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. 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. 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. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 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. Claim 12 recites the limitation " the second metal layer of each of the plurality of submounts " in line 2-3 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of claim interpretation, it is assumed to be "a second metal layer of each of the plurality of submounts" Claim 12 recites the limitation “the submount” in lines 3-4. It is unclear which submount the limitation refers to as there are a plurality of submounts. 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 1 - 2, 4- 1 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2004/0264862 (Nagano) embodiment of fig. 10-11 in view of embodiment of fig. 8-9 . For claim 1 Nagano teaches a light-emitting device (fig. 10 and 11) comprising: a submount (fig. 11) including a substrate having an insulating property (fig. 10 - 11 , 9 ; [0134]; AlN is insulating ) , and having a first surface (fig. 10 -11 , top of 9 ) and a second surface located on a side opposite to the first surface (fig. 10 -11 bottom of 9 ) , the substrate having a shape in which a length in a second direction (fig. 11, length of 9 front to back) perpendicular to a first direction (fig. 11, left to right) is greater than a width in the first direction in a plan view as seen along a direction perpendicular to the first surface (fig. 11, left to right, width of 9D to the right of 9m ) , a first metal layer arranged on the first surface of the substrate (fig. 10-11, 505) , and a second metal layer arranged on the second surface of the substrate (fig. 10-11, 504) ; and a semiconductor laser element arranged on a side of the submount on which the first metal layer is arranged (fig. 10, 12’) , wherein a width of the second metal layer (fig. 11, width of 504) is smaller than a width of the first metal layer in the first direction (fig. 11, width of 509) . The embodiment of fig. 10-11 further teaches a non-zero difference (ΔW) between the width of the first metal layer and the width of the second metal layer in the first direction (Fig. 11, [(width of 505)-(width of 504)= ΔW>0]) and the first metal layer extends along the entire length of the substrate (fig. 11, 505 extends along the length of substrate 9). The embodiment of fig. 10- 11 does not explicitly teach a difference (ΔL) between a length of the first metal layer and a length of the second metal layer in the second direction is smaller than a difference (ΔW) between the width of the first metal layer and the width of the second metal layer in the first direction (i.e. ΔL< ΔW) . While the embodiment of fig. 10-11 does not specifically teach the length of the second metal layer 504, the embodiment of fig. 8-9 provides a perspective view which teaches the second metal layer (504) as well as the first metal layer (505) extends along the entire length of the substrate (9) in order to provide a metallization layer for solder (fig. 8, 511, [0134],[0136]) . 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 length of metallization layer 504 along the substrate as taught in the embodiment of fig. 8-9 with the embodiment of fig. 10-11 in order to provide a suitable metallization layer for solder. The combination results in ΔL=0 as both the first and second metal layer extend along the length substrate 9 . The combination therefore teaches ΔL< ΔW. For claim 2 , Nagano te aches t he difference between the length of the first metal layer and the length of the second metal layer in the second direction is smaller than 50 µm . (Fig. 11 illustrates the first layer 505 running the entire length of the substrate and is silent with regard to the second length. The combination with the embodiment of fig. 9 in the rejection of claim 1 above illustrates the first layer 505 and the second layer 504 running the entire length of the substrate such that the length difference is smaller than 50 µm). Nagano does not teach the difference between the first metal layer and the width of the second metal layer in the first direction is greater than 50 µ m . However, the difference is the width of the bottom (fig. 11, 9D) on either side of the recess 9m which is used to maintain the position of the laser ([0137]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the workable and optimal range for the difference between the first metal layer and the width of the second metal layer including a range greater than 50 µ m in order to maintain the position of the laser , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. For claim 4 , Nagano te aches the submount includes a wiring layer arranged on the first metal layer (fig. 1-11, 50 6 ) . For claim 5 , Nagano does not teach a thickness of the first metal layer is 30 µm or more. However, the exact thickness is not critical to Nagano, and i t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set a thickness of the first metal layer is 30 µm or more, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. For claim 6 , Nagano does not teach a thickness of the second metal layer is 30 µm or more. However, the exact thickness is not critical to Nagano, and i t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set a thickness of the second metal layer is 30 µm or more, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. For claim 7 , Nagano teaches the width of the first metal layer in the first direction is greater than a width of the semiconductor laser element in the first direction (fig. 10) . Nagano does not teach the width of the second metal layer in the first direction is greater than a width of the semiconductor laser element in the first direction . However, it is results effective variable as the width determines the surface area of the second metal layer in contact with the solder layer (fig. 10, 511). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a width of the second metal greater than the laser elements , since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). For claim 8 , Nagano te aches the difference between the width of the first metal layer and the width of the second metal layer in the first direction is smaller than a width of the semiconductor laser element in the first direction (fig. 10, the total width of 9D on either side of 9m is less than the width of laser element 12) . Also, the limitation, absent any criticality, is only considered to be an obvious modification of the relative shape s of prior art as the courts have held that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is within the level of skill in the art as the particular shape claimed by a pplicant is nothing more than one of numerous shapes and widths that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide using routine experimentation based on its suitability for the intended use of the invention . See In re Dailey , 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). For claim 9 , Nagano te aches a plurality of lasers side by side (fig. 1, multiple elements 12 side by side) in order to obtain a high intensity laser beam ([0089]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the element of claim 1, which is obvious over Nagano as discussed in the rejection above, such that a plurality of submounts including the submount; and a plurality of semiconductor laser elements including the semiconductor laser element, the plurality of semiconductor laser elements being respectively arranged on the plurality of submounts, wherein the plurality of submounts are disposed side by side in the first direction in order to obtain a high intensity laser beam . Note that it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co. , 193 USPQ 8. For claim 10, Nagano teaches a base having a mounting surface on which the plurality of submounts are disposed (fig. 1, 11). Nagano does not teach the plurality of submounts are disposed at an interval of 350 µ m or less in the first direction. However, i t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose the submounts at an interval of 350 µ m or less in the first direction in order to minimize the size of the device , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller , 105 USPQ 233. For claim 11, Nagano teaches a bonding portion (fig. 10, 511) arranged between the mounting surface (fig. 10, top of 11) and the second metal layer of each of the plurality of submounts (fig. 10, 504) and configured to bond the submounts to the base ([0136]) , wherein in a cross-sectional view parallel to the first direction, the bonding portion is disposed within a region surrounded by virtual planes respectively including opposing lateral surfaces of the second metal layers of adjacent ones of the plurality of submounts, a virtual plane including the second surface, and a virtual plane including the mounting surface (fig. 10) . For claim 12, Nagano as applied to the rejection of claim 10 above teaches a bonding portion provided between the mounting surface and the second metal layer of each of the plurality of submounts and configured to bond the submount to the base (fig . 10, the portion above 509 and be l ow 504 extending horizontally beyond 9 ; note as discussed in the rejection of claim 9, the element of fig. 10 has been duplicated leading to a plurality of submounts ) , wherein in a cross-sectional view parallel to the first direction, the bonding portion is filled within a region surrounded by virtual planes respectively including opposing lateral surfaces of the second metal layers of adjacent ones of the submounts, a virtual plane including the second surface, and a virtual plane including the mounting surface (fig. 10, region directly under 504 filled by 511) , and the bonding portion is not completely filled within a region surrounded by virtual planes respectively including opposing lateral surfaces of the second metal layers of the submounts adjacent to each other, a virtual plane including the first surface, and the virtual plane including the mounting surface (fig. 10, the region under the plane defined by the bottom of 504, the top of 509 and directly to the left of 9) . For claim 1 3 , Nagano teaches the semiconductor laser element is disposed such that a middle point of a width of the semiconductor laser element in the first direction (fig. 10, middle point of the taller portion 12’ connected to the lower layer 507) is disposed at a position shifted in the first direction from a middle point of the width of the substrate in the first direction (fig. 10, midpoint of 9 is shifted to the right of “ a middle point of a width of the semiconductor laser element ” described above) , and in the plan view, a middle point of the width of the second metal layer in the first direction (fig. 10, midpoint of 504) is shifted in the first direction from a middle point of the width of the first metal layer in the first direction (fig. 10, right 505) . Further the exact relative location of the first and second metal layer is not critical, and i t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the exact alignment of the first and second metal layer , since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. For claim 14 Nagano teaches a light-emitting device (fig. 10 and 11) comprising: a submount (fig. 11) including a substrate having an insulating property (fig. 10-11,9; [0134]; AlN is insulating) , and having a first surface (fig. 10-11, top of 9) and a second surface located on a side opposite to the first surface (fig. 10-11 bottom of 9) , the substrate having a shape in which a length in a second direction (fig. 11, length of 9 front to back) perpendicular to a first direction (fig. 11, left to right) is greater than a width in the first direction in a plan view as seen along a direction perpendicular to the first surface (fig. 11, left to right, width of 9D to the right of 9m) , a first metal layer arranged on the first surface of the substrate (fig. 10-11, 505) , and a second metal layer arranged on the second surface of the substrate (fig. 10-11, 504) ; and a width of the second metal layer (fig. 11, width of 504) is smaller than a width of the first metal layer in the first direction (fig. 11, width of 509). The embodiment of fig. 10-11 further teaches a non-zero difference (ΔW) between the width of the first metal layer and the width of the second metal layer in the first direction (Fig. 11, [(width of 505)-(width of 504)= ΔW>0]) and the first metal layer extends along the entire length of the substrate (fig. 11, 505 extends along the length of substrate 9). The embodiment of fig. 10-11 does not explicitly teach a difference (ΔL) between a length of the first metal layer and a length of the second metal layer in the second direction is smaller than a difference (ΔW) between the width of the first metal layer and the width of the second metal layer in the first direction (i.e. ΔL< ΔW) . While the embodiment of fig. 10-11 does not specifically teach the length of the second metal layer 504, the embodiment of fig. 8-9 provides a perspective view which teaches the second metal layer (504) as well as the first metal layer (505) extends along the entire length of the substrate (9) in order to provide a metallization layer for solder (fig. 8, 511, [0134],[0136]). 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 length of metallization layer 504 along the substrate as taught in the embodiment of fig. 8-9 with the embodiment of fig. 10-11 in order to provide a suitable metallization layer for solder. The combination results in ΔL=0 as both the first and second metal layer extend along the length substrate 9. The combination therefore teaches ΔL< ΔW. For claim 15 , Nagano teaches in the plan view, a middle point of the width of the second metal layer in the first direction (fig. 10, midpoint of 504) is shifted in the first direction from a middle point of the width of the first metal layer in the first direction (fig. 10, right 505) . Further the exact relative location of the first and second metal layer is not critical, and i t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the exact alignment of the first and second metal layer , since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2004/0264862 (Nagano) in view of US 2020/0264500 (Kozuru). For claim 3 , Nagano remains applied according to the rejection of claim 1. Nagano does not teach the semiconductor laser element has a shape in which a length of the semiconductor laser element in the second direction is greater than a width of the semiconductor laser element in the first direction. However, Kozuru teaches semiconductor laser element s ha ving a shape in which a length of the semiconductor laser element in the second direction (fig. 4, 20, 2 nd direction is X) is greater than a width of the semiconductor laser element in the first direction (fig. 4, 20, 1 st direction is Y) in order to produce red, green, blue, or other colored output ([0048]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the laser element of Kozuru as a simple substitution for the laser element of Nagano in order to produce a desired colored output as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art and the substitution would have yielded predictable results. In the present case, the substituted component provides an alternative laser for generating a beam of a desired wavelength . See MPEP 2143 I.B. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2006/0054906 and US 2008/0278015 teach substrates similar to the one claimed in independent claim 1 of the instant application. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Michael W Carter whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1872 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F, 9:00-5:30 . 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. /Michael Carter/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828