DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 through 34 originally filed 20 April 2023. By preliminary amendment received 20 April 2023; claims 5, 10, 16, 18, 22, 30, 31, and 33 are amended and claim 34 is cancelled. Claims 1 through 33 are addressed by this 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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4).
The description uses the reference characters "409", "411", and "412" to refer to more than one part each. The same reference character must never be used to designate different parts.
In the present case, these reference characters or similar numbers appear in the following locations: "409" is mentioned in ¶66, ¶68, ¶71, ¶72, and ¶73, "411" is mentioned in ¶66, ¶68, ¶69, ¶70, ¶71, ¶72, and ¶73, and "412" is mentioned in ¶66, ¶68, ¶69, ¶70, ¶71, ¶72, and ¶73.
The drawings refer to more than one part each with the reference characters "108". The same part of an invention must be designated with the same reference character throughout the drawings.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5).
The description includes the reference characters "110" and "105′" which do not appear in the drawings. Reference characters mentioned in the description must appear in the drawings.
In the present case, these reference characters or similar numbers appear in the following locations: "110" is mentioned in ¶56 and "105′" is mentioned in ¶56.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1 through 3, 5 through 8, 10, 11, and 20 through 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins et al. (Collins, US Pub. 2006/0274799) in view of Iwata et al. (Iwata, US Pub. 2015/0063393).
Regarding claim 1, Collins discloses, "An active region" (p. [0020] and Fig. 3, pt. 22). "An integrated fuse structure in or on the semiconductor structure" (p. [0020] and Fig. 3, pt. 14). "[The integrated fuse structure] electrically coupled to the first and/or second electrical contacts" (p. [0031] and Fig. 3, pts. 12, 58, and 60). "Wherein the integrated fuse structure is actuatable to provide an electrically open state responsive to a control signal" (p. [0014] and Fig. 3, pt. 14). Collins does not explicitly disclose, "A semiconductor structure comprising an n-type layer." "A p-type layer." "First and second electrical contacts on the n-type layer and the p-type layer, respectively." Iwata discloses, "A semiconductor structure comprising an n-type layer" (p. [0041] and Fig. 2, pt. 21). "A p-type layer" (p. [0047] and Fig. 2, pt. 24). "First and second electrical contacts on the n-type layer and the p-type layer, respectively" (p. [0050], [0052], and Fig. 2, pts. 21, 24, 911, and 921). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Collins with the teachings of Iwata. In view of the teachings of Collins regarding a VCSEL with an integrated fuse, the particular selections of materials for a VCSEL and manner of arranging VCSEL electrodes as taught by Iwata would enhance the teachings of Collins by indicating selections for these necessary features that are suitable for use with the device of Collins.
Regarding claim 2, Collins discloses, "Wherein the integrated fuse structure is electrically coupled in series between the first and second electrical contacts" (p. [0019] and Fig. 1, pts. 12 and 14). "[The integrated fuse structure] is actuatable to provide the electrically open state between the first and second electrical contacts responsive to application of the control signal to the first and/or second electrical contacts" (p. [0014] and Fig. 3, pt. 14, where the ESD pulse corresponds to the claimed control signal).
Regarding claim 3, Collins discloses, "Wherein the control signal comprises a fusing voltage that is greater than an operating voltage of the light emitting device" (p. [0014] and Fig. 3, pt. 14, where the ESD pulse corresponds to the claimed control signal).
Regarding claim 5, Collins does not explicitly disclose, "[The one or more elements] are electrically coupled in series between the first and second electrical contacts." Iwata discloses, "[The one or more elements] are electrically coupled in series between the first and second electrical contacts" (p. [0052] and Fig. 2, pts. 21 and 911). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Collins with the teachings of Iwata for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Collins and Iwata does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the integrated fuse structure has a greater resistance than one or more elements." Collins teaches use of a fusible link that includes a narrow region that necessarily exhibits a higher resistance (Collins, Fig. 3, pt. 60). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the resistance of the fusible link relative to other elements of the device so as to concentrate heat within the fusible link, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 6, Collins does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the semiconductor structure further comprises a conduction layer that laterally extends beyond the active region." "[The conduction layer] includes one of the first and second electrical contacts thereon." "The one or more elements comprises a portion of the conduction layer." Iwata discloses, "Wherein the semiconductor structure further comprises a conduction layer that laterally extends beyond the active region" (p. [0041] and Fig. 2, pts. 21 and 40). "[The conduction layer] includes one of the first and second electrical contacts thereon" (p. [0052] and Fig. 2, pts. 21 and 911). "The one or more elements comprises a portion of the conduction layer" (p. [0041] and Fig. 2, pt. 21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Collins with the teachings of Iwata for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Collins does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the integrated fuse structure comprises one or more dimensions that are less than that of the portion of the conduction layer." Iwata discloses, "Wherein the integrated fuse structure comprises one or more dimensions that are less than that of the portion of the conduction layer" (Figs. 1 and 2, pt. 21, where layer 21 of Iwata extends under the entire laser device and is, necessarily, wider than any fusible region formed by Collins). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Collins with the teachings of Iwata for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, The combination of Collins and Iwata does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the one or more dimensions is between about 0.5 μm (micrometer) to about 3 μm in thickness, about 1 μm to about 300 μm in width, and/or about 1 μm to about 50 μm length." Collins teaches use of a fusible link that includes a narrowed region (Collins, Fig. 3, pt. 60). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a width for the fusible link within the noted ranges so as to facilitate operation thereof, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 10, Collins discloses, "Wherein the light emitting device is a laser diode" (p. [0019] and Fig. 3, pt. 12).
Regarding claim 11, Collins discloses, "Wherein the laser diode is a vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL)" (p. [0019] and Fig. 3, pt. 12).
Regarding claim 20, Collins discloses, "An active region" (p. [0020] and Fig. 3, pt. 22). "Providing an integrated fuse structure in or on the semiconductor structure" (p. [0020] and Fig. 3, pt. 14). "[The integrated fuse structure] electrically coupled to the first and/or second electrical contacts" (p. [0031] and Fig. 3, pts. 12, 58, and 60). "Wherein the integrated fuse structure is actuatable to provide an electrically open state responsive to a control signal" (p. [0014] and Fig. 3, pt. 14). Collins does not explicitly disclose, "Forming a semiconductor structure comprising an n-type layer." "A p-type layer." "Forming first and second electrical contacts on the n-type layer and the p-type layer, respectively." Iwata discloses, "Forming a semiconductor structure comprising an n-type layer" (p. [0041] and Fig. 2, pt. 21). "A p-type layer" (p. [0047] and Fig. 2, pt. 24). "Forming first and second electrical contacts on the n-type layer and the p-type layer, respectively" (p. [0050], [0052], and Fig. 2, pts. 21, 24, 911, and 921). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Collins with the teachings of Iwata for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, Collins discloses, "Wherein the integrated fuse structure is electrically coupled in series between the first and second electrical contacts" (p. [0019] and Fig. 1, pts. 12 and 14). "[The integrated fuse structure] is actuatable to provide the electrically open state between the first and second electrical contacts responsive to application of the control signal to the first and/or second electrical contacts" (p. [0014] and Fig. 3, pt. 14, where the ESD pulse corresponds to the claimed control signal).
Regarding claim 22, Collins does not explicitly disclose, "[The one or more elements] are electrically coupled in series between the first and second electrical contacts." Iwata discloses, "[The one or more elements] are electrically coupled in series between the first and second electrical contacts" (p. [0052] and Fig. 2, pts. 21 and 911). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Collins with the teachings of Iwata for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Collins and Iwata does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the integrated fuse structure has a greater resistance than one or more elements." Collins teaches use of a fusible link that includes a narrow region that necessarily exhibits a higher resistance (Collins, Fig. 3, pt. 60). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the resistance of the fusible link relative to other elements of the device so as to concentrate heat within the fusible link, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 23, Collins does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein forming the semiconductor structure comprises forming a conduction layer that laterally extends beyond the active region." "Forming the first and second electrical contacts comprises forming one of the first and second electrical contacts on the conduction layer." "The one or more elements comprises a portion of the conduction layer." Iwata discloses, "Wherein forming the semiconductor structure comprises forming a conduction layer that laterally extends beyond the active region" (p. [0041] and Fig. 2, pts. 21 and 40). "Forming the first and second electrical contacts comprises forming one of the first and second electrical contacts on the conduction layer" (p. [0052] and Fig. 2, pts. 21 and 911). "The one or more elements comprises a portion of the conduction layer" (p. [0041] and Fig. 2, pt. 21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Collins with the teachings of Iwata for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 24, Collins does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein providing the integrated fuse structure comprises forming the integrated fuse structure with at least one dimension that is less than that of the portion of the conduction layer." Iwata discloses, "Wherein providing the integrated fuse structure comprises forming the integrated fuse structure with at least one dimension that is less than that of the portion of the conduction layer" (Figs. 1 and 2, pt. 21, where layer 21 of Iwata extends under the entire laser device and is, necessarily, wider than any fusible region formed by Collins). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Collins with the teachings of Iwata for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins, in view of Iwata, and further in view of Takahashi (JP Pub. 2009-021506 A).
Regarding claim 4, The combination of Collins and Iwata does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the fusing voltage is about 2.5 to about 4 times the operating voltage." Takahashi discloses, "Wherein the fusing voltage is about 2.5 to about 4 times the operating voltage" (p. [0136]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Collins and Iwata with the teachings of Takahashi. In view of the teachings of Collins regarding a VCSEL with an integrated fuse, the particular selection of a relative fusing voltage as taught by Takahashi would enhance the teachings of Collins and Iwata by indicating selections for this necessary features that are suitable for use with the device of Collins.
Claims 12 through 14, 16 through 19, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins, in view of Iwata, and further in view of Burroughs et al. (Burroughs, US Pub. 2018/0301875).
Regarding claim 12, Collins discloses, "Wherein the light emitting devices respectively comprise a semiconductor structure" (p. [0014] and Fig. 3). "An active region" (p. [0020] and Fig. 3, pt. 22). "An integrated fuse structure in or on the semiconductor structure" (p. [0020] and Fig. 3, pt. 14). "[The integrated fuse structure] electrically coupled to the first and/or second electrical contacts" (p. [0031] and Fig. 3, pts. 12, 58, and 60). "Wherein the integrated fuse structure is actuatable to provide an electrically open state responsive to a control signal" (p. [0014] and Fig. 3, pt. 14). Collins does not explicitly disclose, "[The semiconductor structure] comprising an n-type layer." "A p-type layer." "First and second electrical contacts on the n-type layer and the p-type layer, respectively." Iwata discloses, "[The semiconductor structure] comprising an n-type layer" (p. [0041] and Fig. 2, pt. 21). "A p-type layer" (p. [0047] and Fig. 2, pt. 24). "First and second electrical contacts on the n-type layer and the p-type layer, respectively" (p. [0050], [0052], and Fig. 2, pts. 21, 24, 911, and 921). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Collins with the teachings of Iwata for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Collins and Iwata does not explicitly disclose, "A plurality of light emitting devices electrically connected in series and/or parallel on a substrate." Burroughs discloses, "A plurality of light emitting devices electrically connected in series and/or parallel on a substrate" (p. [0084] and Fig. 6C, pts. 200 and 607). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Collins and Iwata with the teachings of Burroughs. In view of the teachings of Collins regarding a VCSEL with an integrated fuse, the additional inclusion of an array structure in which the lasers may be employed for use with LIDAR as taught by Burroughs would enhance the teachings of Collins and Iwata by allowing the laser device to be employed for a LIDAR device.
Regarding claim 13, Collins discloses, "Wherein the integrated fuse structure is electrically coupled in series between the first and second electrical contacts" (p. [0019] and Fig. 1, pts. 12 and 14). "[The integrated fuse structure] is actuatable to provide the electrically open state between the first and second electrical contacts responsive to application of the control signal to the first and/or second electrical contacts" (p. [0014] and Fig. 3, pt. 14, where the ESD pulse corresponds to the claimed control signal).
Regarding claim 14, Collins discloses, "Wherein the control signal comprises a fusing voltage that is greater than an operating voltage of the light emitting devices" (p. [0014] and Fig. 3, pt. 14, where the ESD pulse corresponds to the claimed control signal).
Regarding claim 16, Collins does not explicitly disclose, "[The one or more elements] are electrically coupled in series between the first and second electrical contacts." Iwata discloses, "[The one or more elements] are electrically coupled in series between the first and second electrical contacts" (p. [0052] and Fig. 2, pts. 21 and 911). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Collins with the teachings of Iwata for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Collins, Iwata, and Burroughs does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the integrated fuse structure has a greater resistance than one or more elements." Collins teaches use of a fusible link that includes a narrow region that necessarily exhibits a higher resistance (Collins, Fig. 3, pt. 60). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the resistance of the fusible link relative to other elements of the device so as to concentrate heat within the fusible link, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 17, Collins does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the semiconductor structure further comprises a conduction layer that laterally extends beyond the active region." "[The conduction layer] includes one of the first and second electrical contacts thereon." "The one or more elements comprises a portion of the conduction layer." Iwata discloses, "Wherein the semiconductor structure further comprises a conduction layer that laterally extends beyond the active region" (p. [0041] and Fig. 2, pts. 21 and 40). "[The conduction layer] includes one of the first and second electrical contacts thereon" (p. [0052] and Fig. 2, pts. 21 and 911). "The one or more elements comprises a portion of the conduction layer" (p. [0041] and Fig. 2, pt. 21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Collins with the teachings of Iwata for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, The combination of Collins and Iwata does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the light emitting devices are laser diodes that are electrically connected in series and/or parallel by thin film interconnects on the substrate." "Wherein the substrate is non-native to the laser diodes." Burroughs discloses, "Wherein the light emitting devices are laser diodes that are electrically connected in series and/or parallel by thin film interconnects on the substrate" (p. [0084] and Fig. 6C, pts. 200 and 607). "Wherein the substrate is non-native to the laser diodes" (p. [0084] and Figs. 6A and 6C, pts. 200 and 613). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Collins and Iwata with the teachings of Burroughs for the reasons provided above regarding claim 12.
Regarding claim 19, Collins discloses, "Wherein the laser diodes are vertical cavity surface emitting lasers (VCSELs)" (p. [0019] and Fig. 3, pt. 12).
Regarding claim 33, The combination of Collins and Iwata does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the emitter array is a light source of a Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) system and/or is configured to be coupled to a vehicle and oriented relative to an intended direction of travel of the vehicle." Burroughs discloses, "Wherein the emitter array is a light source of a Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) system and/or is configured to be coupled to a vehicle and oriented relative to an intended direction of travel of the vehicle" (p. [0052]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Collins and Iwata with the teachings of Burroughs for the reasons provided above regarding claim 12.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins, in view of Iwata, in view of Burroughs, and further in view of Inoue et al. (Inoue, JP Pub. 2003-309293 A).
Regarding claim 15, The combination of Collins, Iwata, and Burroughs does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the light emitting devices are individually addressable for selective application of the control signal to one or more of the light emitting devices." Inoue discloses, "Wherein the light emitting devices are individually addressable for selective application of the control signal to one or more of the light emitting devices" (p. [0040], [0041], and Figs. 8 and 10, pts. 10c, 15c, 16c, and 17c). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Collins, Iwata, and Burroughs with the teachings of Inoue. In view of the teachings of Collins regarding a VCSEL with an integrated fuse and the teachings of Burroughs regarding inclusion of the laser device within an array structure, the alternate operation of individually disabling emitting devices within the array as taught by Inoue would enhance the teachings of Collins, Iwata, and Burroughs by allowing the overall array to still be useful despite the failure of a single emitter.
Claims 26 through 28 and 30 through 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins, in view of Burroughs, and further in view of Inoue.
Regarding claim 26, Collins discloses, "Wherein the at least one of the light emitting devices comprises an integrated fuse structure in or on a semiconductor structure thereof" (p. [0020] and Fig. 3, pt. 14). "[The integrated fuse structure] electrically coupled to first and/or second electrical contacts thereof" (p. [0031] and Fig. 3, pts. 12, 58, and 60). "Applying a control signal to the at least one of the light emitting devices" (p. [0014] and Fig. 3, pt. 14, where the ESD pulse corresponds to the claimed control signal). "Wherein the integrated fuse structure is actuatable to provide an electrically open state responsive to the control signal" (p. [0014] and Fig. 3, pt. 14). Collins does not explicitly disclose, "A plurality of light emitting devices electrically connected in series and/or parallel." "Performing, by one or more control circuits, operations." Burroughs discloses, "A plurality of light emitting devices electrically connected in series and/or parallel" (p. [0084] and Fig. 6C, pts. 200 and 607). "Performing, by one or more control circuits, operations" (p. [0087] and Fig. 6B, pts. 200 and 610). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Collins with the teachings of Burroughs. In view of the teachings of Collins regarding a VCSEL with an integrated fuse, the additional inclusion of an array structure in which the lasers may be employed for use with LIDAR as taught by Burroughs would enhance the teachings of Collins by allowing the laser device to be employed for a LIDAR device.
The combination of Collins and Burroughs does not explicitly disclose, "Detecting a failure of at least one of the light emitting devices." Inoue discloses, "Detecting a failure of at least one of the light emitting devices" (p. [0036]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Collins and Burroughs with the teachings of Inoue. In view of the teachings of Collins regarding a VCSEL with an integrated fuse and the teachings of Burroughs regarding inclusion of the laser device within an array structure, the alternate operation of individually disabling emitting devices within the array as taught by Inoue would enhance the teachings of Collins and Burroughs by allowing the overall array to still be useful despite the failure of a single emitter.
Regarding claim 27, Collins discloses, "Wherein the integrated fuse structure is electrically coupled in series between the first and second electrical contacts" (p. [0019] and Fig. 1, pts. 12 and 14). "[The integrated fuse structure] is actuatable to provide the electrically open state between the first and second electrical contacts responsive to application of the control signal to the first and/or second electrical contacts" (p. [0014] and Fig. 3, pt. 14, where the ESD pulse corresponds to the claimed control signal).
Regarding claim 28, Collins discloses, "Wherein the control signal comprises a fusing voltage that is greater than an operating voltage of the light emitting devices" (p. [0014] and Fig. 3, pt. 14, where the ESD pulse corresponds to the claimed control signal).
Regarding claim 30, The combination of Collins and Burroughs does not explicitly disclose, "Identifying the failure of the at least one of the light emitting devices as an electrical short between the first and second electrical contacts thereof." "Wherein applying the control signal comprises selectively applying the control signal to the first and/or second electrical contacts of the at least one of the light emitting devices responsive to the identifying." Inoue discloses, "Identifying the failure of the at least one of the light emitting devices as an electrical short between the first and second electrical contacts thereof" (p. [0036]). "Wherein applying the control signal comprises selectively applying the control signal to the first and/or second electrical contacts of the at least one of the light emitting devices responsive to the identifying" (p. [0040], [0041], and Figs. 8 and 10, pts. 10c, 15c, 16c, and 17c). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Collins and Burroughs with the teachings of Inoue for the reasons provided above regarding claim 26.
Regarding claim 31, Collins does not explicitly disclose, "[The one or more elements] are electrically coupled in series between the first and second electrical contacts." Burroughs discloses, "[The one or more elements] are electrically coupled in series between the first and second electrical contacts" (p. [0057] and Fig. 2B, pts. 206 and 212). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Collins with the teachings of Burroughs for the reasons provided above regarding claim 26.
The combination of Collins, Burroughs, and Inoue does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the integrated fuse structure has a greater resistance than one or more elements." Collins teaches use of a fusible link that includes a narrow region that necessarily exhibits a higher resistance (Collins, Fig. 3, pt. 60). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the resistance of the fusible link relative to other elements of the device so as to concentrate heat within the fusible link, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 32, Collins discloses, "Wherein the light emitting devices are laser diodes" (p. [0019] and Fig. 3, pt. 12). Collins does not explicitly disclose, "[The laser diodes] are electrically connected in series and/or parallel by thin film interconnects on a substrate." "[The substrate] is non-native to the laser diodes." "[The laser diodes] are individually addressable by the one or more control circuits for selective application of the control signal thereto." Burroughs discloses, "[The laser diodes] are electrically connected in series and/or parallel by thin film interconnects on a substrate" (p. [0084] and Fig. 6C, pts. 200 and 607). "[The substrate] is non-native to the laser diodes" (p. [0084] and Figs. 6A and 6C, pts. 200 and 613). "[The laser diodes] are individually addressable by the one or more control circuits for selective application of the control signal thereto" (p. [0089] and Fig. 6B, pts. 200 and 610). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Collins with the teachings of Burroughs for the reasons provided above regarding claim 26.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins, in view of Burroughs, in view of Inoue, and further in view of Takahashi.
Regarding claim 29, The combination of Collins, Burroughs, and Inoue does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the fusing voltage is about 2.5 to about 4 times the operating voltage." Takahashi discloses, "Wherein the fusing voltage is about 2.5 to about 4 times the operating voltage" (p. [0136]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Collins, Burroughs, and Inoue with the teachings of Takahashi. In view of the teachings of Collins regarding a VCSEL with an integrated fuse, the particular selection of a relative fusing voltage as taught by Takahashi would enhance the teachings of Collins, Burroughs, and Inoue by indicating selections for this necessary features that are suitable for use with the device of Collins.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 25 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 9 depends from claims 1, 5, 6, and 7. This combination of claims is drawn to a light emitting device that includes an integrated fuse structure. The device includes electrical contacts on the doped layers and a conduction layer in series between these electrical contacts. The conduction layer is designed to laterally extend beyond the active region and include one of the electrical contacts thereon. Notably, the integrated fuse is a portion of and integral to the conduction layer.
Collins is notable for teaching a laser device with an integrated fuse structure. However, the fuse structure is implemented in a trace provided atop the laser device and is not a part of and integral to any element that meets every requirement of the conduction layer.
Simin et al. (Simin, US Pub. 2017/0077085) is notable for teaching a laser device with an integrated fuse structure. Simin also includes a conduction layer that extends beyond the active layer. However, the fuse structure is implemented atop the conduction layer rather than as a part of the conduction layer.
The prior art does not teach or render obvious any arrangement that provides every feature of the conduction layer and the integrated fuse structure. As such, claim 9 contains allowable subject matter.
Claim 25 depends from claims 20 through 24. Claim 25 is drawn to a method of fabricating a light emitting device similar to that which is claimed in claim 9 and requires every feature noted above leading to the indication of allowable subject matter within claim 9. As such, claim 25 also includes allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean P Hagan whose telephone number is (571)270-1242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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.
/SEAN P HAGAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2828