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 .
Drawings
The drawings are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous 112 rejections are withdrawn due to the current amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is accepted.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amending of claims 1, 3, 4, and 8-15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant has argued the art of record does not read on the newly added aspect ratio language.
The Examiner does not agree. Chih teaches at figures 6-7 and [0037] that the array device has elements with an aspect ratio of 1:1 as [0037] teaches the formation of a “square” by the sources as well as figs.6-7 clearly showing each subgroup A1-4 being formed from identical ~5x5 blocks of VCSELS thereby having ~1:1 aspect ratios for each subgroup. Further, the irradiation region pattern is shown in both figures 4 and 5 to be rectangular, thereby having an aspect ratio farther from 1:1 than the arrangement region. Additionally, fig.7 and [0037-38] demonstrated that at least each subgroup can be independently controlled with fig.7 demonstrating only subgroups A1-2 emitting such that the irradiation region is clearly far from 1:1. Chih thereby reads on the aspect ratio limitations.
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, 2, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chih et al. (US 2019/0251699) in view of Miyazaki (US 2009/0067466).
With respect to claim 1, Chih teaches a light emitting device (fig.2) comprising: a surface emitting laser element array (fig.2 #112, [0020]); a lens (fig.2 #113), disposed at a predetermined distance away from the surface emitting laser element array, wherein incident light into the lens is emitted from the surface emitting laser element array (fig.2 see arrows); and a diffusion member or a diffractive member (fig.2 #114), disposed at a predetermined distance away from the surface emitting laser element array, receiving the incident light from the lens (fig.2 see arrows) and irradiating an irradiation region with emitted light (see fig.4, fig.8 objected irradiated), wherein an arrangement region in which a plurality of surface emitting laser element groups are arranged (fig.6-7 A1-4) has an aspect ratio closer to 1:1 than the irradiation region (fig. 6-7 and [0037], the array device has elements with an aspect ratio of 1:1 as [0037] teaches the formation of a “square” by the sources as well as figs.6-7 clearly showing each subgroup A1-4 being formed from identical ~5x5 blocks of VCSELS thereby having ~1:1 aspect ratios for each subgroup; the irradiation region pattern is shown in both figures 4 and 5 to be rectangular, thereby having an aspect ratio farther from 1:1 than the arrangement region; additionally, fig.7 and [0037-38] demonstrated that at least each subgroup can be independently controlled with fig.7 demonstrating only subgroups A1-2 emitting such that the irradiation region is a rectangle and clearly far from 1:1), the arrangement region is a region were the plurality of surface emitting laser element groups are arranged on a common substrate (fig.6/7 #111), and the aspect ratio of the arrangement region is determined by the number of the plurality of surface emitting laser element groups in a first direction (left/right) and a second direction (up/down), wherein the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction. Chih does not specify the substrate is semiconductor. Miyazaki teaches mounting groups of laser devices (fig.2a/b multiple #1As can be considered groups) atop wiring substrate/submounts made of semiconductor (fig.3 GaN, [0065]) such that the substrate/submounts can be used to provide circuitry for the lasers (as seen in fig.3 via surface traces). It would have been obvious to on of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the substrate/submount material of Chih to be of GaN as Miyazaki has demonstrated such material is suitable for providing driving circuitry for laser devices (Miyazaki, fig.3) and would allow for selection of a desired base material easily integrated with circuitry elements via CMOS processing (see also MPEP 2144.07).
With respect to claim 2, Chih teaches the lens narrows an angle of divergence of the incident light emitted from the surface emitting laser element ([0021]).
With respect to claim 4, Chih teaches the light emitting device comprises the diffractive member, the diffractive member is a diffractive optical element for emitting light by making direction of the emitted light different from the direction of the incident light ([0022]).
With respect to claims 8 and 9, Chih discloses the surface emitting laser element array comprising the plurality of surface-emitting laser element groups being drivable independently of each other (fig.6/7, [0038]).
With respect to claims 11 and 12, Chih discloses the surface-emitting laser element groups are configured such that a semiconductor layer stack is separated into a plurality of islands (individual emitter “islands” shown in fig.2/6/7, wherein it is inherent that a VCSEL device is made of a semiconductor layer stack based on the art accepted meaning of the term; see Conclusion section below).
With respect to claim 14, Chih discloses the surface emitting laser element array comprising the plurality of surface-emitting laser element groups (fig.2/6/7), and the lens is a circular optical element (fig.2 #113 having a shape “related to a circle”) having a size such that the circular optical element includes the plurality of surface- emitting laser element groups (light from the vcsel groups enter the lens and the lens overlaps the groups), and the circular optical element is disposed in a light-emission path of the plurality of surface-emitting laser element groups (fig.2).
Claim(s) 3, 10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chih and Miyazaki in view of Dacha et al. (US 2019/0268068).
With respect to claim 3, Chih teaches the device outlined above, including the diffractive element to be of a different type ([0022-23]), but does not specify the element is a diffusion member comprising a predetermined function in response to incidence of parallel light. Dacha teaches a similar device and usage (abstract) and includes a diffuser (fig.10 #1200) in place of a diffractor to spread the light in response to parallel input light (fig.10, [0050]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to replace the diffractor of Chih with the diffuser of Dacha in order to allow for a different type of beam control (Dacha, [0050]) while still achieving the larger/homogenized output desired by Chih.
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected for the same reasons outlined in the rejections of claims 8 and 11 above.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chih and Miyazaki in view of Chen et al. (US 2017/0115497).
With respect to claim 15, Chih teaches the device outlined above, but does not specify the shape of diffusion member or the diffractive member is rectangular. Chen teaches a similar system and usage (abstract) and further teaches the diffractive element to be rectangular (fig.5 #534, [0099]). 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 Chih to make the diffractive element shape rectangular as taught by Chen in order to achieve a desired shape for the emitter housing and allow for use of a elements of different manufactures (see also MPEP 2144.04 IV B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
RP Photonics (“Vertical cavity surface emitting lasers”; 05/13/2006; https://web.archive.org/web/20060513100727/https://www.rp-photonics.com/vertical_cavity_surface_emitting_lasers.html) describes the meaning of the term “vcsel” in the art.
Please see the included pto892 for a list of art related 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