CTNF 18/321,257 CTNF 82482 DETAILED ACTION Claims 1 through 20 originally filed 22 May 2023. Claims 1 through 20 are addressed by this action. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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)(4). The description uses the reference characters "005", "102", and "1083" to refer to more than one part each. The same reference character must never be used to designate different parts. In the present case, these reference characters or similar numbers appear in the following locations: "005" is mentioned in ¶23, ¶24, and ¶46, "102" is mentioned in ¶25, ¶26, ¶27, ¶28, ¶36, ¶37, ¶38, ¶39, ¶40, ¶49, ¶50, ¶56, ¶57, ¶61, ¶72, and ¶82, and "1083" is mentioned in ¶80. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5). The drawings include the reference character "008" which does not appear in the description. Reference characters not mentioned in the description must not appear in the drawings. In the present case, these reference characters or similar numbers appear in the following locations: "008" is mentioned in ¶46 and ¶47. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1). Each of figures 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 12 include multiple views that are not separately labeled. Each view must be individually labeled. 06-22 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 Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 7 and 9 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 introduces a "target electrode". However, this element is already introduced in parent claim 6. These elements appear to be the same. Since this element is already introduced in the parent claim, references to this element should use "the" or "said" rather than "a". Claim 9 introduces a "target electrode". However, this element is already introduced in parent claim 6. These elements appear to be the same. Since this element is already introduced in the parent claim, references to this element should use "the" or "said" rather than "a" . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 18, 19, and 20 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 18, this claim uses the phrase "in the case that". Inclusion of the conditional phrase starting with "in the case that" introduces a condition that must be met for the following features to be strictly required. However, it is unclear if the condition is allowed to be false such that the following features need not be present within the scope of the claim. Since it is not clear if the features following the "in the case that" statement are strictly required by this claim or not, 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 limitation will be interpreted as requiring the condition to be met. Regarding claim 19, this claim uses the phrase "in the case that". Inclusion of the conditional phrase starting with "in the case that" introduces a condition that must be met for the following features to be strictly required. However, it is unclear if the condition is allowed to be false such that the following features need not be present within the scope of the claim. Since it is not clear if the features following the "in the case that" statement are strictly required by this claim or not, 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 limitation will be interpreted as requiring the condition to be met. Regarding claim 20, this claim uses the phrase "in the case that". Inclusion of the conditional phrase starting with "in the case that" introduces a condition that must be met for the following features to be strictly required. However, it is unclear if the condition is allowed to be false such that the following features need not be present within the scope of the claim. Since it is not clear if the features following the "in the case that" statement are strictly required by this claim or not, 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 limitation will be interpreted as requiring the condition to be met. 07-36 AIA 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. 07-36-01 AIA Claim 8 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 8, this claim only requires "Wherein in an extension direction of a first conductive pin of the plurality of conductive chips, a distance between an end, proximal to a first light-emitting chip of the plurality of light-emitting chips, of the first conductive pin and an end, proximal to the first light-emitting chip, of a first support is less than a distance threshold." However, each of these elements were already introduced or necessarily present in parent claim 6. Further, the "distance threshold" is only set forth in this claim as relating these pre-existing elements without further constraint on the "distance threshold". Since the "distance threshold" only defines that a relation between these elements exists without constraining that relation and since each of the claimed elements are necessarily present in parent claim 6, this claim does not require anything beyond that which is already necessarily present in parent claim 6. 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 § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1 through 4 and 12 through 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi (US Pub. 2017/0336703) in view of Yamamoto (US Pub. 2010/0074288) . Takagi was part of the IDS received 22 May 2023. Regarding claim 1, Takagi discloses, "A base plate" (p. [0070] and Fig. 3, pt. 6). "An annular side wall" (p. [0070] and Fig. 3, pt. 7). "A plurality of conductive pins" (p. [0070] and Fig. 3, pt. 9T). "A plurality of light-emitting chips" (p. [0070] and Fig. 3, pt. 5). "A plurality of conductive wires" (p. [0089] and Fig. 5, pts. 91, 92, and 94). "Wherein the side wall and the plurality of light-emitting chips are disposed on the base plate" (p. [0075], [0079], and Fig. 3, pts. 5, 6, and 7). "The side wall surrounds the plurality of light-emitting chips" (p. [0079] and Fig. 3, pts. 5 and 7). "The plurality of conductive pins are extended through the side wall and are affixed into the side wall" (p. [0079], [0085], and Figs. 6 and 7, pts. 7, 9Ta, 9Tb, and 71h). Takagi does not explicitly disclose, "Sides, distal from the base plate, of portions of the plurality of conductive pins surrounded by the side wall comprise planar regions." "Wherein the planar region of each of the plurality of conductive pins is connected to the light-emitting chip via the conductive wire." Yamamoto discloses, "Sides, distal from the base plate, of portions of the plurality of conductive pins surrounded by the side wall comprise planar regions" (p. [0029] and Fig. 3, pts. 42 and 42a, where pins 9T of Takagi are modified to include flat pad portions such as 42a for each pin and the flat pad portions are oriented to be parallel to the base plate of Takagi in like manner to how the flat pad portions of Yamamoto are parallel to submount 13). "Wherein the planar region of each of the plurality of conductive pins is connected to the light-emitting chip via the conductive wire" (p. [0029] and Fig. 3, pts. 20 and 42a). 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 Takagi with the teachings of Yamamoto. In view of the teachings of Takagi regarding a laser array composed of multiple rows of emitters, the additional inclusion of flat pads at the ends of the pins as taught by Yamamoto would enhance the teachings of Takagi by allowing for simplified connection between the wires and the pins. Regarding claim 2, Takagi does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the planar region is disposed at an end, distal from the side wall, of the portion of the conductive pin surrounded by the side wall." Yamamoto discloses, "Wherein the planar region is disposed at an end, distal from the side wall, of the portion of the conductive pin surrounded by the side wall" (p. [0029] and Fig. 2, pts. 11, 42, and 42a, where modifying the pins of Takagi to include a flat portion in this manner results in this arrangement). 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 Takagi with the teachings of Yamamoto for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1. Regarding claim 3, Takagi does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein sides, proximal to the base plate, of the portions of the plurality of conductive pins surrounded by the side wall comprise planar regions." Yamamoto discloses, "Wherein sides, proximal to the base plate, of the portions of the plurality of conductive pins surrounded by the side wall comprise planar regions" (p. [0029] and Fig. 3, pts. 42 and 42a, where pins 9T of Takagi are modified to include flat pad portions such as 42a for each pin and the flat pad portions are oriented to be parallel to the base plate of Takagi in like manner to how the flat pad portions of Yamamoto are parallel to submount 13). 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 Takagi with the teachings of Yamamoto for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1. Regarding claim 4, Takagi does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a boundary of the planar region defines a rectangle." "Wherein a length direction of the rectangle is parallel to an extension direction of the conductive pin." Yamamoto discloses, "Wherein a boundary of the planar region defines a rectangle" (p. [0029] and Fig. 2, pt. 42a). "Wherein a length direction of the rectangle is parallel to an extension direction of the conductive pin" (p. [0029] and Fig. 2, pt. 42a). 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 Takagi with the teachings of Yamamoto for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1. Regarding claim 12, The combination of Takagi and Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a length of the planar region in an extension direction of the conductive pin ranges from 2 mm to 3 mm; and/or a length of the planar region in a direction perpendicular to the extension direction of the conductive pin ranges from 1 mm to 2 mm." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the length and width of the planar portion of the pin within the claimed range so as to provide an adequate connection area, 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. Regarding claim 13, The combination of Takagi and Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein in the extension direction of the conductive pin, a length of the portion of the conductive pin surrounded by the side wall ranges from 3 mm to 3.5 mm; and/or a length of the conductive pin ranges from 8 mm to 10 mm." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the length of the conductive pin within the claimed range so as to provide suitable device connections, 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. Regarding claim 14, Takagi does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein another portion of the conductive pin is in a cylindrical shape." "An orthogonal projection of the another portion on the base plate is disposed beyond an orthogonal projection of the planar region on the base plate." Yamamoto discloses, "Wherein another portion of the conductive pin is in a cylindrical shape" (p. [0029] and Fig. 3, pt. 42). "An orthogonal projection of the another portion on the base plate is disposed beyond an orthogonal projection of the planar region on the base plate" (p. [0029] and Fig. 2, pts. 11, 42, and 42a, where modifying the pins of Takagi to include a flat portion in this manner results in this arrangement). 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 Takagi with the teachings of Yamamoto for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5 through 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi, in view of Yamamoto, and further in view of Horn et al. (Horn, US Pub. 2015/0055667) . Regarding claim 5, Takagi discloses, "Wherein the plurality of light-emitting chips are arranged in a plurality of rows and a plurality of columns" (p. [0070] and Fig. 3, pt. 5). "The plurality of conductive pins comprise positive pins and negative pins" (p. [0077] and Fig. 3, pts. 9Ta and 9Tb). The combination of Takagi and Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose, "The plurality of light-emitting chips and the plurality of conductive pins meet conditions that: the positive pins and the negative pins are respectively affixed into two opposite sides of the side wall in a row direction of the plurality of light-emitting chips, at least one row of the plurality of light-emitting chips are cascaded, and two first light-emitting chips in the at least one row of the plurality of light-emitting chips are respective proximal to the two opposite sides of the side wall; or the plurality of conductive pins are affixed into a target side of the side wall, at least two rows of the plurality of light-emitting chips are cascaded, and two first light-emitting chips in the at least two rows of the plurality of light-emitting chips are in different rows and are proximal to the target side of the side wall." Horn discloses, "The plurality of light-emitting chips and the plurality of conductive pins meet conditions that: the positive pins and the negative pins are respectively affixed into two opposite sides of the side wall in a row direction of the plurality of light-emitting chips, at least one row of the plurality of light-emitting chips are cascaded, and two first light-emitting chips in the at least one row of the plurality of light-emitting chips are respective proximal to the two opposite sides of the side wall; or the plurality of conductive pins are affixed into a target side of the side wall, at least two rows of the plurality of light-emitting chips are cascaded, and two first light-emitting chips in the at least two rows of the plurality of light-emitting chips are in different rows and are proximal to the target side of the side wall" (p. [0159] and Fig. 4, pts. 330, 401, and 402). 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 Takagi and Yamamoto with the teachings of Horn. In view of the teachings of Takagi regarding a laser array composed of multiple rows of emitters, the additional inclusion of support members between the pins and the lasers as taught by Horn would enhance the teachings of Takagi and Yamamoto by providing a suitable means for supporting the wiring connections between the pins and the lasers. Regarding claim 6, The combination of Takagi and Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose, "A plurality of supports affixed on the base plate." "Wherein each of the plurality of conductive pins corresponds to one of the plurality of supports." "A first conductive face of each of the plurality of supports is connected to a wiring region of the corresponding conductive pin and a target electrode of the light-emitting chip via the conductive wires." Horn discloses, "A plurality of supports affixed on the base plate" (p. [0145] and Fig. 3, pts. 310 and 320, where these supports are fixed on base plate 6 when used in the arrangement of Takagi). "Wherein each of the plurality of conductive pins corresponds to one of the plurality of supports" (p. [0159] and Figs. 3 and 4, pts. 310, 320, 401, and 402). "A first conductive face of each of the plurality of supports is connected to a wiring region of the corresponding conductive pin and a target electrode of the light-emitting chip via the conductive wires" (p. [0147], [0159], and Figs. 3 and 4, pts. 100, 200, 310, 320, 351, 357, 358, 359, 401, and 402). 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 Takagi and Yamamoto with the teachings of Horn for the reasons provided above regarding claim 5. Regarding claim 7, Takagi discloses, "The first conductive pin is any one of the plurality of conductive pins" (Fig. 3, pt. 9Ta). The combination of Takagi and Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the first conductive face of the support is a surface, distal from the base plate, of the support." "In an extension direction of a first conductive pin of the plurality of conductive pins, a first support is disposed between a wiring region of the first conductive pin and a first light-emitting chip of the plurality of light-emitting chips." "The first conductive pin is connected to the first light-emitting chip by the first support." Horn discloses, "Wherein the first conductive face of the support is a surface, distal from the base plate, of the support" (p. [0145] and Fig. 3, pts. 310 and 311). "In an extension direction of a first conductive pin of the plurality of conductive pins, a first support is disposed between a wiring region of the first conductive pin and a first light-emitting chip of the plurality of light-emitting chips" (p. [0159] and Fig. 5, pts. 100, 310, and 401). "The first conductive pin is connected to the first light-emitting chip by the first support" (p. [0147], [0159], and Figs. 3 and 4, pts. 100, 200, 310, 320, 351, 357, 358, 359, 401, and 402). 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 Takagi and Yamamoto with the teachings of Horn for the reasons provided above regarding claim 5. The combination of Takagi, Yamamoto, and Horn does not explicitly disclose, "A height of the wiring region of the first conductive pin relative to the base plate, a height of a first conductive face of the first support relative to the base plate, and a height of a target electrode of the first light-emitting chip relative to the base plate are sequentially decreased." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the relative heights of the noted elements within the claimed range so as to provide a short connection distance between the noted elements, 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. Regarding claim 8, The combination of Takagi and Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein in an extension direction of a first conductive pin of the plurality of conductive chips, a distance between an end, proximal to a first light-emitting chip of the plurality of light-emitting chips, of the first conductive pin and an end, proximal to the first light-emitting chip, of a first support is less than a distance threshold." Horn discloses, "Wherein in an extension direction of a first conductive pin of the plurality of conductive chips, a distance between an end, proximal to a first light-emitting chip of the plurality of light-emitting chips, of the first conductive pin and an end, proximal to the first light-emitting chip, of a first support is less than a distance threshold" (Fig. 5, pts. 100, 310, and 401). 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 Takagi and Yamamoto with the teachings of Horn for the reasons provided above regarding claim 5. Regarding claim 9, The combination of Takagi and Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose, "A plurality of heat sinks." "Wherein the plurality of heat sinks are in one-to-one correspondence with the plurality of light-emitting chips." "The light-emitting chip is affixed on the base plate via the corresponding heat sink." "Wherein a surface, distal from the base plate, of the heat sink is a second conductive face." "For a first light-emitting chip of which a target electrode is proximal to the heat sink, the target electrode of the first light-emitting chip is electronically connected to the conductive wire via the second conductive face." Horn discloses, "A plurality of heat sinks" (p. [0139] and Fig. 3, pts. 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, and 206). "Wherein the plurality of heat sinks are in one-to-one correspondence with the plurality of light-emitting chips" (p. [0139] and Fig. 3, pts. 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, and 206). "The light-emitting chip is affixed on the base plate via the corresponding heat sink" (p. [0139] and Fig. 3, pts. 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, and 206). "Wherein a surface, distal from the base plate, of the heat sink is a second conductive face" (p. [0135] and Fig. 3, pts. 200 and 230). "For a first light-emitting chip of which a target electrode is proximal to the heat sink, the target electrode of the first light-emitting chip is electronically connected to the conductive wire via the second conductive face" (p. [0147] and Fig. 3, pts. 101, 201, 230, and 351). 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 Takagi and Yamamoto with the teachings of Horn for the reasons provided above regarding claim 5. Regarding claim 10, The combination of Takagi and Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the support comprises a support body and a conductive layer." "Wherein the conductive layer is disposed on a side, distal from the base plate, of the support body." "The support body is made of an insulating material." Horn discloses, "Wherein the support comprises a support body and a conductive layer" (p. [0146] and Fig. 3, pts. 310 and 311). "Wherein the conductive layer is disposed on a side, distal from the base plate, of the support body" (p. [0146] and Fig. 3, pts. 310 and 311, where surface 311 is opposite base plate 6 when used in the arrangement of Takagi). "The support body is made of an insulating material" (p. [0146] and Fig. 3, pt. 310). 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 Takagi and Yamamoto with the teachings of Horn for the reasons provided above regarding claim 5. Regarding claim 11, The combination of Takagi and Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the support further comprises a first auxiliary affixing layer, wherein the first auxiliary affixing layer is disposed between the support body and the conductive layer; and/or the support further comprises a second auxiliary affixing layer, wherein the second auxiliary affixing layer is disposed on a side, proximal to the base plate, of the support body." Horn discloses, "Wherein the support further comprises a first auxiliary affixing layer, wherein the first auxiliary affixing layer is disposed between the support body and the conductive layer; and/or the support further comprises a second auxiliary affixing layer, wherein the second auxiliary affixing layer is disposed on a side, proximal to the base plate, of the support body" (p. [0146] and Fig. 3, pts. 300 and 310, where the solder fixing 310 to block 300 corresponds to the affixing layer). 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 Takagi and Yamamoto with the teachings of Horn for the reasons provided above regarding claim 5. Regarding claim 15, The combination of Takagi, Yamamoto, and Horn does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the support meets at least one of conditions that a distance between the first conductive face and the base plate ranges from 0.3 mm to 0.4 mm." "An area of the first conductive face ranges from 0.8 mm² to 1.1 mm²." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the height and surface area of the support so as to provide short connection distances between the regions to which the support are wired and to provide an adequate surface area for providing those connections, 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 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi in view of Horn . Regarding claim 16, Takagi discloses, "A base plate" (p. [0070] and Fig. 3, pt. 6). "An annular side wall" (p. [0070] and Fig. 3, pt. 7). "A plurality of conductive pins" (p. [0070] and Fig. 3, pt. 9T). "A plurality of light-emitting chips" (p. [0070] and Fig. 3, pt. 5). "A plurality of conductive wires" (p. [0089] and Fig. 5, pts. 91, 92, and 94). "Wherein the side wall and the plurality of light-emitting chips are disposed on the base plate" (p. [0075], [0079], and Fig. 3, pts. 5, 6, and 7). "The side wall surrounds the plurality of light-emitting chips" (p. [0079] and Fig. 3, pts. 5 and 7). "The plurality of conductive pins are extended through the side wall and are affixed into the side wall" (p. [0079], [0085], and Figs. 6 and 7, pts. 7, 9Ta, 9Tb, and 71h). Takagi does not explicitly disclose, "A plurality of supports." "The plurality of supports are affixed on the base plate." "Each of the plurality of conductive pins corresponds to one of the plurality of supports." "A first conductive face of each of the plurality of supports is connected to a wiring region of the corresponding conductive pin and a target electrode of the light-emitting chip via the conductive wires." Horn discloses, "A plurality of supports" (p. [0145] and Fig. 3, pts. 310 and 320). "The plurality of supports are affixed on the base plate" (p. [0145] and Fig. 3, pts. 310 and 320, where these supports are fixed on base plate 6 when used in the arrangement of Takagi). "Each of the plurality of conductive pins corresponds to one of the plurality of supports" (p. [0159] and Figs. 3 and 4, pts. 310, 320, 401, and 402). "A first conductive face of each of the plurality of supports is connected to a wiring region of the corresponding conductive pin and a target electrode of the light-emitting chip via the conductive wires" (p. [0147], [0159], and Figs. 3 and 4, pts. 100, 200, 310, 320, 351, 357, 358, 359, 401, and 402). 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 Takagi with the teachings of Horn. In view of the teachings of Takagi regarding a laser array composed of multiple rows of emitters, the additional inclusion of support members between the pins and the lasers as taught by Horn would enhance the teachings of Takagi by providing a suitable means for supporting the wiring connections between the pins and the lasers . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi, in view of Horn, and further in view of Yamamoto . Regarding claim 17, The combination of Takagi and Horn does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein sides, distal from the base plate, of portions of the plurality of conductive pins surrounded by the side wall comprise planar regions." "Wherein the planar region of each of the plurality of conductive pins is connected to the light-emitting chip via the conductive wire." Yamamoto discloses, "Wherein sides, distal from the base plate, of portions of the plurality of conductive pins surrounded by the side wall comprise planar regions" (p. [0029] and Fig. 3, pts. 42 and 42a, where pins 9T of Takagi are modified to include flat pad portions such as 42a for each pin and the flat pad portions are oriented to be parallel to the base plate of Takagi in like manner to how the flat pad portions of Yamamoto are parallel to submount 13). "Wherein the planar region of each of the plurality of conductive pins is connected to the light-emitting chip via the conductive wire" (p. [0029] and Fig. 3, pts. 20 and 42a). 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 Takagi and Horn with the teachings of Yamamoto. In view of the teachings of Takagi regarding a laser array composed of multiple rows of emitters, the additional inclusion of flat pads at the ends of the pins as taught by Yamamoto would enhance the teachings of Takagi and Horn by allowing for simplified connection between the wires and the pins. Regarding claim 18, Takagi discloses, "Wherein in the case that the laser is a laser of a single color" (p. [0054] and Fig. 3, pt. 5). "The plurality of light-emitting chips are arranged in N rows" (p. [0087] and Fig. 5, pts. 5, 5Ga, 5Gb, 5Gc, and 5Gd). "N being an integer greater than or equal to 1" (p. [0087] and Fig. 5, pts. 5, 5Ga, 5Gb, 5Gc, and 5Gd). Takagi does not explicitly disclose, "A number of the supports [is] 2N." Horn discloses, "A number of the supports [is] 2N" (p. [0145] and Fig. 3, pts. 310 and 320, where each row of emitters has 2 supports). 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 Takagi with the teachings of Horn for the reasons provided above regarding claim 16. The combination of Takagi and Horn does not explicitly disclose, "A number of the planar regions [is] 2N." Yamamoto discloses, "A number of the planar regions [is] 2N" (p. [0029] and Fig. 3, pts. 42 and 42a, where each row of emitters corresponds to two pins, each of which include planar regions). 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 Takagi and Horn with the teachings of Yamamoto for the reasons provided above regarding claim 17 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi, in view of Horn, in view of Yamamoto, and further in view of Miura et al. (Miura, US Pub. 2019/0103723) . Regarding claim 19, Takagi discloses, "The plurality of light-emitting chips are arranged in N rows" (p. [0087] and Fig. 5, pts. 5, 5Ga, 5Gb, 5Gc, and 5Gd). "Colors of laser light emitted by the light-emitting chips arranged in each of the N rows are the same" (p. [0054] and Fig. 3, pt. 5). "N being a multiple of 4" (p. [0087] and Fig. 5, pts. 5, 5Ga, 5Gb, 5Gc, and 5Gd). Takagi does not explicitly disclose, "A number of the supports [is] 2N." Horn discloses, "A number of the supports [is] 2N" (p. [0145] and Fig. 3, pts. 310 and 320, where each row of emitters has 2 supports). 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 Takagi with the teachings of Horn for the reasons provided above regarding claim 16. The combination of Takagi and Horn does not explicitly disclose, "A number of the planar regions [is] 2N." Yamamoto discloses, "A number of the planar regions [is] 2N" (p. [0029] and Fig. 3, pts. 42 and 42a, where each row of emitters corresponds to two pins, each of which include planar regions). 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 Takagi and Horn with the teachings of Yamamoto for the reasons provided above regarding claim 17. The combination of Takagi, Horn, and Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein in the case that the laser is a laser of three colors." Miura discloses, "Wherein in the case that the laser is a laser of three colors" (p. [0038] and Fig. 4, pts. 21, 22, and 23). 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 Takagi, Horn, and Yamamoto with the teachings of Miura. In view of the teachings of Takagi regarding a laser array composed of multiple rows of emitters, the alternate configuration of at least some lasers to emit in multiple wavelengths as taught by Miura would enhance the teachings of Takagi, Horn, and Yamamoto by providing a suitably alternate manner of producing white light . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi, in view of Horn, in view of Yamamoto, in view of Miura, and further in view of Yano et al. (Yano, US Pub. 2013/0088159) . Regarding claim 20, Takagi discloses, "The plurality of light-emitting chips are arranged in N rows" (p. [0087] and Fig. 5, pts. 5, 5Ga, 5Gb, 5Gc, and 5Gd). "N being a multiple of 2" (p. [0087] and Fig. 5, pts. 5, 5Ga, 5Gb, 5Gc, and 5Gd). The combination of Takagi, Horn, and Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein in the case that the laser is a laser of three colors." "The light-emitting chips of at least one of the N rows comprise light-emitting chips for emitting laser light of two colors." Miura discloses, "Wherein in the case that the laser is a laser of three colors" (p. [0038] and Fig. 4, pts. 21, 22, and 23). "The light-emitting chips of at least one of the N rows comprise light-emitting chips for emitting laser light of two colors" (p. [0038] and Fig. 8, pts. 21, 22, and 23, where the lasers of different colors are arranged in a row). 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 Takagi, Horn, and Yamamoto with the teachings of Miura for the reasons provided above regarding claim 19. The combination of Takagi, Horn, Yamamoto, and Miura does not explicitly disclose, "A number of the supports is 3N." Yano discloses, "A number of the supports is 3N" (p. [0046] and Fig. 1, pts. 14c, 14d, 15b, 101, and 104, where the rows of Takagi may be connected extending both from and to the pins in like manner to lines 101 and 104 of Yano by arranging the supports of Horn in the same manner as electrodes 14c, 14d, and 15b so as to provide connections for those lines in same manner). 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 Takagi, Horn, Yamamoto, and Miura with the teachings of Yano. In view of the teachings of Takagi regarding a laser array composed of multiple rows of emitters and the teachings of Horn regarding the inclusion of support members between the pins and the lasers, the alternate arrangement of the laser rows to both proceed from and return to the external connections as taught by Yano would enhance the teachings of Takagi, Horn, Yamamoto, and Miura by allowing the laser rows to be more compactly arranged relative to the arrangement of Takagi . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kiyota et al. (Kiyota, US Pub. 2016/0341395) is cited for teaching a laser array including support members between each laser emitter. Taji (US Pub. 2019/0067913) is cited for teaching a laser array including emitters that are connected in series in two rows. Hashimoto et al. (Hashimoto, US Pub. 2019/0123509) is cited for teaching a laser array including support members between laser emitter rows and package pins. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean P Hagan whose telephone number is (571)270-1242. The examiner can normally be reached 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, 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. /SEAN P HAGAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2828 Application/Control Number: 18/321,257 Page 2 Art Unit: 2828 Application/Control Number: 18/321,257 Page 4 Art Unit: 2828 Application/Control Number: 18/321,257 Page 5 Art Unit: 2828 Application/Control Number: 18/321,257 Page 6 Art Unit: 2828 Application/Control Number: 18/321,257 Page 7 Art Unit: 2828 Application/Control Number: 18/321,257 Page 9 Art Unit: 2828 Application/Control Number: 18/321,257 Page 10 Art Unit: 2828 Application/Control Number: 18/321,257 Page 11 Art Unit: 2828 Application/Control Number: 18/321,257 Page 12 Art Unit: 2828 Application/Control Number: 18/321,257 Page 14 Art Unit: 2828 Application/Control Number: 18/321,257 Page 16 Art Unit: 2828 Application/Control Number: 18/321,257 Page 17 Art Unit: 2828 Application/Control Number: 18/321,257 Page 19 Art Unit: 2828 Application/Control Number: 18/321,257 Page 20 Art Unit: 2828