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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copies have been filed in parent Application No. 15/157897, filed on 5/18/2016.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1-11, lines 1-10 of Claim 1 and line 1 of Claim 3 all use a different font than that used lines 11-13 of Claim 1, lines 2-4 of Claim 3, and all the remaining dependent claims. The Examiner respectfully suggests amending the claims to use the same font consistently throughout all the claims.
Regarding claim 4, lines 6-7 of the claim recites the phrase “a second virtual line extends parallel to the second direction” which is grammatically incorrect, since it does not use the wording of the similar phrase “a first virtual line that extends parallel to the second direction” in lines 3-4 of the claim defining the other virtual line that extends in the second direction. The Examiner respectfully suggests amending it to be --a second virtual line that extends parallel to the second direction-- to correct the typographical error.
Regarding claim 7, the term “leaser elements” in line 4 of the claim is misspelled. The Examiner respectfully suggests amending it to be --laser .
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4-5 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 4 recites the limitation "the second direction" in lines 6-7 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since the claimed second direction is defined in Claim 2, not in independent Claim 1. Similarly, Claim 5 recites the limitation “the second limitation” in lines 5-6 of the claim which also lacks antecedent basis for the same reasons. The Examiner respectfully suggests either amending Claim 4 to depend on Claim 2, amending Claim 1 to recite language directed to a second direction, or alternatively, amending Claim 4 to recite --a
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4, 6, 8-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Doerfel et al. (US 2008/0084905, previously listed on the IDS filed 5/8/2025, hereinafter “Doerfel”).
Regarding claim 1, Doerfel discloses a light-emitting device (a high power diode laser device; see Figs. 1a-6b; Abstract; para. [0047]-[0064]) comprising a base having an upper surface (heatsink 6 has an upper surface; see Figs. 4a-6b; par. [0057]); one or more semiconductor laser elements disposed on the upper surface and configured to emit light in a first direction in a top view (laser diode chips 2 are disposed on submounts 1 which are mounted on the upper surface of the base 6 and positioned within cutouts of an alignment substrate 10 to ensure alignment of the laser diode chips and their associated submounts, the laser diodes emitting light in a first direction (along the z-axis towards mirrors 7); see Figs. 1a-6b; para. [0048]-[0052], [0054]-[0059], [0062]-[0064]); one or more reflecting members spaced from the one or more semiconductor laser elements in the first direction in a top view (mirrors 7 are spaced from the one or more semiconductor laser elements 2 in the first direction; see Figs. 4a-6b; para. [0057]-[0058]); and a lens member having one or more lens sections through which light reflected by the one or more reflecting members passes (one or more fast axis collimating lenses 33 are provided on a top surface of a spacer substrate 30 to correspond to each respective semiconductor laser element 2 to receive output laser beams 31 reflected by the reflecting members 7; see Figs. 5a-6b; para. [0051]-[0052], [0058]-[0059], [0061]-[0064]), the lens member being fixed to the base and positioned above the one or more semiconductor laser elements and the one or more reflecting members (see Figs. 5a-6b; para. [0051]-[0052], [0058]-[0059], [0061]-[0064]); wherein in a top view, at least a portion of a first of the one or more reflecting members and an emitting surface of a first of the one or more semiconductor laser elements is disposed in a region inward of an outer edge of a first of the one or more lens sections (the portion of each semiconductor laser element 2 containing its emitting surface and the corresponding reflecting member 7 are provided below the corresponding lens section 33 within a region positioned inward relative to an outer edge of the corresponding lens member; see Figs. 5a-6b, especially Fig. 6a).
Regarding claim 4, Doerfel discloses wherein in a top view, the emitting surface of the first semiconductor laser element disposed in the region inward of the outer edge of the first lens member is positioned between (i) a first virtual line that extends parallel to the second direction and passes through one end of a width of light from the first semiconductor laser element in the first direction at a light incident surface of the lens member and (ii) a second virtual line that extends parallel to the second direction and passes through another end of the width of light from the first semiconductor laser element in the first direction at the light incident surface of the lens member (the emitting surface of each semiconductor laser element 2 is position in the region inward of the outer edge of the corresponding lens section 33 in a region between two virtual lines extending parallel to a second direction (the x’-axis direction in Figs. 5b and 6b, and the unlabeled x-axis direction going into the paper in Figs. 5a and 6a) that define a width of the output light beam 31; see Figs. 5a-6b).
Regarding claim 6, Doerfel discloses wherein in a top view, a width in the first direction of the first reflecting member is less than a width in the first direction of the first lens section (each lens section 33 is wider than the corresponding reflecting member 7 in the first direction (along the z-axis); see Fig. 6a); and in a top view, a width in the first direction of the first semiconductor laser element is less than the width in the first direction of the first lens section (each lens section 33 is wider than the corresponding semiconductor laser element 2 in the first direction (along the z-axis); see Figs. 5a, 6a).
Regarding claim 8, Doerfel discloses the light-emitting device further comprising a plurality of wirings electrically connected to the one or more semiconductor laser elements (bonding wires 5 bond each semiconductor laser element 2 to a corresponding bond pad 3 to supply power; see Figs. 1a-1b, 3a, 4a, 5a, 6a; para. [0049], [0051]-[0052], [0054]-[0055]); wherein the plurality of wirings includes a first wiring joined to the first semiconductor laser element (see Figs. 1a-1b, 3a-6b; para. [0049], [0051]-[0052], [0054]-[0055]); and in a top view, a first portion of the first wiring is disposed within the region inward of the outer edge of the first lens section and a second portion of the first wiring is located outward of the outer edge of the first lens section (part of each wiring 5 is disposed within the region inward of the outer edge of the respective lens section 33 and another part of the wiring is disposed outside the outer edge of the respective lens section; see Figs. 6a-6b).
Regarding claim 9, Doerfel discloses the light-emitting device further comprising one or more mounting bodies on which the one or more semiconductor laser elements are disposed (each of the semiconductor laser elements 2 are disposed on submounts 1 which are mounted on the upper surface of the base 6; see Figs. 1a-6b; para. [0048]-[0052], [0054]-[0059], [0062]-[0064]).
Regarding claim 11, Doerfel discloses the light-emitting device further comprising a sealing member being fixed to the base (a spacer plate or substrate 30 is fixed to the base 6 on top of the alignment substrate 10 to seal the semiconductor laser elements 2 within a space defined between the base, the cutouts of the alignment substrate, and the spacer substrate; see Figs. 2a-6b; para. [0058]-[0059], [0061]-[0064]); wherein the lens member is fixed to the base via the sealing member (the lens member consisting of the lens sections 33 is fixed to the base 6 via the sealing member 30; see Figs. 2a-6b; para. [0058]-[0059], [0061]-[0064]); the one or more semiconductor laser elements are disposed in a sealed space (the semiconductor laser elements 2 are disposed within a sealed space defined between the base 6, the cutouts of the alignment substrate 10, and the sealing member 30; see Figs. 2a-6b; para. [0058]-[0059], [0061]-[0064]); and the lens member is located outside the sealed space (the lens member consisting of the lens sections 33 is located on top of the sealing member 30 outside the sealed space; see Figs. 2a-6b; para. [0058]-[0059], [0061]-[0064]).
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 2, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doerfel (US 2008/0084905) in view of Garcia (US 2014/0063802, previously listed on the IDS filed 5/8/2025).
Regarding claim 2, Doerfel teaches wherein in a top view, an emitting surface of each of the semiconductor laser elements is disposed in a region inward of an outer edge of a respective one of the plurality of lens sections (the emitting surface of each semiconductor laser element 2 is position in the region inward of the outer edge of the corresponding lens section 33; see Figs. 5a-6b).
However, the teachings of Doerfel fail to disclose or fairly suggest wherein the one or more semiconductor laser elements comprise a plurality of semiconductor laser elements disposed on the upper surface of the base in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction in a top view; and the one or more lens sections comprise a plurality of lens sections arranged in the second direction.
Garcia teaches a light-emitting device (an LED lighting unit (which could also utilize lasers instead of LEDs); see Figs. 1-3; Abstract; para. [0024], [0042]-[0051]) comprising a base having an upper surface (circuit board 104; see Fig. 3; para. [0042], [0048]-[0049]); one or more semiconductor laser elements disposed on the upper surface in a first direction (LEDs 102 which could also be lasers are disposed on the base 104 in a first direction; see Figs. 1-3; para. [0024], [0042]-[0048], [0048]-[0050]); one or more reflecting members spaced from the one or more semiconductor laser elements in the first direction (a plurality of reflectors 125 spaced from a corresponding laser element 102 are disposed along the first direction; see Figs. 1-3; para. [0045]-[0046], [0051]); and a lens member having one or more lens sections, the lens member being fixed to the base and positioned above the one or more semiconductor laser elements (an array of optical pieces 101 that includes a plurality of individual optical pieces 115 which are each positioned and aligned over a single of the laser elements 102; see Figs. 1-3; para. [0042]-[0046], [0048]-[0051]); wherein the one or more semiconductor laser elements comprise a plurality of semiconductor laser elements disposed on the upper surface of the base in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction in a top view (each of the laser elements 102 are disposed on the base 104 in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction in a two dimensional array; see Figs. 1-2); and the one or more lens sections comprise a plurality of lens sections arranged in the second direction (see Figs. 1-2).
Therefore, in view of Garcia, 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 light-emitting device of Doerfel by disposing the plurality of semiconductor laser elements on the upper surface of the base in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction in a top view, and arranging a plurality of lens sections of the one or more lens sections in the second direction. One would have been motivated to modify the known light-emitting device of Doerfel by disposing the plurality of semiconductor laser elements on the upper surface of the base in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction in a top view, and arranging a plurality of lens sections of the one or more lens sections in the second direction, as taught by Garcia, in order to provide a larger array of laser elements and increase the amount of light emitted by the device.
However, regarding claim 7, the teachings of Doerfel fail to disclose or fairly suggest wherein the one or more reflecting members comprises a plurality of reflecting members arranged on the upper surface of the base in the second direction in a top view; and a distance between adjacent semiconductor laser elements is larger than a distance between adjacent reflecting members.
Garcia teaches wherein the one or more reflecting members comprises a plurality of reflecting members arranged on the upper surface of the base in the second direction in a top view (each of the reflectors 125 are disposed in the first and second directions along the upper surface of the base 104; see Figs. 1-3; para. [0045]-[0046], [0051]).
Therefore, in view of Garcia, 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 light-emitting device of Doerfel by arranging a plurality of reflecting members of the one or more reflecting members on the upper surface of the base in the second direction in a top view. One would have been motivated to modify the known light-emitting device of Doerfel by arranging a plurality of reflecting members of the one or more reflecting members on the upper surface of the base in the second direction in a top view, as taught by Garcia, in order in order to provide a larger array of laser elements and increase the amount of light emitted by the device and ensure all of the laser elements disposed in the second direction have a corresponding reflecting member to ensure an even brightness throughout the array.
Further, 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 light-emitting device of Doerfel by arranging the semiconductor laser elements and the reflecting members such that a distance between adjacent semiconductor laser elements is larger than a distance between adjacent reflecting members, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (See In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)), and further, since it has been held that rearranging parts of a prior art structure involves only routine skill in the art (See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)). In this case, modifying the known light-emitting device of Doerfel by arranging the semiconductor laser elements and the reflecting members such that a distance between adjacent semiconductor laser elements is larger than a distance between adjacent reflecting members would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the particular design requirements of a given application, in order to provide a more compact arrangement of the array on the base.
However, regarding claim 10, the teachings of Doerfel fail to disclose or fairly suggest wherein the one or more lens sections comprise five or more lens sections arranged in the second direction.
Garcia teaches wherein the one or more lens sections comprise five or more lens sections arranged in the second direction (the lens sections 115 are arranged in a 2x8 array; see Figs. 1-2).
Therefore, in view of Garcia, 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 light-emitting device of Doerfel by providing the one or more lens sections five or more lens sections arranged in the second direction, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. One would have been motivated to modify the known light-emitting device of Doerfel by providing the one or more lens sections five or more lens sections arranged in the second direction, as taught by Garcia, in order to increase the brightness of light emitted by the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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.
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, the Prior Art taken as a whole fails to specifically disclose or suggest, in combination, “The light-emitting device according to claim 2, wherein the plurality of lens sections are arranged such that an inter-vertex distance between adjacent lens sections in the second direction is smaller than a maximum outer diameter of each of the lens sections” (emphasis added).
Although light-emitting devices are known, as evidenced by the Prior Art already of record, no Prior Art was found teaching individually, or suggesting in combination, all the features of Applicant’s invention, in particular the above limitations in combination with the remaining features of the claims, and there would be no motivation, absent the Applicant’s own disclosure, to modify the references in the manner distinctly and specifically called for in the combination as claimed in Claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, the Prior Art taken as a whole fails to specifically disclose or suggest, in combination, “The light-emitting device according to claim 4, wherein in a top view, the width of light from the first semiconductor laser element in the first direction at the light incident surface of the lens member is less than a width of the first lens section in the first direction; and in a top view, a width of light from the semiconductor laser element in the second direction at the light incident surface of the lens member is less than a width of the lens section in the second direction” (emphasis added).
Although light-emitting devices are known, as evidenced by the Prior Art already of record, no Prior Art was found teaching individually, or suggesting in combination, all the features of Applicant’s invention, in particular the above limitations in combination with the remaining features of the claims, and there would be no motivation, absent the Applicant’s own disclosure, to modify the references in the manner distinctly and specifically called for in the combination as claimed in Claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kuo (US 9,377,175), Zhang et al. (US 2014/0299897), Smith (US 2010/0271818), and Schaefer et al. (US 2010/0195323) all disclose light-emitting devices comprising one or more semiconductor lighting elements disposed on an upper surface of a base, one or more reflecting members spaced from the one or more semiconductor lighting elements, and a lens member having one or more lens sections fixed to the base and positioned above the one or more semiconductor lighting elements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM N HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-3609. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00AM- 5:00PM EST, Alternate Fridays.
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, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached at 571-272-7044. 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.
/WILLIAM N HARRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875