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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0039] describes the recess #23 to overlap the eutectic layer #77 in the width direction. Figure 5 and figure 9 appear to show that layer #77 does not overlap #23/24 in the width direction.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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.
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) 1, 2, 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higuchi et al. (US 2006/0126994) in view of Kobayashi (US 2012/0263203).
With respect to claim 1, Higuchi teaches a subcarrier for a laser module ([0038]) comprising: a wafer portion that is constituted of a base (fig.3 #22) and a protective layer (fig.3 #23) formed on a surface of the base (upper surface); a first metal layer (fig.3 #42) that is formed on the protective layer; a eutectic layer (fig.3 #43) that is formed on the first metal layer; and a bondable layer that is formed on the eutectic layer ([0047] a layer able to be bonded to the material is necessarily present), wherein the wafer portion has a recessed portion (fig.3 #39) formed in a region outside the first metal layer in a longitudinal direction (fig.3 #39 is outside #42 in the left/right direction). Higuchi does not teach the bondable layer to be a second metal layer disposed such that the recessed portion is formed in a region overlapping the second metal layer in a width direction. Kobayashi teaches a similar laser mounting configuration using solder (fig.1 #40) and which includes a first metal layer (fig.1 #21) and a second metal layer (fig.1 #31) which are bonded via the solder, and wherein the second metal extends fully across the laser bonding surface (fig.1/3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to make use of a metal layer extending fully across the bonding surface of the laser of Higuchi as demonstrated by Kobayashi in order to make use of a material shown to effectively bond to solder and of the full extension in order to insure adequate room for the solder to flow/adhere and for desired positioning of the laser on the mount.
Note that after modification the combined device provides the recessed portion is formed in a region overlapping the second metal layer in a width direction as the entire lower surface of the laser would be covered by the metal and overhang the recess.
With respect to claim 2, Higuchi further teaches in a plan view in a lamination direction, end surfaces of the first metal layer and the eutectic layer in the longitudinal direction are positioned on an inward side of an end surface (fig.2/3 left side of base) of the base in the longitudinal direction (fig.2/3 #42/43 do not extend past #39 therefore are inwards of leftmost side of the base #22).
With respect to claim 4, Higuchi, as modified, teaches a laser module (fig.2/3) and an optical semiconductor element (fig.3 #25, [0038]) formed on the second metal layer (formed above) which is configured to irradiate laser light in the longitudinal direction ([0038], output to #24), wherein in a plan view in a lamination direction, the optical semiconductor element overlaps the recessed portion (as seen in fig.2/3).
With respect to claim 5, Higuchi teaches the first metal layer and the eutectic layer are covered by the optical semiconductor element (as seen in fig.2/3).
Claim(s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higuchi and Kobayashi in view of Hiroki et al. (US 2024/0006843).
With respect to claims 3 and 6, Higuchi, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach a depth of the recessed portion from a surface of the protective layer is 10 um or longer OR that in a laser light irradiation direction of the optical semiconductor element, a distance between an end portion of the first metal layer and an end portion of the optical semiconductor element is 1 um or longer. Hiroko teaches a related laser mounting arrangement (fig.1/5) which includes a depth of a recessed portion (or height above the bottom surface) of the laser is more than 10um (fig.5 H1, [0075]) and that a distance between an end portion of the mount (corresponding to an end surface of the first metal of Higuchi) and an end surface of the laser is more than 1um (fig.5 L3, [0075]). 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 Higuchi such that a distance from the protective layer to the bottom of the trench is more than 10um AND a distance from and end of the laser to an end of the first metal is more than 1um as demonstrated by Hiroko in order to avoid the beam interfering with the surrounding elements (Hiroko, [0007, 9]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higuchi and Kobayashi in view of Shibata et al. (JP 2022-15548).
With respect to claim 7, Higuchi, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, including the limitations of claim 4 (see above), but does not teach an optical engine module comprising: the laser module according to claim 4; and an optical scanning mirror that performs scanning with light emitted from the laser module. Shibata teaches a laser system (abstract) making use of an optical scanning mirror for scanning light from a laser (fig.26; “The optical system 200 has an optical device 109 , an optical system 210 , drivers 220 and 221 and a controller 230 . The optical system 210 has a collimator lens 211, a slit 212, an ND filter 213, and an optical scanning mirror 214, for example. The optical system 210 guides the light output from the optical device 109 to an object to be irradiated (eyes in this example). The optical scanning mirror 214 is, for example, a two-axis MEMS mirror that changes the reflection direction of laser light horizontally and vertically.”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the system of Higuchi to make use of an optical scanning mirror to scan light emitted from the laser as demonstrated by Shibata in order to control the output direction of the laser light (Shibata, see underlined portion above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see the include pto892 form for a list of related art.
US 2018/0233880, 2012/0263203, 12646904 and understood to be closely related to at least claim 1.
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
Prosecution Insights