Final Rejection
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Following a non-final action, applicant filed a response on 3/2/2026 without amendment. Claims 18-37 are pending. Claims 32-37 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 10/20/2025. See the non-final for discussion of rejoinder.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 18-21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 109244825 (“CN ‘825”) in view of US 2020/0312739 to Orimoto (“Orimoto”), and further in view of JP 2015-32706 (“JP ‘706”) (see 12/1/2022 IDS).
Regarding claim 18, CN ‘825 shows in Fig. 2 and discussion especially starting at [0042]:
PNG
media_image1.png
368
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
18. A light emitting device comprising:
a submount including:
a graphite layer having an upper surface and a lower surface that extend along a first direction and a second direction which are orthogonal to each other, wherein the graphite layer includes a plurality of graphene structures that are layered in the first direction, each of the plurality of graphene structures extending in the second direction,
This is a laser 11 on submount 12-15. The submount includes a graphite layer 12 extending along first and second orthogonal directions (edges of the device) and it is said to be a graphene layer.
The graphene layer is not explicitly states as being a plurality of graphene structures. Orimoto teaches that a graphene heat conducting layer is often laminated as a plurality of graphene sheets. [0029]-[0030]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use such sheets as they allow for control of the direction of thermal conductivity, as taught by Orimoto. It is not necessarily clear which direction the graphene structures would be layered in CN ‘825.
JP ‘706 describes a semiconductor chip 7 (which can be a laser, [0002],[0099]) mounted on a graphene layer submount 1, which is mounted on a heat sink 3. See Fig. 1-2. The reference also states that the layers should be stacked in the direction d, which is the longitudinal direction of the chip. [0028]. It is done this way due to the thermal conductivity of the sheet being vastly different in the XY plane than in the Z direction. [0028]-[0029]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art for this reason, as it is apparent to a skilled artisan that thermal conductivity in this plane is much more useful for heat dissipation of the laser of CN ‘825. This corresponds to “layered in the first direction and extending in the second direction” like claimed.
and a support layer having an upper surface and a lower surface that extend in the first direction and the second direction, the support layer being thicker than the graphite layer, the upper surface of the support layer supporting the lower surface of the graphite layer;
There are support layers 13-15 as claimed supporting the graphite layer 12 and arranged with surfaces in the same directions as claimed. The thickness of graphite layer 12 is not given. But the similar layers 1 and 3 of JP ‘706 are as claimed with graphite layer less thickness than support. [0051],[0055]. Since we are relying on JP ‘706 for the orientation of this layer, we would likewise look to JP ‘706 for this relative thickness.
a semiconductor laser device configured to emit laser light through an end surface in the first direction, the semiconductor laser device including a waveguide that extends in the first direction and is supported by the upper surface of the graphite layer; and
Semiconductor laser 11 is an edge emitting laser, i.e. it emits through an end surface in what we can call the first direction and it will have a waveguide extending in that direction. It is supported on the graphite layer 12.
a base supporting the submount.
This entire structure will clearly not levitate in space and will be included on some sort of base. One could alternatively call the bottom layer 15 the base.
Regarding claim 19, in CN ‘825 either of the support layers 13,14 are between 50 and 300 μm. The thickness of the graphite layer is not given. As discussed above, it is reasonable in light of JP ‘706 to make the graphite layer of less relative thickness given that is how it is in that reference. The graphite layer thickness therefore also overlaps with the claimed range, making a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claims 20-21, the CN ‘825 support includes either Cu and SiC, i.e. it is made of ceramic or metal and has a thermal conductivity of 100 W/m K or more.
Regarding claim 24, from CN ‘825 Fig. 2 it is apparent the graphene layer is on the entire upper surface of the support.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN ‘825, Orimoto, and JP ‘706 as applied to claim 20, and further in view CN 103887703 (“CN ‘703”)
Regarding claim 22, CN ‘825 uses Cu or SiC as the supports, which are not necessarily electrically insulative. The purpose of these layers is to be a heat sink. CN ‘703 also shows a laser 5 on graphene layer 3 which is on copper layer 2 and support 1, which may be SiC, similar to CN ‘825. [0033]. But CN ‘703 further states that layer 1 may be a number of other layers, such as aluminum nitride, alumina, zirconia, or silicon nitride ceramics, or boron nitride. These things have high thermal conductivity but low electrical conductivity. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use such materials, making the support electrically insulating, so that the device may be used in various applications where such insulating property is desired.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN ‘825, Orimoto, and JP ‘706 as applied to claim 18, and further in view of US 11,063,404 to Kanskar (“Kanskar”).
Kanskar in Fig. 1, col. 4 lines 32-64, shows a laser 102 that is mounted on a submount 108 that can have a graphene layer and is on a heat sink support layer 130, layer 130 clearly having a peripheral portion located outside the perimeter of the graphite layer. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to mount the device like this as a simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143 I.B. CN ‘825 has a graphene layer that is basically coextensive with the support heat sink layers, but Kanskar instead shows the support may be larger with a peripheral portion outside the perimeter of the graphite layer, like claimed. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the device may instead be made this way and the result of doing so would have been predictable. Kanskar shows a similar device and the various parts do the same thing—submount including graphite layer adds heat dissipation, and heat sinking layers provide additional heat dissipation. Kanskar merely has the support layers larger. But otherwise all of the layers do similar things in similar ways, so the result of making this change would have been predictable.
Claims 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN ‘825, Orimoto, and JP ‘706 as applied to claim 18, and further in view of WO 2019/188614 (“WO ‘614”).
Regarding claims 28-30, CN ‘825 does not show that the submount includes a first metal film on the graphite layer, that it is also on side surfaces of the graphite layer, or that there is also a second metal on the first metal film. WO ‘614 shows a similar type of device with semiconductor 8 on graphene layers 1 on a cooler 9. See Fig. 2. There is further a first metal film 7 and a second metal film 6 that can be partially on the first metal film, and also these films may cover the sides of the graphene layer. [0016], [0035]-[0039]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include these layers as they provide additional heat dissipation, as taught by WO ‘614.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN ‘825, Orimoto, and JP ‘706 as applied to claim 18, and further in view of US 2013/0243020 to Kim et al. (“Kim”).
Regarding claim 31, CN ‘825 shows in Fig. 1 a semiconductor laser including layer 2 which can be called a substrate, first cladding 3 or 4, emission layer 5, and second cladding 6 or 7. [0043]. It is not disclosed that the emission layer is located closer to the graphite layer than is the substrate. However, it is well known that laser diodes may be mounted epi-side down, in which case the emission layer is located closer to the mount than the substrate side. See Kim Fig. 1C, [0003]-[0008]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to mount the laser in this way as it provides better heat dissipation, as taught by Kim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25-27 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Reasons were given in the last action.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed with the 3/2/2026 response have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Claim 18 requires that the plurality of graphene structure are layered in the first direction and extend in the second direction (orthogonal to the first), and that the laser has a waveguide extending in the first direction. Applicant argues that the combination of CN ‘825, Orimoto, and JP ‘706 fail to teach this. CN ‘825 teaches an edge emitting laser and JP ‘706 teaches that graphene structures may be layered in a first direction and extend in a second orthogonal direction. JP ‘706 additionally teaches that its laser 7 should be disposed such that the first direction should be the longitudinal direction of the chip. As cited in the rejection, JP ‘706 recognizes that this provides improved heat dissipation due to the different thermal conductivity of the graphene in different directions, similar to the advantages recognized by applicant as mentioned in the response.
Applicant argues that it would not be reasonable to add a waveguide to the JP ‘706 laser. The examiner agrees, but this is not what the rejection was proposing. JP ‘706 is being relied upon to show what direction the sheets should be disposed in when used with the edge emitting laser of CN ‘825. See Non-Final Rejection page 4 middle paragraph (stating it would have been obvious to dispose the sheets in the JP ‘706 directions as this “is much more useful for heat dissipation of the laser of CN ‘825.”). The waveguide of an edge emitting laser, such as the laser of CN ‘825, would generally be considered by the skilled artisan as extending in the longitudinal direction of the laser. As JP ‘706 teaches the first direction is the longitudinal direction of the chip, the combination shows the waveguide would likewise extend in the first direction, as claimed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 James Menefee whose telephone number is (571)272-1944. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 applications may be obtained from Patent Center. See https://patentcenter.uspto.gov.
/JAMES A MENEFEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828