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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed05/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that reliance on Yoshikawa is improper because Yoshikawa is non-analogous art and does not address the problem solved by the claimed arrangement. In response to applicant's argument that Nemoto does not establish an symmetric source population to compensate for conversion inefficiency while preserving subsequent electrical adjustability, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
In response to the argument that Yoshikawa is non-analogous art,
In response to applicant's argument that Yoshikawa is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Examiner notes MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I) which states “A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).” In the instant case, Yoshikawa is from the same field of endeavor as both Nemoto and Yoshikawa are directed toward surface emitting lasers as stated in at least paragraph [0017] of Nemoto and paragraph [0043] of Yoshikawa. Further, Yoshikawa discloses in paragraph [0092] that the polarization control can be applied to other application for simplifying the system.
Applicant states that the Office Action’s stated motivation for implementing the larger amount of specific polarization directions of lasers as shown in Yoshikawa does not supply the required articulated reasoning with rational underpinning for the obviousness rejection.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement the larger number of lasers with a first polarization direction in relation to a second polarization direction for the purpose of having a desired amount of light from each polarization direction. This is disclosed in paragraph [0072] of Yoshikawa where it is disclosed that a desired percentage value of light can have the desired polarization direction and further disclosed in paragraph [0092] of Yoshikawa where the polarization control can simplify the system.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In the instant case, the motivation to combine was taken from the disclosure of the reference of Yoshikawa.
Page 9 of the remarks filed on 05/12/2026 discloses that the rejection fails to properly address the limitation that “the first laser diodes and the second laser diodes comprise a corresponding maximum optical output power”. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., an asymmetrical radiation intensity results for the same energization of the laser diodes and that the “corresponding maximum optical output power” requirement is a structural constraint on the source populations) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The limitations of claim 1 simply state that the first laser diodes and the second laser diodes comprise a corresponding maximum optical output power. The limitations of the claim do not relate the optical output power of the first and second laser diodes to structural differences between the two laser diodes or the relation of the optical output powers of the first and second laser diodes to one another.
In response to applicant's argument that the specification of the claimed application that a laser diode array with first and second laser diodes of the same power and different numbers of light sources for the two polarization directions, in combination with a modular housing concept, simplifies production while realized a basic setting for a radiation-intensity distribution for blue and excitation channels. Further, that the claimed arrangements solves both problems by providing a hardware-level base weighting and fine electrical adjustability on the carrier. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Regarding the remarks directed towards claims 10 and 11 on page 10 of the remarks filed 05/12/2026, Examiner notes again the argument of the current prior art of record being analogous art as disclosed in MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/06/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Rejection on 02/23/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 05/12/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
The previous objection to the drawings regarding “an electrical wiring for the laser diode array” as recited in claim 1, has been withdrawn in light of the submission of the drawings received on 05/12/2026. The previous objection to the drawings regarding the limitation of “the first laser housing and the second laser housing are designed differently” has been withdrawn in light of the remarks filed 05/12/2026.
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 1-4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemoto et al. (hereinafter Nemoto) (JP H0722706 A) in view of Takiguchi et al. (hereinafter Takiguchi) (WO 2020162023 A1) and Yoshikawa et al. (hereinafter Yoshikawa) (JP H08181391 A).
(Examiner notes attached machine translations of Nemoto and Yoshikawa and the US publication (US 20220077649 A1) of Takiguchi will be used for the claim mapping of Nemoto and Takiguchi for the remainder of the instant Office Action . See PTO-892 form)
Regarding claim 1, Nemoto discloses
A laser diode arrangement for a laser projection device [Fig. 1] (Paras. [0024,0057]), comprising:
a carrier [1 Fig. 1] (Para. [0024]);
a laser diode array [lasers 20 Fig. 1] (Para. [0024]) arranged on the carrier [1 Fig. 1] (Para. [0024]), comprising a first light group [group of 20 with “a” polarization Figs. 1 and 2] (Para. [0024]) having a plurality of first laser diodes [20 with “a” polarization Fig. 1] and a second light group [group of 20 with “b” polarization Figs. 1 and 2] (Para. [0024]) having a plurality of second laser diodes [20 with “b” polarization Fig. 1],
wherein the first light group emits linearly polarized electromagnetic radiation with a first polarization direction [“a” Figs. 1 and 2] (Para. [0024]) and the second light group emits linearly polarized electromagnetic radiation with a second polarization direction [“b” Figs. 1 and 2] (Para. [0024]) and
the first polarization direction [“a” Figs. 1 and 2] and the second polarization direction [“b” Figs. 1 and 2] are perpendicular to one another (Para. [0015]),
wherein the first laser diodes [20 with “a” polarization Fig. 1] and the second laser diodes [20 with “b” polarization Fig. 1] comprise a corresponding maximum optical output power (see note below); and
an electrical wiring [22 Fig. 7] (Paras. [0013,0051]) for the laser diode array [20 Fig. 7] (Para. [0013]) is arranged on the carrier [1 Fig. 7] (Para. [0051]) in such a way that the current intensity at the first laser diodes [20 with “a” polarization Fig. 1]can be set continuously and independently of the current supply to the second laser diodes [20 with “b” polarization Fig. 1] (Para. [0051]).
Examiner notes that all laser diodes inherently have a maximum optical output power they are capable of reaching.
Nemoto fails to disclose,
characterized in that the first light group comprises at least a first laser housing accommodating at least a first laser diode; and
the second light group comprises at least a second laser housing accommodating at least a second laser diode; and
the number of first laser diodes of the laser diode array corresponds to at least twice the number of second laser diodes,
Takiguchi discloses in Fig. 1,
a laser housing [14] (Para. [0066]) accommodating at least a laser diode [11] (Para. [0067])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a laser housing around each light emitting unit as shown in Takiguchi with the lasers in the laser diode array of Nemoto for the purpose of forming an airtight housing space. (Takiguchi Para. [0073])
Nemoto in view of Takiguchi fails to disclose,
the number of first laser diodes of the laser diode array corresponds to at least twice the number of second laser diodes
Yoshikawa discloses in Fig. 17,
A number of first lasers [123 shown by white dots Fig. 17] (Para. [0074]) with a first polarization direction (Para. [0074]) of a laser array [Fig. 17] corresponds to at least twice the number of second lasers [120 shown by horizontal lines in dots Fig. 17] (Para. [0074]) with a second polarization direction (Para. [0074])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the larger number of lasers in a first polarization direction relative to the amount of laser diodes in a second polarization direction as shown in Yoshikawa with the laser diodes of the modified device of Nemoto for the purpose of controlling the amount of light from each desired polarization direction. (Yoshikawa Paras. [0072,0074])
Regarding claim 2, Nemoto in view of Takiguchi and Yoshikawa discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses,
characterized in that the number of first laser diodes [Nemoto 20 with “a” polarization Fig. 1] of the laser diode array corresponds to at most five times the number of second laser diodes [Nemoto 20 with “b” polarization Fig. 1] .
Examiner notes Yoshikawa discloses in paragraph [0070] that each array (corresponding to rows shown in Fig. 17) includes eight lasers. Therefore, the number of lasers of a polarization direction shown with lasers of 123 equates to 5 rows of 8 lasers (40 total) and the amount of laser of a polarization direction shown with lasers of 120 equates to 2 rows of 8 lasers (16 total). These amounts fall under the maximum amount limited in the claim of at most 5 times.
Regarding claim 3, Nemoto in view of Takiguchi and Yoshikawa discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses,
characterized in that the first laser diode [Nemoto 20 with “a” polarization Fig. 1] and the second laser diode [Nemoto 20 with “b” polarization Fig. 1] are identical in construction (See Nemoto Fig. 4) (Nemoto Paras. [0024,0029]) and the first laser housing [housing shown in Takiguchi Fig. 1] and the second laser housing [housing shown in Takiguchi Fig. 1] are of matching design [housing shown in Takiguchi Fig. 1], wherein in each case a housing axis [direction laser 20 is facing Nemoto] (Nemoto Para. [0017,0024]) is present which predetermines the polarization direction (Nemoto Para. [0017,0024]), and the first laser housings [housing shown in Takiguchi Fig. 1] assigned to the first light group [Nemoto lasers 20 with “a” polarization Fig. 1] being arranged on the carrier [Nemoto 1 Fig. 1] (Nemoto Para. [0024]) in such a way that their housing axes are perpendicular to those of the second laser housings assigned to the second light group [Nemoto lasers 20 with “b” polarization Fig. 1] (Nemoto Paras. [0017,0024])
Regarding claim 4, Nemoto in view of Takiguchi and Yoshikawa discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses,
characterized in that the first laser diode [lasers 20 with “a” polarization Nemoto Fig. 1] and the second laser diode [lasers 20 with “b” polarization Nemoto Fig. 1] have a different structure (Nemoto Paras. [0017,0024]) and/or the first laser housing and the second laser housing are designed differently.
For the purposes of examination in the instant case of claim 4, the interpretation of the optional limitation is understood to be “characterized in that the first laser diode and the second laser diode have a different structure”
Examiner notes that the first [lasers 20 with “a” polarization Nemoto Fig. 1] and second laser diodes [lasers 20 with “a” polarization Nemoto Fig. 1] of Nemoto are arranged facing different directions and therefore are understood to have a differing structure at least in the direction the lasers are facing on the substrate.
Regarding claim 5, Nemoto in view of Takiguchi and Yoshikawa discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Takiguchi Fig. 1,
characterized in that the first laser housing [14 Takiguchi Fig. 1] (Takiguchi Para. [0066]) accommodates a single first laser diode [14 Takiguchi housing laser 20 of Nemoto Figs. 1] (Takiguchi Paras. [0066,0067])
and/or the second laser housing accommodates a single second laser diode [14 Takiguchi housing laser 20 of Nemoto Figs. 1] (Takiguchi Paras. [0066,0067]).
For the purposes of examination in the instant application, the interpretation of claim 5 is understood to be “… accommodates a single first laser diode and the second laser housing accommodates a single second laser diode.”
Regarding claim 7, Nemoto in view of Takiguchi and Yoshikawa discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses
characterized in that one or more microlenses [Nemoto 32 Figs. 5 and 13] (Nemoto Para. [0049]) are associated with each laser housing [Takiguchi 14 Fig. 1].
Regarding claim 8, Nemoto in view of Takiguchi and Yoshikawa discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses,
characterized in that a microlens array [Nemoto 32 Figs. 5 and 13] (Nemoto Para. [0049]), which is stationary relative to the common carrier [Nemoto 1 Fig. 1] (Para. [0024]), spans the laser diode array [Nemoto lasers 20 Fig. 1] as a whole (Nemoto Para. [0049]).
Regarding claim 9, Nemoto in view of Takiguchi and Yoshikawa discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses,
characterized in that an electrode arrangement [Nemoto 22 Fig. 7] (Nemoto Para. [0051]) for electrical contacting (Nemoto Para. [0051]) is guided out of the respective laser housing [Takiguchi 14 Fig. 1].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemoto in view of Takiguchi and Yoshikawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hemenway et al (hereinafter Hemenway) (US 20170271837 A1)
Regarding claim 6, Nemoto in view of Takiguchi and Yoshikawa disclose the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
characterized in that the first laser housing accommodates a plurality of first laser diodes identical in construction and/or the second laser housing accommodates a plurality of second laser diodes identical in construction.
Hemenway discloses in Fig. 4A,
a first laser housing [406a] (Para. [0040]) accommodating a plurality of first laser diodes [408 in 406a] (Para. [0040]) identical in construction (Para. [0040]) and a second laser housing [406b] (Para. [0040]) accommodating a plurality of second laser diodes [408 in 406b] (Para. [0043]) identical in construction (Para. [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the housing of the modified device of Nemoto comprising a plurality of laser diodes as shown in Hemenway for the purpose of providing packages that allow different outputs to be formed from the separate housings. (Hemenway Para. [0044]).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemoto in view of Takiguchi and Yoshikawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takagi et al. (hereinafter Takagi) (US 20190068936 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Nemoto in view of Takiguchi and Yoshikawa discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses,
an Illumination unit comprising a laser diode arrangement according to claim 1 (Nemoto Para. [0011]) (see rejection of claim 1 above)
Nemoto in view of Takiguchi and Yoshikawa fails to disclose,
a polarization beam splitter;
a wavelength conversion element; and
a superposition optics,
wherein the polarization beam splitter is arranged in a beam path emitted from the laser diode arrangement and is configured such that the polarized electromagnetic radiation emitted by the first light group is directed with the first polarization direction into a beam path leading to the wavelength conversion element and the polarized electromagnetic radiation with the second polarization direction emitted by the second light group is fed into a blue channel; and
the superposition optics combines fluorescent radiation emitted from the wavelength- conversion element and the radiation from the blue channel into an illumination beam path.
Takagi discloses in Fig. 2,
a polarization beam splitter [50] (Para. [0046]);
a wavelength conversion element [27] (Para. [0049]); and
a superposition optics [31] (Para. [0058]),
wherein the polarization beam splitter [50] (Para. [0046]) is arranged in a beam path [BL] (Para. [0041]) emitted from a laser arrangement [21] (Para. [0039]) and is configured such that the polarized electromagnetic radiation emitted by a first light group [BLs] (Para. [0046]) is directed with the first polarization direction [s-polarization] (Para. [0046]) into a beam path leading to the wavelength conversion element [27] (Para. [0048]) and the polarized electromagnetic radiation with the second polarization direction [p-polarization] (Para. [0046]) emitted by a second light group [BLp] (Para. [0046]) is fed into a blue channel (Para. [0051]); and
the superposition optics [31] combines fluorescent radiation [YL] emitted from the wavelength- conversion element [27] (Para. [0050]) and the radiation from the blue channel (Paras. [0053-0056]) into an illumination beam path [WL] (Para. [0058])
the illumination unit [2] being included inside a projector system [1 Fig. 1] (Paras. [0028,0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the laser diode arrangement of the modified device of Nemoto into the illumination unit included inside a projector as shown in Takagi for the purpose of stably emitting illumination light and projecting with high-luminance. (Takagi Para. [0086])
Regarding claim 11, Nemoto in view of Takiguchi, Yoshikawa and Takagi as applied to claim 10 above further discloses in Takagi,
A laser projection device [1 Fig. 1] (Paras. [0027,0028]) comprising an imaging system [Fig. 1] and an illumination unit [2] (Para. [0028]) according to claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10 above) for illuminating an imaging system [Fig. 1] (Para.0028]).
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 HUNTER J NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5318. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:30am-5:00 ET.
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.
/H.J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2828 /TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights