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 § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2002232064 (Miyajima).
For claim 17, Miyajima’s embodiment of fig. 5 and 6 teaches a laser light source (fig. 5 and 6) comprising:
a supporting member (fig. 5 and 6, 21 and 14);
a submount fixed to an upper surface of the supporting member (fig. 5, 13; fig. 6, shows the stacked array with repeating elements 11-14, but only labels the top 11-13 whereas fig. 5 labels the lower grouping of elements 11-13; [0042]);
a semiconductor laser element fixed to an upper surface of the submount (fig. 5-6, bottom laser 11), the semiconductor laser element having a light-exiting surface through which laser light is to be emitted (fig. 6, left end of 11 corresponding to 20a; [0040]);
a lens member (fig. 5 and 6, bottom lens 15) having a light incident surface on which the laser light is incident (fig. 5 and 6, 20c of bottom lens 15; [0043]), and a bonding surface that extends laterally with respect to the light incident surface (fig. 5 and 6, 20d of bottom lens 15; [0043]), wherein the supporting member connects the lens member and the submount together so that the light incident surface of the lens member faces the light-exiting surface of the semiconductor laser element (fig. 5-6); and
a bonding layer bonding the bonding surface of the lens member and the supporting member together (fig. 5-6, 17; [0043]).
Miyajima does not explicitly teach the bonding layer is inorganic. However, the examiner previously took official notice that inorganic bonding layers were well-known in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention. The applicant did not traverse. It is therefore, taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03 C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a well-known inorganic bonding layer as a simple substitution for the adhesive of Miyajima as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art and the substitution would have yielded predictable results. In the present case, the substituted component provides an alternative bonding material for the lens member. See MPEP 2143 I.B.
The embodiment of figs. 5 and 6 does not teach between the light incident surface and the bonding surface, the lens member has a surface extending in a direction intersecting the light incident surface and the bonding surface.
However, the embodiment of fig. 16 teaches a light incident surface (large flat surface of 15, 20c; [0060]) and a bonding surface (fig. 16, left vertical side of cutout 22), and therebetween, the lens member has a surface extending in a direction intersecting the light incident surface and the bonding surface (fig. 16, top or bottom surface of cutout 22; [0060]) in order to prevent a spacer from wobbling ([0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the bonding surface and surface extending in a direction intersecting the light incident surface and the bonding surface taught in the embodiment of fig. 16 in the embodiment of fig. 5 and 6 in order to prevent a spacer from wobbling.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims are allowed based on applicant’s arguments submitted 2/4/2026.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 17-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
/Michael Carter/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights