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 claims 1 – 5, 7, 9, 11 – 12, 14 – 20, adding claim 21 and canceling claim 6 by the amendment submitted by the applicant(s) filed on November 26, 2025. Claims 1 – 5 and 7 – 21 are pending in this application.
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 1 – 5, 7 – 10, 15 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farries et al (US 6,249,536) in view of Eichler et al. (US 2014/0064311).
PNG
media_image1.png
240
277
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
224
268
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Farries disclose a laser diode array, comprising:
a cavity (see Annotation Figure 1) that includes a rear facet (see Annotation Figure 1, character 22, column 3, line 28, the reference called “input face”) and a front facet (see Annotation Figure 1, character 20, column 3, line 29 and the reference called “output face”); and
multiple emitters (see Annotation Figure 1, character 10a, Abstract and column 3, lines 20 – 21 and the reference called “tapered laser”) that are transversely single mode (see Abstract, column 1, lines 63 – 65, column 2, lines 1 – 4 column 3, lines 31 – 35 and column 5, lines 1 – 15 and claim 1) and disposed within the cavity (see Annotation Figure 1), wherein the multiple emitters (see Annotation Figure 1, character 10a) each include:
a seeding section (see Annotation Figure 1, character 14, column 2, lines 5 – 8 and 24 and column 3, line 25, the reference called “straight section and/or narrow straight region”) having a constant emitter width that is single mode at the rear facet (see Annotation Figure 1, character 22), and
a flared section (see Annotation Figure 1, character 16, column 2, line 25 – 27, column 3, line 25 – 26 and 39 – 41, and the reference called “a tapered section” or “a tapered region”) having a monotonically expanding emitter width that increases adiabatically over a majority of a length of the cavity (see Annotation Figure 1) such that outputs from the multiple emitters (see Annotation Figure 1, character 10a) are single mode at the front facet (see Annotation Figure 1, character 20, column 2, lines 38 – 46).
PNG
media_image3.png
511
244
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
510
240
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Farries discloses the claimed invention except for the flared sections comprises a serrated pattern configured to maximize gain in a central region of the emitter and to reduce in regions that are near edges of each emitter and wherein the serrated pattern is configured to maintain single mode operation of the laser diode array that produces a single mode output, based on tailoring at least one of a gain profile or a refractive-index profile with the serrated pattern. Eichler teaches the flared sections comprises a serrated pattern configured to maximize gain in a central region of the emitter and to reduce in regions that are near edges of each emitter (see Figures 2A – 2N). However, it is well known in the art to modify the flared sections comprises a serrated pattern configured to maximize gain in a central region of the emitter and to reduce in regions that are near edges of each emitter as discloses by Eichler in (Figures 2A – 2N). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to modify the flared sections comprises a serrated pattern configured to maximize gain in a central region of the emitter and to reduce in regions that are near edges of each emitter as suggested to the device of Farries to provide a different sizes of flared sections and/or brightness of the emitting beam(s). Notwithstanding, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular dimensions because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Eichler do not explicitly discloses the flared sections comprises a serrated pattern configured to maximize gain in a central region of the emitter and to reduce in regions that are near edges of each emitter and wherein the serrated pattern is configured to maintain single mode operation of the laser diode array that produces a single mode output, based on tailoring at least one of a gain profile or a refractive-index profile with the serrated pattern. However, it was shown above that Eichler on Figures 2A – 2L and paragraphs [0026, 0038 and 0072 – 0081] teach a flared section includes multiple sub-section in which the emitter width expands at different linear rates. Figures 2A – 2L shown the serrated pattern is configured where the central region is wider and the edges are narrower. The ridge shape limiting the light to the center as opposed to the edges which would cause the overlap with the active region to be higher than the edges and therefore the gain to be higher in the center. The ridge has a varying horizontal ridge width having at least one thickening and/or a constriction, wherein the horizontal ridge width at least one location can be narrower than the so-called cut-off width for achieving single-mode operation. A curved ridge extension direction can enable greater damping of higher modes in the active region, wherein in this case a single-mode behavior can be obtained even in the case of a ridge width that is greater than the cut-off ridge width described above. By means of a ridge having a varying ridge width having at least one thickening and/or a constriction, a combination of the advantages of a narrow ridge and of a wide ridge can be achieved, wherein a low aspect ratio of the emitted laser beam and a pronounced monomode guidance can be achieved by means of a narrow ridge or the narrow ridge regions, while the electrical contact can be improved by means of a wide ridge or the wide ridge regions, as a result of which the operating voltage can be reduced. These features are implicitly taught the flared sections comprises a serrated pattern configured to maximize gain in a central region of the emitter and to reduce in regions that are near edges of each emitter and wherein the serrated pattern is configured to maintain single mode operation of the laser diode array that produces a single mode output, based on tailoring at least one of a gain profile or a refractive-index profile with the serrated pattern as is claimed.
Farries discloses the claimed invention except for the expanding emitter width is less than twenty micrometers at the front facet. Farries discloses the emitter width at the front face are between 5 and 100 µm (see column 2, lines 19 – 23, column 3, lines 39 – 40 and column 4, lines 8 – 9). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was to modify the emitter width is less than twenty micrometers at the front facet to the device of Farries in order to provide a desired brightness and size of the output beam and also the output beams don’t overlaps between them, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In addition, the selection of width of the emitter in the front facet, it’s obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed [the emitter width is less than twenty micrometers at the front facet] or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen [the emitter width is less than twenty micrometers at the front facet] or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen [the emitter width is less than twenty micrometers at the front facet] are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 2, Farries and Eichler, Farries disclose the constant value of the constant emitter width in the seeding section (see Annotation Figure 1, character 22) satisfies a single mode seeding threshold that is based on one or more of a lasing wavelength, an effective index of a single mode in a waveguide region of each emitter, or a refractive index outside the waveguide region of each emitter (see Abstract, column 1, lines 63 – 65, column 2, lines 1 – 4 column 3, lines 31 – 35 and column 5, lines 1 – 15 and claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Farries and Eichler, Farries disclose the flared section (see Annotation Figure 3, character 16a) has a parabolic shape (see column 2, lines 24 – 33 and column 4, lines 34 – 38) such that a rate at which the expanding emitter width expands over the flared section (see Annotation Figure 3, character 16a) is a constant fraction or a near-constant fraction of a numerical aperture of a beam (see Annotation Figure 3).
Regarding claim 4, Farries and Eichler, Farries disclose the flared section (see Figure 1, character 16) has a linear shape (see column 2, line 24) such that the expanding emitter width expands over the flared section (see Annotation Figure 1, character 16) at a constant rate.
Regarding claim 5, Farries and Eichler, Eichler discloses the claimed invention except for the flared section includes multiple sub-sections in which the expanding emitter width expands at different linear rates (see Figures 2D, 2F, 2J and 2L and claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 7, Farries and Eichler discloses the claimed invention except for a rate at which the expanding emitter width expands near the seeding section is less than a rate at which the expanding emitter width expands near the front facet. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to modify the rate at which the emitter width expands near the seeding section is less than a rate at which the emitter width expands near the front facet to the device, in order to provide a desired brightness and size of the output beam, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In addition, the selection of the rate of the emitter width expands, it’s obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed [a rate at which the expanding emitter width expands near the seeding section is less than a rate at which the expanding emitter width expands near the front facet] or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen [a rate at which the expanding emitter width expands near the seeding section is less than a rate at which the expanding emitter width expands near the front facet] or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen [a rate at which the expanding emitter width expands near the seeding section is less than a rate at which the expanding emitter width expands near the front facet] are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 8, Farries and Eichler, Farries disclose gaps (see Annotation Figure 1, character 50’, column 2, lines 60 – 65, column 3, lines 41 – 42 and column 5, lines 16 – 27) separate adjacent emitters (see Annotation Figure 1, character 10a) in the laser diode array (see Annotation Figure 1, character 10) to prevent evanescent coupling between the adjacent emitters (see Annotation Figure 1, character 10a).
Regarding claim 9, Farries and Eichler discloses the claimed invention except for the expanding emitter width is at least fifteen micrometers at the front facet. Farries discloses the emitter width at the front face are between 5 and 100 µm (see column 2, lines 19 – 23, column 3, lines 39 – 40 and column 4, lines 8 – 9). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was to modify the emitter width is at least fifteen micrometers at the front facet to the device of Farries and Eichler in order to provide a desired brightness and size of the output beam and also the output beams don’t overlaps between them, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In addition, the selection of width of the emitter in the front facet, it’s obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed [the expanding emitter width is at least fifteen micrometers at the front facet] or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen [the expanding emitter width is at least fifteen micrometers at the front facet] or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen [the expanding emitter width is at least fifteen micrometers at the front facet] are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 10, Farries and Eichler, Farries disclose the rear facet (see Annotation Figure 1, character 22) has a highly reflective coating (see column 3, lines 61 – 62) and the front facet (see Annotation Figure 1, character 20) has a low reflectivity coating (see column 3, lines 63 – 64).
Regarding claim 15, Farries disclose an emitter, comprising:
a rear facet (see Annotation Figure 1, character 22, column 3, line 28, the reference called “input face”);
a front facet (see Annotation Figure 1, character 20, column 3, line 29 and the reference called “output face”); and
a transversely single mode (see Abstract, column 1, lines 63 – 65, column 2, lines 1 – 4 column 3, lines 31 – 35 and column 5, lines 1 – 15 and claim 1) cavity (see Annotation Figure 1) that includes a seeding section (see Annotation Figure 1, character 14, column 2, line 24 and column 3, line 25, the reference called “straight section and/or narrow straight region”) and a flared section (see Annotation Figure 1, character 16, column 2, line 25 – 27, column 3, line 25 – 26 and 39 – 41, and the reference called “a tapered section” or “a tapered region”) arranged between the rear facet (see Annotation Figure 1, character 22) and the front facet (see Annotation Figure 1, character 20),
wherein the seeding section (see Annotation Figure 1, character 14) has a constant emitter width that is single mode (see Abstract, column 5, lines 1 – 15 and claim 1) at the rear facet (see Annotation Figure 1, character 20),
wherein the flared section (see Figure 1, character 16) has a monotonically expanding emitter width that increases adiabatically over a majority of a length of the cavity (see Annotation Figure 1) such that an output from the emitter is single mode at the front facet (see Annotation Figure 1, character 20).
Farries discloses the claimed invention except for the flared sections comprises a serrated pattern configured to maximize gain in a central region of the emitter and to reduce in regions that are near edges of each emitter and wherein the serrated pattern is configured to maintain single mode operation of the laser diode array that produces a single mode output, based on tailoring at least one of a gain profile or a refractive-index profile with the serrated pattern. Eichler teaches the flared sections comprises a serrated pattern configured to maximize gain in a central region of the emitter and to reduce in regions that are near edges of each emitter (see Figures 2A – 2N). However, it is well known in the art to modify the flared sections comprises a serrated pattern configured to maximize gain in a central region of the emitter and to reduce in regions that are near edges of each emitter as discloses by Eichler in (see Figures 2A – 2N). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to modify the flared sections comprises a serrated pattern configured to maximize gain in a central region of the emitter and to reduce in regions that are near edges of each emitter as suggested to the device of Farries to provide a different sizes and/or brightness of the emitting beam(s). Notwithstanding, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular dimensions because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Eichler do not explicitly discloses the flared sections comprises a serrated pattern configured to maximize gain in a central region of the emitter and to reduce in regions that are near edges of each emitter and wherein the serrated pattern is configured to maintain single mode operation of the laser diode array that produces a single mode output, based on tailoring at least one of a gain profile or a refractive-index profile with the serrated pattern. However, it was shown above that Eichler on Figures 2A – 2L and paragraphs [0026, 0038 and 0072 – 0081] teach a flared section includes multiple sub-section in which the emitter width expands at different linear rates. Figures 2A – 2L shown the serrated pattern is configured where the central region is wider and the edges are narrower. The ridge has a varying horizontal ridge width having at least one thickening and/or a constriction, wherein the horizontal ridge width at least one location can be narrower than the so-called cut-off width for achieving single-mode operation. A curved ridge extension direction can enable greater damping of higher modes in the active region, wherein in this case a single-mode behavior can be obtained even in the case of a ridge width that is greater than the cut-off ridge width described above. By means of a ridge having a varying ridge width having at least one thickening and/or a constriction, a combination of the advantages of a narrow ridge and of a wide ridge can be achieved, wherein a low aspect ratio of the emitted laser beam and a pronounced monomode guidance can be achieved by means of a narrow ridge or the narrow ridge regions, while the electrical contact can be improved by means of a wide ridge or the wide ridge regions, as a result of which the operating voltage can be reduced. These features are implicitly taught the flared sections comprises a serrated pattern configured to maximize gain in a central region of the emitter and to reduce in regions that are near edges of each emitter and wherein the serrated pattern is configured to maintain single mode operation of the laser diode array that produces a single mode output, based on tailoring at least one of a gain profile or a refractive-index profile with the serrated pattern as is claimed.
Farries discloses the claimed invention except for the expanding emitter width is less than twenty micrometers at the front facet. Farries discloses the emitter width at the front face are between 5 and 100 µm (see column 2, lines 19 – 23, column 3, lines 39 – 40 and column 4, lines 8 – 9). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was to modify the emitter width is less than twenty micrometers at the front facet to the device of Farries in order to provide a desired brightness and size of the output beam and also the output beams don’t overlaps between them, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In addition, the selection of width of the expanding emitter in the front facet, it’s obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed [the expanding emitter width is less than twenty micrometers at the front facet] or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen [the expanding emitter width is less than twenty micrometers at the front facet] or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen [the expanding emitter width is less than twenty micrometers at the front facet] are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 16, Farries and Eichler, Farries disclose flared section (see Annotation Figure 3, character 16a) has a parabolic shape (see column 2, lines 24 – 33 and column 4, lines 34 – 38) such that a rate at which the expanding emitter width expands over the flared section (see Annotation Figure 3, character 16a) is a constant fraction or a near-constant fraction of a numerical aperture of a beam (see Annotation Figure 3).
Regarding claim 17, Farries and Eichler, Farries disclose the flared section (see Figure 1, character 16) has a linear shape (see column 2, line 24) such that the expanding emitter width expands over the flared section (see Annotation Figure 1, character 16) at a constant rate.
Regarding claim 18, Farries and Eichler, Eichler discloses the claimed invention except for the flared section includes multiple sub-sections in which the expanding emitter width expands at different linear rates (see Figures 2D, 2F, 2J and 2L and claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 19, Farries and Eichler, Farries discloses the claimed invention except for a rate at which the expanding emitter width expands near the seeding section is less than a rate at which the expanding emitter width expands near the front facet. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to modify the rate at which the emitter width expands near the seeding section is less than a rate at which the emitter width expands near the front facet as suggested to the device, in order to provide a desired brightness and size of the output beam, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In addition, the selection of the rate of the emitter width expands, it’s obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed [a rate at which the expanding emitter width expands near the seeding section is less than a rate at which the expanding emitter width expands near the front facet] or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen [a rate at which the expanding emitter width expands near the seeding section is less than a rate at which the expanding emitter width expands near the front facet] or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen [a rate at which the expanding emitter width expands near the seeding section is less than a rate at which the expanding emitter width expands near the front facet] are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 20, Farries and Eichler, Farries discloses the claimed invention except for the expanding emitter width is at least fifteen micrometers at the front facet. Farries discloses the emitter width at the front face are between 5 and 100 µm (see column 2, lines 19 – 23, column 3, lines 39 – 40 and column 4, lines 8 – 9). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was to modify the emitter width is at least fifteen micrometers at the front facet to the device of Farries in order to provide a desired brightness and size of the output beam and also the output beams don’t overlaps between them, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In addition, the selection of width of the emitter in the front facet, it’s obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed [the emitter width is at least fifteen micrometers at the front facet] or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen [the emitter width is at least fifteen micrometers at the front facet] or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen [the emitter width is at least fifteen micrometers at the front facet] are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 21, Farries and Eichler, Eichler disclose the serrated pattern (see Figures 2A – 2N) is configured to enable a width of the emitter to be expanded in the flared section (see Figures 2A – 2N).
Claims 11 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farries et al (US 6,249,536), in view of Eichler et al. (US 2014/0064311), further in view of Hemenway et al. (US 9,627,852).
Regarding claim 11, Farriers disclose a multi-wavelength source, comprising:
a laser diode array (see Annotation Figure 1, character 10, column 3, lines 20 – 21 and the reference called “incoherent array”) that includes:
a cavity (see Annotation Figure 1) that includes a rear facet (see Annotation Figure 1, character 22, column 3, line 28, the reference called “input face”) and a front facet (see Annotation Figure 1, character 20, column 3, line 29 and the reference called “output face”); and
multiple emitters (see Annotation Figure 1, character 10a, Abstract and column 3, lines 20 – 21 and the reference called “tapered laser”) that are transversely single mode (see Abstract, column 5, lines 1 – 15 and claim 1) and disposed within the cavity (see Annotation Figure 1), wherein the multiple emitters (see Annotation Figure 1, character 10a) each include:
a seeding section (see Annotation Figure 1, character 14, column 2, line 24 and column 3, line 25, the reference called “straight section and/or narrow straight region”) having a constant emitter width that is single mode at the rear facet (see Annotation Figure 1, character 22), and
a flared section (see Annotation Figure 1, character 16, column 2, line 25 – 27, column 3, line 25 – 26 and 39 – 41, and the reference called “a tapered section” or “a tapered region”) having a monotonically expanding emitter width that increases adiabatically over a majority of a length of the cavity (see Annotation Figure 1) such that a set of beamlets outputs from the multiple emitters (see Annotation Figure 1, character 10a) are single mode at the front facet (see Annotation Figure 1, character 20).
Farries discloses the claimed invention except for the flared sections comprises a serrated pattern configured to maximize gain in a central region of the emitter and to reduce in regions that are near edges of each emitter and wherein the serrated pattern is configured to maintain single mode operation of the laser diode array that produces a single mode output, based on tailoring at least one of a gain profile or a refractive-index profile with the serrated pattern. Eichler teaches the flared sections comprises a serrated pattern configured to maximize gain in a central region of the emitter and to reduce in regions that are near edges of each emitter (see Figures 2A – 2N). However, it is well known in the art to modify the flared sections comprises a serrated pattern configured to maximize gain in a central region of the emitter and to reduce in regions that are near edges of each emitter as discloses by Eichler in (Figures 2A – 2N). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to modify the flared sections comprises a serrated pattern configured to maximize gain in a central region of the emitter and to reduce in regions that are near edges of each emitter as suggested to the device of Farries to provide a different sizes and/or brightness of the emitting beam(s). Notwithstanding, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular dimensions because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Eichler do not explicitly discloses the flared sections comprises a serrated pattern configured to maximize gain in a central region of the emitter and to reduce in regions that are near edges of each emitter and wherein the serrated pattern is configured to maintain single mode operation of the laser diode array that produces a single mode output, based on tailoring at least one of a gain profile or a refractive-index profile with the serrated pattern. However, it was shown above that Eichler on Figures 2A – 2L and paragraphs [0026, 0038 and 0072 – 0081] teach a flared section includes multiple sub-section in which the emitter width expands at different linear rates. Figures 2A – 2L shown the serrated pattern is configured where the central region is wider and the edges are narrower. The ridge has a varying horizontal ridge width having at least one thickening and/or a constriction, wherein the horizontal ridge width at least one location can be narrower than the so-called cut-off width for achieving single-mode operation. A curved ridge extension direction can enable greater damping of higher modes in the active region, wherein in this case a single-mode behavior can be obtained even in the case of a ridge width that is greater than the cut-off ridge width described above. By means of a ridge having a varying ridge width having at least one thickening and/or a constriction, a combination of the advantages of a narrow ridge and of a wide ridge can be achieved, wherein a low aspect ratio of the emitted laser beam and a pronounced monomode guidance can be achieved by means of a narrow ridge or the narrow ridge regions, while the electrical contact can be improved by means of a wide ridge or the wide ridge regions, as a result of which the operating voltage can be reduced. These features are implicitly taught the flared sections comprises a serrated pattern configured to maximize gain in a central region of the emitter and to reduce in regions that are near edges of each emitter and wherein the serrated pattern is configured to maintain single mode operation of the laser diode array that produces a single mode output, based on tailoring at least one of a gain profile or a refractive-index profile with the serrated pattern as is claimed.
Farries discloses the claimed invention except for the emitter width is less than twenty micrometers at the front facet. Farries discloses the emitter width at the front face are between 5 and 100 µm (see column 2, lines 19 – 23, column 3, lines 39 – 40 and column 4, lines 8 – 9). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was to modify the emitter width is less than twenty micrometers at the front facet to the device of Farries in order to provide a desired brightness and size of the output beam and also the output beams don’t overlaps between them, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In addition, the selection of width of the emitter in the front facet, it’s obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed [the emitter width is less than twenty micrometers at the front facet] or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen [the emitter width is less than twenty micrometers at the front facet] or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen [the emitter width is less than twenty micrometers at the front facet] are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
PNG
media_image5.png
225
196
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Farries discloses the claimed invention except for a fast-axis collimation (FAC) lens to collimate the set of beamlets in a fast-axis direction; a slow-axis collimation (SAC) lens to collimate the set of beamlets in a slow-axis direction; and a grating to direct the set of beamlets toward an output coupler. Hemenway teaches diode laser package (see Figure 14A, character 330), a flared laser osculator waveguides (see Figure 14A, character 332), a fast-axis collimation (FAC) lens (see Figure 14A, character 338), a slow-axis collimation (SAC) lens (see Figure 14A, character 340); and a grating (see Figure 14A, character 348, the reference called “a volume Bragg grating”) and an output coupler (see Figure 14A, character 346, the reference called “objective lens”). However, it is well known in the art to apply the a fast-axis collimation (FAC) lens to collimate the set of beamlets in a fast-axis direction; a slow-axis collimation (SAC) lens to collimate the set of beamlets in a slow-axis direction; and a grating to direct the set of beamlets toward an output coupler as discloses by Hemenway in (see figure 14A and column 13, lines 63 – 67 and column 13, lines 1 – 32). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply the a fast-axis collimation (FAC) lens to collimate the set of beamlets in a fast-axis direction; a slow-axis collimation (SAC) lens to collimate the set of beamlets in a slow-axis direction; and a grating to direct the set of beamlets toward an output coupler as suggested to the device of Farries, the FAC could be used to collimate the laser beam(s) in a fast-axes direction, the SAC could be used to collimate the laser beam(s) in a slow-axes direction, the volume Bragg grating could be used to couple to each of the beams, sets of beams, or all of the beams, such that grating reflects a portion of the laser beam light back towards the diodes in order to lock of the wavelengths thereof and the objective lens is situated to receive the stacked beams and couple the beams.
Regarding claim 12, Farries, Eichler and Hemenway discloses the claimed invention except for the expanding emitter width expands in the flared section of each emitter by at least ten times a wavelength associated with the laser diode array. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to modify the emitter width expands in the flared section of each emitter by at least ten times a wavelength associated with the laser diode array to the device of Farries, Eichler and Hemenway, to improve the output beam, a desired brightness and size of the output beam, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In addition, the selection of expanding emitter width expands, it’s obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed [the expanding emitter width expands in the flared section of each emitter by at least ten times a wavelength associated with the laser diode array] or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen [the expanding emitter width expands in the flared section of each emitter by at least ten times a wavelength associated with the laser diode array] or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen [the expanding emitter width expands in the flared section of each emitter by at least ten times a wavelength associated with the laser diode array] are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 13, Farries, Eichler and Hemenway, Farries disclose gaps (see Annotation Figure 1, character 50’, column 2, lines 60 – 65, column 3, lines 41 – 42 and column 5, lines 16 – 27) separate adjacent emitters (see Annotation Figure 1, character 10a) in the laser diode array (see Annotation Figure 1, character 10) to prevent evanescent coupling between the adjacent emitters (see Annotation Figure 1, character 10a).
Regarding claim 14, Farries, Eichler and Hemenway disclose the claimed invention except for the expanding emitter width is at least fifteen micrometers at the front facet. Farries discloses the emitter width at the front face are between 5 and 100 µm. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was to modify the emitter width is at least fifteen micrometers at the front facet to the device of Farries, Eichler and Hemenway in order to provide a desired brightness and size of the output beam and also the output beams don’t overlaps between them, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In addition, the selection of width of the emitter in the front facet, it’s obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed [the expanding emitter width is at least fifteen micrometers at the front facet] or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen [the expanding emitter width is at least fifteen micrometers at the front facet] or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen [the expanding emitter width is at least fifteen micrometers at the front facet] are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 26, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant arguments “Nothing in Eichler discloses or suggests that the serrated pattern is configured to maintain single mode operation based on tailoring at least one of a gain profile or a refractive-index profile with the serrated pattern, and wherein the serrated pattern configured to maximize gain in a central region of the emitter and to reduce in regions that are near edges of each emitter.”
The examiner disagrees with the applicant's argument, since the prior art does teach or suggest as claimed as stated in the rejection above. Eichler do not explicitly discloses the flared sections comprises a serrated pattern configured to maximize gain in a central region of the emitter and to reduce in regions that are near edges of each emitter and wherein the serrated pattern is configured to maintain single mode operation of the laser diode array that produces a single mode output, based on tailoring at least one of a gain profile or a refractive-index profile with the serrated pattern. However, it was shown above that Eichler on Figures 2A – 2L and paragraphs [0026, 0038 and 0072 – 0081] teach a flared section includes multiple sub-section in which the emitter width expands at different linear rates. Figures 2A – 2L shown the serrated pattern is configured where the central region is wider and the edges are narrower. The ridge shape limiting the light to the center as opposed to the edges which would cause the overlap with the active region to be higher than the edges and therefore the gain to be higher in the center. The ridge has a varying horizontal ridge width having at least one thickening and/or a constriction, wherein the horizontal ridge width at least one location can be narrower than the so-called cut-off width for achieving single-mode operation. A curved ridge extension direction can enable greater damping of higher modes in the active region, wherein in this case a single-mode behavior can be obtained even in the case of a ridge width that is greater than the cut-off ridge width described above. By means of a ridge having a varying ridge width having at least one thickening and/or a constriction, a combination of the advantages of a narrow ridge and of a wide ridge can be achieved, wherein a low aspect ratio of the emitted laser beam and a pronounced monomode guidance can be achieved by means of a narrow ridge or the narrow ridge regions, while the electrical contact can be improved by means of a wide ridge or the wide ridge regions, as a result of which the operating voltage can be reduced. These features are implicitly taught the flared sections comprises a serrated pattern configured to maximize gain in a central region of the emitter and to reduce in regions that are near edges of each emitter and wherein the serrated pattern is configured to maintain single mode operation of the laser diode array that produces a single mode output, based on tailoring at least one of a gain profile or a refractive-index profile with the serrated pattern as is claimed.
Conclusion
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 Delma R. Forde whose telephone number is (571)272-1940. The examiner can normally be reached M - TH 7:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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 O 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.
/Delma R Forde/Examiner, Art Unit 2828
/TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828