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: paragraph [0056] states in part “The widening optic 11…thus, reducing the divergence”. The examiner believes that the widening optics would increase the divergence.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer et al. (US PG Pub 2004/0252741) in view of Townsend et al. (US PG Pub 2020/0059145) and Hirose et al. (US PG Pub 2017/0222399) as evidenced by Rossbach et al. (DE 102017119778 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Meyer et al. disclose: a semiconductor laser (photonic crystal surface emitting laser) (Fig. 1a, [0031]), a widening optic (diffractive structure of photonic crystal widens output from active layer) (see Rossbach, Fig. 1, page 7 of translation) wherein: the semiconductor laser is configured to generate a light beam with diffraction-limited divergence by a laser process (Fig. 3, [0068]-[0070]).
Meyer et al. do not disclose: a housing, an optical element, arranged along a common optical axis within the housing, a recollimation optic, so that the light beam is substantially collimated at the optical element.
Townsend et al. disclose: an optical element (118), arranged along a common optical axis, a recollimation optic (114), so that the light beam is substantially collimated at the optical element (Fig. 2, [0059]-[0061]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Meyer by adding recollimation optic (micro-lens) directly on the photonic crystal surface emitting laser and also adding an optical element (diffractive optical element) in order to shape the coherent beam outputted by the photonic crystal surface emitting laser.
Meyer as modified do not disclose: a housing, arranged along a common optical axis within the housing.
Hirose et al. disclose: housing for laser device (Fig. 1b, [0064]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Meyer as modified by forming a housing around the laser and optical elements in order to protect the laser and optical elements. The device as modified disclose: arranged along a common optical axis within the housing.
PNG
media_image1.png
566
748
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig 1(a) of Meyer
PNG
media_image2.png
482
582
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Townsend
PNG
media_image3.png
338
336
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1b of Hirose
Regarding claim 2, Meyer as modified disclose: wherein the semiconductor laser is free of collimating optics (semiconductor laser of Meyer does not contain collimating optics) (see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Meyer as modified disclose: wherein the semiconductor laser comprises a photonic crystal surface emitting semiconductor diode, PCSEL (Meyer, Fig. 1A, [0031]).
Regarding claim 5, Meyer as modified disclose: wherein the optical element is configured to pattern the light beam emitted by the semiconductor laser such that a known pattern is projectable onto an external object (Townsend, Fig. 2, [0059]-[0061]).
Regarding claim 6, Meyer as modified disclose: wherein the optical element comprises a non-zero distance from the semiconductor laser, or wherein the optical element is mounted directly on the semiconductor laser (optical element 118 formed at a non-zero distance from the semiconductor laser) (see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, Meyer as modified disclose: wherein the widening optic is integrated in the semiconductor laser (see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, Meyer as modified disclose: wherein the recollimation optic (116) is integrated in the optical element (Townsend, Fig. 2, [0059]-[0061]).
Regarding claim 12, Meyer as modified disclose: wherein the recollimation optic (116) is integrated on a front side or a rear side of the optical element and mounted on the semiconductor laser (Townsend, Fig. 2, [0059]-[0061]).
Regarding claim 14, Meyer as modified disclose: wherein a height of the housing is substantially determined by the distance between the optical element and the semiconductor laser (implicitly taught by the device of claim 1, housing covers the semiconductor laser and optical element).
Regarding claim 15, the apparatus of claim 1 discloses the claimed method (see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 17, Meyer as modified disclose: wherein the widening optic is manufactured in a common process with the semiconductor laser (widening optic is part of the semiconductor laser) (see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 18, Meyer as modified disclose: wherein the recollimation optic is arranged downstream of the widening optic in the light beam (see the rejection of claim 1).
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer et al. (US PG Pub 2004/0252741) in view of Townsend et al. (US PG Pub 2020/0059145), Hirose et al. (US PG Pub 2017/0222399) and Jiang et al. (US 5,966,399) as evidenced by Rossbach et al. (DE 102017119778 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Meyer as modified do not disclose: wherein the semiconductor laser comprises an aperture, through which the light beam of the semiconductor layer is emitted, and the beam divergence at half-width of the light beam is substantially less than 0.1° despite diffraction at the aperture.
Jiang et al. disclose: wherein the semiconductor laser comprises an aperture, through which the light beam of the semiconductor layer is emitted (Fig. 3, col. 7, lines 20-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Meyer as modified by forming an aperture on the top layer of the semiconductor laser in order to reduce current spreading and beam divergence.
Meyer as modified do not disclose: the beam divergence at half-width of the light beam is substantially less than 0.1° despite diffraction at the aperture.
However, In accordance with MPEP 2144.05 II, Optimization of Ranges: Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In the prior art the general conditions are disclosed, a semiconductor laser comprising an aperture and emitting a beam having a beam divergence at half-width. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to obtain a workable range of values for the beam divergence at half-width by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 7, Meyer as modified do not disclose: wherein the optical element is integrated in the semiconductor laser.
Jiang et al. disclose: optical element (diffractive lens) is integrated in the semiconductor laser (col. 7, lines 35-41). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Meyer as modified by integrating the diffractive lens with the semiconductor laser in order to reduce the size of the optoelectronic component.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer et al. (US PG Pub 2004/0252741) in view of Townsend et al. (US PG Pub 2020/0059145), Hirose et al. (US PG Pub 2017/0222399) and Shin et al. (US PG Pub 2020/0169060) as evidenced by Rossbach et al. (DE 102017119778 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Meyer as modified do not disclose: wherein the widening optic is mounted on the semiconductor laser.
Shin et al. disclose: diffractive optical element mounted on a laser device (Fig. 2, [0020]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Meyer as modified by mounting the widening optics on the semiconductor laser in order to be able to adjust the number/type of elements that interact with the output beam.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer et al. (US PG Pub 2004/0252741) in view of Townsend et al. (US PG Pub 2020/0059145), Hirose et al. (US PG Pub 2017/0222399) and Hooker et al. (US 6,327,520) as evidenced by Rossbach et al. (DE 102017119778 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Meyer as modified do not disclose: wherein the optical element and the semiconductor laser are arranged in a first chamber within the housing, and the housing comprises a second chamber, in which an optical detector is arranged.
Hooker et al. disclose: semiconductor laser are arranged in a first chamber within a housing, and the housing comprises a second chamber, in which an optical detector is arranged (col. 2, lines 29-37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Meyer as modified by adding a detector and forming the housing with separate chambers for the laser and detector in order to monitor the output from the laser device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nagatomo et al. (US PG Pub 2007/0201528) disclose: a vertical cavity surface emitting laser includes an active layer between a first reflector and a second reflector and at least either the first reflector or the second reflector includes a two-dimensional photonic crystal. The two-dimensional photonic crystal has a structure 106 showing an ununiform effective refractive index distribution in the plane of the reflector to realize both a high reflectivity and transverse mode control at the same time (Abstract). Ikuta (US PG Pub 2012/0093188) discloses: there is provided a surface emitting laser allowing a direction of a far-field pattern (FFP) centroid to be inclined from a normal direction of a substrate providing the surface emitting laser, comprising: a substrate; a lower reflecting mirror, an active layer, an upper reflecting mirror stacked on the substrate; and a surface relief structure located in an upper portion of a light emitting surface of the upper reflecting mirror, the surface relief structure being made of a material allowing at least some beams emitted from the surface emitting laser to be transmitted therethrough, a plurality of regions having a predetermined optical thickness in a normal direction of the substrate being formed in contact with other region in an in-plane direction of the substrate, and a distribution of the optical thickness in the in-plane direction of the substrate is asymmetric to a central axis of the light emitting regions (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XINNING(TOM) NIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1437. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-6:00pm.
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.
/XINNING(Tom) NIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights