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 .
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amending of claims 1 and 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The Examiner notes new art is cited to account for the newly added limitations to claim 1.
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.
Claim 1 (and all claims dependent therefrom; 2-17, 26-31) is 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 has been amended to state “in a plan view, an area of the at least one correction lens is greater than an area of the laser diode chip”. Figure 2a and [0046] are pointed to for support.
The Examiner first notes that figure 2a is a cross-section ([0042]). Figure 2 therefore is depicting, for example, a Z/X planar view of the side of the device. A plan, or top-down view, would, for example, provide a X/Y planar view of the device. Therefore, figure 2 cannot be relied upon to support a particular area relationship as claimed in plan view.
Second, the originally filed specification does not state the newly claimed relationship, nor does the specification state the drawings are to scale.
Lastly, although [0046] states the lens is “above” the laser diode, this does not provide sufficient support for the claimed relationship. For instance, “above” can describe a first item at a higher position than a second item while not being “directly over” the second item. This is seen in fig.1b of Dykaar which shows lenses #136 above lasers #110 in a cross-sectional view, while fig.1a of Dykaar shows the same device from a different direction in cross-section wherein it can be seen the lenses are offset from the laser diodes (i.e. not directly over). Further, stating “above” still does not provided sufficient evidence of area in a plane which cannot be seen from the view of fig.2 and described in [0046].
The newly added limitations are therefore not clearly supported by the original specification.
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) 1-11, 28 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohta et al. (US 2020/0303896) in view of Dykaar (US 2019/0121138) and Sugita et al. (US 2023/033597).
With respect to claim 1, Ohta teaches a light emitting device (fig.2), comprising: a laser diode chip (as seen in fig.2), comprising: a first substrate (fig.2 #141, [0057]); a plurality of light emitting elements (fig.2 #159 x2) that are provided on a first surface of the first substrate (fig.2 lower/bottom surface of #141); and a second substrate (fig.2 #161+162s, [0074]) that is provided on a second surface of the first substrate (fig.2 upper/top surface of #141) opposite to the first surface. Ohta further teaches use of additional optics (fig.26 #15) used to control the path of light from the laser array (fig.26 #14). Ohta does not teach a laser diode driver substrate, a heat dissipation substrate, wherein one of the laser diode chip or the laser diode driver substrate is disposed on the heat dissipation substrate; and a correction lens holder, wherein the correction lens holder is disposed on the heat dissipation substrate, and wherein the correction lens holder surrounds the laser diode chip, wherein the correction lens holder holds at least one correction lens above the laser diode chip. Dykaar teaches a related laser array (fig.1b) which includes a laser diode driver substrate (fig.1b #114), a heat dissipation substrate (fig.1b #102, [0052] noting AlN is a high thermal conductance), wherein one of the laser diode chips or the laser diode driver substrate is disposed on the heat dissipation substrate (fig.1b laser chips on the heat dissipation substrate); and a correction lens holder (fig.1b #120), wherein the correction lens holder is disposed on the heat dissipation substrate (fig.1b), and wherein the correction lens holder surrounds the laser diode chips (fig.1b), wherein the correction lens holder holds at least one correction lens above the laser diode chip (fig.1b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to make use of a heat dissipation substrate upon which the laser chip of Ohta would be mounted to control temperature of the lasers, to make use of a correction lens holder disposed on the heat dissipation structure and surrounding the laser chip to protect and seal (Dykaar, [0056]) the laser chip and to form an integrated structure with the optics (note Ohta, fig.26), and to make use of a laser diode driver substrate in order to electrically control the laser elements.
Ohta and Dykaar do not teach, in a plan view, an area of the at least one correction lens is greater than an area of the laser diode chip. Sugita teaches a related lens holder (fig.1-3) for correction lenses (fig.2/3 #4a’s) wherein, in a plan view, an area of the at least one correction lens is greater than an area of the laser diode chips (fig.3 area of #4a’s is larger than the area of laser chips #1a). 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 Ohta and Dykaar such that, in a plan view, an area of the at least one correction lens is greater than an area of the laser diode chip as demonstrated by Sugita in order to ensure capturing all the light diverging from the laser devices which are spaced from the lenses (Sugita, [0075]).
With respect to claim 2, Ohta teaches the first substrate is formed of a first material ([0057] GaAs), and the second substrate is formed of a second material different from the first material ([0074] resin, SiO2, glass).
With respect to claim 3, Ohta teaches the second substrate is directly bonded to the first substrate (fig.4g, via curing process [0093]).
With respect to claim 4, Ohta teaches the first substrate is a semiconductor substrate containing gallium (Ga) and arsenic (As) ([0057]).
With respect to claim 5, Ohta teaches the second substrate is a semiconductor substrate containing silicon (Si) ([0074] e.g. SiO2).
With respect to claim 6, Ohta teaches the second substrate has a third surface (fig.2 lower/bottom of #161) facing the first substrate side and a fourth surface opposite to the first substrate (fig.2 upper/top of #161), and the light emitting device further comprises a plurality of lenses (fig.2 #162s) that are provided on the fourth surface of the second substrate and on which light emitted from the light emitting elements is incident (fig.2 see arrows).
With respect to claim 7, Ohta teaches the lenses are provided on the fourth surface of the second substrate as part of the second substrate (see fig.4g/h/i, formed via same material).
With respect to claim 8, Ohta teaches the second substrate has a third surface (fig.18 lower/bottom of #161) facing the first substrate side and a fourth surface opposite to the first substrate (fig.18 upper/top of #161), wherein the light emitting device further comprises a plurality of lenses (fig.18 #162s) that are provided on the fourth surface of the second substrate and on which light emitted from the light emitting elements is incident (fig.18 see arrows), and wherein the lenses include at least one of a concave ([0147], claim 9) or a flat lens.
With respect to claim 9, Ohta teach the plurality of light emitting elements and the plurality of lenses have a one-to- one correspondence so that the light emitted from one light emitting element enters one lens corresponding to the one light emitting element (fig.2 see arrows).
With respect to claim 10, Ohta teaches the light emitted from the plurality of light emitting elements is transmitted through the first substrate from the first surface to the second surface, transmitted through the second substrate from the third substrate to the fourth surface, and then enters the plurality of lenses (fig.2 see arrows and surface definitions above).
With respect to claim 11, Ohta teaches the first surface of the first substrate is a front surface of the first substrate (fig.2 growth surface), and the second surface of the first substrate is a back surface of the first substrate (fig.2 rear surface).
With respect to claim 28, Ohta, as modified, teaches the laser diode chip is disposed on the heat dissipation substrate (as seen in Dykaar fig.1b).
With respect to claim 30, Ohta, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, including the heat dissipation substrate is a ceramic substrate (Dykaar, [0052]).
Claim(s) 26 and 27, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohta and Dykaar and Sugita in view of Okumura (JP 2019-192889, Applicant submitted prior art).
With respect to claim 26, Ohta, as modified, teaches the laser diode driver substrate is disposed on the heat dissipation substrate (Dykaar, fig.1b), but does not teach the laser diode chip is disposed on the laser diode driver substrate via a plurality of bumps. Okumura teaches a related VCSEL device (fig.8) which includes a heat dissipation substrate (fig.8 #60, wherein #60 must dissipate heat in order for #62 to function as a heat sink for the VCSELs; note #62 is identified as the “mounting substrate” in the claims), a laser diode chip (fig.8 #20s) and a laser diode driver substrate (fig.8 #64) is disposed on the heat dissipation substrate (as seen in fig.8) and wherein the laser diode chip is disposed on the laser diode driver substrate (fig.8 #20s on #64) via a plurality of bumps (fig.8 #82 is electrical connection formed as a bump shape; note “bump” has not been defined in the claims to be a material such as solder). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to make use of bump connections from the driver substrate to the laser diode chip in Ohta as demonstrated by Okumura in order to provide an electrical connection between the chip and driver.
With respect to claim 27, Ohta, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach a mounting substrate, wherein the heat dissipation substrate is between the mounting substrate and the laser diode driver substrate. Okumura further teaches a mounting substrate (Okumura, fig.8 #62), wherein the heat dissipation substrate (fig.8 #60) is between the mounting substrate and the laser diode driver substrate (fig.8 #64). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to make use of a further mounting substrate to sink heat from the heat dissipation and driver substrates, as well as to rearrange the substrate ordering of Ohta such that the heat dissipation substrate is between the mounting substrate and the laser diode driver substrate as demonstrated by Okumura in order to place the driving substrate closer to the laser chip in order to reduce parasitic affects from longer electrical connections.
With respect to claim 29, Ohta, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach a mounting substrate, wherein the heat dissipation substrate is between the mounting substrate and the laser diode driver chip, and wherein the laser diode driver substrate is disposed on the mounting substrate. Okumura teaches a mounting substrate (Okumura, fig.8 #62), wherein the heat dissipation substrate (fig.8 #60) is between the mounting substrate and the laser diode driver chip (fig.8 #64), and wherein the laser diode driver substrate is disposed on the mounting substrate (“on” meaning “in close proximity to”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to make use of a further mounting substrate to sink heat from the heat dissipation and driver substrates, as well as to rearrange the substrate ordering of Ohta such that the heat dissipation substrate is between the mounting substrate and the laser diode driver substrate, and wherein the laser diode driver substrate is disposed on (on meaning in close proximity to) the mounting substrate as demonstrated by Okumura in order to place the driving substrate closer to the laser chip in order to reduce parasitic affects from longer electrical connections.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohta and Dykaar and Sugita in view of Laflaquiere et al. (US 2019/0363520).
With respect to claim 31, Ohta, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but Ohta does not teach the laser diode driver substrate includes a plurality of switches, wherein each light emitting element in the plurality of light emitting elements is electrically connected to a switch include in the plurality of switches. Laflaquiere teaches a related VCSEL device (fig.4a) including a laser diode driver substrate (fig.4a/b #30), wherein the laser diode driver substrate includes a plurality of switches (fig.4b command_a-c switches), wherein each light emitting element in the plurality of light emitting elements is electrically connected to a switch include in the plurality of switches (fig.4b). 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 Ohta to make use of a laser diode driver substrate, wherein the laser diode driver substrate includes a plurality of switches, wherein each light emitting element in the plurality of light emitting elements is electrically connected to a switch include in the plurality of switches and to dispose the driving substrate beneath the laser chip as Laflaquiere has demonstrated such arrangements are known and useful for compact devices and individual emitter control (Laflaquiere, [0046]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see the including pto892 for a list of related art.
Note US 2016/0164261 teaches a device comparable to at least claim 1.
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 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
Prosecution Insights