Non-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 . Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-2, 7-10, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0077649 (“Takiguchi”) in view of DE 20 2006 020 283 U1 (“DE 283”).
Takiguchi discloses, see especially Figs. 5-6 and discussion thereof starting at [0089]
1. A laser device, comprising:
Takiguchi is a laser device. [0001], [0067].
a base plate;
a plurality of light-emitting chips disposed on the base plate, the plurality of light-emitting chips configured to emit laser beams, and the laser beams emitted by the plurality of light-emitting chips each having a first axis and a second axis;
a frame disposed on the base plate and surrounding the plurality of light-emitting chips; and
There is a base plate 31, [0089] and lens holding member 32, 321 that is a frame surrounding the light emitters, [0095]. A plurality of light emitting chips 10A are disposed on the base plate and emit laser beams. There is a collimator as discussed below. Takiguchi states the collimator may be both a fast axis collimator and slow axis collimator, [0100], thus Takiguchi recognizes that the lasers emit in those first and second axes.
a collimating lens group disposed on a side of the frame away from the base plate, and the collimating lens group including: a plurality of collimating lenses corresponding to the plurality of light-emitting chips, at least one of the plurality of collimating lenses configured to reduce a divergence angle of a laser beam of the laser beams incident on the collimating lens,
There is a collimating lens group 33 disposed on the frame away from the base plate 31, including a plurality of collimating lenses 331 corresponding to the light emitting chips 10A. [0100]. The lenses are configured to reduce a divergence angle of the laser beams incident, as that is the definition of a collimating lens—takes diverging rays and makes them parallel, thus reducing the divergence angle.
so as to make a reduction of the divergence angle of the laser beam passing through the collimating lens in the first axis less than a reduction of the divergence angle of the laser beam passing through the collimating lens in the second axis.
Again, Takiguchi’s lens 33 may be both a fast axis collimator and slow axis collimator, [0100], though the divergence angle parts of this limitation are not sufficiently explained so are not clearly disclosed.
DE 283 describes a lens for a laser that is both a fast axis collimator (Fig. 3a,4 [0041, [0043]]) and a slow axis collimator (Fig. 3b,5 [0042],[0044]). By definition, a person skilled in the art would understand that a laser diode emission is in both axes; emission is in the fast axis that diverges widely (fast divergence), and in the slow axis that diverges relatively little (slow divergence). See DE 283 [0045] (fast axis has large divergence angle, slow axis has small divergence angle). Both beams are collimated, [0046]-[0047], made parallel, so their divergence angle is reduced to zero. The slow axis (starting at a low angle) therefore has its angle reduced less than the fast axis (starting at a high angle).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the DE 283 collimating lens in place of the Takiguchi collimating lens as a simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143 I.B. Takiguchi differs from the claimed device in not clearly showing what the fast and slow axes are and what the combined slow/fast collimator would look like, but these are found in DE 283 as above. A person of ordinary skill could have implemented the lens as in DE 283 and the result would have been predictable because DE 283 is doing the same thing (fast and slow axis collimation in a single lens)—the overall result is a beam collimated in both axes as easily predicted.
Regarding claim 2, as more clearly shown in Figs. 4-5, the DE 283 collimating lens includes: a first surface 19; and a second surface (on the opposing side) disposed opposite to the first surface and including a convex curved surface, the convex curved surface protruding in a direction away from where the laser is located (thus away from the base plate after the combination), and the second surface configured to reduce a divergence angle of the laser beam incident on the second surface (clearly depicted in Figs. 4-5); wherein the first surface is closer to the laser (and thus to the base plate after the combination) than the second surface, the laser beam emitted by each of the plurality of light-emitting chips is incident on the first surface and exiting from the second surface.
Regarding claim 7, in the DE 283 lens the first surface is a plane; and a curvature of the second surface in the first axis (Fig. 5) is less than a curvature of the second surface in the second axis (Fig. 4), so as to make a reduction of the divergence angle of the laser beam incident on the second surface in the first axis less than a reduction of the divergence angle of the laser beam incident on the second surface in the second axis.
Regarding claim 8, the specification explains the lens of Figs. 9-10 is “a free-form surface.” The DE 283 lens is also like these figures, so can be called a free form surface.
Regarding claim 9, in the DE 283 lens a curvature of the second surface in the first axis (Fig. 5) is less than or equal to a curvature of the second surface in the second axis (Fig. 4), so as to make a reduction of the divergence angle of the laser beam incident on the second surface in the first axis less than or equal to a reduction of the divergence angle of the laser beam incident on the second surface in the second axis.
Regarding claim 10, as above the first surface 19 of DE 283 is a plane.
Regarding claim 15, as seen in Fig. 6, Takiguchi’s chips 10A are in a MxN matrix of rows and columns, M and N integers greater than 1.
Regarding claim 17, a person skilled in the art would recognize that the first and second axes, which are the fast and slow axes, are orthogonal coming out the front of the laser, like a cross, with one axis vertical and one horizontal compared to the disposition of the laser. See DE 283 Figs. 3A-B. The beams come out from laser 11, hit reflector 13, and go to the collimating lens. See Takiguchi Fig. 4B. The fast and slow axis will therefore be disposed orthogonally like a cross on the lens. It is arbitrary which one we call “row” and which one we call “column” so the claim will be met, the first and second axes will be parallel to the row/column direction.
Regarding claim 18, it is apparent that the lasers of Takiguchi are longer in one direction than the other. See Fig. 8. For the lenses then the distance between adjacent rows will be greater than a distance between adjacent columns. Again it is arbitrary which is called a row and which a column.
Regarding claim 19, this is essentially just claiming that some columns are spaced differently than other columns. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the spacing between columns can be changed as this will directly impact the output of the array, and the skilled artisan will adjust as needed to changed things like power, brightness, etc.
Regarding claim 20, it is apparent from Fig. 6 of Takiguchi that the collimating lens group 33, the frame 32 and the base plate 31 are enclosed to be an enclosed accommodating space.
Claims 3-6 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takiguchi and DE 283 as applied to claims 1-2, and further in view of US 2019/0391407 (“Sakai”).
For all of these claims, Takiguchi and DE 283 do not show the collimating lens having the various claimed characteristics.
Sakai describes in embodiment 1 Figs. 1A and 1B, discussion at [0019] et seq. a collimating lens for a laser. These figures are orthogonal views of the same laser and lens. While Sakai does not use the terms, it is apparent that Fig. 1A is depicting the slow axis emission (slower divergence) and Fig. 1B the fast axis (faster divergence). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Sakai collimating lens in place of the Takiguchi or DE 283 collimating lens as a simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143 I.B. Takiguchi or DE 283 differ from the claimed device in not clearly showing a number of characteristics of the collimating lens, but these are found in Sakai as will be seen. A person of ordinary skill could have implemented the lens as in Sakai and the result would have been predictable because Sakai is doing the same thing (fast and slow axis are substantially collimated in a single lens)—the overall result is a beam collimated in both axes as easily predicted.
Regarding claim 3, in Sakai’s collimating lens the first surface includes a concave curved surface 11, the concave curved surface is recessed in the direction away from the laser (or the base plate after the combination), and the concave curved surface is configured to increase a divergence angle of the laser beam incident on the concave curved surface (apparent in Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 4, in Sakai a curvature of the second surface 12 in the first axis (Rh2) is less than or equal to a curvature of the second surface in the second axis (Rv2), (they are equal, [0021]). The rest is the result, which again is true, that the reduction of the divergence angle of the laser beam incident on the second surface in the slow axis is less than or equal to a reduction of the divergence angle of the laser beam incident on the second surface in the fast axis.
Regarding claim 5, in Sakai a curvature of the first surface in the first axis (Rh1) is greater than a curvature of the first surface in the second axis (Rv1, which is not curved), so as to make an increase of the divergence angle of the laser beam incident on the first surface in the first axis greater than an increase of the divergence angle of the laser beam incident on the first surface in the second axis (apparent comparing the beams in Figs. 1A-B).
Regarding claim 6, these exact radius of curvature relations are not shown. A person of ordinary skill would understand that the curvature relations would directly affect the light output. When the general conditions of the claim are shown in the art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II.A. The skilled artisan may adjust these parameters such as the curvature of the lens faces to adjust the output beams as desired.
Regarding claim 10, see rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 11, see rejection of claim 5 above.
Claims 13-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takiguchi and DE 283 as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US 2019/0103723 (“Miura”).
Regarding claim 13, Takiguchi discloses that the light emitting chips 10A can emit in at least two colors. [0154]-[0155]. Takiguchi does not disclose that the collimating lenses corresponding to laser beams of different wavelengths have different curvatures. Miura is a similar device with collimating lenses over laser diodes of different colors, and teaches that to provide parallel light the curvatures need to be different based on the wavelength. [0050]-[0053]. It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to make the lenses have different curvature for this reason, to ensure it is actually parallel.
Regarding claim 14, again Takiguchi discloses that the light emitting chips 10A can emit in at least two colors, so there can be first chip at a first color and a second chip at a second color. [0154]-[0155]. It is inherent that different color beams diverge at different angles, as beam divergence is dependent on wavelength. Thus there is a first color with a lesser divergence angle than a second color. As taught in view of Miura, the different color lasers will all be made parallel. Thus, the collimating lenses will reduce the divergence to zero, and therefore will reduce the divergence of the first color (that started out at less divergence) less than the lenses reduce the divergence of the second color (which started out higher).
Regarding claim 16, Takiguchi additionally discloses that the lasers of different colors can be located in any desired disposition. [0155]. Accordingly, rows and columns could have different colors, if desired by the user. In that case the curvatures of the collimating lenses in different rows or columns in the second axis are different from curvatures of the collimating lenses in different rows or columns in the first axis, in light of Miura’s teachings above that there be different curvatures for different colors.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is 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. There is not taught or disclosed in the prior art the laser device having collimating lens as in claim 2, where the convex curved surface includes a cylindrical surface, and a straight generatrix of the cylindrical surface is parallel to the first axis. The DE 283 lens is not cylindrical and needs to have a curvature in both the fast and slow axes on the convex side, so it would not have a straight generatrix parallel to the slow axis. The Sakai lens has the same curvature on both the fast and slow axes on the convex side, and therefore also would not have the claimed straight generatrix. Furthermore, the output surface is critical to how the beam is output and would not be a mere obvious change of shape.
Conclusion
Other lasers are cited with similar packages and/or collimating lenses.
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. 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.
/JAMES A MENEFEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828