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 .
Summary of the Claims
The present application (18/595,871) was filed on March 5, 2024 as a continuation of PCT/CN2022/117390 filed on September 6, 2022 and claims priority to CN 202123444019.X filed on December 31, 2021; CN 202111672608.5 filed on December 31, 2021; CN 202111045935.8 filed on September 7, 2021; and CN 202111038583.3 filed on September 6, 2021. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claim 1 is the only independent claim.
References and Documents Cited in this Action
Kozuro (US 2020/0194974 A1)
Pierer (US 2019/0196201 A1)
Minami (US 2019/0211994 A1)
Summary of Rejections and Objections in this Action
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Claims 1, 2, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kozuru.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozuro in view of Pierer.
Claims 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozuru in view of Minami.
Claims 3-11 and 18 may contain allowable subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites “a second-type collimating lens” but parent claims 1 and 16 do not previously recite a first-type collimating lens. Claim 19 is indefinite because it is unclear if the claim requires two types of collimating lenses. Examiner notes that claim 19 may depend on claim 18 instead.
Claim 20 recites “wherein in the plurality of collimating lenses, any two adjacent collimating lenses in adjacent rows are in contact with each other; or any two adjacent collimating lenses in a same row are in contact with each other” and further recites without any conjunction: “in the collimating lens group, two rows of collimating lenses located on both sides of and adjacent to any row of collimating lenses are aligned in the column direction.” It is unclear whether the limitation “in the collimating lens group, two rows of collimating lenses located on both sides of and adjacent to any row of collimating lenses are aligned in the column direction” is necessarily included in claim 20, or if it is a further alternative.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kozuru.
Regarding independent claim 1, Kozuro discloses a laser (Figures 1A-D, 2A-B, and 3A-3D), comprising:
a base plate (i.e., the bottom part 36 of package 21 as shown in Figure 3C; paragraph [0068]);
a frame 35 disposed on the base plate and configured to form an accommodation space 30 with the base plate (i.e., frame part 35 of package 21 forming recess 30 as shown in Figures 3A-B; paragraph [0068]);
a plurality of light-emitting subassemblies disposed on the base plate and in the accommodation space (i.e., subassemblies including laser elements 22; Figure 3A; paragraphs [0061]-[0064]); and
a plurality of first conductive structures spaced apart at an end of the frame proximal to the base plate (i.e., step parts 33; paragraph [0065]-[0067]), wherein each of the first conductive structures comprises a substrate insulated from the base plate and a conductive layer disposed on a surface of the substrate distal to the base plate (i.e., Kozuro discloses “metal films on the upper surfaces of the step parts 33,” wherein the metal film would be a conductive layer disposed on a substrate surface; paragraph [0067]); and
a second conductive structure (i.e., wires 26) having one end electrically connected to the conductive layer and another end connected to at least one of the plurality of light-emitting subassemblies (Figures 3A-B; paragraphs [0069] and [0076]).
Regarding claim 2, Kozuro discloses that both the plurality of first conductive structures and the frame are made of ceramic, and the plurality of first conductive structures and the frame are an integral structure (paragraphs [0065]-[0066]; Figures 3A-B also show step parts 33 integrated with the frame part of package 21).
Regarding claim 12, Kozuro discloses that a side of the frame distal to the base plate is provided with an opening, the plurality of light-emitting subassemblies are configured to emit laser light (paragraph [0061]); and the laser further comprises: a light-transmitting layer (i.e., lens member 29; paragraph [0089]) disposed on a side of the frame on which the opening is located; a cover plate (i.e., lid member 27) comprising an inner edge region and an outer edge region, wherein the outer edge region is fastened to a surface of the frame distal to the base plate (i.e., the underside of an outer edge of lid member 27 is bonded to the upper surface of package 21; paragraph [0087]), and the inner edge region is fastened to an edge of the light-transmitting layer (i.e., the top side of an inner edge of lid member 27 is fastened to lens member 29 via adhesive parts 28; paragraph [0088]; Figure 3A).
PNG
media_image1.png
520
422
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.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozuro in view of Pierer.
Regarding claim 13, Kozuru discloses a laser as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 12. Kozuru further discloses a collimating lens group disposed on a side of the light-transmitting layer distal to the base plate and comprising a plurality of collimating lenses 51, wherein at least one of the plurality of collimating lenses is configured to decrease a divergence angle of incident laser light (paragraph [0089])
Kozuru does not specifically disclose that at least one of the plurality of collimating lenses is configured to make a decrease in a divergence angle of the laser light on a slow axis less than a decrease in a divergence angle of the laser light on a fast axis. However, Pierer teaches a system that is related to the one disclosed by Kozuru, including light-emitting subassemblies 910 in a frame on a base emitting laser light (Figures 1A, 9, and 16A; paragraphs [0148] and [0219]-[0223]) Pierer further teaches a plurality of collimating lenses (paragraphs [0226]-[0228]), wherein at least one of the plurality of collimating lenses is configured to decrease a divergence angle of incident laser light and make a decrease in a divergence angle of the laser light on a slow axis less than a decrease in a divergence angle of the laser light on a fast axis (Figures 17, 18A-B, and 19A-B; paragraphs [0238]-[0242]). Regarding claim 13, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include collimating lenses configured to make a decrease in a divergence angle of the laser light on a slow axis less than a decrease in a divergence angle of the laser light on a fast axis as taught by Pierer in the system disclosed by Kozuru in order to advantageously ensure that the output light is circular rather than elliptical (Pierer, paragraph [0238]).
Regarding claim 14, in the system taught by Kozuru in view of Pierer, Pierer further teaches that each of the collimating lenses comprises: a first surface, wherein the laser light emitted by the light-emitting subassembly is incident to the collimating lens through the first surface, and the first surface is configured to increase the divergence angle of the incident laser light on the slow axis; and a second surface, wherein the laser light emitted by the light-emitting subassembly is emergent from the collimating lens through the second surface, and the second surface is configured to decrease the divergence angles of the incident laser light on the fast axis and the slow axis (Pierer, Figures 18A-B, and 19A-B; paragraphs [0238]-[0242]).
Regarding claim 15, in the system taught by Kozuru in view of Pierer, Pierer further teaches (Pierer, Figures 18A-B, and 19A-B; paragraphs [0238]-[0242]) that there is one of:
the first surface comprises a concave arc surface having a radius of curvature in a first direction less than a radius of curvature in a second direction, the first direction being perpendicular to the second direction;
the first surface comprises a concave cylindrical surface with a straight generatrix being parallel to a second direction;
the second surface comprises a convex arc surface with a same curvature in a first direction and a second direction, the first direction being perpendicular to the second direction;
the second surface comprises a convex arc surface, the convex arc surface is a free-form surface, and the convex arc surface has a radius of curvature in a first direction greater than a radius of curvature in a second direction, the first direction being perpendicular to the second direction;
the first surface comprises a concave arc surface, the second surface comprises a convex arc surface, and a radius of curvature of the concave arc surface is greater than a radius of curvature of the convex arc surface; or
the first surface is a flat surface, the second surface comprises a convex arc surface, the convex arc surface is a free-form surface, and the convex arc surface has a radius of curvature in a first direction greater than a radius of curvature in a second direction, the first direction being perpendicular to the second direction.
Claims 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozuru in view of Minami.
Regarding claim 16, Kozuru discloses a laser as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Kozuru further discloses a collimating lens group disposed on a side of the light-transmitting layer distal to the base plate and comprising a plurality of collimating lenses 51 (paragraph [0089]). Kozuru does not specifically disclose an arrangement of collimating lenses as recited in claim 16. However, Minami teaches a system that is related to one disclosed by Kozuru, including a plurality of light-emitting subassemblies 10 emitting laser light and a plurality of collimating lenses 20 (Figure 1; paragraphs [0037]-[0040]). Minami further teaches the plurality of collimating lenses are arranged in a plurality of rows in a row direction (i.e., a first direction in Figure 27) and a plurality of columns in a column direction (i.e., a second direction in Figure 27); and for at least one of the plurality of collimating lenses, a maximum length in the column direction is greater than a maximum length in the row direction, and widths of two end portions are both less than a width of a middle portion in the column direction; wherein two adjacent rows of collimating lenses in the plurality of collimating lenses are staggered; and in the two adjacent rows of collimating lenses, an end portion of a collimating lens in one row of collimating lenses proximal to another row of collimating lenses is at least partially located between two end portions of two adjacent collimating lenses in the another row of collimating lenses (Figure 27; paragraph [0084). Regarding claim 16, it would have been obvious to arrange the light emitting elements and corresponding collimating lenses as taught by Minami in the system disclosed by Kozuru in order to advantageously allow easier lens placement while increasing the density of light emitting elements and allowing even light distribution (Minami, Figures 9-11; paragraphs [0055]-[0059]).
Regarding claim 17, in the system taught by Kozuru in view of Minami, Minami further teaches that there is one of: an orthographic projection of the collimating lens on the base plate is a hexagon, and the hexagon is symmetrical about an axis of symmetry parallel to the column direction; or an orthographic projection of the collimating lens on the base plate is an ellipse, and a major axis of the ellipse is parallel to the column direction (i.e., Minami teaches an ellipse as shown in Figure 4; paragraph [0044]).
Regarding claim 19, as well as the claim may be understood with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as discussed above, in the system taught by Kozuru in view of Minami, Minami further teaches that the collimating lens comprises a second-type collimating lens (at least in the sense that the lens is a type of lens that may be arbitrarily called “second”), an orthographic projection of the second-type collimating lens on the base plate is in an auxiliary shape (at least in the sense that the orthographic projection of the lens taught by Minami has some shape that may be arbitrarily called “auxiliary”), the second-type collimating lens is located at an edge of the collimating lens group, and an edge of the second-type collimating lens that is not adjacent to other collimating lenses is a straight edge (i.e., Figure 27 shows a collimating lens 20 at the edge of the group having a straight edge).
Regarding claim 20, as well as the claim may be understood with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as discussed above, in the system taught by Kozuru in view of Minami, Minami does not specifically teach that the embodiment of Figure 27 includes collimating lenses in contact with each other, but Minami teaches other embodiments including any two adjacent collimating lenses in adjacent rows in contact with each other (e.g., Figure 11; paragraph [0059]). Regarding claim 20, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have collimating lenses in contact with each other as suggested by Minami in the system taught by Kozuru in view of Minami in order to advantageously increase the density of light emitting elements and corresponding lenses (Minami, paragraph [0059]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-11 and 18 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.
The prior art does not specifically disclose or fairly suggest a laser including the combination of all of the elements, steps, and limitations recited in claims 3-11 and 18 (including all of the limitations of any respective parent claims), particularly wherein:
the plurality of first conductive structures are made of ceramic, the frame is made of metal and provided with a plurality of notches that are spaced apart at the end of the frame proximal to the base plate, and the plurality of first conductive structures are arranged in the plurality of notches in a one-to-one correspondence (e.g., claims 3-11); or
in three adjacent rows of collimating lenses, an orthographic projection of each collimating lens in the two rows of collimating lenses located at both ends on the base plate is an ellipse, the row of collimating lenses in the middle comprises a first-type collimating lens, and an orthographic projection of the first-type collimating lens on the base plate is in a target shape; and the target shape is enclosed by six edges, the six edges comprise two parallel and opposite straight edges, two arc edges respectively connected to one end of the two straight edges, and two arc edges respectively connected to another end of the two straight edges, and the arc edges are recessed toward inside of the target shape (e.g., claim 18).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christina Leung at telephone number (571) 272-3023. If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patricia Engle can be reached at (571) 272-6660.
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice.
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.
/CHRISTINA Y. LEUNG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3991
Prosecution Insights