DETAILED ACTION Claims 1 through 14 originally filed 16 August 2023. By preliminary amendment received 16 August 2023; claims 1, 2, 5 through 12, and 14 are amended. Claims 1 through 14 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)(5). The drawings include the reference character "109" which does not appear in the description. Reference characters not mentioned in the description must not appear in the drawings. The description includes the reference characters "101a" and "108u" 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: "101a" is mentioned in ¶102 and "108u" is mentioned in ¶123. 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 § 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 9 and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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, this claim requires "Wherein each one of the plurality of implemented pads comprises: a conductive pad coupled to the electrode; and a non-conductive pad insulated from the electrode." However, it is not possible for any given pad to be both conductive and non-conductive. As such, this claim is 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. For the remainder of this action, this claim will be interpreted as meaning that the plurality of pads include conductive pads and non-conductive pads. Regarding claim 13, this claim introduces a "second implemented pad". However, neither this claim nor any claim from which this claim depends refers to a "first implemented pad". When using ordinal designations, it is necessary to start with an initial ordinal designation such as "first" and introduce further elements in numerical order from that point. Failure to adhere to such an ordering creates the implication of additional elements without strictly indicating the presence thereof. Due to this implication, it is unclear whether or not the claim actually requires the presence of the implied features. As such, this claim is deemed indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. For the remainder of this action, this claim will be interpreted as requiring no elements other than those explicitly stated. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 11 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 11, this claim requires only "Wherein a distance between two of the plurality of light-emitting points of the plurality of surface-emitting laser devices in an adjacent pair of the plurality of sub-arrays is equivalent to a distance between two of the plurality of light-emitting points of the plurality of surface-emitting laser devices in an adjacent pair of the plurality of sub-arrays." However, the distances compared by this claim are the same distances. Since parent claim 1 necessarily includes a distance between these elements, this requirement that an existing distance is equal to itself does not impose further requirements on parent claim 1. As such, this claim is of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. 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. Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kojima et al. (Kojima, JP Pub. 2014-150225 A). Kojima was initially cited in the IDS received 9 December 2024. Regarding claim 1, Kojima discloses, "A substrate" (p. [0049] and Fig. 7B, pt. 302). "A plurality of sub-arrays disposed on the substrate" (p. [0049] and Figs. 7B and 8, pts. 330a, 330b, 330c, 330d, 330e, 330f, 330g, 330h, and 330i). "The plurality of sub-arrays including a plurality of surface-emitting laser devices" (p. [0049] and Figs. 7B and 8, pts. 330a, 330b, 330c, 330d, 330e, 330f, 330g, 330h, and 330i). "[The plurality of surface-emitting laser devices] electrically connected to each other in parallel" (p. [0052] and Fig. 9, pt. 330). "[The plurality of surface-emitting laser devices] emit light through the substrate" (p. [0025] and Figs. 1B and 7B, pts. 102 and 302, where light is emitted through the substrate in both arrangements). "Each of the plurality of surface-emitting laser devices having a light-emitting point" (p. [0049] and Figs. 7B and 8, pts. 330a, 330b, 330c, 330d, 330e, 330f, 330g, 330h, and 330i, where each laser necessarily has an emission point). "[The plurality of surface-emitting laser devices] including a first semi-conducting layer of first conductivity" (p. [0049] and Fig. 11, pt. 304). "A second semi-conducting layer of second conductivity" (p. [0049] and Fig. 11, pt. 306). "A resonator disposed between the first semi-conducting layer and the second semi-conducting layer" (p. [0053] and Fig. 11, pts. 304, 306, and 336). "Wherein the plurality of sub-arrays that are adjacent to each other include an electrode to electrically connect the first semi-conducting layer in the plurality of surface-emitting laser devices included in one of the plurality of sub-arrays and the second semi-conducting layer in the plurality of surface-emitting laser devices included in another one of the plurality of sub-arrays" (p. [0055] and Fig. 7B, pts. 304, 306, 314c, and 316b). "Wherein the plurality of sub-arrays are electrically connected in series" (p. [0052] and Fig. 9, pt. 330). Regarding claim 11, Kojima discloses, "Wherein a distance between two of the plurality of light-emitting points of the plurality of surface-emitting laser devices in an adjacent pair of the plurality of sub-arrays is equivalent to a distance between two of the plurality of light-emitting points of the plurality of surface-emitting laser devices in an adjacent pair of the plurality of sub-arrays" (Figs. 7A and 8, pts. 330a, 330b, 330c, 330d, 330e, 330f, 330g, 330h, and 330i). 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 2 through 10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima in view of Lewis et al. (Lewis, US Pub. 2006/0109883). Regarding claim 2, Kojima discloses, "A plurality of implemented pads to be mounted on a mounting board" (p. [0055] and Fig. 12, pts. 310 and 312). Kojima does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein at least one of the plurality of implemented pads is disposed on at least one of the plurality of sub-arrays." Lewis discloses, "Wherein at least one of the plurality of implemented pads is disposed on at least one of the plurality of sub-arrays" (p. [0031] and Fig. 2A, pt. 201, where the pad for anode 312 of Kojima is positioned directly over lasers 330c, 330f, and 330i in the same manner as the anode connection to laser 201 is positioned directly over that laser). 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 Kojima with the teachings of Lewis. In view of the teachings of Kojima regarding a laser array connected to a mounting board, the alternate arrangement of at least one pad to be provided directly atop an emitter as well as the alternate inclusion of support structures beneath the intermediate laser structures as taught by Lewis would enhance the teachings of Kojima by allowing for a shorter connection to at least some laser elements as well as by allowing for support to be provided beneath the array chip where desired. Regarding claim 3, Kojima discloses, "Wherein the plurality of implemented pads include a first implemented pad and a second implemented pad" (p. [0055] and Fig. 7A, pts. 310 and 312). "[The second implemented pad] adjacent to the first implemented pad" (p. [0055] and Fig. 7A, pts. 310 and 312). "Wherein a distance between a first sub-array on which the first implemented pad is disposed and a second sub-array adjacent to the first sub-array is narrower than a distance between the first implemented pad and the second implemented pad" (p. [0055] and Fig. 8, pts. 310, 312, 330b, 330c, 330e, 330f, 330h, and 330i). Regarding claim 4, Kojima discloses, "Wherein between the first sub-array and the second sub-array, a distance between the light-emitting point of one of the plurality of surface-emitting laser devices and the light-emitting point of another neighboring one of the plurality of surface-emitting laser devices is smaller than a distance between the second implemented pad and the first implemented pad" (p. [0055] and Fig. 8, pts. 310, 312, 330b, 330c, 330e, 330f, 330h, and 330i). Regarding claim 5, Kojima discloses, "Wherein the plurality of implemented pads are not disposed on the second sub-array" (p. [0055] and Fig. 8, pts. 310, 312, 330b, 330c, 330e, 330f, 330h, and 330i). Regarding claim 6, Kojima does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the second implemented pad is disposed on the second sub-array." "Wherein the second implemented pad is smaller than the second sub-array." "Wherein the second implemented pad is another one of the plurality of implemented pads." Lewis discloses, "Wherein the second implemented pad is disposed on the second sub-array" (p. [0031] and Fig. 2A, pt. 202, where implementing the floating mechanical support connected to laser 202 of Lewis connects this support to the insulated metal layer atop lasers in the array of Kojima that contain 330b and render this metal layer a pad). "Wherein the second implemented pad is smaller than the second sub-array" (p. [0031] and Fig. 2A, pts. 202, 203, and 204, where the floating metal layers connected to lasers 202, 203, and 204 of Lewis connect to the metal layers provided atop the lasers of Kojima and these metal layers do not extend over the entire area of the respective sub-arrays of lasers to which they connect). "Wherein the second implemented pad is another one of the plurality of implemented pads" (p. [0031] and Fig. 2A, pt. 202, where implementing the floating mechanical support connected to laser 202 of Lewis connects this support to the insulated metal layer atop lasers in the array of Kojima that contain 330b and render this metal layer a pad). 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 Kojima with the teachings of Lewis for the reasons provided above regarding claim 2. Regarding claim 7, Kojima discloses, "Wherein a number of the plurality of implemented pads is equal to or less than a number of the plurality of sub-arrays" (p. [0049] and Figs. 7B and 8, pts. 310, 312, 330a, 330b, 330c, 330d, 330e, 330f, 330g, 330h, and 330i). Regarding claim 8, Kojima does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a number of the plurality of implemented pads is three or more." Lewis discloses, "Wherein a number of the plurality of implemented pads is three or more" (p. [0031] and Fig. 2A, pt. 202, where implementing the floating mechanical supports connected to laser 202 of Lewis increases the number of pads in Kojima to greater than 2). 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 Kojima with the teachings of Lewis for the reasons provided above regarding claim 2. Regarding claim 9, Kojima discloses, "Wherein each one of the plurality of implemented pads comprises: a conductive pad coupled to the electrode" (p. [0055] and Fig. 12, pts. 310 and 312). Kojima does not explicitly disclose, "A non-conductive pad insulated from the electrode." Lewis discloses, "A non-conductive pad insulated from the electrode" (p. [0031] and Fig. 2A, pt. 202, where implementing the floating mechanical support connected to laser 202 of Lewis connects this support to the insulated metal layer atop lasers in the array of Kojima that contain 330b and render this metal layer a non-conductive pad because it is insulated from the underlying lasers). 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 Kojima with the teachings of Lewis for the reasons provided above regarding claim 2. Regarding claim 10, Kojima discloses, "Wherein the first implemented pad is a conductive pad coupled to the electrode" (p. [0055] and Fig. 12, pt. 310). "Wherein another one of the plurality of implemented pads is the conductive pad or a non-conductive pad insulated from the electrode" (p. [0055] and Fig. 12, pt. 312). Regarding claim 12, Kojima discloses, "The mounting board on which the surface-emitting laser array is mounted" (p. [0055] and Figs. 7A and 12, pts. 50 and 300). Regarding claim 13, Kojima discloses, "Wherein the mounting board comprises a second implemented pad electrically connected to the plurality of implemented pads provided for the surface-emitting laser array" (p. [0055] and Figs. 7A and 12, pts. 50, 52, 54, 310, and 312). The combination of Kojima and Lewis does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the second implemented pad has a planar shape equivalent to a planar shape of the plurality of implemented pads." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to match the shapes of the pads that are joined to one another so as to control the extent of the material connecting these pads, since it has been held that altering the configuration of a device is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima, in view of Lewis, and further in view of Takaki et al. (Takaki, US Pub. 2011/0274131). Regarding claim 14, The combination of Kojima and Lewis does not explicitly disclose, "An optical element on which light emitted from the light source module is incident." Takaki discloses, "An optical element on which light emitted from the light source module is incident" (p. [0068] and Fig. 7, pts. 15 and 1000). 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 Kojima and Lewis with the teachings of Takaki. In view of the teachings of Kojima regarding a laser array, the additional inclusion of a lens for condensing the emitted light as taught by Takaki would enhance the teachings of Kojima and Lewis by allowing the light from the array to be delivered to an external system. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Furukawa et al. (Furukawa, US Pub. 2003/0016715) is cited for teaching a laser array in which connection pads are provided beneath laser emitters as well as to the side of laser emitters. Joseph (US Pub. 2017/0033535) is cited for teaching a laser array in which some connection pads are smaller than the array to which they are connected. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Sean P Hagan whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1242 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT MinSun Harvey can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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