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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
On pg. 7 of the response, applicant contends that “two identical planes are parallel because their normal vectors are parallel. Thus, provided the nearest distance between two planes is constant (zero or non-zero), the planes are parallel.” Applicant provides no authority for this non-standard definition and the specification does not clearly redefine the term “plane”. Merriam-Webster defines “parallel” as “extending in the same direction, everywhere equidistant, and not meeting”. Accordingly, applicant’s definition of “parallel” fails because if the distance between two planes is “zero” the planes necessarily meet. Additionally, the Office notes that “two identical planes” or any number of “identical” planes are simply the same plane. Accordingly, this rejection is maintained.
Additionally, applicant’s amendments do not overcome the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112b. Accordingly, that rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 8-9, filed 11/05/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Roff et al. (US9450377B1) under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species A, Subspecies A1, and Species 2 in the reply filed on 05/02/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Applicant has indicated that claims 1-16 read on the elected invention. Species A was characterized by a reflector. See, e.g., Fig. 2A. Applicant does not appear to disclose any embodiments combining a reflector and a waveguide. Accordingly, claim 9 is also withdrawn as being drawn to a non-elected species.
Claims 9 and 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/02/2025.
Priority
This application is a national stage entry of PCT/EP2020/077314 and further claims priority to U.S. Provisional Applications 63/038,058, 62/982,151, 62/969,622, 62/943,860, 62/930,762, 62/927,372, and 62/907,799.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 11/05/2025. These drawings are accepted.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the amended features of claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Specifically, claim 1 was amended to recite “wherein the laser assemblies are placed…opposite each other on a common base and wherein a conducting bridge is placed across the sub-mounts, wherein the sub-mounts are arranged between the common base and the conducting bridge”. The closest figure is Fig. 29 which shows two laser assemblies placed opposite to each other on a common base and conductive “bridges” (26). However, Fig. 29 fails to show “a conducting bridge is placed across the sub-mounts (emphasis added).” Fig. 29 fails to show “a conducting bridge” that is on both sub-mounts, because each “bridge” is confined to a single sub-mount. Compare Fig. 28 showing adjacent assemblies with a bridge across a plurality of sub-mounts. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 was amended to recite “wherein the laser assemblies are placed…opposite each other on a common base and wherein a conducting bridge is placed across the sub-mounts, wherein the sub-mounts are arranged between the common base and the conducting bridge”. The closest figure is Fig. 29 which shows two laser assemblies placed opposite to each other on a common base and conductive “bridges” (26). However, Fig. 29 fails to show “a conducting bridge is placed across the sub-mounts (emphasis added)”, because each “bridge” is confined to a single sub-mount. Compare Fig. 28 showing adjacent assemblies with a bridge across a plurality of sub-mounts. No new matter should be entered.
Claims 2, 3, 5-8, and 10-16 contain new matter at least based on their dependence from claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is further indefinite, because it recites “the fast axis planes of all laser diodes are parallel to each other”. Two distinct planes are only parallel if the distance from a point in the first plane to the nearest point in the second plane is independent of the location of the points. Thus, planes can only be parallel if they never intersect. However, in describing Fig. 2B applicant’s specification states “Consequently, all fast axis planes of the laser diodes 10 are parallel” and “In particular, the distance between the fast axis planes of at least two laser diodes 10 or even the respective distance between the fast axis planes between all pairs of laterally directly adjacent laser diodes 10 can be 0 or a least substantially 0.” ([0052]). Accordingly, it appears that applicant means that the fast axis of each laser is aligned in the same fast axis plane. For the purpose of this Office Action, the Office will interpret the claim to read “the fast axis of all laser diodes are in the same plane or the fast axis planes of all laser diodes are parallel to each other”.
Claims 2, 3, 5-8, and 10-16 are indefinite at least based on their dependence from claim 1.
Claim 2 is further indefinite. “The at least one sub-mount” lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear what element applicant is referring too. For the purpose of this Office Action, the Office will interpret the claim as “associated with each of the sub-mounts”.
Claim 12 is further indefinite. Claim 12 recites “each of the sub-mounts with at least one laser diode is connected to the insulating cover except for the sub-mount with at least one laser diode generating the most heat, which is connected to the metal core printed circuit board.” “The metal core printed circuit board” comprises a metal core and an insulating cover. The claim is indefinite, because it is not clear how “the sub-mount with at least one laser diode generating the most heat, which is connected to the metal core printed circuit board” is not also connected to the insulating cover. The Office notes that “directly connected” is a broad term that allows for various connections such as physical, optical, thermal, or electrical without intervening elements. For the purpose of this Office Action, the Office will interpret the claim as “each of the sub-mounts with at least one laser diode is connected to the metal core printed circuit board.”
Claim 12 is further indefinite. Claim 12 recites “the laser package comprises a base and plurality of sub-mounts with at least one laser diode”. Claim 12 depends from claim 1 which requires “a common base” and “at least two laser assemblies, each laser assembly having at least one laser diode on a sub-mount”. Accordingly, it is unclear if applicants are referring to “the common base” and “the at least two laser assemblies” or some other components. For the purpose of this Office Action the Office will interpret the claim as referring to “the common base” and “the at least two laser assemblies”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 2, 6, 8, 11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roff et al. (US9450377B1), hereafter Roff.
Regarding claim 1, Roff discloses a laser package (Figs. 1-15B), comprising at least two laser assemblies (Fig. 1 elements 105; Figs. 12 and 13 elements 1601 and 1602), each laser assembly having at least one laser diode (Fig. 1 element 105) on a sub-mount (Fig. 1 element 104), wherein the laser assemblies are placed adjacent to each other or opposite to each other (Figs. 1, 5, 12, and 13 show at least adjacent to each other) on a common base (Fig. 1 element 102; Fig. 5 element 401) and wherein a conducting bridge is placed across the sub-mounts (Fig. 5 element 502), each of the laser diodes emits light having a fast axis plane defined by the fast axis and an emission direction of an emitted light beam (col. 8 ll. 59-62), and a slow axis plane defined by the slow axis and the emission direction of the emitted light beam (col. 8 ll. 59-62), wherein the fast axis planes of all laser diodes are parallel to each other (Fig. 1 elements 1010; col. 9 ll. 65-66) and the distance between the fast axis planes of at least two laser diodes is smaller than the lateral distance between these laser diodes (Fig. 14A element 1414; The distance between the fast axis planes in adjacent lasers is zero which is necessarily smaller than the pitch). In the embodiment of Fig. 5, Roff does not explicitly disclose the sub-mounts are arranged between the common base and the conducting bridge. However, in a different embodiment Roff discloses that the conductive bridges (Fig. 11 element 1204) may be formed so that the sub-mounts (Fig. 11 elements 1201 and 1203) are arranged between the common base (Fig. 11 element 1301) and the conducting bridge (Fig. 11 element 1204). An advantage is to allow different types of materials to be used for the submount (col. 17 ll. 25-30). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Roff with the sub-mounts are arranged between the common base and the conducting bridge as disclosed in a different embodiment of Roff in order to allow different types of materials to be used for the submount and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 2, Roff further discloses a prism or reflecting mirror or reflector associated to the at least one sub-mount or to one or more of a plurality of sub-mounts (Fig. 13 elements 1603).
Regarding claim 6, Roff further discloses wherein the laser assemblies are placed adjacent to each other or opposite to each other with an intermediate prism or reflecting mirror or reflector (Fig. 13 elements 1603, 1604, and 1605), so that paralleled light beams are emitted during operation (Fig. 13 shows gray beams parallel to the black beams between 1601 and 1603 and again the black beams and gray beams are parallel after element 1605).
Regarding claim 8, Roff does not explicitly disclose at least one photodetector. However, the Office takes Official Notice that photodetectors are well known in the art with an advantage of monitoring the optical output of the laser. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Roff with a photodiode as is known in the art in order to monitor the output of the laser.
Regarding claim 11, Roff further discloses at least one of a plurality of sub-mounts has a p-side-up laser diode configuration (Fig. 1 elements 105 and 104; Abstract) and at least one of the plurality of sub-mounts has a p-side-down laser diode configuration (Fig. 1 elements 105 and 104; Abstract)1.
Regarding claim 13, Roff further discloses a plurality of sub-mounts with at least one laser diode, wherein each of the sub-mounts further comprises: a conductor between the sub-mount and the at least one laser diode (Fig. 7 element 706-709; col. 16 ll. 15-26; col. 9 ll. 9-41); and a further conductor on the other side of the sub-mount in case that other side is not an external side (Fig. 7 element 706-709; col. 16 ll. 15-26; col. 9 ll. 9-41).
Regarding claim 14, Roff does not explicitly disclose a temperature sensor on a sub-mount. However, the Office takes Official Notice that temperature sensors on sub-mounts is well known in the art with an advantage of more accurately monitoring the diode temperature. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Roff with a temperature sensor on a sub-mount as is known in the art in order to more accurately monitor the diode temperature.
Regarding claim 15, Roff further discloses at least one conductor formed by a metallized pad between each sub-mount and a base or conducting bridge (Fig. 5 element 502 and 401).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roff in view of Auen et al. (US20130272329A1), hereafter Auen.
Regarding claim 3, Roff does not explicitly disclose a window. However, Auen discloses a window ([0058]). An advantage is to allow the light to be emitted from the package while enclosing the lasers ([0058]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Roff with a window as disclosed by Auen in order to allow the light to be emitted from the package while enclosing the lasers.
Regarding claim 5, Roff does not explicitly disclose a metallic or ceramic top cover. However, Auen discloses a metallic or ceramic top cover ([0058]). An advantage is to enclose the lasers ([0058]) in order to protect them ([0019]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Roff with a metallic or ceramic top cover as disclosed by Auen in order to enclose the lasers in order to protect them.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roff in view of Kato (US20040109329A1), hereafter Kato.
Regarding claim 7, Roff does not explicitly disclose a wave-plate section or wave-plate set to differentiate the output beam polarization originated from different laser diodes. However, Kato discloses a wave-plate section or wave-plate set to differentiate the output beam polarization originated from different laser diodes (Fig. 3 element 103 and 104). An advantage is to create randomly polarized light based on the desired use of the device ([0018]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary kill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Roff with a wave-plate section or wave-plate set to differentiate the output beam polarization originated from different laser diodes as disclosed by Kato in order to create randomly polarized light based on the desired use of the device.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roff in view of Takagi (US20080192206A1), hereafter Takagi.
Regarding claim 10, Roff further discloses each of a plurality of sub-mounts are placed adjacent to each other (Fig. 1 elements 104) and is oriented such that the one or more laser diodes on the sub-mount face inward (Fig. 1 elements 105 always results in a submount 104 being on the outer edge). Roff does not explicitly disclose the sub-mount generating the most heat is located at one end of the laser package. However, Takagi discloses that it is easier to dissipate heat at the edges of a laser array as compared to the center ([0005]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Roff with the sub-mount generating the most heat is located at one end of the laser package, since Takagi discloses that it is easier to dissipate heat at the edges of a laser array as compared to the center it logically follows to place the highest heat generating component on the outer edge of the array in order to facilitate easier heat dissipation and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roff in view of Mclaurin et al. (US20190097722A1), hereafter McLaurin.
Regarding claim 12, Roff further discloses the laser package comprises a base (Fig. 5 element 401) and plurality of sub-mounts (Fig. 5 elements 505, 507, 512, 513) with at least one laser diode (Fig. 5 elements 506). Roff does not explicitly disclose the base comprises a metal core printed circuit board comprising a metal core and an insulating cover; and each of the sub-mounts with at least one laser diode is directly connected to the insulating cover and the sub-mount with at least one laser diode that generates the most heat is directly connected to the metal core printed circuit board. However, McLaurin discloses the base comprises a metal core printed circuit board comprising a metal core and an insulating cover ([0327]); and each of the sub-mounts with at least one laser diode is directly connected to the insulating cover and the sub-mount with at least one laser diode that generates the most heat is directly connected to the metal core printed circuit board ([0327]). An advantage, as is known in the art, is improved heat dissipation. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary kill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Roff with the base comprises a metal core printed circuit board comprising a metal core and an insulating cover; and each of the sub-mounts with at least one laser diode is directly connected to the insulating cover and the sub-mount with at least one laser diode that generates the most heat is directly connected to the metal core printed circuit board as disclosed by McLaurin in order to provide improved heat dissipation.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roff in view of Dykaar (US20190121141A1), hereafter Dykaar.
Regarding claim 16, Roff further discloses a reflecting optic (Fig. 13 element 1603). Roff does not explicitly disclose a reflecting optic configured to perform beam conditioning, wherein beam conditioning may include anisotropy correction, collimation, and coherence control due to a surface structure or a coating, and wherein the surface structure or coating comprises at least one of a metasurface or a concave or convex shape of the reflecting optic. However, Dykaar discloses a reflecting optic configured to perform beam conditioning, wherein beam conditioning may include anisotropy correction, collimation, and coherence control due to a surface structure or a coating (Fig. 1A element 118a; [0056]), and wherein the surface structure or coating comprises at least one of a metasurface or a concave or convex shape of the reflecting optic (Fig. 1A element 118a; [0056]). An advantage, as is known in the art, is to help collimate the light. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary kill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Roff with a reflecting optic configured to perform beam conditioning, wherein beam conditioning may include anisotropy correction, collimation, and coherence control due to a surface structure or a coating, and wherein the surface structure or coating comprises at least one of a metasurface and a concave or convex shape of the reflecting optic as disclosed by Dykaar in order to help collimate the light.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited.
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 JOSHUA KING whose telephone number is (571)270-1441. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10am-5pm MT.
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, Min Sun 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.
/Joshua King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828 02/06/2025
1 Since diodes 105 have an N-side submount and a P-side submount, the first element on the left of Fig. 1 can be considered to have a p-side up laser diode configuration with respect to the N-side submount and the second element on the right of Fig. 1 can be considered to have a p-side down laser diode configuration with respect to the P-side submount.
Prosecution Insights