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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2021/0281043 (Shahin).
For claim 1, Shahin teaches an edge-emitting type semiconductor laser device (fig. 10, 12, and 17; while fig. 10 and 12 are arrays, they are each a single monolithic device and may each be considered “one light emitter” under broadest reasonable interpretation), wherein an envelope of a spectrum of light emitted from one light emitter when laser oscillation is performed by pulse driving (pulse driving recites a manner of operating rather than a structural limitation) is formed by synthesizing spectra of a plurality of peaks, and a full width at half maximum of the envelope is 3 nm or more (fig. 11B, [0017] and fig. 14, see 10 nm bandwidth, [0091]).
With regard to the pulse driving, a recitation as to how the laser device is intended to be employed (i.e. pulse driven) does not differentiate the laser device from the prior art of Shahin which teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114 II.
For claim 2, Shahin teaches a difference between a peak wavelength of a first spectrum which is one of the plurality of peaks located on a longest wavelength side and a peak wavelength of a second spectrum which is another of the plurality of peaks located on a shortest wavelength side peaks is 1 nm or more and 10 nm or less (fig. 11B, λ0 – λ3; Fig. 14, see curve with 10 nm bandwidth).
For claim 3, Shahin teaches the envelope of the spectrum of the light has a plurality of local maximum values less (fig. 11B; Fig. 14, see curve with 10 nm bandwidth).
For claim 4, Shahin teaches a difference between a first wavelength corresponding to a first local maximum value which is a largest local maximum value and a second wavelength corresponding to a second local maximum value which is a next largest local maximum value is 1 nm or more and 10 nm or less (fig. 11B; Fig. 14, see curve with 10 nm bandwidth).
For claim 5, Shahin teaches a local minimum value sandwiched between the first local maximum value and the second local maximum value is equal to or more than a half value of the first local maximum value (fig. 11B; Fig. 14, see curve with 10 nm bandwidth).
For claim 6, Shahin teaches an oscillation wavelength of the semiconductor laser device is in a visible light region (fig. 11B; Fig. 14, see curve with 10 nm bandwidth).
For claim 7, Shahin teaches the oscillation wavelength of the semiconductor laser device is in a red wavelength region (fig. 14).
For claim 8, Shahin teaches the semiconductor laser device includes a plurality of emitters (fig. 2, 201LR, 201LG and 201LB).
For claim 9, Shahin does not explicitly state an I-L characteristic during continuous wave driving has a kink region. However, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. The limitation of claim 9 does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114 II.
For claim 10, Shahin teaches an emission wavelength difference of 1 nm to 10 nm exists in a gain region in a chip plane of the semiconductor laser device with respect to a waveguide direction (fig. 17, the MQWs 1702 create the wavelength difference and exist along the length of the waveguide direction; fig. 19 and 20 illustrate alternative configurations where the MQW laser wavelength changes along the length of the waveguide).
For claim 11, Shahin teaches a light-emitting layer having a stacked structure of two or more well layers having emission wavelengths different from each other by 1 nm to 10 nm (fig. 17, 1702 and fig. 14; [0092]).
For claim 12, Shahin teaches a light-emitting layer structured such that a plurality of peaks exist in a gain spectrum of emission light (fig. 17, 1702 and fig. 14; [0092]).
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 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0281043 (Shahin) in view of US 2022/0209508 (Hagimoto).
For claim 13, Shahin is applied according to the rejection of claim 1 above.
Shahin does not state a drive circuit structured to pulse-drive the semiconductor laser device.
However, Hagimoto teaches a drive circuit structured to pulse-drive the semiconductor laser device in order to increase a bandwidth ([0082]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the drive current of Hagimoto with the invention of Shahin in order to increase bandwidth.
For claim 14, Shahin does not teach the drive circuit drives the semiconductor laser device with a pulse current at which a pulse width of an optical waveform of emission light is 4 ns or less.
However, Shahin does teach a single pixel is typically 4ns ([0055]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to drive the laser device with a pulse current at which a pulse width of an optical waveform of emission light is 4 ns or less in order to coincide with a single pixel duration.
For claim 15, Shahin is applied according to the rejection of claim 9 above.
Shahin does not state a drive circuit structured to pulse-drive the semiconductor laser device.
However, Hagimoto teaches a drive circuit structured to pulse-drive the semiconductor laser device in order to increase a bandwidth ([0082]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the drive current of Hagimoto with the invention of Shahin in order to increase bandwidth.
The combination does not teach a peak of a pulsed drive current supplied to the semiconductor laser device is located in the kink region.
However, the examiner takes official notice that drive current was a well-known in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention as a results effective variable which determines the output power.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention made to adjust drive currents in order to adjust output power, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
For claim 16, Shahin and Hagimoto are applied according to the rejection of claim 13 above. Shahin further teaches the device is a wearable display device (fig. 1 and title).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael W Carter whose telephone number is (571)270-1872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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.
/Michael Carter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
