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 Amendments
The claims and specifications are being examined based on the preliminary amendments filed on Jan 29, 2024.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 12 are objected to, the applicant claims an electric-field decrease period in which the electric-field applied is “larger” than the electric-field applied during the electric field application period. It is unclear as to what the applicant is trying to claim. Someone of ordinary skill in the art would expect that an “electric field decrease period” is a period in which the electric field would be lower not larger. Additionally, the specification states that “oscillation is not performed during the electric-field application period but is performed during the electric-field decrease period” [0087] which in turn would mean that the electric field is lower during the electric field decrease period.
The examiner will interpret claims 1 and 12 as follows:
Claim 1:
an electric-field decrease period after the electric-field application period, in which the electric field applied to the multi-quantum well structure is
Claim 12:
the electric-field decrease period is a period after the electric-field application period, in which the electric field applied to the multi-quantum well structure is
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 5 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.
Claim 1 already teaches a first power supply connected to the first electrode pair and a second power supply connected to the second electrode pair. Thus claim 5 does not further limit claim 1.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US20020179929A1) in view of Fukuzawa (US5287377A) and further in view of Sato (JP2006019679A).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Takahashi teaches an active layer [Fig 15, 203; 0240]; multiple reflectors facing each other with the active layer therebetween [Fig 15, 201 and 508; 0250]; a multi-quantum well structure including multiple semiconductor layers in an optical path of a laser beam emitted from the active layer and the multiple reflectors [Fig 15, 506; 0244-0245]; a first electrode pair to inject a current into the active layer [Fig 15, 110 and 111; 0250]; and a second electrode pair to apply an electric field to the multi-quantum well structure in a direction perpendicular to a well surface of the multiple-quantum well structure [Fig 15, 510 and 511; 0252-0253]; and wherein the surface emitting laser does not oscillate a laser beam during the electric- field application period, and oscillates a laser beam during the electric-field decrease period [0252], Takahashi uses the quantum-confined stark effect.
Takahashi does not explicitly teach a first and second power supply; a current injection period in which the first power supply injects the current into the active layer; a current decrease period after the current injection period, in which the current injected into the active layer is lower than the current injected during the current injection period; an electric-field application period in which the second power supply applies an electric field to the multiple-quantum well structure; and an electric-field decrease period after the electric-field application period, in which the electric field applied to the multi-quantum well structure is lower than the electric field applied during the electric-field application period, wherein at least part of the current injection period is included in at least part of the electric-field application period.
Takahashi inherently teaches a first and second power supply connected to a first and second electrode pair respectively. Since a forward bias needs to be applied to the electrode pair 110 and 111, and a reverse bias needs to be applied to electrode 511 and 510, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that two voltage sources would be needed. This implementation can be seen in Sato who teaches a first and second power supply [Fig 1, 117 and 118; 0155 and 157-160].
Fukuzawa does teach, a current injection period and a current decrease period after the current increase period in which the current injected into the active layer is lower [Fig 6; column 10, lines 5-13]; an electric field application period and an electric field decrease period after the electric-field application period in which the electric field is lower [column 10, lines 10-15], while Fukuzawa does not explicitly teach an electric field decrease period, Fukuzawa does teach a modulation of the electric field to control the intensity of the emitted light, this would include an electric field decrease period after the electric-field application period in which the electric field is lower [Column 9, lines 35-45]; and at least part of the current injection period is included in at least part of the electric-field application period [Column 10, lines 10-13]
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device disclosed by Takahashi by implementing a first and second power supply that connect to the first and second electrodes in Takahashi; a current injection period and a current decrease period after the current increase period in which the current injected into the active layer is lower; an electric field application period and an electric field decrease period after the electric-field application period in which the electric field is lower; and at least part of the current injection period is included in at least part of the electric-field application, similar to Fukuzawa and Sato with a reasonable expectation of success. Someone of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to modulate the frequency and intensity of the laser output [Fukuzawa: Column 3, lines 40-43] in high-speed [Sato: 0162].
Regarding claim 2, Takahashi teaches a lower reflector underlying the active layer; and a first upper reflector overlying the active layer, wherein the multi-quantum well structure overlies the active layer [Fig 15, 201, 203, 506, and 508; 250-251].
Regarding claim 5, Takahashi as modified above teaches a first and second power supply connected to a first and second electrode pair [Sato: Fig 1, 117 and 118; 0155 and 157-160].
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US20020179929A1) in view of Fukuzawa (US5287377A) and Sato (JP2006019679A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tamura et al. (US20040113156A1).
Regarding claim 3, Takahashi as modified above teaches the device of claim 1.
Takahashi does not teach wherein the first upper reflector is columnar, and wherein one electrode of the second electrode pair is at least partly at a central portion of the first upper reflector in a plan view.
Tamura does teach a columnar upper reflector and one of the second electrode pair is at least partly in the central region of the first upper reflector [Fig 15, 65 and 15; 0151-0153], the DBR is positioned on the transparent electrode, so the electrode is at a central region of it.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device disclosed by Takahashi by implementing a columnar upper reflector and adapting one of the second electrode pair so it is at least partly in the central region of the first upper reflector, similar to Tamura with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing light to be emitted perpendicular to the upper reflector while permitting an electric field to be applied.
Claim(s) 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US20020179929A1) in view of Fukuzawa (US5287377A) and Sato (JP2006019679A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moench et al. (US20190097393A1).
Regarding claim 4, Takahashi as modified above teaches the device of claim 1.
Takahashi does not teach wherein the surface emitting laser outputs a pulse having a time axis shorter than a time axis of a pulse emitted during the current injection period.
Moench does teach a laser pulse with a shorter time axis than a pulse emitted during the current injection period [Fig 6, 352 and 356; 0071].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device disclosed by Takahashi by implementing a laser pulse with a shorter time axis than a pulse emitted during the current injection period, similar to Moench with a reasonable expectation of success. Someone of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide large amounts of energy within a short time [0019].
Regarding claim 8, Takahashi as modified above teaches the device of claim 5.
Takahashi does not teach wherein the current injection period and the current decrease period are repeated multiple times, and wherein a ratio of the current injection period to the current decrease period is 0.5% or less.
Moench does teach repeating the current injection and decrease period multiple times [Fig 6, 358 and 345; 0071]. While Moench does not explicitly teaches keeping a ratio between the current injection period and the current decrease period below 0.5%, Moench does teach controlling the length of a current pulse in order to control the heat generated [0061-0065], thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the length of the current injection and decrease period to obtain a ratio less than 0.5%.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device disclosed by Takahashi by repeating the current injection and decrease period multiple times and keeping a ratio between the current injection period and the current decrease period below 0.5%, similar to Moench with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of repeating the current injection and decrease process period while keeping the ratio below 0.5% in order to control the heat generated.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US20020179929A1) in view of Fukuzawa (US5287377A) and Sato (JP2006019679A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Satoh et al. (US20220158418A1).
Regarding claim 9, Takahashi as modified above teaches the device of claim 5.
Takahashi does not explicitly teach a detector to detect light emitted from the surface emitting laser and reflected by an object.
Satoh does teach a detector to receive light reflected by an object [Fig 1, 13 and Fig 16, 50 and 72; 0027 and 0104]
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device disclosed by Takahashi by implementing a detector to receive light reflected by an object, similar to Satoh with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of a detection device that can detect objects.
Regarding claim 10, Takahashi as modified above teaches the device of claim 9.
Takahashi does not explicitly teach wherein the detection device calculates a distance to the object based on a signal from the detector.
Satoh does teach calculating a distance to an object based on a signal from the detection device [Fig 16, 72; 0104].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device disclosed by Takahashi by calculating a distance to an object based on a signal from the detection device, similar to Satoh with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of a detection device that can determine a distance to an object.
Regarding claim 11, Takahashi as modified above teaches the device of claim 10.
Takahashi does not explicitly teach a mobile object comprising the detection device according to claim 10.
Satoh does teach a mobile object comprising a detection device [Fig 16, 70 and 50; 0103].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device disclosed by Takahashi by implementing a mobile object comprising a detection device, similar to Satoh with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of a mobile object that can determine a distance to an object.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 are 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior
art of record does not explicitly teach nor render obvious the device of Claims 6 and 7, specifically including:
The device of claim 6 wherein the electric-field application period starts before a start of the current injection period.
The device of claim 7 wherein the current decrease period starts at the same time as or after a start of the electric-field decrease period.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ledentsov et al. (US6611539B2) teaches a semiconductor laser which has an electric field and a current applied to it by a reverse and forward bias respectively. Ledentsov fails to teach an electric application period that starts before a start of the current application period.
Uomi et al. (US5073892A) teaches modulating a laser using an electric field [Column 7; lines 17-37]. Uomi fails to teach an electric application period that starts before a start of the current application period or a current decrease period that happens at the same time as or after the start of an electric field decrease period.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH N ZERON CERRATO whose telephone number is (571)270-3245. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at (571) 272-6970. 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.
/J.N.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights