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 § 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 13 and 14 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.
Claims 13 and 14 recites the limitation "the intermediate substrate". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret “the intermediate substrate” to mean “the second substrate”.
Claim 29 recites the limitation “optionally wherein providing the one or more spacer structures is performed using a transfer-printing process”. The examiner cannot determine if claim 29 requires performing a transfer-printing process. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret claim 29 to not require using a transfer-printing process.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunner et al. (US PG Pub 2009/0080197) in view of Balimann et al. (US PG Pub 2018/0129013).
Regarding claim 1, Brunner et al. disclose: a plurality of emitters (LED chip 14) on a first substrate (12) (Fig. 2c, [0022], [0028], [0029]); one or more alignment patterns (angle bars 26) on the first substrate, wherein the one or more alignment patterns are positioned relative to the LED chip (Fig. 2c, [0022], [0028], [0029]); and at least one optical element (16) arranged to receive respective light emissions from the LED chip, wherein the at least one optical element is oriented based on the one or more alignment patterns (angle bars 26) (Fig. 2c, 2d, [0022], [0023], [0028], [0029]).
Brunner et al. do not explicitly disclose: a plurality of emitters.
Balimann et al. disclose: an array of VCSELS (114) (Fig. 1A, [0028]). 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 Brunner by forming a plurality of VCSELs on the first substrate in order to output a plurality of higher power output beams.
PNG
media_image1.png
424
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2c and 2d of Brunner
PNG
media_image2.png
566
444
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1A of Balimann
Regarding claim 2, Brunner as modified disclose: wherein the emitters are arranged in an array (VCSEL array) (Baliman, Fig. 1A, [0028]), and wherein the one or more alignment patterns are positioned adjacent a periphery of the array (angle bars 26 positioned adjacent to periphery of laser chip 14) (see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Brunner as modified disclose: wherein the one or more alignment patterns comprise fiducial structures (angle bars 26) that extend along the periphery of the array (Brunner, Fig. 2c, [0029]).
Regarding claim 4, Brunner as modified disclose: further comprising an intermediate substrate (each VCSEL of VCSEL array would be formed on a substrate) having the plurality of emitters thereon, wherein the intermediate substrate is on a surface of the first substrate (12), and wherein the fiducial structures (26) extend along edges of the intermediate substrate (substrate of VCSEL array) (Brunner, Fig. 2c, 2d, [0022], [0023], [0028], [0029]).
Regarding claim 5, Brunner as modified disclose: wherein the fiducial structures (26) protrude from a surface of the first substrate (Brunner, Fig. 2c, [0029]).
Regarding claim 20, the apparatus of claim 1 discloses the claimed method (see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 21, the apparatus of claim 2 discloses the claimed method (see the rejection of claim 2).
Regarding claim 22, the apparatus of claim 3 discloses the claimed method (see the rejection of claim 3).
Regarding claim 23, the apparatus of claim 4 discloses the claimed method (see the rejection of claim 4).
Regarding claim 24, the apparatus of claim 5 discloses the claimed method except: transfer-printing the fiducial structures on the first substrate.
The examiner takes official notice that transfer-printing the fiducial structures on the first substrate was well known in the art before the time of filing. For example, see Burroughs et al. (US PG Pub 2018/0301875) ([0065]). 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 Brunner as modified by transfer-printing the fiducial structures on the first substrate in order to integrate different materials and structures onto a single substrate.
Claims 6-19 and 25-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunner et al. (US PG Pub 2009/0080197) in view of Balimann et al. (US PG Pub 2018/0129013) and Sun et al. (US PG Pub 2003/0091084)
Regarding claim 6, Brunner as modified do not explicitly disclose: wherein the at least one optical element comprises a second substrate having edges and/or corners that are aligned based on the one or more alignment patterns.
Sun et al. disclose: optical element (330) comprising a second substrate (350) (Fig. 3, [0029], [0030]). 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 Brunner as modified by forming the optical element on a second substrate in order to support the optical element. The device as modified disclose: a second substrate having edges and/or corners that are aligned based on the one or more alignment patterns.
Regarding claim 7, Brunner as modified disclose: wherein the second substrate comprises a first surface facing the plurality of emitters and a second surface opposite the first surface, wherein the second surface comprises a structured optical surface (Sun, Fig. 3, [0029], [0030]).
Regarding claim 8, Brunner as modified disclose: wherein the first surface of the second substrate directly contacts one or more of the emitters (Brunner, Figs. 2c and 2d, [0028], [0029]).
Regarding claim 9, Brunner as modified do not disclose: wherein the first surface of the second substrate is separated from the emitters by a gap therebetween.
Balimann et al. disclose: optical element is separated from the emitters by a gap (108) therebetween (Fig. 1A, [0028]). 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 Brunner as modified by forming a gap between the first surface of the second substrate and the emitters in order adjust the beam profile of the output beams.
Regarding claim 10, Brunner as modified disclose: further comprising one or more pedestal structures (108) that attach the second substrate to the first substrate (Balimann, Fig. 1A, [0028]), wherein a height of the one or more pedestal structures is configured to provide a portion of a spacing between the emitters and the second surface of the second substrate (Balimann, Fig. 1A, [0028]).
Regarding claim 11, Brunner as modified disclose: an adhesive pattern (340) between the one or more pedestal structures and the first substrate, wherein a thickness of the adhesive pattern is configured to provide a portion of the spacing (Sun, Fig. 3, [0029], [0030], [0031]).
Regarding claim 12, Brunner as modified do not disclose: one or more spacer structures between the first substrate and the first surface of the second substrate, wherein a height of the one or more spacer structures is configured to provide a portion of the spacing.
The examiner takes official notice that one or more spacer structures between the first substrate and the first surface of the second substrate, wherein a height of the one or more spacer structures is configured to provide a portion of the spacing was well known in the art before the time of filing. For example, see Bory et al. (US PG Pub 2020/0098944) which disclose: spacers (27) between the first substrate and optical element (Fig. 4D, [0085]). 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 Brunner as modified by forming spacers between the first substrate and the first surface of the second substrate in order to ensure the distance between the substrate and the optical element is constant over the whole optomechanical system.
Regarding claim 13, Brunner as modified do not disclose: wherein the one or more spacer structures is integral to the second substrate or the second substrate.
However, In accordance with MPEP 2144.04 [R-6], 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 V B, Making Integral: In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice."); but see Schenck v. Nortron Corp., 713 F.2d 782, 218 USPQ 698 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the one or more spacer structures integral to the second substrate or the intermediate substrate since the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.
Regarding claim 14, Brunner as modified do not disclose: wherein the one or more pedestal structures extend onto the second substrate to provide a portion of the spacing.
However, In accordance with MPEP 2144.04 [R-6], 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 V B, Making Integral: In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice."); but see Schenck v. Nortron Corp., 713 F.2d 782, 218 USPQ 698 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the one or more pedestal structures integral and extending into the second substrate since the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.
Regarding claim 15, Brunner as modified disclose: wherein the one or more alignment patterns (angle bars 26) comprise a corner of a frame structure that is positioned adjacent the periphery of the array (Brunner, Figs. 2c and 2d, [0028], [0029]).
Regarding claim 16, Brunner as modified do not disclose: wherein a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the second substrate is greater than that of the first substrate and/or the intermediate substrate.
However, In accordance with MPEP 2144.05 II, Optimization of Ranges: Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In the prior art the general conditions are disclosed, an optical emitter comprising a first substrate, second substrate and/or an intermediate substrate each with a coefficient of thermal expansion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to obtain a workable range of values for the coefficient of thermal expansion for each substrate by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 17, Brunner as modified disclose: wherein respective local optical axes of the structured optical surface are oriented independent of respective optical axes of the plurality of emitters (optical element and emitters are separate elements, optical axes of each are independent) (see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 18, Brunner as modified do not disclose: wherein the structured optical surface comprises a diffractive optical element.
The examiner takes official notice that the structured optical surface comprises a diffractive optical element was well known in the art before the time of filing. For example, see Chua et al. (US PG Pub 20070126010) ([0044]). 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 Brunner as modified by forming a diffractive optical element for the structured optical surface in order to control the phase and amplitude of the output beams.
Regarding claim 19, Brunner as modified disclose: wherein the first substrate and/or the intermediate substrate having the emitters thereon is a non-native substrate (VCSEL are mounted on substrate 12, substrate therefore is non-native) (Brunner, [0022]).
Regarding claim 25, the apparatus of claim 6 discloses the claimed method (see the rejection of claim 6).
Regarding claim 26, the apparatus of claim 7 discloses the claimed method (see the rejection of claim 7).
Regarding claim 27, the apparatus of claim 10 discloses the claimed method (see the rejection of claim 10).
Regarding claim 28, the apparatus of claim 11 discloses the claimed method (see the rejection of claim 11).
Regarding claim 29, the apparatus of claim 15 discloses the claimed method (see the rejection of claim 12).
Regarding claim 30, the apparatus of claim 12 discloses the claimed method (see the rejection of claim 15).
Regarding claim 31, Brunner as modified do not disclose: transferring the emitters from a native source substrate to the first substrate or to the intermediate substrate using a transfer-printing process.
The examiner takes official notice that transferring the emitters from a native source substrate to the first substrate or to the intermediate substrate using a transfer-printing process was well known in the art before the time of filing. For example, see Burroughs et al. (US PG Pub 2018/0301875) ([0065]). 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 Brunner as modified by transfer-printing the emitters from a native source substrate to the first substrate or to the intermediate substrate in order to integrate different materials and structures onto a single substrate.
Regarding claim 32, Brunner as modified do not disclose: wherein the optical emitter device is configured to be coupled to a vehicle and oriented relative to an intended direction of travel of the vehicle.
The examiner takes official notice that the optical emitter device is configured to be coupled to a vehicle and oriented relative to an intended direction of travel of the vehicle was well known in the art before the time of filing. For example, see Gilliland et al. (US PG Pub 2016/0266242) ([0051]). 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 Brunner as modified by coupling the optical emitter device to a vehicle in order to in order to use the optical emitter as a short range ladar sensor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yoon et al. (US PG Pub 2018/0316158) disclose: a vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL) composite assembly includes a VCSEL, a substrate spaced from the VCSEL, and at least one metal layer disposed between the VCSEL and the substrate to facilitate efficient thermal management of the assembly (Abstract). Pierer et al. (US PG Pub 2019/0196201) disclose: systems, devices, and methods of manufacturing optical engines and laser projectors that are well-suited for use in wearable heads-up displays (WHUDs) are described. Generally, the optical engines of the present disclosure integrate a plurality of laser diodes (e.g., 3 laser diodes, 4 laser diodes) within a single, hermetically or partially hermetically sealed, encapsulated package. Photonic integrated circuits having grating or edge couplers thereon may be used to wavelength multiplex beams of light emitted by the plurality of laser diodes into a coaxially superimposed aggregate beam (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
Prosecution Insights