Final Rejection
The application was filed with claims 1-14. Following a non-final action, applicant filed and amendment on 1/8/2026 in which claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, and 14 are amended, claims 2-3, 6, 8, and 12 are cancelled, and claim 15 added. Claims 1, 4-5, 7, 9-11, and 13-15 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7, 9-11, and 13-15 are 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.
In the “a second section” limitation, lines 18-21 of claim 1, it is believed that there are two typos where first should instead be second, i.e. the end part of the limitation should read “such that each of the second plurality of mounting surface is arranged substantially a same distance from the second section.” It does not make sense to the examiner for the second section to be referring to the first plurality and the first section as it reads presently.
The same issue is found in a similar location of claim 14.
Claims 4-5, 7, 9-11, and 13 are rejected as dependent claims from 1 or 14.
In claim 15, the very end part of the claim reading “and is configured to be close the plurality of mounting surface to the inner surface” is indefinite. It is not clear to the examiner what is meant by this language, and the examiner cannot apply art to it. Art is applied to the rest of the claim.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 13 be found allowable, claim 14 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). As it stands now, claim 14 is the same as claim 13, except that claim 14 is in independent form. Claim 13 depends from claim 11, which depends from claim 1, but the examiner sees no difference in scope between claims 13 and 14. Compare:
11. A light source device comprising: the light emitting device according to claim 1.
13. An optical fiber laser comprising: the light source device according to claim 11.
14. An optical fiber laser comprising: a light source device which includes a light emitting device comprising [all of the limitations of claim 1].
Note that claim 10, dependent on claim 14, is not a duplicate; the words of claim 10 are the same as claim 9, but the dependencies make them different. But if claim 14 was merely cancelled it would need to be dealt with in some way.
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, 4, 5, 7, 9-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0358900 (“Kanskar”) in view of US 2021/0257805 (“Takahashi”), and further in view of JP 2001-237486 (“JP ‘486”).
1. A light emitting device comprising:
a base that includes: a first plurality of mounting surfaces that are aligned in a first direction and on which a first plurality of light emitting elements are respectively mounted;
a second plurality of mounting surfaces that are aligned in the first direction and on which a second plurality of light emitting elements are respectively mounted;
Kanskar Fig. 2A discloses a light emitting device comprising a base 204 that includes a first and second plurality of mounting surfaces 234 that are aligned in a first direction and on which first and second plurality of light emitting elements 100/101 are mounted. [0037] et seq. The first direction is up the stairs (or left in top view Fig. 2B). There are two rows of stair stepped lasers, [0044], and one row is the first plurality and one is the second plurality of light emitting elements.
a bottom surface that extends in a second direction that is inclined with respect to the first direction, the bottom surface being provide on back sides of each of the first and second plurality of mounting surfaces; and a refrigerant passage configured to flow a refrigerant and that is arranged between the mounting surfaces and the bottom surface, wherein the refrigerant passage including:
a first section that extends in the first direction along the first plurality of light emitting elements such that each of the first plurality of mounting surfaces is arranged substantially a same distance from the first section,
a second section that extends in the first direction along the second plurality of light emitting elements such that each of the first plurality of mounting surfaces is arranged substantially a same distance from the first section, and
Kanskar again shows the lasers are mounted in stair step arrangement, and there is a bottom surface under the mounting surfaces. A refrigerant passage is in the base, Figs. 3B-C, but further details are not like those claimed.
Takahashi is a similar system with laser diodes mounted on a base in a stair step fashion, Fig. 6, and further shows that the bottom surface may be inclined with respect to the first direction, see Fig. 5, 8, [0055]-[0056]. Takahashi further teaches that there is a refrigerant passage 25 along the inclined part, Fig. 5. The incline of the bottom (with refrigerant passage) matches the incline of the steps, so the refrigerant passage will be substantially the same distance from the steps/mounting surfaces. [0055]; see also [0013] (“it can be suppressed that the respective distances between the light emitting element and the sub-passages become uneven. Thus, variations in cooling efficiency of each of the light emitting elements can be suppressed.”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply these teachings to Kanskar, as variations in cooling efficiency of the different light emitting elements will be suppressed, as taught by Takahashi. And clearly since there are first and second pluralities of lasers, there will be first and second sections of the refrigerant passage, a section for each stair step line of lasers—you aren’t going to cool one set of lasers and not the other.
an inner surface having an uneven surface comprising a plurality of concave portions each arranged near a respective mounting surface and configured to cause the refrigerant to swirl near the respective mounting surface.
Kanskar and Takahashi do not teach the inner surface as claimed.
JP ‘486 shows a laser cooled by circulating coolant, and an inner surface of the refrigerant passage has spiral grooves, an uneven surface that is a plurality of concave sections. The grooves are in various parts of the passage, including near the lasers 101. See Fig. 6(c), [0106]-[0108]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include such grooves as they cause a turbulent swirling flow, providing a significantly improved heat transfer performance as taught in JP ‘486. [0108]. Additionally or alternatively, JP ‘486 shows the refrigerant passage may have notches 16b that may be considered a plurality of concave sections and are arranged near the mounting of the lasers. Figs. 5(a)-(b), [0084]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use these notches as again they cause stirring of the coolant that makes cooling more efficient, as taught by JP ‘486. [0085].
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Kanskar shows a single passage under both pluralities of lasers. That is, first and second sections are in series. Furthermore, Takahashi shows the passage goes down the entire step section, back up, down again, and up again. When combined with Kanskar it would be apparent the section would go up and down several more times to also have the passage near the second plurality of lasers, i.e. a second section that is parallel to the first section near the first plurality of lasers.
Regarding claim 7, again the uneven structures of JP ‘486 are in the inner surface of the passage and near where the light emitters are mounted.
Regarding claims 9-10, the refrigerant in the refrigerant passage is thermally connected to the light emitting elements; that is the point, to cool the lasers.
Regarding claim 11, the Kanskar lasers together form a light source 200.
Regarding claims 13-14, the Kanskar light assemblies are clearly meant to be a pump for a fiber laser. [0003]; [0065].
Claim 15 is similar to claim 1 except uses different language, and is rejected for the same reasons. Again, the last limitation is indefinite as identified above in the 112 rejection, and it is not clear how the art should be applied to it due to the indefiniteness.
Response to Arguments
The arguments presented in the Response have been fully considered. The prior rejections are withdrawn in light of the amendments, but new rejections are presented. The new rejections are necessitated by the amendments, so this action is made final.
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 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).
/JAMES A MENEFEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828