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 . Following a non-final action, applicant filed a response on 1/26/2026 in which claims 1, 10, and 17 are amended, and claims 15-16 are cancelled. Claims 1-14, 17, and 49-52 are pending.
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 1-5, 17, and 49-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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”) in view of WO 2017/210675 (“Yun”).
Regarding claim 1, Jiang discloses a laser microparticle (GaN microdisk, see e.g. Figs.1 (a),(b) and 2(c),(d) respectively showing 5 μm or 14 μm hexagonal microdisks) for generating laser light with high omnidirectionality (see title and S. 4.Conclusion), comprising: an optical cavity comprising an active gain material capable of supporting one or more lasing cavity modes (see e.g. abstract referring to WGM lasing); wherein the active gain material comprises a semiconductor and wherein the optical cavity comprises a microdisk (GaN microdisk); and an optical scattering element (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) which is incorporated into the optical cavity and configured to change a radiation pattern of the one or more lasing cavity modes to increase an omnidirectionality of the radiation pattern (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”).
It is not disclosed that the laser is detached from a substrate. Yun teaches that it was known for similar semiconductor microdisk lasers to be grown on a substrate, like Jiang, but then to be detached from the substrate. [0236]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to do so as Yun says that miniaturization of such lasers is desired, but the substrates are much larger than the laser itself. [0201]-[0203].
Regarding claim 2, Fig. 1(a) shows a hexagonal microdisk with 5 μm sides and the thickness is 2.5 μm, p. 16200.
Regarding claims 3-4, Jiang specifically intends omnidirectionality, therefore the claimed property relating to the amount of omnidirectionality is deemed met here.
Regarding claim 5, the scattering element comprises a nanometer-scale roughness on the surface of the optical cavity, 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.
Regarding claim 17, as seen in 1(a) and Fig. 2(c), the rough surface is at the top of the microdisk, i.e. axially with respect to the microdisk, but it has a smaller radius than the disk itself as the side surfaces are smooth.
Regarding claims 49-51, Jiang does not use its laser in a sample, a biological sample, as an optical probe. Yun teaches that it was known in the art to use similar microlasers as an optical probe in a biological sample. [0003], [0054] Fig. 20, [0067] Fig. 28, [0206], [0233] Fig. 20. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use microlasers as such probes because they improve on problems of previously standard fluorescent probes, as taught by Yun. [0004]-[0005]. Jiang’s lasers are comparable to Yun’s and could be used in that application.
Regarding claim 52, the claim is described as in the rejection of claim 1 above, and further Jiang’s emission comes from the whispering gallery modes. Abstract, conclusion.
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 49-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moiseev et al., Light Outcoupling from Quantum Dot-Based Microdisk Laser via Plasmonic Nanoantenna, ACS Photonics, vol. 4, no. 2, 6 February 2017 (“Moiseev”) in view of Yun.
Regarding claim 1, Moiseev discloses a laser microparticle (6 μm diameter microdisk laser of height 350nm (see page 278, par.1) as-formed without nanoantenna) for generating laser light with "high omnidirectionality" (see Fig.6(a) and page 278, col.2,par.2 "The as-formed microdisk demonstrates nearly uniform (isotropic) emission distribution along its edge .... ", and 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"), comprising: an optical cavity comprising an active gain material (InAs/InGaAs quantum dots) capable of supporting one or more lasing cavity modes; the active gain material is a semiconductor (InAs/InGaAs quantum dots), the optical cavity is a microdisk (see title and quotes above) and an optical scattering element (roughness and defects of the top surface) which is incorporated into the optical cavity and configured to change a radiation pattern of the one or more lasing cavity modes to increase an omnidirectionality of the radiation pattern (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).
It is not disclosed that the laser is detached from a substrate. Yun teaches that it was known for similar semiconductor microdisk lasers to be grown on a substrate, like Moiseev, but then to be detached from the substrate. [0236]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to do so as Yun says that miniaturization of such lasers is desired, but the substrates are much larger than the laser itself. [0201]-[0203].
Moiseev discloses the subject-matter of dependent claims 2, 5 as above (under 10 microns, surface roughness).
Regarding claims 49-51, Moiseev does not use its laser in a sample, a biological sample, as an optical probe. Yun teaches that it was known in the art to use similar microlasers as an optical probe in a biological sample. [0003], [0054] Fig. 20, [0067] Fig. 28, [0206], [0233] Fig. 20. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use microlasers as such probes because they improve on problems of previously standard fluorescent probes, as taught by Yun. [0004]-[0005]. Moiseev’s lasers are comparable to Yun’s and could be used in that application.
Regarding claim 52, the claim is described as in the rejection of claim 1 above, and further Moiseev’s emission comes from the whispering gallery modes. Conclusion.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang or Moiseev in view of Zeng et al., Control of Whispering Gallery Modes and PT-Symmetry Breaking in Colloidal Quantum Dot Microdisk Lasers with Engineered Notches, Nano Letters, August 2019 (“Zeng”).
Regarding claims 6-8, Jiang and Moiseev disclose the features of claim 1 and have scattering, but not via a bump or notch as claimed. Zeng teaches the features of claims 6-8 (an engineered notch in Zeng acts as an optical scatterer on the surface of the microdisk optical cavity having a radius (depth) of e.g. 100 nm, see Fig.4). It would be obvious to choose such a scattering feature when starting from Jiang or Moiseev, as each uses scattering that provides some outcoupling, and Zeng likewise recognizes that such a notch may provide scattering for outcoupling.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-14 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.
There is not taught or disclosed in the prior art the laser microparticle of claim 1 where the scattering element comprises a nanoparticle. Jiang and Moiseev use surface roughness for scattering, not a nanoparticle (see claim 5 rejection). While scattering nanoparticles had previously been used in microlasers (see He, Kryzhanovskaya cited previously) there is no suggestion that such combinations with Jiang and Moiseev would meet the claims. He is a toroid, as opposed to a disk, and is also made of different materials (silica, not semiconductors) so it is not clear that He would be compatible with the other references or that the nanoparticle scattering would cause omnidirectionality as claimed. Kryzhanovskaya uses a nanoparticle for scattering but there is no suggestion that it may provide omnidirectionality.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
The objection to claim 10 is withdrawn as the issue was corrected by amendment.
Liu discloses laser particles made of nanoparticles on polystyrene beads. This is not a semiconductor as required by amended claim 1. It is also spherical, not a microdisk as required by amended claim 1 or 52.
Musevic discloses laser particles made of microdroplets. This is not a semiconductor as required by amended claim 1. It is also not a microdisk as required by amended claim 1 or 52.
He discloses laser particles made of nanoparticles on a microtoroid. This is not a microdisk as required by amended claim 1 or 52.
Rejections based on those references are withdrawn.
The arguments based on Jiang and Moiseev are noted but moot in view of the new combinations above, necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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