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 .
Election/Restrictions
The Examiner notes Applicant stated “without traverse” at the top of page 9, but is considering the further Remarks as a traversal.
Applicant's election with traverse of fig.3, claims 1-19,23-26, 28 and 29 in the reply filed on 03/23/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the species have overlapping subject matter which is not burdensome to search. This is not found persuasive because the mutually exclusive features lead to the use of divergent search terms and techniques.
It is noted that elected claim 3 does not read on elected species of fig.3, but rather reads on unelected fig.6/10. Claim 3 is therefore considered withdrawn.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 10, and the claims dependent therefrom, refer to “high” and “low” index layers.
For purposes of examination, the layers are understood to be of “low” and “high” index relative to each other.
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 1, 5, 6, 7, 12 (and all claims dependent therefrom; 2-19, 25-26, 28, 29) 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 1 at line 10 refers to “configured to increase an optical field intensity in the extended cavity layer”. “Increase” is a relative term, at least necessitating a starting or a comparison value. The claim does not provide what the “increase” is with respect to, therefore the scope of the claim is unclear.
For purposes of examination, the limitation will be read as an increase relative to surrounding layers.
The term “high” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For purposes of examination, “high” will be understood to be a value of Al which enables oxidation of the layer.
Claim 6 refers to “at least one current limiting layer” at line 2. Claim 1 already defines the presence of a current limiting layer. It is therefore unclear if this limitation is referring to the previous layer or a new layer.
For purposes of examination the limitation will be read as “the current limiting layer”.
Claim 7 states the current limiting layer is at a peak position of the standing wave and the quantum well is at a zero position. These positions are opposite to that of implied positions of claim 6, from which claim 7 depends, making the scope of the claim unclear.
For purposes of examination, the limitation will be read as the current limiting layer is at the zero position and the well is at the peak.
Claim 12 refers to “a resonant cavity” at line 2. Claim 1 already defines the presence of a resonant cavity layer. It is therefore unclear if this limitation is referring to the previous layer or a new layer.
For purposes of examination the limitation will be read as “the resonant cavity layer”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 7 states the current limiting layer is at a peak position of the standing wave and the quantum well is at a zero position. These positions are opposite to that of implied positions of claim 6, from which claim 7 depends, making the scope of the claim unclear and failing to adopt the limitations of claim 6 and further limit the claim.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 16, 18, 23, 24, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/2 as being anticipated by Serkland et al. (US 10892600).
With respect to claim 1, Serkland discloses a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL) (fig.1), comprising: a lower Bragg reflection layer (fig.1 #120); an active layer (fig.1 #150) located on a side of the lower Bragg reflection layer (upper); and an upper Bragg reflection layer (fig.1 #160) located on a side of the active layer (top) away from the lower Bragg reflection layer; wherein a current limiting layer (fig.1 #190) is disposed inside or outside the active layer, and the current limiting layer has an opening for defining a light-emitting region (central region of #190); wherein an extended cavity layer (fig.1 #130+140) is disposed between the lower Bragg reflection layer and the active layer, the extended cavity layer comprises at least one resonant cavity inside (fig.1 #130, col.4 lines 45-46), and the at least one resonant cavity is configured to increase an optical field intensity in the extended cavity layer (fig.5 II).
With respect to claim 2, Serkland discloses the extended cavity layer comprises one resonant cavity (col.4 lines 45-46), and in a direction pointing from the one resonant cavity to the active layer, peak values of optical field intensities from the one resonant cavity to the active layer gradually decrease (fig.5 see II).
With respect to claim 4, Serkland discloses an optical thickness of each resonant cavity of the at least one resonant cavity is an integer multiple of one half of a lasing wavelength (col.5 lines 50-52).
With respect to claim 5, Serkland discloses the current limiting layer comprises an oxide layer; the oxide layer is made of epitaxially-grown AIGaAs with high Al component (col.7 lines 47-52), and an outer oxidized region in the oxide layer forms an insulated aluminum oxide film layer (fig.1 sides of #190); and an unoxidized region in the oxide layer forms a light-emitting region for effective current injection (fig.1 missing center of #190).
With respect to claim 8, Serkland discloses in a direction perpendicular to the active layer, a distance between the current limiting layer and the active layer is less than a distance between each resonant cavity of the at least one resonant cavity and the active layer (fig.1 as #190 is directly on active and the cavity layer is spaced by #140).
With respect to claim 10, Serkland discloses the extended cavity layer comprises a middle Bragg reflection layer (fig.1 #140, col.6 line 11)); the lower Bragg reflection layer comprises a plurality of reflectors which have an optical thickness of a quarter of a lasing wavelength and are disposed by alternating reflectors with high refractive indexes and reflectors with low refractive indexes (col.5 lines 1-5, col.5 lines 33-34); the upper Bragg reflection layer comprises a plurality of reflectors which have an optical thickness of a quarter of the lasing wavelength and are disposed by alternating reflectors with high refractive indexes and reflectors with low refractive indexes (col.7 lines 4-8); and the middle Bragg reflection layer comprises a plurality of reflectors which have an optical thickness of a quarter of the lasing wavelength and are disposed by alternating reflectors with high refractive indexes and reflectors with low refractive indexes (col.6 lines 10-16).
With respect to claim 15, Serkland discloses a refractive index of the at least one resonant cavity is different from a refractive index of a portion of the middle Bragg reflection layer in contact with the at least one resonant cavity (differing AlGaAs of #140 is in optical contact with AlGaAs of #130, col.6 lines 19-25).
With respect to claim 16, Serkland teaches a light-emitting surface of a laser is located on a side of the lower Bragg reflection layer away from the active layer, and reflectivity of the upper Bragg reflection layer is greater than reflectivity of the lower Bragg reflection layer; or a light-emitting surface of a laser is located on a side of the upper Bragg reflection layer away from the active layer (fig.1 top emission), and reflectivity of the lower Bragg reflection layer is greater than reflectivity of the upper Bragg reflection layer (col.5 line 12, col.7 lines 8-15).
With respect to claim 18, Serkland discloses a thickness of the middle Bragg reflection layer is inversely related to contrast between a high refractive index and a low refractive index in each half-wavelength period of the middle Bragg reflection layer (note no relation has been defined. Considered thickness related to contrast as thickness/contrast).
With respect to claim 23, Serkland discloses at least one of a material of the upper Bragg reflection layer, a material of the lower Bragg reflection layer or a material of the extended cavity layer is a dielectric material (col.8 lines 11-18).
With respect to claim 24, Serkland discloses at least one of a material of the upper Bragg reflection layer, a material of the lower Bragg reflection layer or a material of the extended cavity layer is a semiconductor material (col.7 lines 64-67).
With respect to claim 26, Serkland discloses, a substrate (fig.1 #110, wherein the substrate is located on a side of the lower Bragg reflection layer away from the active layer (fig.1 below), and a material of the substrate comprises GaAs (col.4 line 61) or Si.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serkland.
With respect to claim 25, Serkland teaches the upper Bragg reflection layer is a p-type semiconductor layer (col.7 line 20). Serkland further teaches the layer above the lower DBR can be doped to simplify fabrication (col.5 line 65 – col.6 line 10). Serkland does not teach the lower Bragg reflection layer is an n-type semiconductor layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to dope the bottom DBR n-type, even if unintentional, in order to simplify processing and improve yield (col.5 line 67 – col.6 line 2).
Claim(s) 6-7 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serkland in view of Muller (US 2007/0153867).
With respect to claim 6, Serkland teaches the device outlined above, including active layer comprises at least one quantum well (col. 6 lines 38-39), but does not teach the least one current limiting layer is disposed, and an optical path distance between each of the at least one current limiting layer and a zero value position of a closest standing wave optical field is less than one tenth of a lasing wavelength; and in a case where the at least one current limiting layer is located outside the active layer, the at least one current limiting layer is located within a range of two wavelengths from a side of the active layer in a direction perpendicular to the active layer; and an optical path distance between each quantum well of the at least one quantum well and a peak value position of a closest standing wave optical field is less than one fifth of the lasing wavelength. Muller teaches a related VCSEL device using a cavity extension below the active region (fig.4) and further that the current limiting layer should be formed at a node ([0114]) and the active region at an antinode ([0096]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Serkland to form the current limiting layer at a node and the active region at an antinode in order to provide low absorption (Muller, [0014]) and to provide high amplification (Muller, [0096]).
Claim 7 is rejected for the same reasons outlined in the rejection of claim 6 above. each of the at least one current limiting layer is located at a peak value position of a standing wave optical field, and the at least one quantum well is located at a zero value position of a standing wave optical field.
With respect to claim 12, Serkland teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach the extended cavity layer comprises the resonant cavity and two groups of middle Bragg refection layers, one group of middle Bragg reflection layers of the two groups of middle Bragg reflection layers is located between the resonant cavity and the lower Bragg reflection layer, and another group of middle Bragg reflection layers of the two groups of middle Bragg reflection layers is located between the resonant cavity and the active layer. Muller further teaches 2 groups of middle DBRs (fig.4 #23/24) one group of middle Bragg reflection layers (fig.4 #24) of the two groups of middle Bragg reflection layers is located between a resonant cavity (fig.4 layers between #23/24) and a lower Bragg reflection layer (fig.4 #8), and another group of middle Bragg reflection layers (fig.4 #23) of the two groups of middle Bragg reflection layers is located between the resonant cavity and a active layer (fig.4 #4a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Serkland to make use of a 2 part middle DBR as demonstrated by Muller in order to provide a frequency selective element therein (Muller, [0037]).
Claim(s) 9, 11, 28, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serkland in view of Seurin et al. (US 2021/0057888).
With respect to claim 9, Serkland teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach in the direction perpendicular to the active layer, the distance between the each resonant cavity and the active layer is greater than one half of a thickness of the extended cavity layer. Seurin teaches a related VCSEL with cavity extension portion (fig.1) which includes a distance between a cavity layer (fig.1 #114) and an active layer (fig.1 #103) is greater than half a thickness of a extended cavity layer (fig.1 #112+114; #114 to active is more than ½ of #112+114). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Serkland such that in the direction perpendicular to the active layer, the distance between the each resonant cavity and the active layer is greater than one half of a thickness of the extended cavity layer by adjusting the thickness of the middle DBR to enable control of the reflectivity of the middle DBR as demonstrated by Seurin.
With respect to claim 11, Serkland teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach a contrast between a high refractive index and a low refractive index in each half-wavelength period of the middle Bragg reflection layer is lower than at least one of contrast between a high refractive index and a low refractive index in a corresponding half-wavelength period of the lower Bragg reflection layer or contrast between a high refractive index and a low refractive index in a corresponding half-wavelength period of the upper Bragg reflection layer. Seurin further teaches the contrast of the middle DBR to be less than the upper and lower DBRs ([0019]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to make use of a low contrast middle DBR (i.e. lower than the top/bottom DBRs) in the device of Serkland as demonstrated by Seurin in order to provide high diffraction losses for higher order modes and filter unwanted modes (Seurin, [0018]).
With respect to claim 28, Serkland teaches the device outlined above in claim 1, but does not teach a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL) chip, comprising a plurality of VCSELs according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of VCSELs form a planar array arrangement; and the planar array arrangement is a regular arrangement, a random arrangement, or a plurality of subarrays for addressing. Seurin further teaches making use of a chip with multiple VCSELs (fig.8 #802) forming a planar array (based on shape of #802), the array being regular or random (inherently either regular or random). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling of the instant application to adapt the device of Serkland to construct an array type device as outlined by Seurin in order to output more power.
With respect to claim 29, Serkland teaches the device outlined in claim 1 above, but does not teach a light source for a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system, comprising at least one vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL) according to claim1. Seurin further teaches use of VCSELs in LIDAR applications ([0034]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to make use of the VCSEL of Serkland in a LIDAR device as demonstrated by Seurin in order to sense proximity to objects (Seurin, [0034]).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serkland in view of Kondo (US 2002/0044582).
With respect to claim 17, Serkland teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach a microlens, wherein the microlens is integrated on a side of the light-emitting surface for reducing a divergence angle of a far field. Kondo teaches a VCSEL (fig.1) with a microlens ([0030]) which reduces divergence ([0106]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Serkland to make use of a microlens as demonstrated by Kondo in order to have a narrower emission angle (Kondo, [0106]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serkland in view of Shchukin et al. (US 2005/0117623).
With respect to claim 19, Serkland teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach each resonant cavity of the at least one resonant cavity comprises a plurality of sublayers of different materials. Shchukin teaches a related surface emitting laser (fig.9, 18, 13) which includes a cavity (fig.9 #720, fig.13 #1303) with multiple layer types (seen as the difference in refractive index in the profile of #1303). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to make use of sublayers of different materials within the resonant cavity layer of Serkland as demonstrated by Shchukin in order to adjust the thickness and the refractive index of the cavity to position the standing wave therein.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-14 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 prior art was not found to teach or suggest the particular reflection arrangement of the two parts of the middle DBR when combined with the remaining limitations of claim 13.
Claim 14 is allowable as depending from claim 13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see the include pto892 form for a list of related art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOD THOMAS VAN ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8447. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8AM-430PM.
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.
/TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights