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 . The application was filed with claims 1-20, which 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 1-3, 6-10, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,337,323 (“Rokugawa”) in view of US 2019/0121141 (“Dykaar”).
Independent claims
Regarding claim 1, Rokugawa discloses in Fig. 1, discussion starting col. 3 l. 25, a light source device comprising: a first light source section 4-2 that outputs first laser light; a second light source section 4-1 that is provided adjacent to the first light source section, and outputs second laser light for monitoring; a light receiver 8 that receives the second laser light; and a controller 10,22,6 that performs light emission control on the first light source section on a basis of a detection signal from the light receiver.
It is not disclosed that the first laser light is “for drawing.” From the specification, it is apparent that this means using the lasers to create an image. Dykaar shows that it was known to use lasers for creating an image in a display. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Rokugawa’s teachings in an imaging device because the teachings would be similarly applicable. A person of ordinary skill would understand that multiple lasers may be used for emission, leading to increases in power, and just one laser can be used for monitoring and control of other lasers, that do not need to be monitored, simplifying the control circuitry.
Regarding claim 8, the claim is like claim 1 except that there are a plurality of first light source sections and second light source sections emitting at different wavelengths. As discussed above, it would have been obvious to use the system like in Rokugawa in an imaging system. An imaging system would be understood to use different lasers with different wavelengths, i.e. RGB to create many different colors, as seen in Dykaar. In this case it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a plurality of the first and second light source sections as claimed, one for each of RGB.
Claims 19 and 20 are an electronic apparatus comprising a light source device having the same limitations as claims 1 and 8 respectively. They are rejected for the same reasons.
Dependent claims
Regarding claims 2 and 9, the light sources 4-1 and 4-2 are semiconductor lasers that are integrated, i.e. on a common substrate. The lasers are intended to be substantially identical, see col. 4 ll. 64-66 (“fluctuations in composition and structure of active layer between semiconductor laser elements are negligible.”), therefore they may be presumed to have the same wavelength. Alternatively, if this is not sufficiently disclosed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the lasers of the same wavelength because there are applications where a user may desire an array of lasers output all at the same wavelength.
Regarding claims 3 and 10, the controller 10,22,6 controls the power of first source 4-2 on the basis of a first detection signal obtained from the light receiver 8, the first detection signal being obtained when the light emission control is performed on the first light source section 4-2 and the second light source section 4-1 using respective drive signals identical to each other. See col. 4 ll. 7-30, describing that the slave lasers such as 4-2 are controlled to have a constant ratio of drive current with the master 4-1. In that paragraph it is explained that the ratios are very close due to the integrated structure, ranging from 1 to 1.2. Of course, a ratio of 1, which is part of the disclosure, means they are identical as claimed.
Regarding claims 6-7, 13, and 16, Rokugawa does not disclose that the laser light goes through separate waveguides or fibers. Regarding claims 14-15 and 17-18, Rokugawa further does not disclose that there are various multiplexers for combining the lasers as claimed. The examiner takes Official Notice that all of this is well known. Waveguides and fibers are widely known for carrying laser beams, and it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use them as they permit the precise carrying of the beam to the desired location, while avoiding environmental losses that may occur in free space. Multiplexers are also widely known for combining light beams, and a person skilled in the art could have combined the beams together in whatever manner they felt was desirable for their particular application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 11-12 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.
There is not taught or disclosed in the prior art the light source of parent claims 3 or 10, wherein the controller controls the light-emitting power of the first or each of the first light source section(s) on a basis of a second detection signal obtained from the light receiver, the second detection signal being obtained when the controller applies, to the second or each of the second light source section(s), a drive signal that is different from a drive signal to be applied to the first light source section.
Conclusion
Other references are cited also showing the control of lasers based on the monitoring of the output of a different laser.
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