a #150s) on a substrate (fig.2 #102) are to be arranged; forming a current constriction layer (fig.2/3a/3b #123) that constricts a current flowing through a light-emitting layer (fig.2 #110+#180+#120) of which a part is exposed within the constriction groove by oxidizing the light-emitting layer ([0058]); forming a block separation portion (fig.1a #140s encircling 1 or more emitters) that separates the plurality of light-emitting elements to be formed into a plurality of blocks (separates into element groupings by being connected) in a curved shape (each #140 is a circle, thereby curved; in the annotated figure below- 3 circles of #140 around the 3 emitters collectively form a block separation groove as the 3 circles intersect each other at inflection points, the circles being curved) so as to include at least one inflection point at which a sign of curvature changes along some positions where the plurality of light-emitting elements are to be arranged (see annotated figures); and wherein the curved shape is along an array of the constriction grooves arranged along a light emitting element of the plurality of light emitting elements (6 #130s surrounding central emitter in group of 3 emitters in annotated figure) and an array of the constriction grooves of another light emitting element of the plurality of light emitting elements adjacent to the light emitting element (6 #130s surrounding lower emitter in group of 3 emitters in annotated figure), the at least one inflection point is formed near a portion of the array of constriction grooves arranged along the light emitting element and the array of the constriction grooves of the another light emitting element of the plurality of light emitting elements adjacent to the light emitting element (as seen in annotated figure)and forming a plurality of light-emitting elements by forming an emission opening on a current passing region of the current constriction layer (fig.7d gap in oxidation at center). Sadaka does not teach the inflection point is formed at an overlap portion of the two arrays of constriction grooves. Zhu teaches a similar emitter array (fig.1/2) with separation block grooves (fig.1/2 #130/220) as well as arrays of constriction grooves around the emitters (fig.2a #230s) and one constriction groove of one array is found to overlap another constriction groove of another array between two adjacent light-emitting elements (fig.2a one #230 shared between an upper and a lower emitter). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Sadaka such that a constriction groove is provided in common (i.e. overlapped), and at the inflection point, between two adjacent light-emitting elements as demonstrated by Zhu in order to provide a dense rectangular grid array (Zhu, [0014]; Sadaka, [0049]) and to reduce the number of trenches needed to be provided to simplify processing.
Note that when the adjacent constriction grooves are formed to be overlapped after modifying Sadaka the indicated inflection point of Sadaka would be “at” the overlap point (further note that “at” can mean “on, in, or near”) as the claim has not defined the meaning of “at”.
Please see following annotated figure 1a’s of Sadaka demonstrating a “block”, an “inflection point”, and example region where #130s could be combined as outlined in the combination above:
PNG
media_image2.png
604
883
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
618
769
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
402
1233
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadaka and Zhu in view of Kaneko et al (US 2005/0169571).
With respect to claim 13, Sadaka, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, including the block separation portion is a groove (fig.3a/3b #140), but does not teach the block separation groove is configured with a plurality of grooves having different depths. Kaneko teaches a related array device (fig.1) which includes a separation groove made of a plurality of grooves having different depths (fig.1 upper wide groove between mesas + lower narrow groove into substrate). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Sadaka to make use of a block separation groove configured with a plurality of grooves having different depths as demonstrated by Kaneko to enable placement of device elements within an upper wide groove (e.g. contact/isolation/passivation layers) and ensure electrical separation with a narrow lower groove.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadaka and Zhu in view of Fabiny (US 2021/00337080.
With respect to claim 19, Sadaka, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach an optical measurement device comprising: the light-emitting element array according to claim 1; a light-receiving element that receives reflected light as light emitted from the light-emitting element array and reflected by a target; and a processing unit that processes information regarding the light received by the light-receiving element, and measures a distance to the target from the light-emitting element array or a shape of the target. Fabiny teaches a related emitter array (fig.2a) which includes an optical measurement device (fig.1, [0028]) comprising: the light-emitting element array ([0031]); a light-receiving element that receives reflected light as light emitted from the light-emitting element array and reflected by a target ([0031]); and a processing unit that processes information regarding the light received by the light-receiving element, and measures a distance to the target from the light-emitting element array or a shape of the target ([0031]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the system of Sadaka (such as that shown in fig.15) to make use of the emitter array in an optical measurement device comprising: the light-emitting element array; a light-receiving element that receives reflected light as light emitted from the light-emitting element array and reflected by a target; and a processing unit that processes information regarding the light received by the light-receiving element, and measures a distance to the target from the light-emitting element array or a shape of the target as demonstrated by Fabiny in order to known the distance from the user to the device in use.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see the included PTO892 form a list of art related to VCSEL arrays.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOD THOMAS VAN ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8447. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8AM-430PM.
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.
/TOD T VAN ROY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828