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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/02/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 and 17 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claim 4 and 17 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference to Kyomoto (US Patent Publication Number 2007/0297061 A1). Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
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 9 is 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 9, the phrase “preferably by at least 20 nm” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the sake of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the phrase is not to be considered.
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, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyomoto (US Patent Publication Number 2007/0297061 A1).
Kyomoto teaches, as claimed in claim 1, an optoelectronic assembly (Fig. 14) comprising at least three semiconductor components (41R, 41B, 41G) configured to emit electromagnetic radiation (¶0023, “red, green and blue LED's 41R, 41G and 41B “), and an optical superpositioning element (43) having at least one radiation inlet surface (top, left and bottom surface) and exactly one radiation outlet surface (right surface), wherein the optical superpositioning element (43) comprises one continuous body, an optical element (42B, 42G and 42R) is assigned to each semiconductor component (41R, 41B, 41G), each semiconductor component emits an inlet beam bundle or a plurality of spatially separated inlet beam bundles (see bundle of light coming from 41R, 41B and 41G), all inlet beam bundles of a semiconductor laser component pass the respectively associated optical element (42B, 42G and 42R), a plurality of inlet beam bundles emitted by a semiconductor component (41R, 41B, 41G) being fanned out with respect to one another after passing through the optical element in such a way that the inlet beam bundles enter the optical superpositioning element at different entry angles (Fig. 14 shows the light is separated and enters 43 at different angles), and inlet beam bundles from different semiconductor laser components emerge from the radiation outlet surface (right surface) of the optical superpositioning element (43) in a plurality of outlet beam bundles superimposed with each other (see output light going to element 44), Kyomoto fails to explicitly teach semiconductor laser components. However, Kyomoto teaches in ¶0019 “It is possible to use solid semiconductor light emitting elements, such as lasers, laser diodes or light emitting diodes (LED's), which are safe for the eyes, as the light emitting elements” and ¶0141” there are lasers having such properties as to be safe for the eyes, laser diodes, organic EL (electroluminescence), charge releasing elements and the like as substitute light emitting elements for the respective LED's 51R, 51G and 51B, and these substitutes may be used as the light source”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified, the optoelectronic assembly, as taught by Kyomoto, with semiconductor laser components, as taught by Kyomoto, for the purpose of providing properties that are safe for the eyes (¶0141).
Kyomoto teaches, as in claim 3, in which the optical elements (42B, 42G and 42R) have a distance from the optical superpositioning element (43).
Kyomoto teaches, as in claim, 4, which includes wherein the distance of each optical element is adjusted such that the inlet beam bundles from different semiconductor laser components emerge from the radiation outlet surface of the optical superpositioning element in common outlet beam bundles superposed with each other1.
Kyomoto teaches, as in claim 7, in which different inlet beam bundles of a semiconductor laser component have different main wavelengths (¶0023, “red, green and blue LED's 41R, 41G and 41B”).
Kyomoto teaches, as in claim 8, which corresponding inlet beam bundles of different semiconductor laser components (42B, 42G and 42R) have a different main (¶0023, “red, green and blue LED's 41R, 41G and 41B").
Kyomoto teaches, as in claim 9, wherein the main wavelengths of inlet beam bundles of different semiconductor laser components2.
Kyomoto teaches, as in claim 11, wherein at least one beam of an inlet beam bundle impinges on the optical element (30) outside an optical axis (301) of the optical element
Kyomoto teaches, as in claim 12, wherein the optical elements (42B, 42G and 42R) are formed with the same geometrical dimensions (Fig. 14).
Kyomoto teaches, as in claim 13, which the optical elements (42B, 42G and 42R) are formed as collimating lenses (Fig. 14 shows the light coming from the lenses being parallel).
Kyomoto teaches, as in claim 14, wherein the semiconductor laser components emit equal numbers of inlet beam bundles (Fig. 14).
Kyomoto teaches, as in claim, 17, an optoelectronic assembly (Fig. 14) comprising at least three semiconductor components (41R, 41B, 41G) configured to emit electromagnetic radiation (¶0023, “red, green and blue LED's 41R, 41G and 41B “), wherein an optical superpositioning element (43) having at least one radiation inlet surface (top, left and bottom surface), an optical element (42B, 42G and 42R) is assigned to each semiconductor component (41R, 41B, 41G), each semiconductor component emits an inlet beam bundle or a plurality of spatially separated inlet beam bundles (see bundle of light coming from 41R, 41B and 41G), all inlet beam bundles of a semiconductor laser component pass the respectively associated optical element (42B, 42G and 42R), a plurality of inlet beam bundles emitted by a semiconductor component (41R, 41B, 41G) being fanned out with respect to one another after passing through the optical element in such a way that the inlet beam bundles enter the optical superpositioning element at different entry angles (Fig. 14 shows the light is separated and enters 43 at different angles), and inlet beam bundles from different semiconductor laser components emerge from the radiation outlet surface (right surface) of the optical superpositioning element (43) in a plurality of outlet beam bundles superimposed with each other (see output light going to element 44), wherein the distance of each optical element is adjusted such that the inlet beam bundles from different semiconductor laser components emerge from the radiation outlet surface of the optical superpositioning element in common outlet beam bundles superposed with each other3.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyomoto (US Patent Publication Number 2007/0297061 A1) in view of Van Der Veer (WO Patent Publication Number 2008/029337 A1).
Kyomoto fails to teach, as in claim 2, wherein the optical elements are a part of the optical superpositioning element. In a related art, Van Der Veer teaches wherein the optical elements (12) are a part of the optical superpositioning element (1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified, the optoelectronic assembly, as taught by modified Kyomoto, with the optical elements, as taught by Van der Veer, for the purpose of providing control of the light beam exiting the beam combiner (Page 2, line 13).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyomoto (US Patent Publication Number 2007/0297061 A1) in view of Craig (US Patent Number 5,761,234 A).
Kyomoto fails to teach, as in claim 5, wherein each semiconductor laser component comprises a plurality of waveguides each emitting an inlet beam bundle. In a related art, Craig teaches wherein each semiconductor laser component (15) comprises a plurality of waveguides (151-15x) each emitting an inlet beam bundle (Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified, the optoelectronic assembly, as taught by modified Kyomoto, with the semiconductor laser component, as taught by Craig, for the purpose of providing a turning mirror array which provides for common size divergence or beam symmetry in both orthogonal beam dimensions (Col. 5, lines 47-48).
Kyomoto fails to teach, as in claim 6, wherein the waveguides of a semiconductor laser component are independently drivable. In a related art, Craig teaches wherein the waveguides (151-15x) of a semiconductor laser component are independently drivable (28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified, the optoelectronic assembly, as taught by Kyomoto and Craig, with the semiconductor laser component, as taught by Craig, for the purpose of providing a turning mirror array which provides for common size divergence or beam symmetry in both orthogonal beam dimensions (Col. 5, lines 47-48).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyomoto (US Patent Publication Number 2007/0297061 A1) in view of Mura (US Patent Publication Number 2018/0231882 A1).
Kyomoto fails to teach, as in claim 10, which differences in the main wavelengths of the inlet beam bundles of each of a semiconductor laser component differ from one another by at least 0.5 nm. In a related art, Mura teaches which differences in the main wavelengths of the inlet beam bundles of each of a semiconductor laser component (10A-10C) differ from one another by at least 0.5 nm (¶0077 “light source 10A =450 nm, light source 10B = 520 nm and light source 10C =640 nm”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified, the optoelectronic assembly, as taught by modified Kyomoto, with the semiconductor laser component, as taught by Mura, for the purpose of providing a way so at the polarized light at the time of entrance and the polarized light at the time of output may be different from each other (¶0088).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyomoto (US Patent Publication Number 2007/0297061 A1) in view of Liu (CN Patent Publication Number 107085314 A).
Kyomoto fails to teach, as in claim 15, wherein at least one semiconductor laser component has a constant waveguide distance. In a related art, Liu teaches wherein at least one semiconductor laser component has a constant waveguide distance (Page 3, paragraph 9 “the distance between the ridge waveguides 11 of any two adjacent semiconductor laser tubes 1 is preferably the range is 8 to 500 μm”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified, the optoelectronic assembly, as taught by modified Kyomoto, with the semiconductor laser component, as taught by Liu, for the purpose of providing a way to obtain a low coherence laser light source (Page 3, paragraph 7).
Kyomoto fails to teach, as in claim 16, wherein the waveguide distances of all semiconductor laser components are equal. In a related art, Liu teaches herein the waveguide distances of all semiconductor laser components are equal (Page 3, paragraph 9 “the distance L between the ridge waveguides 11 of any two adjacent semiconductor laser tubes 1 is preferably the range is 8 to 500 μm”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified, the optoelectronic assembly, as taught by Kyomoto and Liu, with the semiconductor laser component, as taught by Liu, for the purpose of providing a way to obtain a low coherence laser light source (Page 3, paragraph 7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOURNEY F SUMLAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0656. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4pm.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
JOURNEY F. SUMLAR
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
10 July 2026
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 It is implicit that the light is uniform on the way out for proper operation. If the light is not uniform, the system would have white light in the center e.g. a red ring of light.
2 The wavelengths centers of red blue and green sources are inherently at least 10 nm apart since at blue is separated from green by cyan (485-500nm) and green is separated from red by yellow (565-590nm) and orange (590-625nm).
3 It is implicit that the light is uniform on the way out for proper operation. If the light is not uniform, the system would have white light in the center e.g. a red ring of light.
Prosecution Insights