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 .
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.
Claims 1, 4-8, 10, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakanishi (US PG Pub 2020/0287348).
Regarding claim 1, Nakanishi discloses: a first light-emitting (81) element configured to emit a first light in a first direction; a second light-emitting element (82)configured to emit a second light in the first direction (Fig. 3, [0034], [0035]); a package comprising a substrate (base 10) and a cap (40) (Fig. 3, [0031], [0032]), wherein the package has a light emission surface (41 or 42) through which the first light and second light emitted from the first and second light-emitting elements are passed (Figs. 3, 4 and 6, [0042]), and wherein the package forms a closed space (base 10 and cap 40 forms a closed space) in which the first and second light-emitting elements are located (Figs 1 and 3, [0032]); one or more optical members (filters 97, 98, 99) that are spaced away from the light emission surface in the first direction, and that are configured to combine the first light and second light (Figs. 3 and 5, [0037], [0038]); and one or more photodetectors (94, 95, 96) that are spaced away from the light emission surface in the first direction, and that are configured to receive the first light and second light (Figs. 3 and 5, [0040], [0041]).
Regarding claim 4, Nakanishi discloses: the substrate (10) has a mount surface (10A) on which the first and second light-emitting elements are located (Fig. 3, [0031], [0032]), the cap (40) has the light emission surface (41 or 42), and the one or more optical member (97, 98, 99) are located on the mount surface (Figs. 2 and 3, [0031], [0032]).
Regarding claim 5, Nakanishi discloses: the one or more optical members (97, 98, 99) and the one or more photodetectors (94, 95, 96) are located so as not to overlap in a top view (Figs. 3 and 5, [0040], [0041]).
Regarding claim 6, Nakanishi discloses: further comprising: one or more lens members (91, 92, 93) configured to receive the first light as diverging light and the second light as diverging light, and to emit collimated first light and collimated second light, wherein: the one or more optical member (97, 98, 99) are configured to combine the collimated first light and the collimated second light (Figs. 3 and 5, [0036]-[0038]).
Regarding claim 7, Nakanishi discloses: wherein: the one or more photodetectors (94, 95, 96) are located further away from the light emission surface than are the one or more lens members (91, 92, 93) (Figs. 3 and 5, [0036], [0040], [0041]).
Regarding claim 8, Nakanishi discloses: the one or more photodetectors (94, 95, 96) are located further away from the light emission surface than are the one or more optical members (97, 98, 99) (Figs. 3 and 5, [0036], [0040], [0041]).
Regarding claim 10, Nakanishi discloses: the one or more lens members are located in the closed space (lens members 91, 92, 93 are located in the space between the base and cap) (Fig. 2, [0032]).
Regarding claim 13, Nakanishi discloses: a third light-emitting element (83) to emit a third light (Fig. 3, [0036]-[0038]), wherein: the one or more optical members (97, 98, 99) are configured to combine the first light, second light, and third light, and the first light, second light, and third light are each selected from red light, green light, and blue light, and have different colors (Fig. 3, [0036]-[0038]).
Regarding claim 14, Nakanishi discloses: wherein each of the first, second, and third light-emitting elements is a semiconductor laser element, the first light, second light, and third light are each selected from red light having a peak emission wavelength of 639 nm±10 nm, green light having a peak emission wavelength of 532 nm±5 nm, and blue light having a peak emission wavelength of 460 nm±10 nm, and have different colors (Fig. 3, [0036]-[0038]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanishi (US PG Pub 2020/0287348) in view of Sogabe (CN 101902012 A).
Regarding claim 2,Nakanishi does not disclose: one or more support members having an inclined surface, wherein: the one or more photodetectors are located on the inclined surface of the one or more support members.
Sogabe discloses: the one or more photodetectors (40) are located on the inclined surface of the one or more support members (Fig. 1, [0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nakanishi by placing the photodetectors on an inclined surface of the one or more support members because the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. In the instant case, the predictable result is a light emitting device comprising one or more photodetectors used to detect the light emitted by each laser element.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanishi (US PG Pub 2020/0287348) in view of Perkins (US 4,681,445).
Regarding claim 3, Nakanishi does not disclose: one or more reflection members that are located above the one or more photodetectors, and that are configured to reflect the first light and second light downward, wherein: the one or more photodetectors are configured to receive the first light and second light reflected by the one or more reflection members.
Perkins discloses: one or more reflection members that are located above the one or more photodetectors, and that are configured to reflect the first light and second light downward, wherein: the one or more photodetectors are configured to receive the first light and second light reflected by the one or more reflection members (Fig. 6, col. 6, lines 1-32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nakanishi by adding one or more reflection members that are located above the one or more photodetectors, and that are configured to reflect the first light and second light downward toward the photodetectors because the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. In the instant case, the predictable result is a light emitting device comprising one or more reflection members and one or more photodetectors used to detect the light emitted by each laser element.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanishi (US PG Pub 2020/0287348).
Regarding claim 9, Nakanishi does not disclose: the one or more photodetectors are located closer to the light emission surface than are the one or more optical members.
However, In accordance with MPEP 2144.04, Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale: As discussed in MPEP § 2144, if the facts in a prior legal decision are sufficiently similar to those in an application under examination, the examiner may use the rationale used by the court. Examples directed to various common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients are discussed below. If the applicant has demonstrated the criticality of a specific limitation, it would not be appropriate to rely solely on case law as the rationale to support an obviousness rejection.
MPEP 2144.04, Rearrangement of Parts: In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the position of the photodetectors relative to the optical members because rearrangement of parts is not a patentable advance.
Regarding claim 11, Nakanishi does not disclose: the one or more photodetectors are located closer to the light emission surface than are the one or more lens members.
However, In accordance with MPEP 2144.04, Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale: As discussed in MPEP § 2144, if the facts in a prior legal decision are sufficiently similar to those in an application under examination, the examiner may use the rationale used by the court. Examples directed to various common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients are discussed below. If the applicant has demonstrated the criticality of a specific limitation, it would not be appropriate to rely solely on case law as the rationale to support an obviousness rejection.
MPEP 2144.04, Rearrangement of Parts: In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the position of the photodetectors relative to the lens members because rearrangement of parts is not a patentable advance.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanishi (US PG Pub 2020/0287348) in view of Fujiie (US PG Pub 2010/0254249).
Regarding claim 12, Nakanishi does not disclose: the one or more photodetectors have a first light-receiving region configured to receive the first light, and a second light-receiving region configured to receive the second light, the second light-receiving region being spaced away from the first light-receiving region, and the first and second light-receiving regions are perpendicular to an optical axis direction of light emitted from the first light-emitting element in a top view, are aligned in a direction parallel to the mount surface on which the first light-emitting element is located, and face upward.
Fujiie discloses: the photo detector 143 has a plurality of light receiving regions ([0287]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nakanishi by forming a photodetector having more than one light receiving region to receive the first and second laser light in order to reduce the numbers of elements in the light emitting apparatus. The device as modified implicitly disclose: the first and second light-receiving regions are perpendicular to an optical axis direction of light emitted from the first light-emitting element in a top view, are aligned in a direction parallel to the mount surface on which the first light-emitting element is located, and face upward
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanishi (US PG Pub 2020/0287348) in view of Motobayashi et al. (US PG Pub 2019/0171091).
Regarding claim 17, Nakanishi does not disclose: a fourth light-emitting element to emit a fourth light beam that is infrared light, wherein: the one or more optical members are configured to combine the first light, second light, third light, and fourth light.
Motobayahi et al disclose: Furthermore, in the present embodiment, the three types of semiconductor lasers 13 (13R, 13G, and 13B) that respectively output the red light beam, the green light beam, and the blue light beam are used as the plurality of light-emitting elements, but this is not limitative, and a light-emitting element that outputs a light beam of any other wavelength such as an ultraviolet wavelength or an infrared wavelength may be used ([0052]). ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nakanishi by adding a fourth laser element emitting infrared light, a lens and an optical member in order to emit coherent light in the red, green, blue and infrared wavelength range.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 15 is allowable as the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “…a fourth light-emitting element configured to emit a fourth light beam that is infrared light, wherein: the first, second, third, and fourth light-emitting elements are aligned in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction in a top view in this order, and the fourth light beam is not combined with the first light, second light, or third light, and a distance between a first location where the first light, second light, and third light are combined, and a second location where a virtual line passing through the first location and parallel to the second direction in the top view intersects with the fourth light beam, is shorter than a distance between the first and third light-emitting elements.”
Claim 16 is allowable as the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “…a fourth light-emitting element to emit a fourth light beam that is infrared light, wherein: the fourth, first, second, and third light-emitting elements are aligned in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction in a top view in this order, and the fourth light beam is not combined with the first light, second light, or third light, and a distance between a first location where the first light, second light, and third light are combined, and a second location where a virtual line passing through the first location and parallel to the second direction in the top view intersects with the fourth light beam, is longer than a distance between the first and third light-emitting elements.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Govorkov et al. (US PG Pub 208/0019010) disclose: arrangements for combination and fast-axis alignment of fast-axes of diode-laser beams are disclosed. Alignment arrangements include providing each diode-laser with a corresponding alignable fast-axis collimating lens, providing individually alignable mirrors for steering an re-orienting beams from each diode-laser, and providing single diode-laser slab-modules in which the diode-laser beams can be pre-aligned to a common propagation-axis direction, and in which edges and surfaces of the slabs can be used to align the fast and slow-axes of the beams. Beam combination methods include combination by dichroic elements, polarization-sensitive elements, and optical fiber bundles (Abstract). Enya et al. (US PG Pub 2020/0373729) disclose: an optical module includes a first semiconductor light-emitting element, a second semiconductor light-emitting element, a first lens, a second lens, a filter that multiplexes the first light and the second light, a base plate that has a first surface on which the first semiconductor light-emitting element, the second semiconductor light-emitting element, the first lens, the second lens, and the filter are mounted and a second surface opposite the first surface in a thickness direction, and a support base that is in contact with a part of the second surface and that supports the base plate. The base plate has a filter mounting region in which the filter is mounted. The optical module has a gap between a region of the second surface corresponding to the filter mounting region and the support base (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XINNING(TOM) NIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1437. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-6:00pm.
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.
/XINNING(Tom) NIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828