Non-Final Rejection
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . By preliminary amendment, claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-12, 15-16, and 18-20 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated and the specification explicitly calls it prior art. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 4, each of the claim 4 options requires either explicitly or implicitly that the driver and emitter are on the same side of the support. This made sense prior to the preliminary amendment, but that amendment changed claim 1 to require that the driver and emitter are mounted on first and second opposite sides of the support. The examiner fails to see how a device can meet claim 4 and 1 and the same time, they are contradictory and therefore claim 4 does not include the features of parent claim 1, it is not further limiting.
Claims 4-14 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.
Regarding claim 4, as above claim 4 contradicts parent claim 1. The claim is therefore indefinite as the scope is not clear. The examiner cannot apply art against the claim due to the contradiction.
Regarding claim 5 and dependent claims, claim 5 requires “the support member comprises one or more electrical conductors such as one or more electrically-conductive tracks and/or one or more electrically-conductive pads.” The use of “such as” is indefinite because it is not clear if applicant intends that the terms following are merely exemplary or are actually required in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3, 15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2019/0121141 (“Dykaar”).
Regarding claim 1, Dykaar discloses in Figs. 1A-B and discussion thereof an illumination system comprising:
a support member 102;
an optical emitter device 102a-d mounted on the support member;
an electrical driver 114 mounted on the support member; and
one or more electrically conductive connections between the electrical driver and the optical emitter device 116, wherein the electrical driver is configured to supply an electrical signal to the optical emitter device via the one or more electrically conductive connections ([0054]: “The laser diode driver circuit 114 is operatively coupled to the plurality of laser diodes 110 via suitable electrical connections 116 to selectively drive current to the plurality of laser diodes.”), and
wherein the support member comprises a thermally-conductive ceramic material (materials in [0052]), and
wherein the electrical driver is mounted on a first side of the support member and the optical emitter device is mounted on a second side of the support member, wherein the second side of the support member is opposite to the first side of the support member (apparent in Figs. 1A-B).
Regarding claim 2, first note that this and many of the claims require “at least one of” several limitations. The broadest reasonable interpretation means that only one of these needs to be met to meet the claims. Dykaar describes several of the claimed materials. [0052].
Regarding claim 3, as apparent in Figs. 1A-B the support member extends between the driver and the emitter.
Regarding claim 15, there is a transparent cover member 130 that is attached to the support via sidewalls 122 and the cover is transparent to light emitted by the lasers. [0056]-[0058].
Regarding claims 17-18, the emitter device is an array or plurality of VCSELs. [0053].
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 5-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dykaar in view of US 8,378,475 (“Veitch”).
Regarding claims 5-6, and 9, Dykaar does not explain how the connection happens between the driver and emitters, so does not describe the conductors within the support member. Veitch describes a similar device with emitter and driver on opposing sides of a support and discloses that the support may have electrical conductors on the outer surface of the support and also extending through the support. Col. 2 line 10 – col. 3 line 7; see Fig. 2 conductors 72 through support. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include various conductions on the outer surface or through and within the support as claimed, as the person of ordinary skill will recognize that some kind of electrical connection needs to be made between the lasers and driver, and including connections either within the support or on the outer surface of the support (alternatives in claim 5) seems to cover the only ways to do it. The driver and emitter will likewise have one or more electrically-conductive contacts as required in claims 6 and 9, so as to connect the driver and emitters to the through conductors of the support, and ultimately to each other. See Fig. 5, showing solder bumps from ASIC driver to the support, and wire bonds from the device array to the support.
Regarding claims 7 and 10, Veitch in Fig. 5 also includes a potting material, i.e. a filler material, between the driver and emitter and the support member. Potting materials are generally electrically insulative, and they would be in Veitch, or else everything is going to be shorted. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a potting material as it is a known thing in the art that encapsulates and protects electronics.
Regarding claims 8 and 11, Veitch also clearly shows in Fig. 5 wire bonds connecting to the emitter, and they are encapsulated in the potting material as claimed. While wire bonds are not shown for the driver, they are clearly a known alternative as shown for the emitter. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to choose as an alternative means of making the electrical connection.
Regarding claims 12-14, Dykaar does not show an electrical interconnection member as claimed. Veitch shows a similar carrier support member that is mounted on an electrical interconnection member. See Figs. 5-7 showing bumps for contacting the support to an application board. It is apparent that this may be a circuit board or wiring substrate. Col. 2 lines 10-26; col. 5 lines 40-50. In some cases (like Figs. 5 and 7) the driver will be disposed between the electrical interconnection and the emitter, as in claim 14. It is apparent that this will be the power source and there will be conductors in or through the support to provide an electrical connection to the driver—there is no other external connection shown and the driver must get power somehow, so this would be understood to a person skilled in the art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include such an interconnection member in Dykaar as the laser system is not intended to float in space and the driver will need some sort of connection to a power source, so mounting on a circuit board is a natural thing to do.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dykaar in view of US 6,348,763 to Collins (“Collins”).
Dykaar does not disclose a safety circuit as claimed. Collins teaches that a lighting system may have a cover with a safety switch to turn off the lighting device when the cover is removed. Col. 2 lines 39-50. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include such a mechanism to prevent exposure of maintenance personnel to harmful light, as taught by Collins. While Collins uses a different type of light, this teaching is equally applicable here as laser light is often harmful to people. While Collins is not clear as to the operation, a person of ordinary skill would recognize that it is a switch extending to the cover and would turn off the driver signal, as that is how the laser gets power.
Claims 1-3, 5-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veitch in view of Dykaar.
Regarding claim 1, Veitch discloses in Figs. 4-7 and discussion thereof an illumination system comprising:
a support member 50 (see Fig. 5);
an optical emitter device (device array Fig. 5) mounted on the support member;
an electrical driver 70 mounted on the support member; and
one or more electrically conductive connections between the electrical driver and the optical emitter device, wherein the electrical driver is configured to supply an electrical signal to the optical emitter device via the one or more electrically conductive connections (it is a driver, [0034], a person skilled in the art would understand that there must be an electrical connection to the emitters. See also Figs. 2-3, which show conductive paths in the support between the corresponding parts 40 and 60. [0016], [0022], [0028].), and
wherein the electrical driver is mounted on a first side of the support member and the optical emitter device is mounted on a second side of the support member, wherein the second side of the support member is opposite to the first side of the support member (apparent in any of the cited Figs.).
Veitch is not clear that the support member comprises a thermally-conductive ceramic material. It does call it ceramic, and generally wants a thermal path to the exterior, see [0023], but it is nonetheless not explicit. Dykaar shows a similar laser system with laser on top and driver on bottom of a support, and the support is made of thermally-conductive ceramic. See 102 rejection above, [0052]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use such materials as a person skilled in the art will recognize they will help heat dissipation.
Regarding claim 2, as noted above it would have been obvious to use Dykaar’s support member materials, and Dykaar describes several of the claimed materials. [0052].
Regarding claim 3, as apparent in Fig. 5 the support member extends between the driver and the emitter. There are also recesses on each side for the emitter and driver and they overlap vertically.
Regarding claims 5-6, and 9, Veitch describes in the Figs. 1-2 embodiments a similar device with emitter and driver on opposing sides of a support and discloses that the support may have electrical conductors on the outer surface of the support and also extending through the support. Col. 2 line 10 – col. 3 line 7; see Fig. 2 conductors 72 through support. To the extent this is not shown in the Figs. 5-7 embodiments, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include various conductions on the outer surface or through and within the support as claimed, as the person of ordinary skill will recognize that some kind of electrical connection needs to be made between the lasers and driver, and including connections either within the support or on the outer surface of the support (alternatives in claim 5) seems to cover the only ways to do it. The driver and emitter will likewise have one or more electrically-conductive contacts as required in claims 6 and 9, so as to connect the driver and emitters to the through conductors of the support, and ultimately to each other. See Fig. 5, showing solder bumps from ASIC driver to the support, and wire bonds from the device array to the support, implying there must be some electrical connection therein.
Regarding claims 7 and 10, Veitch in Fig. 5 also includes a potting material, i.e. a filler material, between the driver and emitter and the support member. Potting materials are generally electrically insulative, and they would be in Veitch, or else everything is going to be shorted.
Regarding claims 8 and 11, Veitch also clearly shows in Fig. 5 wire bonds connecting to the emitter, and they are encapsulated in the potting material as claimed. While wire bonds are not shown for the driver, they are clearly a known alternative as shown for the emitter. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to choose as an alternative means of making the electrical connection.
Regarding claims 12-14, Veitch shows a carrier support member that is mounted on an electrical interconnection member. See Figs. 5-7 showing bumps for contacting the support to an application board. It is apparent that this may be a circuit board or wiring substrate. Col. 2 lines 10-26; col. 5 lines 40-50. In some cases (like Figs. 5 and 7) the driver will be disposed between the electrical interconnection and the emitter, as in claim 14. It is apparent that this will be the power source and there will be conductors in or through the support to provide an electrical connection to the driver—there is no other external connection shown and the driver must get power somehow, so this would be understood to a person skilled in the art. It also would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the laser system is not intended to float in space and the driver will need some sort of connection to a power source, so mounting on a circuit board is a natural thing to do.
Regarding claim 15, there is not shown a transparent cover member. Dykaar shows a transparent cover 130 that is attached to the support via sidewalls 122 and the cover is transparent to light emitted by the lasers. [0056]-[0058]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a cover rather than the lens output of Veitch as a simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143 I.B. Veitch differs from the claim in the particular way the laser is output from the support, but this is in Dykaar. A person of ordinary skill could have used either manner of output depending on their particular application, and the result would have been predictable—each is just providing an output for the generated beam, the operation will not substantially differ, this is completely predictable.
Regarding claims 17-18, the emitter device is an array or plurality of VCSELs. Fig. 4, [0033].
Regarding claim 19, the device may be attached to a “sensor board” so this may be called a sensing system. [0034].
Regarding claim 20, Veitch further states that the array may have both VCSELs and photodiodes. Col. 1 lines 41-50; col. 5 lines 36-39. A person of ordinary skill would understand that a photodiode is configured to generate an electrical signal representative of a power of an optical signal received by it as claimed. The examiner takes Official Notice it is well known in a laser system to use a signal sensed by a photodetector in a feedback arrangement to control the laser output, and it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to do so as it permits control of the laser so that you get your desired output.
The rest of the claim is stated to be optional, so under the broadest reasonable interpretation it need not occur.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veitch and Dykaar as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Collins.
Veitch and Dykaar do not disclose a safety circuit as claimed. Collins teaches that a lighting system may have a cover with a safety switch to turn off the lighting device when the cover is removed. Col. 2 lines 39-50. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include such a mechanism to prevent exposure of maintenance personnel to harmful light, as taught by Collins. While Collins uses a different type of light, this teaching is equally applicable here as laser light is often harmful to people. While Collins is not clear as to the operation, a person of ordinary skill would recognize that it is a switch extending to the cover and would turn off the driver signal, as that is how the laser gets power.
Conclusion
Other references are cited showing laser and driver on opposite sides of a support.
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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES A MENEFEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights