Non-Final Rejection
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-14 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-5, 9, 11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0083451 (“Hashimoto”) in view of JP 2021-090062 (“Kiyota”) (filed with translation, 11/21/2023 IDS), and further in view of US 2025/0015557 (“Tang”).
Regarding claim 1:
1. A light source device comprising:
a base portion;
a plurality of first semiconductor laser elements arrayed on the base portion along an array direction, each of the first semiconductor laser elements being configured to emit laser light in a first optical axis direction perpendicular to the array direction;
. . .
a plurality of first reflecting members arrayed on the base portion along the array direction, the first reflecting members being spaced apart from the first semiconductor laser elements in the first optical axis direction;
one or more second semiconductor laser elements each configured to emit laser light in a second optical axis direction perpendicular to the array direction and opposite to the first optical axis direction;
. . .
one or more second reflecting members spaced apart from the one or more second semiconductor laser elements in the second optical axis direction,
Hashimoto discloses a light source device in Fig. 2A showing a base portion 10 and a plurality of first semiconductor lasers 20a arrayed on the base in an array direction (x direction) and configured to emit laser light in a first optical axis perpendicular to the array direction (y direction) and a plurality of first reflecting members 22a arrayed on the base portion in the array direction, spaced apart from the lasers 20a. There are then second lasers 20b configured to emit light in the opposite direction to the first optical direction (i.e. negative y direction) towards spaced apart second reflecting members 22b.
. . .
one or more first power supply terminals each disposed respectively in a region interposed between adjacent ones of the first semiconductor laser elements and electrically connected to a corresponding one of the first semiconductor laser elements;
. . .
one or more second power supply terminals each electrically connected to a corresponding one of the one or more second semiconductor laser elements; and
This is not in Hashimoto. Kiyota shows that it was known for laser arrays in a package to have power supply terminals 70 interposed between adjacent lasers elements 30 that are in a line, electrically connecting the laser elements. Fig. 4A. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrange these terminals between the lasers as it allows the wires to be made shorter, improving resistance, as taught by Kiyota. [0024]. It is apparent that this results in the same configuration as that claimed.
wherein at least one of the one or more second reflecting members is disposed in a region interposed between adjacent ones of the first reflecting members in the array direction.
This is not in Hashimoto. Tang teaches that it was known in the art that rows of lasers emitting in the opposite direction may be arranged such that the reflecting members are interposed. See Figs. 7-8, [0040]-[0042]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use such a configuration because it permits lasers to be arranged in a straight line in a compact configuration, while it also has the lasers more spaced apart to improve heat dissipation, as taught by Tang.
Regarding claim 2, it is apparent that following the combination of Hashimoto, Kiyota, and Tang, the device will be as claimed. That is, Tang shows the lasers of Hashimoto may be arranged in the same way as the present invention (compare Tang Fig. 8 with present Fig. 1D), and Kiyota shows that there may be power supply terminals interposed between each laser as claimed.
Regarding claims 3-4, there are a plurality of wiring lines 50, i.e. conductive members, between each of the lasers in Hashimoto. When the relays are added in view of Kiyota as above the wiring lines will likewise go between the lasers and their corresponding power supply terminals.
Regarding claim 5, the reflecting members in Hashimoto, 22a,22b, are configured to receive laser light emitted from a corresponding one of the first and semiconductor laser elements 20a,20b and reflect the laser light in a light emission direction orthogonal to the array direction and the first optical axis direction.
Regarding claim 9, it is apparent that the first and second reflecting members 22a,22b of Hashimoto are arranged in first and second virtual straight lines as claimed. Likewise the reflectors of Tang 34 are in virtual straight lines.
Regarding claim 11, in Hashimoto all of the lasers may emit the same wavelength, which may be blue. [0061].
Regarding claim 13, in Hashimoto each laser is on a submount 24a,24b on the base 10, as most clearly seen in Fig. 2A. Hashimoto and Kiyota do not indicate a relative width of the Kiyota relays and the submounts. However the relays of Kiyota are only used for bonding of the wires. As seen in top view of Hashimoto Fig. 2B, the submount itself even with other elements (such as Zener diodes), and needing room for the laser on top, is wide enough for sufficient bonding. The relays therefore could clearly be made even smaller. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to do so as generally making the device more compact and having smaller parts so they do not interfere with each other is desirable.
Regarding claim 14, all of the lasers appear to be connected in series to the external power supply, not individually connected. The examiner takes Official Notice that it was known that elements such as these could be individually connected to a power supply, rather than all with one connection as in Hashimoto. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to do so as the skilled artisan would recognize that this gives greater individual control, i.e. single lasers could be turned on and off individually if wanted.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto, Kiyota, and Tang as applied to claim 2, and further in view of US 2020/0381900 (“Hashimoto II”).
Regarding claim 6, the primary references show the features of the parent claims as above. Hashimoto does not show a wavelength conversion portion corresponding to each laser element. Hashimoto II shows a similar system, with multiple lasers in a package emitting to reflectors, reflecting beams upwards out of the package. See 1A-1C. Hashimoto II further teaches that there may be wavelength conversion portions in the reflectors. [0054]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to do this as the skilled artisan would recognize that wavelength conversion is often useful, to provide different wavelengths as might be needed for a particular application. Since Hashimoto II puts them in the reflectors, following the modification with the other references they might likewise be included in the Hashimoto reflectors. Since there is a reflector for each laser, there will likewise be wavelength conversion portions each corresponding to a corresponding one of the first semiconductor laser elements and the second semiconductor laser elements.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto, Kiyota, Tang, and Hashimoto II as applied to claim 6, and further in view of US 2021/0126423 (“Chen”).
Regarding claim 7, Hashimoto shows a lid member 60 including portions 62,64 on the base portion. [0070]-[0072]. There is not shown the wavelength conversion portion is separated from each other and disposed on the lid. Chen is a similar device where plural lasers 220 in a package emit towards reflectors 230, which reflect the light up through a lid 240 out of the package. See Fig. 13. There are four chips in Chen’s examples. Fig. 11, element 220. See also [0051], Fig. 6. Fig. 15 also shows that the lid may have four separate wavelength conversion portions 242 in the lid, one for each laser. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include these separate elements in the lid as a simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143 I.B. Hashimoto II uses wavelength converters in the reflectors, Chen uses them in the lid. Both generally do the same thing—convert the wavelength as needed for output, just in a different place. The result of the modification would have been predictable because again here the point is the same, just converting the laser beams, and the result is the predictable notion of having converted beams.
Regarding claim 8, the Hashimoto lid 60, which includes 62 and 64, may be the claimed materials. [0071]-[0072].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto, Kiyota, and Tang as applied to claim 9, and further in view of WO 2019/187784 (filed with translation, 11/21/2023 IDS) (“WO 784”).
The primary references show the limitations of the parent claims as above, but do not show the first virtual straight line coincides the second virtual straight line.
WO 784 is a similar device with lasers emitting in opposing directions and the reflectors in between being arranged in a virtual straight line, much like Tang. See Figs. 1-2 and discussion. The top view in Fig. 2 shows that the first and second reflecting members are arranged in virtual straight lines 30 that coincide. [0040]-[0043]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to do this as it allows for easier combining of the beams later without deteriorating the beam quality, as taught by WO 784. [0052].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is 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
Other references with similarities are cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Menefee whose telephone number is (571)272-1944. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 applications may be obtained from Patent Center. See: 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.
/JAMES A MENEFEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights