CTNF 18/447,763 CTNF 80848 DETAILED 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 06-36 AIA The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the : Claim 1- power supply on base; Claims 11-17- pairs of light emitting elements and switches; Claim 18- multiple signal wires from a controller to multiple switches; must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. 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 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. Claim 1 (and all claims dependent therefrom; 2-20) 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 1 ends with “on a same base”. It is not clear if all elements listed are to be on the base or a subset of the listed elements are to be on the base. For purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as at least some elements must be on the base. Claim 1 refers to a power supply being on the base. [0066] of the original disclosure states the power supply is not on the base. This inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and that of the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain (see MPEP 2173.03). For purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as a source of power, such as an input voltage or current (as opposed to a supply), or a power supply is on the base. 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 11, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka et al. (US 2022/0444075) in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US 2022/0285911) . With respect to claim 1, Matsuoka teaches a light emitting device (fig.2) comprising: a light emitting element (fig.2 LD1/LD2); a switch element (fig.2 Swd1/Swd2) that is connected in series to one of electrodes of the light emitting element (fig.2 each is connected in series to the laser anode), and that drives the light emitting element ([0043]); a capacitive element (fig.2 Cd) that is connected in parallel to the light emitting element, and that discharges a charged electric charge to the light emitting element ([0043]); and a resistance element (fig.2 Rd) provided between the capacitive element and a power supply (fig.2 Vd) that charges the capacitive element. Matsuoka does not describe the elements to be on a same base. Yamaguchi teaches a very similar circuit (fig.1) and the elements to be provided on a same base (fig.2 #50, noting power terminals [0096]) which is of ceramic or organic material ([0075] ceramic, glass-epoxy). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Matsuoka to make use of a base of the materials stated by Yamaguchi in order to provide a modular mounting surface and to make use of insulative materials to avoid shorting the components (Yamaguchi, [0075]). With respect to claim 11, Matsuoka teaches a plurality of pairs of the light emitting element and the switch element are provided (fig.2 2 of each). With respect to claim 19, Matsuoka, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach a same cathode electrode to be connected to cathodes of a plurality of light emitting elements, each of which is the light emitting element, is provided on the base. Yamaguchi further teaches using a single cathode electrode (fig.17 #63b, [0176-177]) to mount multiple laser diodes (fig.17 #10a/10b, [0175]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Matsuoka to make use of a common cathode electrode to mount the multiple laser devices as demonstrated by Yamaguchi in order to reduce the number of separate metallizations and create a more compact device. With respect to claim 20, Matsuoka, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, including measuring device comprising: the light emitting device according to claim 1; a light receiving element that receives reflected light of light emitted from the light emitting device to a to-be-measured object; and a measurer that measures a distance to the to-be-measured object by a time-of-flight as an indirect method based on an amount of light received by the light receiving element ([0003, 20]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka and Yamaguchi in view of Zamprogno et al. (US 10826268) . With respect to claim 2, Matsuoka, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach an electrostatic capacitance value of the capacitive element and a resistance value of the resistance element are determined according to a minimum value of a light emission interval of pulsed light emitted from the light emitting element. Zamprogno teaches a related laser driver (fig.2) used with LIDARs (col.1 lines 15-17) and capacitance and resistance values to directly affect the laser pulse timing (col.3 lines 24-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the resistance and capacitance values of Matsuoka to select a desired laser pulse timing as demonstrated by Zamprogno in order to control the light output duration of the system. Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons outlined in the rejection of claim 11 above . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3, 5, 7, 13, 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka and Yamaguchi in view of Wen (CN 107482470) . With respect to claims 3, 5, 7, Matsuoka teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach the base is aluminum nitride, is an inorganic base with a thickness of 100 μm or greater and 500 μm or less and a thermal conductivity of 100 W/m·K or higher. Wen teaches a circuit board for a laser (abstract) which makes use of AlN, which is inorganic, is of 300um thickness and is of greater than 100 W/mk (inherently greater than 100 W/mk; see also Applicant spec [0087]) (“ A 5G communication 20 GHz laser double chip package base manufacturing method, the method comprises:(1) base is made of 10 # carbon steel, by precision stamping forming, removing cleaning after plating nickel is 3-5 microns; (2) supporting piece is made of oxygen-free copper, plating nickel with thickness of 3-5 microns , 85-15 of 0.1 silver-copper solder, welded on the base body; (3) printed circuit board made of high heat-conducting aluminium nitride substrate , width is 1.5, height is 0.8, thickness is 0.3 … ”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to make use of the AlN material with a thickness of 300um as demonstrated by Wen for the base material of Matsuoka in order to make use of the materials high heat-conductivity and a size demonstrated to accomplish the conducting goal. Claims 13 and 15 and 17 are rejected for the same reasons outlined in the rejection of claim 11 above . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 4, 6, 8, 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka, Yamaguchi, Zamprogno and Wen . With respect to claims 4, 6, 8, Matsuoka, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach the base is aluminum nitride, is an inorganic base with a thickness of 100 μm or greater and 500 μm or less and a thermal conductivity of 100 W/m·K or higher. Wen teaches a circuit board for a laser (abstract) which makes use of AlN, which is inorganic, is of 300um thickness and is of greater than 100 W/mk (inherently greater than 100 W/mk; see also Applicant spec [0087]) (“ A 5G communication 20 GHz laser double chip package base manufacturing method, the method comprises:(1) base is made of 10 # carbon steel, by precision stamping forming, removing cleaning after plating nickel is 3-5 microns; (2) supporting piece is made of oxygen-free copper, plating nickel with thickness of 3-5 microns , 85-15 of 0.1 silver-copper solder, welded on the base body; (3) printed circuit board made of high heat-conducting aluminium nitride substrate , width is 1.5, height is 0.8, thickness is 0.3 … ”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to make use of the AlN material with a thickness of 300um as demonstrated by Wen for the base material of Matsuoka in order to make use of the materials high heat-conductivity and a size demonstrated to accomplish the conducting goal. Claims 14 and 16 are rejected for the same reasons outlined in the rejection of claim 11 above . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka and Yamaguchi in view of Yagisawa et al. (US 2014/0178079) and Sung et al. (12415884) . With respect to claim 9, Matsuoka, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach the base is an organic base with a thickness less than 100 μm and a thermal conductivity of 1 W/m·K or higher. Yagisawa teaches an optical module making use of a printed circuit which is organic ([0034]) and of a 20-50um thickness ([0034]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Matsuoka to make use of the organic material of Yagisawa with the stated thickness in order to realize a base with flexibility. Sung teaches a related circuit board (abstract) which makes use of an organic material with thermal conductivity more than 1 W/mk (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to further modify the organic material of Matsuoka’s base to be a material with more than 1 W/mk as demonstrated by Sung in order to effectively sink heat from the laser (Sung, abstract) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka and Yamaguchi and Zamprogno in view of Yagisawa and Sung . With respect to claim 10, Matsuoka, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach the base is an organic base with a thickness less than 100 μm and a thermal conductivity of 1 W/m·K or higher. Yagisawa teaches an optical module making use of a printed circuit which is organic ([0034]) and of a 20-50um thickness ([0034]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Matsuoka to make use of the organic material of Yagisawa with the stated thickness in order to realize a base with flexibility. Sung teaches a related circuit board (abstract) which makes use of an organic material with thermal conductivity more than 1 W/mk (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to further modify the organic material of Matsuoka’s base to be a material with more than 1 W/mk as demonstrated by Sung in order to effectively sink heat from the laser (Sung, abstract) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka and Yamaguchi in view of Srowig et al. (US 12394958) . With respect to claim 18, Matsuoka, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach signal wires with equal length branch from a controller to a plurality of switch elements, each of which is the switch element, the controller being configured to output a control signal to control the plurality of switch elements. Srowig teaches a related laser driver (fig.6) and further that a controller can apply a signal to the individual transistor switches and that the control lines should be of equal length (col.9 lines 9-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Matsuoka to make use of a single controller to reduce the number of parts as well as to connect the controller to the transistor switches using equal length lines as taught by Srowig in order to homogenously switch the elements on/off (Srowig, col.9 lines 9-14) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the included pto892 form for a list of related art. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOD THOMAS VAN ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8447. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8AM-430PM. 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. /TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828 Application/Control Number: 18/447,763 Page 2 Art Unit: 2828 Application/Control Number: 18/447,763 Page 3 Art Unit: 2828 Application/Control Number: 18/447,763 Page 4 Art Unit: 2828 Application/Control Number: 18/447,763 Page 5 Art Unit: 2828 Application/Control Number: 18/447,763 Page 6 Art Unit: 2828 Application/Control Number: 18/447,763 Page 7 Art Unit: 2828 Application/Control Number: 18/447,763 Page 8 Art Unit: 2828 Application/Control Number: 18/447,763 Page 9 Art Unit: 2828 Application/Control Number: 18/447,763 Page 10 Art Unit: 2828
Prosecution Insights