Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/434,880

LIGHT SOURCE MODULE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Feb 07, 2024
Examiner
NGUYEN, LAUREN
Art Unit
2871
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Toshiba TEC Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
54%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 54% of resolved cases
54%
Career Allow Rate
549 granted / 1007 resolved
-13.5% vs TC avg
Strong +36% interview lift
Without
With
+35.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
74 currently pending
Career history
1081
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
63.0%
+23.0% vs TC avg
§102
30.3%
-9.7% vs TC avg
§112
5.6%
-34.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1007 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 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 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. Election/Restrictions Regarding the Restriction/Election Requirement Office Action mailed on 12/29/2025, the examiner apologizes for any confusion resulting from the typographical errors. The applicant’s understanding is appreciated, and the applicant is encouraged to contact the examiner for clarification regarding such issues. It should be corrected as follows: Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121: I. Claims 1-7, drawn to a light source module, classified in H04N1/02825. II. Claim 8-20, drawn to an image forming device, classified in G02B27/106. Applicant’s election of Group I Invention and Species I (figures 10A-10E; claims 1-7) in the reply filed on 01/13/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi et al. (US 2005/0073750). Regarding claim 1, Takahashi et al. (figure 1B) discloses a light source module, comprising: a first semiconductor laser and a second semiconductor laser arranged so that respective light axes are parallel to each other (LD1; figure 1B; see at least paragraph 0064); and a light beam combining element (light-condensing optical element 4) in which a first light beam and a second light beam respectively emitted by the first semiconductor laser and the second semiconductor laser enter, the light beam combining element configured to emit the first light beam and the second light beam with respective light axes made closer to each other (figure 1B; light from a light source portion 1 having a plurality of light-sources is condensed by a light condensing portion; see at least paragraph 0056), wherein an air conversion length of a first total distance from a first light emitting surface of the first semiconductor laser to an exit surface of the light beam combining element, and an air conversion length of a second total distance from a second light emitting surface of the second semiconductor laser to the exit surface of the light beam combining element are equal to each other (LDs are at equal distance from the light condensing element 4). Regarding claim 7, Takahashi et al. (figure 1B) discloses wherein the first light emitting surface of the first semiconductor laser and the second light emitting surface of the second semiconductor laser are located on a same plane (LD; figure 1B). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-3, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakuma et al. (US 5,970,034). Regarding claim 1, Sakuma et al. (figures 12 and 17A-17B) discloses a light source module, comprising: a first semiconductor laser and a second semiconductor laser arranged so that respective light axes are parallel to each other (laser diodes 1a-1b); and a light beam combining element (2a, 2b, 12, 13, 14) in which a first light beam and a second light beam respectively emitted by the first semiconductor laser and the second semiconductor laser enter, the light beam combining element configured to emit the first light beam and the second light beam with respective light axes made closer to each other (C1-C2; figures 17A-17B; see at least column 11, lines 55-67 and column 12, lines 1-36), wherein an air conversion length of a first total distance from a first light emitting surface of the first semiconductor laser to an exit surface of the light beam combining element, and an air conversion length of a second total distance from a second light emitting surface of the second semiconductor laser to the exit surface of the light beam combining element are equal to each other (1a-1b; he optical source S2 designated collectively by a numeral 10b includes a laser diode 1a for emitting a laser beam and a collimator lens 2b for producing the parallel optical beam c2 from the laser beam produced by the laser diode 1b; see at least column 10, lines 9-26). Regarding claim 2, Sakuma et al. (figures 12 and 17A-17B) discloses wherein the light beam combining element comprises a polarization beam splitter (12) in which the first light beam directly enters, and a prism (13) which is arranged adjacent to the polarization beam splitter, and in which the second light beam directly enters, the prism configured to reflect the second light beam toward the polarization beam splitter, and the polarization beam splitter configured to transmit the first light beam, and to reflect the second light beam (13A; figure 17B; the laser beam produced by the laser diode 1b impinges upon a reflection surface 13A of the polarization beam-splitter 12 after passing through the collimator lens 2b and a half-wavelength plate 11, which is used for converting the laser beam incident to the beam-splitter 12 into a linearly polarized optical beam; see at least column 11, lines 55-67 and column 12, lines 1-36). Regarding claim 3, Sakuma et al. (figures 12 and 17A-17B) discloses wherein the first light beam and the second light beam are linearly-polarized light beams which coincide in polarization direction with each other, and the light beam combining element further comprises a ½ wave plate disposed on a plane of incidence of the prism (11; the laser beam produced by the laser diode 1b impinges upon a reflection surface 13A of the polarization beam-splitter 12 after passing through the collimator lens 2b and a half-wavelength plate 11, which is used for converting the laser beam incident to the beam-splitter 12 into a linearly polarized optical beam; see at least column 11, lines 55-67 and column 12, lines 1-36). Regarding claim 5, Sakuma et al. (figures 12 and 17A-17B) discloses wherein a ray axis of the ½ wave plate is set so as to convert the P-polarized light into the S-polarized light (11; half-wave plate (HWP) rotates the polarization plane of incident linear light (S or P) by an angle equal to 2theta, where theta is the angle between the input polarization and the plate's fast axis). The limitations “wherein a ray axis of the ½ wave plate is set so as to convert the P-polarized light into the S-polarized light” are regarded as intended use limitations. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Regarding claim 7, Sakuma et al. (figures 12 and 17A-17B) discloses wherein the first light emitting surface of the first semiconductor laser and the second light emitting surface of the second semiconductor laser are located on a same plane (1a-1b; he optical source S2 designated collectively by a numeral 10b includes a laser diode 1a for emitting a laser beam and a collimator lens 2b for producing the parallel optical beam c2 from the laser beam produced by the laser diode 1b; see at least column 10, lines 9-26). 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 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. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma et al. (US 5,970,034) in view of Videen (US 6,239,873). Regarding claim 4, Sakuma et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 3 above. However, Sakuma et al. is silent regarding wherein the first semiconductor laser and the second semiconductor laser emit the light beams of a P-polarized first light beam and a P-polarized second light beam to a bonding surface of the polarization beam splitter. Videen (figure 1) teaches wherein the first semiconductor laser and the second semiconductor laser emit the light beams of a P-polarized first light beam and a P-polarized second light beam to a bonding surface of the polarization beam splitter (the illumination unit includes diode lasers (100,120) which emit S-polarized light and P-polarized light of mutually different wavelengths (lambda1, lambda2), respectively. A polarization beam splitter (110) passes the S-polarized light and reflects the P-polarized light, so that the two light are coincident at the output; see at least abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light source module as taught by Videen in order to achieve an apparatus for simultaneous measurement of two polarization states of scattered light. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first semiconductor laser and the second semiconductor laser emitted the light beams of a P-polarized first light beam and a P-polarized second light beam to a bonding surface of the polarization beam splitter since it was known in the art that which polarized beam being is emitted by the first and second semiconductor lasers is merely a design matter that could have been appropriately performed by a person skilled in the art. Claim 4 is therefore unpatentable. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma et al. (US 5,970,034) in view of Schwindt et al. (US 8,212,556). Regarding claim 6, Sakuma et al. (figures 12 and 17A-17B) discloses wherein the light beam combining element has a 1/2 wave plate disposed on an exit surface of the polarization beam splitter (12 and 14). However, Sakuma et al. is silent regarding wherein the light beam combining element has a ¼ wave plate disposed on an exit surface of the polarization beam splitter. Videen (figure 1) teaches the optical waveplate 26 can comprise a high-order optical waveplate which functions as a quarter waveplate at the wavelength of the pump light beam 18 (e.g. a D1- or D2-line wavelength) and simultaneously functions as a half waveplate at the wavelength of the probe light beam 28 (e.g. a D2- or D1-line wavelength) (see at least column 12, lines 60-67 and column 12, lines 1-12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light source module as taught by Schwindt et al. in order to maintain the probe light beam linearly polarized, improve a signal-to-noise ratio for detecting the magnetic field, and simplify the manufacturing steps. Therefore, Sakuma et al. as modified by Schwindt et al. teaches wherein the light beam combining element has a ¼ wave plate disposed on an exit surface of the polarization beam splitter. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-9791. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 07, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604761
LED DISPLAY PANEL AND DISPLAY DEVICE WITH GROOVE IN NON-DISPLAY REGION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601859
DISPLAY ASSEMBLY INCLUDING A BONDING MEMBER AND SEAL SPACE, DISPLAY DEVICE AND ASSEMBLY METHOD THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601953
OPTICAL NODE DEVICE EMPLOYING INDEPENDENTLY OPERABLE ELEMENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598806
TEMPERATURE SENSOR CIRCUIT FOR MEASURING TEMPERATURE INSIDE PIXEL OF DISPLAY AND DISPLAY APPARATUS INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596289
CAMERA DEVICE HAVING OPTICAL IMAGE STABILIZER FUNCTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
54%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+35.5%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1007 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month