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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on 07/15/2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 objected to because of the following informalities:
“sets of 1D lasers arranged” should read “sets of 1D lasers are arranged” both line 3 and line 4
. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-9, 18-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. In the aforementioned claims, “1D lasers” and “2D lasers” are not enabled by the specification. Specification enables arrays of lasers arranged in 1 or 2 dimensions but does not disclose each individual laser being 1 or 2 dimensional. For example, instant application figs. 1A/2A each depict a 1D array of lasers containing a plurality of 3D lasers, each 3D laser having a length, width, and height. Nowhere does the specification disclose or suggest one of the individual lasers having 1 or 2 dimensions.
Wands factors, MPEP 2164.01(a)
The claims are very broad.
Invention pertains to 1D and 2D laser arrays comprising 3D lasers
Prior art recognizes 1D and 2D laser arrays, does not recognize 1D or 2D lasers
D, E. Levels of ordinary skill and predictability in the art are relatively high
F, G. Inventor does not provide direction or working example for 1D or 2D laser, every disclosed laser is 3D
H. As a result, level of experimentation would be very high.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2-9, 18-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2-9, 18-20 are indefinite due to use of “1D lasers” and “2D lasers” throughout. It is unclear whether these phrases refer to the dimension of the arrangement of lasers or to the dimension of each individual laser’s structure. Examiner interprets 1D/2D lasers to mean a plurality of lasers arranged in a one/two dimensional array/arrangement, respectively, with “1D” “2D” describing the dimension of the arrangement.
Additionally, claim 20 is indefinite due to “one or more of the first sets of 2D lasers” in lines 2-3. Only one first set of 2D lasers is introduced in the claims. Any additional sets lack antecedent basis. Examiner interprets “one or more of the first sets of 2D lasers are arranged” to mean “the first set of 2D lasers is arranged”. Applicant is advised to replace “one or more of the first sets of 2D lasers are arranged” with “the first set of 2D lasers is arranged” or introduce multiple first sets at a point in the claims prior to claim 20 line 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Two different references are used to twice reject claims 1 and 16 under 35 USC 102. Second 102 rejections for claims 1 + 16 using second reference Liu immediately follow all first 102 rejections using first reference Hatori.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10, 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/2 as being anticipated by Hatori (US-20130259081-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hatori discloses a monolithic laser array (figs. 1-2), comprising: a first set of lasers separated by a first distance (first set lasers A1+A2 separated by 7 um (180um – 173 um), 0038, fig. 4 + 0061); and a second set of lasers separated by a second distance greater than the first distance (second set lasers A7+A8 separated by 48 um, 0038, 0061).
Regarding claim 2, Hatori discloses the monolithic laser array of claim 1, wherein one or more lasers of the first or second set of lasers are one-dimensional (1D) lasers (figs. 1+2, A1+A2 and A7+A8 are 1D lasers, see also Applicant fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 3, Hatori discloses the monolithic laser array of claim 2, wherein the second set of 1D lasers is arranged proximate a centerline of the array (figs. 1+2 A7+A8 arranged proximate centerline aligned with A7).
Regarding claim 4, Hatori discloses the monolithic laser array of claim 3, wherein the first set of 1D lasers is arranged opposite the centerline relative to a position of the second set of 1D lasers on the array (figs. 1+2 A1+A2 arranged opposite centerline aligned with A7 relative to position of A7+A8).
Regarding claim 5, Hatori discloses the monolithic laser array of claim 2, wherein the first or second set of 1D lasers includes two lasers (figs. 1+2 A1+A2 and A7+A8 each include 2 lasers, 0038).
Regarding claim 10, Hatori discloses the monolithic laser array of claim 1, wherein the first distance is calculated by one of a linear equation, an exponential equation, or a polynomial expression.
Using 0060 and 0061 values in fig. 4, can work backwards to obtain equation used by Hatori to determine distances between directly adjacent lasers.
A1 to A2 = 180-173 = 7
A2 to A3 = 173 – 152 = 21
A3 to A4 = 152 - 129 = 23
A4 to A5 = 129 - 96 = 33
A5 to A6 = 96 – 48 = 48
A6 to A7 = 48 – 0 = 48
Gives following data points: (1, 7), (2, 21), (3, 23), (4, 33), (5, 48), (6, 48), where y is the distance between laser A_x and A_x+1)
Fitting these coordinates gives y = -.83x^4 + 11.44x^3 -53.58x^2 + 107.00x – 57 to determine distance between for two lasers. See image below. R^2 = .9999. First distance A1 to A2 given by X = 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
979
1374
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Quartic polynomial fitting claim 10 (source: Desmos)
Regarding claim 13, Hatori discloses the monolithic laser array of claim 1, wherein the first distance or the second distance is in a range between 5-30 micrometers (figs. 1+2 first distance between A1+A2 is 7 um (180 um- 173 um), between 5-30 um, 0061).
Regarding claim 14, Hatori discloses the monolithic laser array of claim 1, wherein one or more lasers of the first or second set of lasers is one or more of a ridge type single quantum well (SQW) or multiple quantum well (MQW) semiconductor laser, a buried heterostructure (BH) SQW or MQW laser, a distributed-feedback (DFB) or Distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) laser, a Vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL), photonic crystal surface-emitting lasers, InP based laser, GaAs based laser, GaSb based laser, GaN based laser, or other suitable laser (figs. 1+2 lasers A1-13 are at least suitable lasers, 0038-0039).
Regarding claim 15, Hatori discloses the monolithic laser array of claim 1, further comprising a substrate to support the first and second sets of lasers (fig. 1 substrate 11 supports A1+A2 and A7+A8, 0036 lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 16, Hatori discloses a monolithic laser array to provide a substantially uniform temperature distribution (figs. 1+2), comprising: a substrate (fig. 1 substrate 11, 0036 lines 1-2); a first set of lasers arranged on the substrate and separated by a first distance (first set lasers A1+A2 on 11 and separated by 7 um (180um – 173 um), 0038, fig. 4 + 0061); and a second set of lasers arranged on the substrate and separated by a second distance greater than the first distance (second set lasers A7+A8 on 11 separated by 48 um, 0038, 0061).
Regarding claim 17, Hatori discloses the monolithic laser array of claim 16, further comprising a third set of lasers arranged on the substrate and separated by a third distance (third set lasers A3+A4 on 11 separated by 23 um).
Regarding claim 18, Hatori discloses the monolithic laser array of claim 16, wherein one or more lasers of the first or second set of lasers are one-dimensional (1D) lasers (figs. 1+2, A1+A2 and A7+A8 are 1D lasers, see also Applicant fig. 1A), a first pair of the first and second sets of 1D lasers arranged on a first portion of the substrate (figs. 1+2 A1+A2 pair arranged on first portion of substrate (half to the left of centerline aligned with A7)), and a second pair of the first and second sets of 1D lasers arranged on a second portion of the substrate (figs. 1+2 A7+A8 pair arranged on second portion of substrate (half to the right of centerline aligned with A7)), the first and second portions being separated by a centerline of the array (left and right halves separated by centerline aligned with A7).
Claim(s) 1, 6-9, 16, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Liu (CN-103730833-A, machine translation “Liu_English2” cited and included herewith).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a monolithic laser array (fig. 7), comprising: a first set of lasers separated by a first distance (annotated fig. 7 first set of lasers (circles) within 1R separated by 1Dis, lines 89-103); and a second set of lasers separated by a second distance greater than the first distance (annotated fig. 7 second set of lasers (circles) within 2R separated by 2Dis greater than 1Dis, fig. 2 6/2Dis greater than 7/1Dis, lines 93-96).
PNG
media_image2.png
632
727
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 7
Regarding claim 6, Liu discloses the monolithic laser array of claim 1, wherein one or more lasers of the first or second set of lasers are two-dimensional (2D) lasers (lines 2 + 18-19 + 89).
Regarding claim 7, Liu discloses the monolithic laser array of claim 6, wherein the second set of 2D lasers is arranged about a center of the array (annotated fig. 7 circles within 2R arranged about a center of array).
Regarding claim 8, Liu discloses the monolithic laser array of claim 7, wherein the first set of 2D lasers is arranged opposite the center relative to a position of the second set of 2D lasers on the array (annotated fig. 7 circles within 1R arranged opposite center of array relative to a position of circles within 2R/Position).
Regarding claim 9, Liu discloses the monolithic laser array of claim 6, wherein the first or second set of 2D lasers includes four lasers (annotated fig. 7 four circles included in each of 1R and 2R).
Regarding claim 16, Liu discloses a monolithic laser array to provide a substantially uniform temperature distribution (fig. 7), comprising: a substrate (fig. 3 substrate 10, line 180); a first set of lasers arranged on the substrate and separated by a first distance (annotated fig. 7 circles within 1R arranged on 10 and separated by 1Dis); and a second set of lasers arranged on the substrate and separated by a second distance greater than the first distance (annotated fig. 7 circles within 2R arranged on 10 and separated by 1Dis greater than 2Dis).
Regarding claim 19, Liu discloses the monolithic laser array of claim 16, wherein one or more lasers of the first or second set of lasers are two-dimensional (2D) lasers (lines 2 + 18-19 + 89).
Regarding claim 20, Liu discloses The monolithic laser array of claim 19, wherein the second set of 2D lasers is arranged about a center of the substrate (annotated fig. 7 circles in 2R arranged about center of substrate, see electrode 1 in figs. 1+2, substrate 10 underneath electrode 1 and array centered on substrate, lines 179-184), and one or more of the first sets of 2D lasers are arranged on the substrate about the second set (annotated fig. 7 circles in 1R arranged on 10 about circles in 2R).
def. about – in the vicinity : near (Merriam-Webster def. 5)
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.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatori.
Regarding claim 11, Hatori discloses the monolithic laser array of claim 1.
Hatori does not explicitly disclose wherein the first distance Y1 is calculated by equation Y1=X-NC, where X is a representative distance between lasers, N is a numerical integer, and C is a constant.
Assuming positive N and C, Y1 = X-NC represents a distance that is less than “a representative distance between lasers X” (instant application 0033), suggesting the distance between directly adjacent lasers in the peripheral first region needs to be smaller than the distance between non-peripheral non-first region lasers.
Hatori discloses directly adjacent lasers in a peripheral region being closer together than directly adjacent lasers in a non-peripheral/central region (figs. 1+2 lasers A1+A2 closer together than A7+A8, i.e. Y1 less than “a representative distance between lasers” A7+A8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first distance Y1 calculated by equation Y1=X-NC, where X is a representative distance between lasers, N is a numerical integer, and C is a constant to provide a laser arrangement that possesses the simplest mathematical representation (linear) while still promoting sufficient temperature uniformity and device operation (Hatori 0052-0057).
Regarding claim 12, Hatori discloses the monolithic laser array of claim 1.
Hatori does not explicitly disclose wherein the second distance Y2 is calculated by equation Y2=X+NC, where X is a representative distance between lasers, N is a numerical integer, and C is a constant.
Assuming positive N and C, Y2 = X+NC represents a distance that is greater than “a representative distance between lasers X” (instant application 0033), suggesting the distance between directly adjacent lasers in the non-peripheral second region needs to be larger than the distance between peripheral non-second region lasers.
Hatori discloses directly adjacent lasers in a non-peripheral region being farther apart than directly adjacent lasers in a peripheral region (figs. 1+2 lasers A7+A8 farther apart than A1+A2, i.e. Y2 greater than “a representative distance between lasers” A1+A2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second distance Y2 calculated by equation Y2=X+NC, where X is a representative distance between lasers, N is a numerical integer, and C is a constant to provide a laser arrangement that possesses the simplest mathematical representation (linear) while still promoting sufficient temperature uniformity and device operation (Hatori 0052-0057).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alex Ehrlich whose telephone number is (703)756-5716. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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.
/A.E./Examiner, Art Unit 2828
/Joshua King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828 07/23/2025