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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/07/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that prior art of record Mura fails to teach plurality of inlet beam bundles emitted by a semiconductor laser component 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. The examiner respectfully disagrees since Mura teaches in Fig. 21 plurality of inlet beam bundles (bundles coming from sources 10A-10c) emitted by a semiconductor laser component being fanned out with respect to one another 1after passing through the optical element (20A-20c) in such a way that the inlet beam bundles enter the optical superpositioning element (31a and 3b) at different entry angles (each beam enters 31A and 31B) at different entry angles (see light coming into 31A and 31b from the left (20a), bottom (20b) and the angle bottom (20C) optical elements ).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim 1, 3 and 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mura (US Patent Publication Number 2018/0231882 A1).
Mura teaches, as in claim 1, an optoelectronic assembly (Fig. 16) comprising at least two semiconductor laser components (10A-10C) configured to emit electromagnetic radiation (¶0108 “use of laser with a high polarization ratio for the light sources 10A and 10B) and an optical superpositioning element (31A) having at least one radiation inlet surface (the front surface where the lights enter element 31A) and one radiation outlet surface (the back surface where the lights exit element 31A), wherein an optical element (20A-20C) is assigned to each semiconductor laser component (10A and 10B), each semiconductor laser component (10A-10C) emits an inlet beam bundle (¶0070 “light source 10A to be equal to a directivity angle of parallel light… second light source 10B into substantially parallelized light... the third light source 10C into substantially parallelized light”) all inlet beam bundles (Fig. 4) of a semiconductor laser component (10A and 10B) pass the respectively associated optical element (20A-20C), a plurality of inlet beam bundles (“parallelized light”) emitted by a semiconductor laser component (10A and 10B) being fanned out with respect to one another after passing through the optical element (20A-20C) in such a way that the inlet beam bundles (“parallelized light”) enter the optical superpositioning element (31A) at different entry angles (see the orientation of light coming from 10A vs 10B), and inlet beam bundles (“parallelized light”) from different semiconductor laser components (10A and 10B) emerge from the radiation outlet surface (back surface of 31A) of the optical superpositioning element (30) in a plurality of outlet beam bundles (see LB(P) LG(P) & LR(S) and LG(S)) superimposed with each other.
Mura teaches, as in claim 3, in which the optical elements (20A-20C) have a distance from the optical superpositioning element (31A).
Mura teaches, as in claim 7, an which different inlet beam bundles of a semiconductor laser component have different main wavelengths (¶0077).
Mura teaches, as in claim 8, which corresponding inlet beam bundles of different semiconductor laser components (10A-10C) have a different main wavelength (¶0077 “first light source 10A may emit the light (blue light)... second light source 10B may emit the light (green light)… the third light source 10C may emit the light (red light)”) .
Mura teaches, as in claim 9, wherein the main wavelengths of inlet beam bundles of different semiconductor laser components (10A-10C) differ by at least 10 nm, preferably by at least 20 nm (¶0077 light source 10A =450 nm, light source 10B = 520 nm and light source 10C =640 nm).
Mura teaches, as in claim 10, 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).
Mura 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
Mura teaches, as in claim 12, wherein the optical elements (20A-20C) are formed with the same geometrical dimensions2 (¶0070).
Mura teaches, as in claim 13, which the optical elements (20A-20C) are formed as collimating lenses (¶0070 “substantially parallelized light”).
Mura teaches, as in claim 14, wherein the semiconductor laser components emit equal numbers of inlet beam bundles (Fig. 5 and Fig 6 shows the configuration for the lights source 10A, 10B, 10C which Fig. 6 shows each light source would emit 3 beams).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mura (US Patent Publication Number 2018/0231882 A1) in view of Van Der Veer (WO Patent Publication Number 2008/029337 A1).
Mura 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 Mura 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 Mura (US Patent Publication Number 2018/0231882 A1) in view of Craig (US Patent Number 5,761,234 A).
Mura 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 Mura, 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).
Mura 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 Mura 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).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mura (US Patent Publication Number 2018/0231882 A1) in view of Liu (CN Patent Publication Number 107085314 A).
Mura 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 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 Mura, 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).
Mura 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 Mura 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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 prior art fails to simultaneously teach all the limitations of 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 other.
Claims 17 is allowed.
The prior art fails to simultaneously teach all the limitations of claim 17 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 other.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
19 March 2026
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 The examiner interprets by the phrase phased out that the beams are separated and enter the element at different angles.
2 Each lens is formed as a coupling lens and each lens is substantially parallelized light for the corresponding light source.