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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 16 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/21/2026.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP 1022-071262, filed on 04/25/2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Translation is required to perfect priority claims made for this application.
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 12-15 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the plurality of semiconductor laser devices”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this limitation will be taken to mean “a plurality of semiconductor laser devices”. By their dependency, the following claims are also rejected: 13/12, 14/12, 15/12.
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 1-6, 8, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Nakanishi et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 2020/0220323), hereinafter Nakanishi, in view of Tanisaka (U.S. Patent Application No. 2017/0033528), in view of DeMilo et al. (NPL, “Thermally induced stresses resulting from coefficient of thermal expansion differentials between an LED sub-mount material and various mounting substrates”), hereinafter DeMilo.
Regarding Claim 1, Nakanishi teaches: a laser light source (paragraph [0018]), comprising a substrate (Fig. 2, “66”) having an upper face (Fig. 4, see top of “66”) and a lower face (Fig. 4, see bottom of “66”); one or more semiconductor laser devices (Fig. 3, “81”, “82”, “83”, paragraph [0029], paragraph [0018]) configured to emit laser light (paragraph [0029]); the one or more semiconductor laser devices being supported by the upper face of the substrate (Fig. 4, see “83” atop “73”, “73” atop “63”, “63” atop “10A”, thus “83” is indirectly supported by “10A”); a plurality of optical members (Fig. 3, “91”, “92”, “93”) configured to reflect or transmit the laser light (Abstract); a supporting member secured to the substrate (Fig. 2, “77”, “78”, “79”), the supporting member supporting at least one of the plurality of optical members (paragraph [0031]). Nakanishi does not teach: a bonding layer located between the plurality of optical members and the supporting member; the bonding layer bonding together the at least one of the plurality of optical members and the supporting member; wherein a thermal conductivity of the supporting member is lower than a thermal conductivity of the substrate.
Tanisaka teaches: a bonding layer (paragraph [0130], “Au-Sn-based eutectic solder”) located between an optical member (Fig. 4B, “5A”) and the supporting member (Fig. 4B, metal layer “2B”); the bonding layer bonding together the at least one of the plurality of optical members and the supporting member (paragraph [0130]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: utilize a bonding layer located between the at least one of the plurality of optical members and the supporting member, the bonding layer bonding together the at least one of the plurality of optical members and the supporting member as taught by Tanisaka in the device of Nakanishi, for the benefit of securing the optical member in the device once it is aligned with the optical path. Nakanishi and Tanisaka do not teach: a thermal conductivity of the supporting member is lower than a thermal conductivity of the substrate.
DeMilo teaches: a thermal conductivity of a supporting member (Table 1, first column, fifth row “Silicon (LED sub-mount); Table 1, fourth column, fifth row, thermal conductivity is 148 W/mK ) is lower than a thermal conductivity of the substrate (Table 2, substrate material “Aluminum Silicon Carbide, see explanation). It can be necessarily understood that the thermal conductivity of silicon is lower than the thermal conductivity of aluminum silicon carbide, in the sense that the thermal conductivity of aluminum silicon carbide is 180–200 W/mK and the thermal conductivity of silicon 148 W/mK is lower than the minimal value of this thermal conductivity range of aluminum silicon carbide.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to: have a thermal conductivity of the supporting member be lower than a thermal conductivity of the substrate as taught by DeMilo in the device of Nakanishi and Tanisaka, for the benefit of thermally insulating the at least one of the plurality of optical members supported by the supporting member from the heat dissipated by the substrate from the one or more semiconductor laser devices in the device of Nakanishi and Tanisaka.
Regarding Claim 2, Nakanishi, Tanisaka, and DeMilo teach the device of Claim 1.
Nakanishi further teaches: a frame body (Fig. 1, “10”)surrounding lateral faces of the substrate (Fig. 1, “66”); and a cap (Fig. 1, “40”) covering the semiconductor laser device and the plurality of optical members and being secured to the substrate (Fig. 1, see “40” covering “81, “82”, “83”, “91”, “”92”, “93”), wherein the cap has a light transmissive region (Fig. 1, “41”) configured to reflect or transmit the laser light that has been reflected by the plurality of optical members or transmitted through the plurality of optical members (paragraph [0026]).
Regarding Claim 3, Nakanishi, Tanisaka, and DeMilo teach the device of Claim 2.
Nakanishi further teaches that the light-transmissive region of the cap is located on an upper face or a lateral face of the cap (Fig. 1, “41”, is on a lateral face of the “cap” element “40”).
Regarding Claim 4, Nakanishi, Tanisaka, and DeMilo teach the device of Claim 2.
Nakanishi further teaches that the cap and the frame body hermetically seal the semiconductor laser device and the plurality of optical members (paragraph [0026]). It can be necessarily understood by someone of ordinary skill that the substrate also hermetically seals the semiconductor laser device and the plurality of optical members, in the sense that it is surrounded by the frame body and contained within the cap which hermetically seal the semiconductor laser device and the plurality of optical members.
Regarding Claim 5, Nakanishi, Tanisaka, and DeMilo teach the device of Claim 1.
Nakanishi further teaches: the upper face of the substrate (Fig. 4, top of “66”) includes a first region (Fig. 3, “71, “72”, “73”) in which the one or more semiconductor laser devices are disposed (Fig. 3, “81”, “82”, “83”) and a second region (Fig. 3, region is from top horizontal edge of “79” to bottom horizontal edge of “77”) in which the supporting member is disposed (Fig. 3, “77”, “78”, “79”); and a relative height of the first region of the upper face with respect to the lower face of the substrate is higher than a relative height of the second region of the upper face with respect to the lower face of the substrate (Fig. 4, see the bottom of “73” is higher than the bottom of “79” with respect to the bottom of “66”).
Regarding Claim 6, Nakanishi, Tanisaka, and DeMilo teach the device of Claim 5.
As modified in Claim 1, it can be necessarily understood that the device of Nakanishi, Tanisaka, and DeMilo does teach: the supporting member has a supporting surface that is bonded to the at least one of the plurality of optical members via the bonding layer, in the sense that the top surface of the supporting member as taught by Nakanishi is bonded by the bonding layer as taught by Tanisaka to the optical member as taught by Nakanishi; and a relative height of the supporting surface of the supporting member with respect to the lower face of the substrate is lower than the relative height of the first region of the upper face with respect to the lower face of the substrate, in the sense that the supporting member in the device of Nakanishi itself, including the supporting surface of the supporting member, is in the second region which is lower with respect to the lower face of the substrate, than the relative height of the first region of the upper face with respect to the lower face of the substrate.
Regarding Claim 8, Nakanishi, Tanisaka, and DeMilo teaches the device of Claim 1.
Nakanishi as modified does not teach that the bonding layer is made of inorganic adhesive or sintered metal.
Tanisaka further teaches that the bonding layer (paragraph [0077], “adhesive member”; paragraph [0130], “Au-Sn based solder”) is made of inorganic adhesive or sintered metal (paragraph [0130], “Au-Sn based solder” is a sintered metal ). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to: utilize a bonding layer is made of inorganic adhesive or sintered metal as taught by Tanisaka in the device of Nakanishi, Tanisaka, and DeMilo, for the benefit of heat dissipation through the bonding layer.
Regarding Claim 12, Nakanishi, Tanisaka, and DeMilo teach the device of Claim 1.
Nakanishi further teaches that a plurality of semiconductor laser devices includes a first semiconductor laser device (Fig. 2, “81”) configured to emit a first laser light (paragraph [0029]), a second semiconductor laser device (Fig. 2, “82”) configured to emit a second laser light (see translated excerpt B), and a third semiconductor laser device (Fig. 2, “83”) configured to emit a third laser light (paragraph [0029]),); and the plurality of optical members include a first optical member (Fig. 2, “91”) configured to reflect or transmit a first laser light (paragraph [0031]), a second optical member (Fig. 2, “92”) configured to reflect or transmit the second laser light (paragraph [0031]), and a third optical member (Fig. 2, “93”) configured to reflect or transmit the third laser light (paragraph [0031]).
Regarding Claim 13, Nakanishi, Tanisaka, and DeMilo teach the device of Claim 12.
Nakanishi further teaches the supporting member (Fig. 2, “77”, “78”, “79”) includes a first portion (Fig. 2, “77”) supporting the first optical member (Fig. 2, “91”), a second portion (Fig. 2, “78”) supporting the second optical member (Fig. 2, “92”), and a third portion (Fig. 2, “79”) supporting the third optical member (Fig. 2, “93”); and the first portion, the second portion, and the third portion are spaced apart from one another (Fig. 2).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Nakanishi, Tanisaka, and DeMilo in view of Komada et al. (US Patent No. 10992103), hereinafter Komada.
Regarding Claim 7, Nakanishi, Tanisaka, and DeMilo teach the device of Claim 5.
Nakanishi, Tanisaka, and DeMilo do not teach: the second region of the substrate includes a recess, and at least a portion of the supporting member is accommodated in the recess.
Komada teaches that the second region (Fig. 3, “7B”) of the substrate includes a recess (Fig. 3, “7”), and at least a portion of the supporting member is accommodated in the recess (see explanation below). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: have the second region of the upper face of the substrate include a recess, for the benefit of minimizing the height of the device by utilizing the second region within the recess to mount the optical member. It can be necessarily understood that the second region in the device of Nakanishi, Tanisaka, and DeMilo as taught in Claim 5 is at the bottom of the recess as taught by Komada. Thus, as the optical member with the supporting member bonded below it is in the second region, the supporting member is located at the bottom of the recess and therefore a portion of the supporting member in the device of Nakanishi, Tanisaka, and DeMilo is accommodated in the recess as further taught by Komada.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Nakanishi, Tanisaka, and DeMilo further in view of Kagawa (U.S. Patent Application No. 2020/0194967).
Regarding Claim 9, Nakanishi, Tanisaka, and DeMilo teach the device of Claim 1.
Nakanishi, Tanisaka, and DeMilo do not teach: that the substrate includes at least 1 throughhole that extends from the upper face to the lower face, and the supporting member closes the at least one throughhole.
Kagawa teaches the substrate (Fig. 1, “10”) includes at least 1 throughhole (Fig. 1, “10A”) that extends from the upper face (Fig. 1, “10B”) to the lower face (Fig. 1, horizontal edge opposite “10B”), and the supporting member (Fig. 8, “AD”) closes the at least one throughhole (Fig. 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art to: utilize at least 1 throughhole that extends from the upper face to the lower face, and the supporting member closes the at least one throughhole as taught by Kagawa in the device of Nakanishi, Tanisaka, and DeMilo, for the benefit of
minimizing thermal stress between the substrate and the supporting member supporting the optical member by minimizing their contact area.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Nakanishi, Tanisaka, DeMilo, and Kagawa, further in view of McKenna et al. (NPL, “Self-heating allows Athermal Laser Diode Wavelength Control using a Thermally Insulating Sub-mount over a 70 °C range”), hereinafter McKenna.
Regarding Claim 10, Nakanishi, Tanisaka, DeMilo, and Kagawa teach the device of Claim 9.
Nakanishi, Tanisaka, DeMilo, and Kagawa do not teach: the supporting member is made of a light-transmissive material.
McKenna teaches: the supporting member (Section “2. Device and Sub-mount design”, line 70 “sub-mount”) is made of a light-transmissive material (Fig. 1, “Glass”; line 71). It can be necessarily understood by someone having ordinary skill in the art that glass is light-transmissive, in the sense that its amorphous crystalline structure prevents photon absorption. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art to: have the supporting member in the device of Nakanishi, Tanisaka, DeMilo, and Kagawa be made of a light transmissive material as taught by McKenna, for the benefit of minimizing light loss as the optical member reflects or transmits the laser light.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Nakanishi, Tanisaka, DeMilo, Kagawa, and McKenna further in view of Miura et al. (CN 113725720), hereinafter Miura.
Regarding Claim 11, Nakanishi, Tanisaka, DeMilo, Kagawa, and McKenna teach the device of Claim 10.
Nakanishi, Tanisaka, DeMilo, Kagawa, and McKenna do not teach: a photodetection device located at a position to receive a portion of the laser light that has been transmitted through the supporting member and passed through the at least one throughhole in the substrate.
Miura teaches: a photodetection device (Fig. 5, “50”) located at a position to receive a portion of the laser light that has been reflected or transmitted through the optical member (Fig. 5, “80”; see Abstract in examiner provided copy of translated Abstract). It can be necessarily understood by someone of ordinary skill that the light passed through the at least one throughhole is that reflected or transmitted by the optical member, in the sense that the optical member internally scatters a portion of the light from the optical path of the light reflected or transmitted by the optical member due to inhomogeneities and impurities in the optical member. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: have a photodetection device located at a position to receive a portion of the laser light that has been transmitted through the supporting member and passed through the at least one throughhole in the substrate in the device of Nakanishi, Tanisaka, DeMilo, Kagawa, and McKenna, for the benefit of detecting internally scattered light.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Nakanishi, Tanisaka, and DeMilo in view of Kimura et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 2021/0167576), hereinafter Kimura.
Regarding Claim 14, Nakanishi, Tanisaka, and DeMilo teach the device of Claim 12.
Nakanishi further teaches: the supporting member (Fig. 3, “77”, “78”, “79”) includes a first portion (Fig. 3, “77”) supporting the first optical member (Fig. 3, “91”), a second portion (Fig. 3, “78”) supporting the second optical member (Fig. 3, “92”), and a third portion (Fig. 3, “79”) supporting the third optical member (Fig. 3, “93”). Nakanishi, Tanisaka, and DeMilo do not teach: the first portion, the second portion, and the third portion are continuous.
Kimura teaches: the supporting member (Fig. 2, see structure supporting “40a” underneath) includes a first portion (Fig. 14, “45s”) supporting the first optical member (Fig. 14, “40a”), a second portion (Fig. 14, “46s”) supporting the second optical member (Fig. 14, “40b”), and a third portion (Fig.14, “45s”) supporting the third optical member (Fig. 14, “40c”); and the first portion, the second portion , and the third portion are continuous (Fig 14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: have the first, second, and third optical members in the device of Nakanishi, Tanisaka, and DeMilo on a continuous supporting member as taught by Kimura for the benefit of increasing the area of the supporting member for the optical members to dissipate heat.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Nakanishi, Tanisaka, and DeMilo in view of Nakagaki et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 2018/0183205), hereinafter Nakagaki.
Regarding Claim 15, Nakanishi, Tanisaka, and DeMilo teach the device of Claim 12.
As taught above in Claim 12 by Nakanishi, the second optical member (Fig. 2, “91”) is located between the first optical member (Fig. 2, “92”) and the third optical member (Fig. 2, “93”), and supported by the supporting member (Fig. 1, see “92” supported by “78”; paragraph [0031]) . It can also be necessarily understood by someone having ordinary skill in the art that the ordering of the optical members is arbitrary. Nakanishi, Tanisaka, and DeMilo do not teach: the first optical member and third optical member are bonded to the upper face of the substrate.
Nakagaki teaches: the first optical member (Fig. 2A, “22” see top right) and third optical member (Fig. 2A, “22” see bottom right) are bonded (Abstract) to the upper face of the substrate (Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: bond the first optical member and third optical to the substrate in the device of Nakanishi, Tanisaka, and DeMilo, for the benefit of distributing heat dissipation of the first and third optical members from the second optical member between them across different structures in the device to prevent heat spots between each of the optical members as compared to if all three optical members were dissipating heat directly into the substrate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
The following references teaches a similar device:
Takiguchi et al. (WO 2020/162023)
Enomoto (U.S. Patent Application No. 2021/0313761).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASMIN KAUR MUNDI whose telephone number is (571)272-9755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8 a.m. - 6 p.m. 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.
/J.K.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2828 /TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828