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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the amendments made to claims 41 and 61. Claims 1-40,55 and 59 stand as cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 61 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument that Jikutani fails to disclose the claimed relationship of
“the optical film thickness of the second high refractive index layer made of a nitride semiconductor is greater than an optical film thickness of the first high refractive index layer made of a nitride semiconductor”
Examiner notes that Applicant is arguing that Figs. 5 and 42 of Jikutani do not disclose the claimed relationship of optical film thicknesses of the first and second high refractive index layers while the prior art rejection relies on Fig. 43 of Jikutani and disclosed in paragraph [0280] of Jikutani as an alternative structure to be used in place of the structure shown in Fig. 42 of Jikutani (See rejection of claims 41 and 61 below).
Thus, Jikutani discloses the relationship of “the optical film thickness of the second high refractive index layer [103b in 1034] (Para. [0280]) is greater than an optical film thickness of the first high refractive index layer [103b in 1031] (See Fig. 43)” as recited in amended claims 41 and 61 below.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Specifically, regarding the argument that Jikutani provides no discussion or suggestion of a VCSEL with a reflecting mirror constructed from nitride semiconductors. Examiner notes that the secondary reference of Kawashima is relied upon for the use of nitride semiconductor materials of the high and low refractive index layers of the modified device of Jikutani in view of Kawashima. Jikutani is not being relied upon to teach or disclose the use of nitride semiconductor materials. Therefore, the combination of Jikutani in view of Kawashima discloses the limitation of
“the optical film thickness of the second high refractive index layer [Jikutani 103b in 1034] (Jikutani Para. [0280]) made of a nitride semiconductor (Kawashima Para. [0156]) is greater than an optical film thickness of the first high refractive index layer [Jikutani 103b in 1031] (See Jikutani Fig. 43) made of a nitride semiconductor (Kawashima Para. [0156])”.
Regarding the argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to completely rework the GaAs-based apparatus of Jikutani according to the nitride-based semiconductor reflective mirror of Kawashima, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use nitride semiconductor materials and the nitride based surface emitting laser structure as disclosed in Kawashima for the purpose of improved heat dissipation in the reflector and device structures as disclosed in Kawashima Para. [0096] and the rejections of claims 41 and 61 below.
Claim Objections
The previous objection to claim 41 is withdrawn in light of the amendments made to claim 41.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 41-45,47,49-53,60 and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jikutani (US 20150063396 A1) in view of Kawashima et al. (hereinafter Kawashima) (US 20190273360 A1).
The applied Kawashima reference has common inventors with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Regarding claim 41, Jikutani discloses
A vertical cavity surface emitting laser [100 Fig. 3] (Para. [0121]) comprising:
an active layer [105 Fig. 3] (Para. [0121]);
a first reflecting mirror [103 Fig. 3] and a second reflecting mirror [107 Fig. 3] (Para. [0133]), the active layer [105 Fig. 3] being between the first reflecting mirror [103 Fig. 3] and the second reflecting mirror [107 Fig. 3] (Para. [0133]); and
a first semiconductor layer [104 Fig. 3] (Para. [0129]) having electrical conductivity, the first semiconductor layer [104 Fig. 3] being between the active layer [105 Fig. 3] and the first reflecting mirror [103 Fig. 3] (Para. [0130]), wherein
the first reflecting mirror [103 Fig. 3] includes a first multilayered film [1031 Fig. 43] (Para. [0125]) and a second multilayered film [1034 Fig. 43] (Paras. [0126,0280]), the second multilayered film [1034 Fig. 43] having electrical conductivity and being between the first multilayered film [1031 Fig. 43] and the first semiconductor layer [104 Fig. 3] (Paras. [0127,0280]), wherein
the first multilayered film [1031 Fig. 43] includes a first low refractive index layer [103a Fig. 43] (Para. [0125]) having a first average refractive index [Fig. 14], and a first high refractive index layer [103b Fig. 43] having a second average refractive index higher than the first average refractive index [Fig. 14] (Para. [0125]); and
the second multilayered film [1034 Fig. 43] includes a second low refractive index layer [103a Fig. 43] (Paras. [0126,0280]) having a third average refractive index [Fig. 14], and a second high refractive index layer [103b Fig. 43] (Paras. [0126,0280]) having a fourth average refractive index higher than the third average refractive index [Fig. 14], wherein
assuming that a center wavelength of a reflection band of the first multilayered film [1031 Fig. 43] is λ,
a sum of an optical film thickness of the first low refractive index layer [103a in 1031 Fig. 43] and an optical film thickness of the first high refractive index layer [103b in 1031 Fig. 43] is λ/2 (Paras. [0125,0280]); and
a sum of an optical film thickness of the second low refractive index layer [103a in 1034 Fig. 43] and an optical film thickness of the second high refractive index layer [103b in 1034 Fig. 43] is greater than or equal to (n+1)λ/2 where n is an integer of 1 or more (Paras. [0126,0280]),
the optical film thickness of the second high refractive index layer [103b in 1034] (Para. [0280]) is greater than an optical film thickness of the first high refractive index layer [103b in 1031] (See Fig. 43), and
the vertical cavity surface emitting laser [100 Fig. 3] further includes an electrode [113 Fig. 3] electrically connected with the first semiconductor layer (Para. [0156]) or the second multilayered film (Para. [0156]).
Examiner notes when the optical film thicknesses of the high and low refractive index layers in [1034 Fig. 43] (Para. [0280]) are added together, a thickness value of λ is produced. This correlates to a value of n=1 in the relationship described in claim 1.
The device of Jikutani fails to disclose,
each of the first low refractive index layer, the first high refractive index layer, the second low refractive index layer and the second high refractive index layer are made of nitride semiconductors and,
the optical film thickness of the second high refractive index layer made of a nitride semiconductor is greater than an optical film thickness of the first high refractive index layer made of a nitride semiconductor
Kawashima discloses in Fig. 1,
Respective high [103] (Para. [0037]) and low refractive index layers [102] (para. [0037]) made of nitride semiconductors (Para. [0037]),
wherein at least one of the second low refractive index layer [102b] or the second high refractive index layer includes a GaN layer (Para. [0069]) included inside a nitride based surface emitting laser structure [200] (Paras. [0075-0080])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the use of nitride semiconductor layers as the material chosen for the high and low refractive index layers as disclosed in Kawashima in place of the materials of the reflector layers of Jikutani and included in a nitride based surface emitting laser device structure as shown in Kawashima for the purpose of having a reflector and surface emitting laser device with excellent heat dissipation. (Kawashima Para. [0096])
Therefore, after the combination of the nitride materials of Kawashima into the device of Jikutani as described above, the combination of Jikutani in view of Kawashima discloses the limitation of
“the optical film thickness of the second high refractive index layer [Jikutani 103b in 1034] (Jikutani Para. [0280]) made of a nitride semiconductor (Kawashima Para. [0156]) is greater than an optical film thickness of the first high refractive index layer [Jikutani 103b in 1031] (See Jikutani Fig. 43) made of a nitride semiconductor (Kawashima Para. [0156])”
Regarding claim 42, Jikutani in view of Kawashima as applied to claim 41 above further discloses in Fig. 3 of Jikutani,
wherein a laminate [Fig. 3] at least including the active layer [105] (Para. [0121]) and the first semiconductor layer [104] (Para. [0121]) has a mesa structure [Fig. 3] where a portion of the first semiconductor layer [104] (Para. [0121]) serves as a bottom of the mesa structure, and the electrode [113] (Para. [0156]) is electrically connected with the first semiconductor layer [104] (Para. [0156]).
Examiner notes the interpretation of the term “a bottom” will be understood to be “a surface designed to support something resting on it” as defined in Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (See PTO-892 form)
Regarding claim 43, Jikutani in view of Kawashima as applied to claim 41 above further discloses in Fig. 3 of Jikutani,
wherein a laminate [Fig. 3] at least including the active layer [105] (Para. [0121]), the first semiconductor layer [104] (Para. [0121]), and the second multilayered film [1034 Fig. 43] (Para. [0126]) has a mesa structure where a portion of the second multilayered film serves as a bottom of the mesa structure [Fig. 3], and
the electrode [113] is electrically connected with the second multilayered film [1034 Fig. 43] (Para. [0156]).
Examiner notes the interpretation of the term “a bottom” will be understood to be “a surface designed to support something resting on it” as defined in Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (See PTO-892 form)
Regarding claim 44, Jikutani in view of Kawashima as applied to claim 41 above discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 41 above but fails to disclose,
wherein the first reflecting mirror is on a conductive substrate, a laminate at least including the active layer and the first semiconductor layer has a mesa structure, at least the first reflecting mirror has an opening, and
the vertical cavity surface emitting laser further comprises a conductor in the opening, the conductor electrically connecting the substrate with the second multilayered film.
Kawashima discloses in Fig. 2,
wherein the first reflecting mirror [204] (Para. [0075]) is on a conductive substrate [201] (Para. [0075]), a laminate at least including the active layer [206] (Para. [0075]) and the first semiconductor layer [205] (Para. [0076]) has a mesa structure [Fig. 2], at least the first reflecting mirror [204] has an opening [209] (Para. [0075]), and
the vertical cavity surface emitting laser [200] further comprises a conductor [210] (Para. [0075]) in the opening [209]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the device structure of Kawashima in place of the device structure of Jikutani for the purpose of providing electrical coupling between the substrate and the spacer layer and injecting carriers to the active layer. (Kawashima Paras. [0075,0087])
Regarding claim 45, Jikutani in view of Kawashima as applied to claim 41 above further discloses in Jikutani,
wherein the second multilayered film [1034 Fig. 43] (Para. [0278]) and the first semiconductor layer [104 Fig. 3] are in contact with each other (Para. [0278]).
Examiner notes the term “contact” is being interpreted as “electrical contact” for the purposes of examination in the instant application.
Regarding claim 47, Jikutani in view of Kawashima as applied to claim 41 above further discloses in Fig. 1 of Kawashima,
wherein the first multilayered film [100] is in an undoped state (Para. [0040]).
Regarding claim 49, Jikutani in view of Kawashima as applied to claim 41 above further discloses in Kawashima
wherein the first low refractive index layer [102] includes one or more layers [102a] (Para. [0037]) each having refractive indexes which are lower than a refractive index of GaN (Para. [0069]), and the first high refractive index layer [103] (Para. [0037]) includes one or more layers each having refractive indexes which are higher than the refractive index of GaN (Para. [0069]).
Regarding claim 50, Jikutani in view of Kawashima as applied to claim 41 above further discloses in Jikutani,
wherein the optical film thickness of the second high refractive index layer [103b in 1034] is greater than or equal to λ/2 (Para. [0280]).
Regarding claim 51, Jikutani in view of Kawashima as applied to claim 41 above further discloses in Kawashima,
wherein at least one of the second low refractive index layer [102b] or the second high refractive index layer includes a GaN layer (Para. [0069]).
Examiner notes the use of the term “or” in claim 51. For the purposes of examination, the interpretation used will be “wherein the second low refractive index layer includes a GaN layer”.
Regarding claim 52, Jikutani in view of Kawashima as applied to claim 49 above further discloses in Fig. 1 of Kawashima,
wherein the first low refractive index layer [102] has a laminate structure wherein an AlxGayIn1-x-yN layer [102a] (Para. [0037]) (x is greater than or equal to 0.9, y is greater than or equal to 0 and smaller than or equal to 0.1) and a GaN layer [102b] (Para. [0037]) are alternately laminated, and
the first high refractive index layer [103] includes an InGaN layer (Para. [0037]).
Regarding claim 53, Jikutani in view of Kawashima as applied to claim 50 above further discloses in Fig. 43 of Jikutani,
wherein the optical film thickness of the second low refractive index layer [103a in 1034] is smaller than or equal to λ/4 (Para. [0281]).
Regarding claim 60, Jikutani in view of Kawashima as applied to claim 41 above discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 41 above but Jikutani in view of Kawashima as applied to claim 41 above fails to disclose,
A lighting apparatus comprising the vertical cavity surface emitting laser according to claim 41,
Kawashima discloses in Fig. 12,
A lighting apparatus [1000] comprising the vertical cavity surface emitting laser [1001] (Para. [0157])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the VCSEL of Jikutani into the projector shown in Kawashima for the purpose of projecting an image of a plurality of colors onto an object. (Kawashima Para. [0157])
Regarding claim 61, Jikutani discloses,
A reflecting mirror [103 in VCSEL 100 Fig. 3] (Para. [0121]) comprising:
a first multilayered film [1031 Fig. 43] (Para. [0125]) including
a first low refractive index layer [103a Fig. 43] (Para. [0125]) having a first average refractive index [Fig. 14], and
a first high refractive index layer [103b Fig. 43] having a second average refractive index higher than the first average refractive index [Fig. 14] (Para. [0125]); and
a second multilayered film [1034 Fig. 43] (Para. [0126]) on the first multilayered film [1034 on 1031 Fig. 43], the second multilayered film [1034 Fig. 42] including
a second low refractive index layer [103a in 1034 Fig. 43] (Para. [0126]) having a third average refractive index [Fig. 14], and
a second high refractive index layer [103b in 1034 Fig. 43] (Para. [0126]) having a fourth average refractive index higher than the third average refractive index [Fig. 14], wherein
the reflecting mirror has a reflection band where a center wavelength reflection is λ,
a sum of an optical film thickness of the first low refractive index layer [103a in 1031 Fig. 43] and an optical film thickness of the first high refractive index layer [103b in 1031 Fig. 43] is λ/2 (Paras. [0125,0280]); and
a sum of an optical film thickness of the second low refractive index layer [103a in 1034 Fig. 43] and an optical film thickness of the second high refractive index layer [103b in 1034 Fig. 43] is greater than or equal to (n+1)λ/2 wherein n being an integer of 1 or more (Paras. [0126,0280]),
the optical film thickness of the second high refractive index layer [103b in 1034] (Para. [0280]) is greater than an optical film thickness of the first high refractive index layer [103b in 1031] (See Fig. 43),
Examiner notes when the optical film thicknesses of the high and low refractive index layers in [1034 Fig. 43] are added together, a thickness value of λ is produced. This correlates to a value of n=1 in the relationship described in claim 1.
Jikutani fails to disclose,
each of the first low refractive index layer, the first high refractive index layer, the second low refractive index layer and the second high refractive index layer are made of nitride semiconductors and
the optical film thickness of the second high refractive index layer made of a nitride semiconductor is greater than an optical film thickness of the first high refractive index layer made of a nitride semiconductor
Kawashima discloses in Fig. 1,
Respective high [103] (Para. [0037]) and low refractive index layers [102] (para. [0037]) made of nitride semiconductors (Para. [0037]),
wherein at least one of the second low refractive index layer [102b] or the second high refractive index layer includes a GaN layer (Para. [0069]) included inside a nitride based surface emitting laser structure [200] (Paras. [0075-0080])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the use of nitride semiconductor layers as the material chosen for the high and low refractive index layers as disclosed in Kawashima in place of the materials of the reflector layers of Jikutani and included in a nitride based surface emitting laser device structure as shown in Kawashima for the purpose of having a reflector and surface emitting laser device with excellent heat dissipation. (Kawashima Para. [0096])
Therefore, after the combination of the nitride materials of Kawashima into the device of Jikutani as described above, the combination of Jikutani in view of Kawashima discloses the limitation of
“the optical film thickness of the second high refractive index layer [Jikutani 103b in 1034] (Jikutani Para. [0280]) made of a nitride semiconductor (Kawashima Para. [0156]) is greater than an optical film thickness of the first high refractive index layer [Jikutani 103b in 1031] (See Jikutani Fig. 43) made of a nitride semiconductor (Kawashima Para. [0156])”
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jikutani in view of Kawashima as applied to claim 41 above and further in view of Kagawa et al. (hereinafter Kagawa) (JP 2001094208 A) (Examiner notes that an attached translation of the description of Kagawa will be used for the claim mapping of Kagawa. See PTO-892 form)
Regarding claim 46, Jikutani in view of Kawashima as applied to claim 41 above discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 41 above but fails to disclose,
wherein a band-gap difference between the second high refractive index layer and the second low refractive index layer is smaller than a bandgap difference between the first high refractive index layer and the first low refractive index layer.
Kagawa discloses,
High-refractive index layers [2] (Para. [0014]) that increase in aluminum composition as they get closer to the active region [6] (Para. [0014])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the increasing aluminum composition in the high refractive index layers of Kagawa into the high refractive index layers of the modified device of Jikutani for the purpose of suppressing light absorption. (Kagawa Para. [0008])
Kagawa discloses that increasing the aluminum composition in the refractive index layers increases the band gap (Para. [0014). When the aluminum composition of the high refractive index layers of Jikutani are increased as shown in Kagawa, the aluminum composition of the high refractive index layers get closer to the aluminum composition of the low refractive index layers. Therefore, reducing the difference in the band gaps of the high and low refractive index layers as they get closer to the active region.
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jikutani in view of Kawashima as applied to claim 41 above and further view of Yokouchi et al. (US 20080254566 A1).
Regarding claim 48, Jikutani in view of Kawashima as applied to claim 41 above discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 41 above but fails to disclose,
wherein the second multilayered film has p-type conductivity.
Yokouchi et al. discloses in Fig. 2,
a bottom mirror [102] with p-type conductivity (Para. [0065])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a p-type conductivity of a bottom reflector as shown in Yokouchi et al. into the modified device of Jikutani for the purpose of having a p-type mirror on the bottom side of the VCSEL allowing for more carriers through the bottom mirror.
Claim 54 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jikutani in view of Kawashima as applied to claim 53 above, and further in view of Kitatani et al. (hereinafter Kitatani) (US 20020075921 A1).
Regarding claim 54, The modified device of Jikutani discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 53 above but fails to disclose,
wherein a film thickness of the first semiconductor layer is smaller than or equal to 400 nm.
Kitatani discloses in Fig. 10(a),
a film thickness of a first semiconductor layer [104] that is ½ wavelength (Para. [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the ½ wavelength thickness of the spacer layer of Kitatani into the spacer layer of the modified device of Jikutani for the purpose of having a controllable thickness of a spacer layer according to an operating wavelength of a device.
Examiner notes that the wavelength of the nitride based device of Jikutani in view of Kawashima is disclosed to be 405nm in paragraph [0069] of Kawashima. Therefore, when the ½ wavelength thickness is applied to the spacer layer of Jikutani in view of Kawashima, the thickness will be approximately 202.5nm.
Claim 56 and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jikutani in view of Kawashima as applied to claim 41 above and further in view of Shitomi (EP 3246744 A1).
Regarding claim 56, Jikutani in view of Kawashima as applied to claim 41 above discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 41 above but fails to disclose,
A head up display comprising the vertical cavity surface emitting laser according to claim 41.
Shitomi discloses in Fig. 1,
A heads up display [100] comprising a light source device [11] (Para. [0023])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the VCSEL of the modified device of Jikutani into the heads-up-display of Shitomi for the purpose of creating a HUD that emits light for forming an image that can be seen at eye-level in a mobile object. (Shitomi Para. [0022,0023])
Regarding claim 57, Jikutani in view of Kawashima and Shitomi as applied to claim 56 above further discloses in Shitomi
A movable body comprising the head up display according to claim 56. (Para. [0022]
Claim 58 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jikutani in view of Kawashima as applied to claim 41 above and further in of Hatzilias et al. (US 20200153204 A1).
Regarding claim 58, Jikutani in view of Kawashima discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 41 above but fails to disclose,
A head mount display comprising the vertical cavity surface emitting laser according to claim 41.
Hatzilias et al. discloses in Fig. 1A,
A head mount display [100] (Para. [0013]) comprising vertical cavity surface emitting lasers [150] (Para. [0013])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the modified VCSEL device of Jikutani into the HMD of Hatzilias et al. for the purpose of providing artificial reality content to a use. (Hatzilias et al. Para. [0014])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Examiner particularly notes (US 20080056320 A1) which discloses nitride based multi-layer mirror structures in a laser device. (See PTO-892 form)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNTER J NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5318. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:30am-5:00 ET.
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.
/H.J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2828 /TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828