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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/18/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 9 are amended. Claims 1-14, 17, and 49-52 are pending.
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.
Claim 52 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jiang et al., “Omnidirectional whispering-gallery-mode lasing in GaN microdisk obtained by selective area growth on sapphire substrate”, Optics Express, vol. 27, no. 11, May 2019 (“Jiang”).
Regarding claim 52, Jiang discloses a microdisk laser particle (GaN microdisk, see e.g. Figs.1 (a),(b) and 2(c),(d) respectively showing 5 μm or 14 μm hexagonal microdisks) including light scattering elements (see Fig.1 (a) with page 16199 referring to “enhanced light-field scattering at the corners of the GaN microdisk”; and see Fig.2(c) with page 16197 referring to a rough surface on top of the 5 μm microdisk, or to a RMS roughness of 1.13nm for the 14 μm microdisk) configured to increase omnidirectionality (see title and S. 4.Conclusion) by directing emission intensity of whispering gallery modes in the direction along a plane of the microdisk (see e.g. abstract referring to WGM lasing) to a plane normal to the plane of the microdisk (see page 16200: “Lasing peaks with similar FWHM values are clearly shown for all θ angles, indicating omnidirectional reflection of the stimulated emission and various trajectories of the reflected light at the (0001) and ( 10-1-1) crystal planes”).
Claim 52 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moiseev et al., Light Outcoupling from Quantum Dot-Based Microdisk Laser via Plasmonic Nanoantenna, ACS Photonics, vol. 4, no. 2, 6 February 2017 (“Moiseev”).
Regarding claim 52, Moiseev discloses a microdisk laser particle (title) including light scattering elements (roughness and defects of the top surface p. 279) configured to increase omnidirectionality by directing emission intensity of whispering gallery modes in the direction along a plane of the microdisk (see conclusion, emission is from WGM) to a plane normal to the plane of the microdisk (see page 279,par.1 "Without the nanoantenna, the emission is mainly concentrated in the plane of the microdisk and vertical light emission occurs ... due to the roughnesses and defects of the top surface"; thus the presence of the roughness and defects of the top surface serves to increase the omnidirectionality of the radiation pattern by providing for vertical emission in addition to in-plane emission).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14, 17, and 49-51 are allowed.
Regarding claim 1, there is not taught or disclosed in the prior art a laser microparticle generating laser light with high omnidirectionality, comprising an optical cavity as claimed with a semiconductor gain medium and comprising a microdisk having two opposite planar face, the microparticle is detached from a substrate and the omnidirectionality of radiation increases on both of the opposite planar faces.
Regarding claim 9, the claim was indicated as allowable in the prior action and is now placed into independent form.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
Claim 1 was rejected in the prior action as obvious over Jiang in view of Yun, and obvious over Moiseev in view of Yun. The examiner agrees with the arguments that the amendment overcomes the rejections. More specifically, the examiner agrees that removing the substrate would create difficulty in the primary references, and even if the substrate were removed from the primary references a person skilled in the art would not expect that the omnidirectionality is increased on both of the opposite planar surfaces as claimed.
Claim 52 was not amended or argued in the response and remains rejected.
Conclusion
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. 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