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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/04/2025 was filed after the filing date of the claimed application on 08/03/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-9 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, lines 35 and 36 reads “… light is emitted to a region of a 0.5mm square on the incident surface of the wavelength conversion member.” Examiner notes that the term “0.5 mm square” is not clearly defined in the claims or the specification. It is unclear on if the claim is limiting a 0.5 mm square as a square shape with each side measuring 0.5 mm or a square shape with an area of 0.5 mm.
For the purposes of examination in the instant application, the term “0.5 mm square” is understood to mean a square with an area of 0.5 mm.
Similarly, line 13 of claim 5 reads “the incident surface does not protrude from a 0.75 mm square in a plan view.” Examiner notes that the term “0.75 mm square” is not clearly defined in the claims or the specification. It is unclear on if the claim is limiting a 0.75 mm square as a square shape with each side measuring 0.75 mm or a square shape with an area of 0.75 mm.
For the purposes of examination in the instant application, the term “0.75 mm square” is understood to mean a square with an area of 0.75 mm.
Regarding claim 2, lines 6-8 of claim 2 read “the farther one of the at least four light reflecting surfaces of the second light reflecting member is, the larger a width of the one of the at least four light reflecting surfaces of the second light reflecting member is.” Examiner notes that the reference point of where the distance of the at least four light reflecting surface as being “farther from” is not stated in the limitations of the claim. Lines 1-5 of claim 2 states the distance of the first light reflecting member is referring to the distance from the first semiconductor laser element but lines 6-8 of claim 2 do not state a point of which is being referred to in order to determine distance.
For the purposes of examination in the instant application, the point of reference to determine the “farther” as recited in lines 6-8 of claim 2 is understood to be the second semiconductor laser element.
Claim 8 includes the limitation in lines 6-9 of “the at least four light reflecting surfaces of the second light reflecting member have a fifth light reflecting surface, a sixth light reflecting surface, a seventh light reflecting surface, and an eighth light reflecting surface in order of proximity to the second semiconductor laser element”
Examiner notes the labeling of fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth light reflecting surfaces following the term “the at least four light reflecting surfaces of the second light reflecting member” is unclear on if the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth light reflecting surfaces are integrally a part of the previously stated four light reflecting surfaces of the second light reflecting member or if the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth light reflecting surfaces are separate and totaling to eight distinct light reflecting surface included in the second light reflecting member.
For the purposes of examination in the instant application, the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth light reflecting surfaces are understood to be the same element as the first, second, third, and fourth (respectively) light reflecting surfaces of the second light reflecting member.
Similarly, claim 9 (which depends on claim 8), includes the term “the sixth light reflecting surface” in line 6 of claim 9. As stated above, the interpretation taken for the purposes of examination in the instant application is that the sixth light reflecting surface is understood to be the second light reflecting surface included in the second light reflecting member.
Claims 2-9 are rejected at least on their dependency to indefinite claim 1.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected at least on their dependency to indefinite claims 1 and 5.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1,2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura (US 20190058303 A1) in view of Miyata (US 20170227175 A1) and Li et al. (hereinafter Li) (WO 2019193658 A1).
Examiner notes an attached machine translation will be used for the claim mapping of Li for the remainder of the instant Office Action. See PTO-892 form.
Regarding claim 1, Miura discloses in Fig. 20,
A light-emitting device [400 Fig. 19] (Para. [0077]) comprising:
a first semiconductor laser element [left side 10] (Paras. [0034,0077]) (see examiners markup below) configured to emit first light (Paras. [0034,0044])
a first light reflecting member [left side 20] (see examiners markup below) (Para. [0077]) having at least four light reflecting surfaces [21] (Para. [0057]) sequentially connected in an order of proximity to the first semiconductor laser element [left side 10] (Paras. [0057,0058]);
a second semiconductor laser element [right side 10] (Paras. [0034,0077]) (see examiners markup below) configured to emit second light (Paras. [0034,0044])
a second light reflecting member [right side 20] (see examiners markup below) (Para. [0077]) having at least four light reflecting surfaces [21] (Para. [0057]) sequentially connected in an order of proximity to the second semiconductor laser element (Paras. [0057,0058]); and
a wavelength conversion member [30,90 Fig. 5] (Paras. [0065-0067,0078]) having an incident surface [bottom surface of 30 Fig. 5] (Paras. [0065,0078]) on which the first light reflected by the first light reflecting member [left side 21] and the second light reflected by the second light reflecting member [right side 21] are incident (Paras. [0065,0078]), wherein
each part of a main portion of the first light emitted from the first semiconductor laser element [left side 10] (Paras. [0034,0077]) is reflected by at least one of the at least four light reflecting surfaces [21] (Para. [0057]) of the first light reflecting member [left side 21] (See Fig. 4) (Para. [0057]),
each part of a main portion of the second light emitted from the second semiconductor laser element [right side 10] (Paras. [0034,0077]) is reflected by at least one of the at least four light reflecting surfaces [21] (Para. [0057]) of the second light reflecting member [right side 21] (See Fig. 4) (Para. [0057]),
a light intensity distribution in the fast axis direction of the first light on the incident surface of the wavelength conversion member [30,90 Fig. 5] (Paras. [0049,0053]) is more uniform than a light intensity distribution in a fast axis direction of a far-field pattern of the first semiconductor laser element [left side 10] (Paras. [0049,0053]),
a light intensity distribution in the fast axis direction of the second light on the incident surface of the wavelength conversion member [30,90 Fig. 5] (Paras. [0049,0053]) is more uniform than a light intensity distribution in a fast axis direction of a far-field pattern of the second semiconductor laser element [right side 10] (Paras. [0049,0053]),
Examiner notes Para. [0054] of Miura states there can be four or more regions of the light-reflecting surface [21].
Miura fails to disclose,
a first semiconductor laser element configured to emit first light having a divergence angle of 15 degrees or more and less than 90 degrees in a fast axis direction and a divergence angle of more than 0 degrees and 8 degrees or less in a slow axis direction;
a second semiconductor laser element configured to emit second light having a divergence angle of 15 degrees or more and less than 90 degrees in a fast axis direction and a divergence angle of more than 0 degrees and 8 degrees or less in a slow axis direction;
In a state where the first light and the second light are combined on the incident surface of the wavelength conversion member, 93% or more of a sum of a light output of the first light and a light output of the second light is emitted to a region of a 0.5 mm square on the incident surface of the wavelength conversion member.
Miyata discloses in Figs. 3 and 4,
a semiconductor laser element [4] (Para. [0048]) configured to emit light having a divergence angle [a2] (Para. [0048]) of 15 degrees of more and less than 90 degrees in a fast axis direction [Y-axis direction] (Paras. [0048,0068]) and a divergence angle [a2] (Paras. [0048,0063]) of more than 0 degrees and 8 degrees or less (Para. 0066]) in a slow axis direction [x-direction] (Para. [0063])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the divergence angles of the fast and slow axis directions of the light of Miyata with the two semiconductor laser elements of Miura for the purpose of emitting uniform light with small optical loss. (Miyata Paras. [0053,0065])
Miura in view of Miyata fails to disclose,
In a state where the first light and the second light are combined on the incident surface of the wavelength conversion member, 93% or more of a sum of a light output of the first light and a light output of the second light is emitted to a region of a 0.5 mm square on the incident surface of the wavelength conversion member.
Li discloses in Fig. 9,
an incident surface of a wavelength conversion member [5] (Para. [0036]) with an excitation spot [18(9)] (Para. [0038]) of a 0.4mm x 0.4mm square [a2 x b2] (see Fig. 9(c)) (Para. [0038])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the excitation spot dimensions of Li as the incident spot size of the light of Miura in view of Miyata for the purpose of having a more symmetrical spot size for incoming light incident on the wavelength conversion element. (Li Para. [0037])
PNG
media_image1.png
591
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Miura in view of Miyata and Li discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Miura,
wherein
the farther one of the at least four light reflecting surfaces [21 Fig. 5] (Para. [0057]) of the first light reflecting member [left side 20 Fig. 20] (Para. [0077]) is from the first semiconductor laser element [left side 10 Fig. 20] (Para. [0077]), the larger a width [length value “L” Fig. 5] (Para. [0060]) of the one of the at least four light reflecting surfaces [21 Fig. 5] (Para. [0057]) of the first light reflecting member is [increasing width values L1,L3,L2 in order of increasing distance to 10 Fig. 5] (Para. 0060]), and
the farther one of the at least four light reflecting surfaces [21 Fig. 5] (Para. [0057]) of the second light reflecting member [right side 20 Fig. 20] (Para. [0077]) is, the larger a width [length value “L” Fig. 5] (Para. [0060]) of the one of the at least four light reflecting surfaces [21 Fig. 5] (Para. [0057]) of the second light reflecting member is [increasing width values L1,L3,L2 in order of increasing distance to 10 Fig. 5] (Para. 0060]).
Regarding claim 4, Miura in view of Miyata and Li discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Miura,
wherein
the at least four light reflecting surfaces [21 Fig. 5] (Para. [0057]) of the first light reflecting member [left side 21 Fig. 20] (Para. [0057]) have a first light reflecting surface [21a Fig. 5], a second light reflecting surface [21c Fig. 5], a third light reflecting surface [21b Fig. 5], and a fourth light reflecting surface (Para. [0057]) in order of proximity to the first semiconductor laser element [Miura 10 Figs. 5 and 20] (Para. [0057]),
each of the first light reflecting surface [21a Fig. 5] (Para. [0057]), the second light reflecting surface [21a Fig. 5] (Para. [0057]), the third light reflecting surface [21a Fig. 5] (Para. [0057]), and the fourth light reflecting surface (Para. [0057]) is inclined with respect to a lower surface of the light reflecting member [20 Fig. 5] (Para. [0060]), and
a difference between an inclination angle of the first light reflecting surface [21a Fig. 5] (Para. [0060]) and an inclination angle of the second light reflecting surface [21c Fig. 5] (Para. [0060]) is smaller than a difference between the inclination angle of the second light reflecting surface [21c Fig. 5] (Para. [0060]) and an inclination angle of the third light reflecting surface [21b Fig. 5] (Para. [0060]).
Difference of angle for 21c and 21a: (45-31.5 = 13.5) and difference of angle for 21b and 21c: (60-45=15), see Miura Para. [0060])
Regarding claim 5, Miura in view of Miyata and Li discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses,
wherein
the wavelength conversion member [Miura 30,90 Figs. 2 and 3] includes
a wavelength conversion portion [Miura 30 Figs. 2 and 3] (Para. [0065]) having the incident surface [Miura bottom of 30 Figs. 2 and 3] (Para. [0065]) and an emission surface [Miura top of 30 Figs. 2 and 3] opposite to the incident surface (Para. [0065]), the wavelength conversion portion [Miura 30 Figs. 2 and 3] containing a phosphor (Para. [0066]), and
a surrounding portion [Miura 90 Figs. 2 and 3] (Para. [0069]) having a first surface surrounding the incident surface [Miura bottom of 30] (Para. [0065]) in a plan view seen from a direction perpendicular to the incident surface [Miura see bottom of 90 surrounding 30 Figs. 2 and 3] (Para. [0069]), and a second surface [Miura top of 90 Figs. 2 and 3] (Para. [0069]) surrounding the emission surface [Miura top of 30] in a plan view seen from a direction perpendicular to the emission surface [Miura 90 surrounding top of 30 Fig. 2], and
the incident surface does not protrude from a 0.75 mm square in the plan view (Li Paras. [0036-0038]).
Regarding claim 6, Miura in view of Miyata and Li discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 5 above and further discloses in Li,
an outer shape of the incident surface of the wavelength conversion member [Miura 30 Figs. 2 and 3] (see 9 Li Fig. 9(c)) is a rectangle having a first side and a second side perpendicular to the first side, and a length of the first side is in a range of 1.0 times to 1.5 times a length of the second side.(Li Paras. [0026,0038])
Regarding claim 7, Miura in view of Miyata and Li discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 6 above and further discloses in Miura,
wherein
a virtual straight line connecting points on the incident surface of the wavelength conversion member [bottom surface of 30 Figs 2 and 3] to which first end light and second end light passing through both ends in a fast axis direction [Y-axis direction] of a far-field pattern of the first light emitted from the first semiconductor laser element [left side 10 Fig. 20] are emitted is substantially parallel to the first side [line connecting side wall portions of 30 are parallel to bottom surface of 30 Figs. 2 and 3].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura in view of Miyata and Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kosaka et al. (hereinafter Kosaka) (US 20220285905 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Miura in view of Miyata and Li discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Miura,
the at least four light reflecting surfaces [21 Fig. 5] (Para. [0057]) of the first light reflecting member [left side 21 Fig. 20] (Para. [0057]) have a first light reflecting surface [21a Fig. 5], a second light reflecting surface [21c Fig. 5], a third light reflecting surface [21b Fig. 5], and a fourth light reflecting surface (Para. [0057]) in order of proximity to the first semiconductor laser element [Miura 10 Figs. 5 and 20] (Para. [0057]),
each of the first light reflecting surface [21a Fig. 5] (Para. [0057]), the second light reflecting surface [21a Fig. 5] (Para. [0057]), the third light reflecting surface [21a Fig. 5] (Para. [0057]), and the fourth light reflecting surface (Para. [0057]) is inclined with respect to a lower surface of the light reflecting member [20 Fig. 5] (Para. [0060]), and
a difference between an inclination angle of the first light reflecting surface [21a Fig. 5] and an inclination angle of the second light reflecting surface [21c Fig. 5] is in a range of 8 degrees to 14 degrees [13.5 degrees] (Para. [0060]),
a difference between the inclination angle of the second light reflecting surface [21c Fig. 5] and an inclination angle of the third light reflecting surface [21b Fig. 5] is in a range of 9 degrees to 15 degrees [15 degrees] (Para. [0060]), and
Miura in view of Miyata and Li fails to disclose,
a difference between the inclination angle of the third light reflecting surface and an inclination angle of the fourth light reflecting surface is in a range of 10 degrees to 16 degrees.
Kosaka discloses in Fig. 3,
a difference between an inclination angle [γ] (Para. [0030]) of a reflecting surface [5fm] (Para. [0030]) and an inclination angle [β] (Para. [0030]) of another reflecting surface [4fm] (Para. [0030]) in a range of 10 degrees to 16 degrees (Para. [0034])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the inclination angle of the fourth reflective surface of the modified device of Miura with an inclination angle difference from the third reflective surface as shown in Kosaka for the purpose of having a more uniform intensity distribution of light. (Kosaka Para. [0034])
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura in view of Miyata and Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (hereinafter Chen) (US 20200227890 A1)
Regarding claim 8, Miura in view of Miyata and Li discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Miura,
the at least four light reflecting surfaces [21 Fig. 5] (Para. [0057]) of the first light reflecting member [left side 21 Fig. 20] (Para. [0057]) have a first light reflecting surface [21a Fig. 5], a second light reflecting surface [21c Fig. 5], a third light reflecting surface [21b Fig. 5], and a fourth light reflecting surface (Para. [0057]) in order of proximity to the first semiconductor laser element [Miura 10 Figs. 5 and 20] (Para. [0057]),
the at least four light reflecting surfaces [21 Fig. 5] (Para. [0057]) of the second light reflecting member [left side 21 Fig. 20] (Para. [0057]) have a fifth light reflecting surface [21a Fig. 5], a sixth light reflecting surface [21c Fig. 5], a seventh light reflecting surface [21b Fig. 5], and an eighth light reflecting surface (Para. [0057]) in order of proximity to the second semiconductor laser element [Miura 10 Figs. 5 and 20] (Para. [0057]), and
Miura in view of Miyata and Li fails to disclose,
an area of an overlap between a first region of the incident surface of the wavelength conversion member that is irradiated with a part of the main portion of the first light reflected by the first light reflecting surface and a region of the incident surface of the wavelength conversion member that is irradiated with a part of the main portion of the second light reflected by the fifth light reflecting surface is in a range of 0% to 60% of an area of the first region.
Chen discloses in Fig. 3,
an area of an overlap between a first region of an incident surface of a wavelength conversion member [240] (Para. [0017]) that is irradiated with a part of a main portion of a first light [light from left-most 220] (Para. [0018]) reflected by a first light reflecting surface [left-most 232] (Para. [0018]) and a region of the incident surface of the wavelength conversion member [240] (Para. [0020]) that is irradiated with a part of the main portion of second light [light from right-most 220] (Para. [0020]) reflected by a second light reflecting surface [right-most 232] (Para. [0020]) is in a range of 0% to 60% of an area of the first region (Para. [0020])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the percentage of overlap disclosed in Chen with the first and second lights of the modified device of Miura for the purpose of having sufficient adjustable overlap of the beams. (Chen Paras. [0020,0021])
Regarding claim 9, Miura in view of Miyata, Li and Chen discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 8 above and further discloses,
an area of an overlap between a second region of the incident surface of the wavelength conversion member [Miura 30 Fig. 5] (Para. [0054]) that is irradiated with a part of the main portion of the first light [light from left-side 10 Fig. 20] (Para. [0077]) reflected by the second light reflecting surface [21c in left-side 10 Fig. 5] (Para. [0054]) and a region of the incident surface of the wavelength conversion member [Miura 30 Fig. 5] (Para. [0054]) that is irradiated with a part of the main portion of the second light [light from right-side 10 Fig. 20] (Para. [0077]) reflected by the sixth light reflecting surface [21c in right-side 10] (Para. [0054]) is 75% or more and less than 100% of the area of the second region (Chen Para. [0020]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Examiner particularly notes (WO 2022259986 A1) which discloses the use of four light reflecting surfaces with increasing angles of inclination to direct light to a more central location.
Further, Examiner notes (WO 2022223459 A1) which discloses the use of four light reflecting surfaces to direct light to a specific converging point.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNTER J NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5318. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:30am-5:00 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.
/H.J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2828 /TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828