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 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.
Claim(s) 1 and claims bellow are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D1 EP 1317035 A1.
Regarding claim 1 D1 teaches
1. A light emitting device comprising(fig. 16)
a semiconductor light emitting element including a first reflector(10), a resonator spacer(8) including an active layer(11), and a second reflector(9) stacked in this order over a semiconductor substrate(7 fig. bellow),(fig. 16)(one can see that semiconductor layer 7 is bellow everything then first reflector 10 goes then absorption layer 33 then spacer with active layer 11 and then second reflector 9)
wherein the semiconductor light emitting element includes a saturable absorption layer(33) provided between the semiconductor substrate(7) and the second reflector(9), and
wherein the saturable absorption(33) layer is positioned between the active layer(11) and the first reflector(10)
wherein the semiconductor light emitting element is configured to emit light having a profile that has a maximum peak value(peak bellow 50) and converges to a stable value of a predetermined light intensity after the maximum peak value.(fig. 29a after 100 if one increases the binning size the spectrum will be almost flat. Or one can take in fig. 29b small period corresponding to peak and the almost flat region before another peak)
PNG
media_image1.png
395
467
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over D1.
Regarding claim 15 D1 teaches
Claim 5, 6, 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over D1.
Regarding claims bellow
Although D1 does not explicitly teach
5. The light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein a half width value of a light pulse indicating the maximum peak value is not less than 50 ps.
6. The light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein a time difference between a timing of starting an injection of a current into the semiconductor light emitting element and a timing at which a light output reaches the maximum peak value is not less than 50 ps and not more than 1 ns.
This is just a matter of design choice and optimal operational parameter selection
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, at the time of invention to modify apparatus by D1, since it has been held that 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.
Although D1 does not explicitly teach
9. The light emitting device according to claim 1, further comprising a semiconductor layer(12) provided between the active layer(11) and the saturable absorption layer,(33)
Although D1 does not explicitly teach
wherein the semiconductor layer includes an AlGaAs layer having an Al composition of a range of 0.45 to 0.9. This is just a matter of design choice and optimal operational parameter selection
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, at the time of invention to modify apparatus by D1, since it has been held that 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.
Depending on what we call the semiconductor layer and number of active materials 11 (which can be multiple D1 also would teach
10. The light emitting device according to claim 9, wherein the semiconductor layer further includes a GaAsP layer.[0023]
But as it is not explicit it is just obvious modification to include multiple layers 11, 12, 13 in order to achieve faster higher resonance faster.
Although D1 does not explicitly teach
11. The light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein an optical thickness of the resonator spacer is not less than a thickness corresponding to 5 times a resonance wavelength.
12. The light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein an optical thickness of the resonator spacer is not less than a thickness corresponding to 11 times a resonance wavelength.
13. The light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the active layer includes 6 to 50 quantum well layers.
D1 teaches using multiple quantum wells [0022]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, at the time of invention to modify apparatus by D1, since it has been held that 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.
Claim 14, 20, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over D1 in view of D2 US 20220171058 A1.
Regarding claims 14, 20, 21 D1 does not teach but D2 teaches
14. The light emitting device according to claim 1, further includes a light receiving element mounted on the same package as the semiconductor light emitting element and configured to receive light emitted from the semiconductor light emitting element.(fig. 3)
20. A ranging device comprising:
the light emitting device according to claim 1;
a light receiving device configured to receive light emitted from the light emitting device and reflected by an object to be measured; and
a distance information acquisition unit configured to acquire information on a distance to the object to be measured based on a time difference between a timing at which light is emitted from the light emitting device and a timing at which light is received by the light receiving device.(fig. 3)[0172]
21. A movable object comprising:
the ranging device according to claim 20; and
a control unit configured to control the movable object based on information on the distance acquired by the ranging device. .(fig. 3)[0172] .[0187]
It will be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to modify teachings taught by D1 with teachings by D2 in order to use LIDAR technology in collision avoidance.
Although D1 does not explicitly say
22. (New) The light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the saturable absorption layer is provided in a non-doped spacer. Nothing in D1 indicates that absorber 33 is surrounded by dopped region and hence it is just a matter of obvious modification is order to avoid altering the optical and electrical properties of the layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/20/2026 have been fully considered but regarding claims above they are not persuasive. See rejection above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 23, 15, 16, 19, 24, 17, 18, 25 allowed.
Claim 7, 8 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7845. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7am - 5 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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at (571) 270-3603. 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.
/HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights