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. Claim Objections Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “ an other ” in line 5 should be changed to “another” in order to improve clarity. Appropriate correction is required. 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, 8-9, 13-14, 16 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a1 as being anticipated by Moriyama et al. (US PG Pub 2002/0089913 A1, 08/21/23 IDS) . Regarding claim 1, Moriyama discloses a semiconductor laser light emitting device (a light source device 90D, FIG S . 14 A-14 C, [0143]) comprising: a mounting base (a semiconductor substrate 70C, FIG. 14C, [0143]) including a step (an alignment projection 840, FIG. 14C, [0143]) ; a submount (710, FIG. 14C, [0143]) disposed above a bottom face of the step; and a semiconductor laser (610, FIG. 14C, [0143]) disposed on the submount , wherein a first lateral face ( see annotated FIG. 14C below ) of the step and a front face of the submount ( see annotated FIG. 14C below ) are in thermal contact with each other ( see annotated FIG. 14C below ) , the front face of the submount being a face of the submount on a light-emission direction side of the semiconductor laser ( see annotated FIG. 14C below ) . Regarding claim 2, Moriyama discloses a front end face of the semiconductor laser is located on the light-emission direction side of the semiconductor laser from the front face of the submount (FIG. 14C) . Regarding claim 3, Moriyama discloses a position of a top edge of the first lateral face of the step is at a same height as or lower than a position of a top edge of the front face of the submount (FIG. 14C) . Regarding claim 8, Moriyama discloses the first lateral face of the step and the front face of the submount are parallel to each other (FIG. 14C) . Regarding claim 9, Moriyama discloses the first lateral face and the bottom face of the step are perpendicular to each other (FIG. 14C) . Regarding claim 13, Moriyama discloses a second lateral face ( see annotated FIG. 14C above ) of the step and a lateral face (see annotated FIG. 14C above) of the submount are further in thermal contact with each other (see annotated FIG. 14C above) , the second lateral face being another lateral face of the step and different from the first lateral face (see annotated FIG. 14C above) . Regarding claim 14, Moriyama discloses the mounting base is spaced apart from a corner at which the front face and the lateral face of the submount intersect (FIG. 14C) . Regarding claim 16, Moriyama discloses the mounting base is spaced apart from a corner at which the front face and a bottom face of the submount intersect (FIG. 14C) . Regarding claim 18, Moriyama discloses a mirror (2800, FIG. 14C, [0143]) that reflects light emitted from the semiconductor laser, wherein the mounting base includes a third lateral face (see annotated FIG. 14C above) parallel to the first lateral face of the step, and the mirror is in contact with the third lateral face (see annotated FIG. 14C above) . Regarding claim 19, Moriyama discloses the submount comprises a plurality of submounts (710/720, FIG. 14C, [0143]) , and the semiconductor laser comprises a plurality of semiconductor lasers (610/620, FIG. 14C, [0143]) , each of the plurality of semiconductor lasers is disposed on a different one of the plurality of submounts (FIG. 14C) , and the first lateral face of the step and the front face of each of the plurality of submounts are in thermal contact with each other (see annotated FIG. 14C above) . Regarding claim 20, Moriyama discloses a plurality of mirrors (halves of 2800 corresponding to 610/620, FIG. 14C) each of which corresponds to a different one of the plurality of semiconductor lasers, wherein the mounting base includes a third lateral face parallel to the first lateral face of the step, and each of the plurality of mirrors is in contact with the third lateral face (FIG. 14C) . Regarding claim 21, Moriyama discloses each of a plurality of second lateral faces of the step and a different one of lateral faces of the plurality of submounts are in thermal contact with each other (FIG. 14C) , the plurality of second lateral faces being other lateral faces of the step and different from the first lateral face (FIG. 14C) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 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 . Claim s 4 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriyama et al. Regarding claim 4, Moriyama has disclosed the step and the submount outlined in the rejection to claim 3 above except a distance from a bottom face of the submount to the top edge of the first lateral face of the step is at least 40% and at most 100% of a distance from the bottom face of the submount to a top face of the submount . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the step and the submount of Moriyama with a distance from a bottom face of the submount to the top edge of the first lateral face of the step being at least 40% and at most 100% of a distance from the bottom face of the submount to a top face of the submount in order to prevent unwanted reflection from the step. Regarding claim 10, Moriyama has disclosed the step and the submount outlined in the rejection to claim 1 above and further discloses the mounting base includes a first component and a second component ( 70C/840, FIG. 14C) , and the step is provided by disposing the second component on the first component ( 840 is disposed on 70C, FIG. 14C) except the first and second components differ in material . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first component and the second component with different materials in order to obtain desired thermal conductivity for the semiconductor laser light emitting device. Regarding claims 11-12, Moriyama has disclosed the step and the submount outlined in the rejection to claim 10 above except the second component has a thermal conductivity higher than or equal to a thermal conductivity of the submount , or the second component has a thermal conductivity of at least 150 [W/(m/K)]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second component to have a thermal conductivity higher than or equal to a thermal conductivity of the submount or a material with a thermal conductivity of at least 150 [W/(m/K)] in order to maximize thermal conductivity for the semiconductor laser light emitting device , since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin , 125 USPQ 416. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriyama et al. in view of JP 2001358396 A (hereafter JP’396) . Regarding claim 5, Moriyama has disclosed the step outlined in the rejection to claim 1 above except a top face of the step becomes lower with distance from the submount . JP’396 discloses a semiconductor laser (5, FIG. 1) disposed on a submount ( 4, FIG. 1 ), wherein the submount has a projection (8, FIG. 1) on a light-emission side of the semiconductor laser and a top surface (9, FIG. 1) of the projection becomes lower with distance from the semiconductor laser (FIG. 1) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the step of Moriyama with a top face becom ing lower with distance from the submount as taught by JP’396 in order to reduce unwanted return light back into the semiconductor laser light-emitting device. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriyama et al. and JP’396 as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Gen- ei et al. (US PG Pub 2002/0105981 A1) . Regarding claim 6, the combination has disclosed the step outlined in the rejection to claim 5 above except an angle formed by the top face of the step and a top face of the submount is at most 45°. Gen- ei discloses an angle formed by the top face of the step and a top face of the submount is at most 45° (“ The second surface arranged in line with the emission facet of the semiconductor laser chip is inclined at an angle of 3 to 30 degrees ,” see abstract and FIG. 11) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the angle of the combination with at most 45° in order to minimize unwanted return light back into the semiconductor laser light-emitting device , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 MPEP 2144.05 (II-A) Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriyama et al. and JP’396 as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of HISHIDA (US PG Pub 2022/0302675 A1) . Regarding claim 7, the combination has disclosed the step outlined in the rejection to claim 5 above except an angle formed by the top face of the step and a top face of the submount is less than or equal to half of a beam spread angle in a vertical direction of light emitted from the semiconductor laser. HISHIDA discloses an angle formed by the top face of the step and a top face of the submount is less than or equal to half of a beam spread angle in a vertical direction of light emitted from the semiconductor laser (see annotated FIG. 4 below) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the step with the angle formed by the top face of the step and a top face of the submount being less than or equal to half of a beam spread angle in a vertical direction of light emitted from the semiconductor laser as taught by HISHIDA in order to minimize unwanted return light back into the semiconductor laser light-emitting device. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 15 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claim 15 The cited prior art fails to disclose or suggest “ a curved portion is provided in a base portion of the first lateral face of the step, a groove that is dug into the mounting base is provided along the first lateral face of the step, a bottom face of the groove is located lower than a mounting face of the mounting base on which the submount is mounted, and a depth of the groove is greater than or equal to a height of the curved portion ” as recited in claim 15. Therefore, claim 15 is allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 17 The cited prior art fails to disclose or suggest “ a spacer disposed between the submount and the mounting base, wherein a curved portion is provided in a base portion of the first lateral face of the step, a front face of the spacer is spaced apart from the first lateral face of the step by at least an amount equal to a width of the curved portion, the front face of the spacer being a face of the spacer on the light-emission direction side of the semiconductor laser, and the spacer has a thickness that is greater than or equal to the width of the curved portion ” as recited in claim 17. Therefore, claim 17 is allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nakanishi et al. (US PG Pub 2003/0169981 A1) discloses a n optical communication module comprising a substrate having a step in thermal contact with a submount where a semiconductor laser is mounted on similar to the claimed invention (see FIG. 10). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT YUANDA ZHANG whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1439 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 10:30 AM - 6:30 PM . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT MINSUN HARVEY can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1835 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /YUANDA ZHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828