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 . This application was filed with 19 claims. Following a restriction requirement, applicant filed a response on 10/8/2025 in which group I, claims 1-18, was elected without traverse and claim 19 was cancelled. Claims 1-18 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.
Claims 13, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5,943,357 to Lebby et al. (“Lebby”).
Regarding claim 13, Lebby discloses in Fig. 1 and the discussion thereof a method for measuring power output from a vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL) 16 comprising: detecting an amount of optical power of a leakage light emitted towards a semiconductor substrate 20/54 by a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) 24 coupled directly to the semiconductor substrate (back emission 14 is detected by photodetector 12) in a VCSEL configured to emit light away from the semiconductor substrate (main emission light 35); calculating an output level of the VCSEL based upon the amount of optical power of the leakage light (via PIN photodetector 12, see col. 4 lines 57-67); and adjusting the output level of the VCSEL responsive to the output level being greater or lesser than a target output level or range (col. 4 lines 64-67; automatic power control is done based on the photodetector output, col. 5 lines 26-35, col. 5 line 6 to col. 6 line 4, col. 6 lines 50-51).
Regarding claim 14, current is measured through the photodetector. Col. 5 lines 29-35.
Regarding claim 16, Lebby uses the photodetector to provide an automatic power control feedback loop, whose purpose is to provide a constant and consistent output, i.e. a constant power control loop. Col. 5 lines 29-35; col. 1 lines 24-26.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5,606,572 to Swirhun et al. (“Swirhun”).
1. An imaging device for use with indicia decoding operations comprising an image sensor and an aiming assembly, where the aiming assembly includes:
Swirhum describes an integrated VCSEL and photodetector, which together may be considered “An imaging device” having “an image sensor” and “aiming assembly” as those terms are very broad, and lasers are typically used in imaging devices. “[F]or use with indicia decoding operations” is preamble intended use that does not provide any structure and therefore does not receive patentable weight. MPEP 2111.02.
a semiconductor substrate; a vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL) which includes an upper distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) and a lower DBR which is coupled directly to the substrate, wherein the VCSEL is configured to emit light away from the substrate; and a photodiode integrated into the semiconductor substrate and positioned to receive a leakage light from the DBR that is emitted towards the substrate.
Swirhun Fig. 8 and discussion thereof at cols. 11-12 describes semiconductor substrate 400, VCSEL 408 including upper DBR 430 and lower DBR 405 coupled to the substrate, the VCSEL emits light 435 away from the substrate, and photodiode 402 integrated in the substrate and positioned to receive a leakage light 455 from the DBR emitted towards the substrate.
Regarding claim 2, the photodiode 402 is located in the substrate 400 as coupled to the DBR 405.
Regarding claim 3, as seen in Fig. 8 there is material integrated in the substrate between the DBR and photodiode, the part that is above 450.
Regarding claim 6, as clearly seen in Fig. 8 the photodiode is along the emission axis of the VCSEL.
Regarding claim 12, the bottom DBR 405 lets 10% of the emitted radiation through toward the photodiode. Col. 12 lines 7-11.
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 1-4, 6-9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lebby in view of Swirhun.
1. An imaging device for use with indicia decoding operations comprising an image sensor and an aiming assembly, where the aiming assembly includes:
Lebby describes an integrated VCSEL and photodetector, which together may be considered “An imaging device” having “an image sensor” and “aiming assembly” as those terms are very broad, and lasers are typically used in imaging devices. “[F]or use with indicia decoding operations” is preamble intended use that does not provide any structure and therefore does not receive patentable weight. MPEP 2111.02.
a semiconductor substrate; a vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL) which includes an upper distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) and a lower DBR which is coupled directly to the substrate, wherein the VCSEL is configured to emit light away from the substrate; and
Lebby Fig. 1 and discussion, particularly col. 2 lines 28-52, shows a semiconductor substrate 20 and VCSEL 16 that includes upper DBR 28 and lower DBR 24 coupled directly to the substrate, wherein the VCSEL emits light 35 away from the substrate.
a photodiode integrated into the semiconductor substrate and positioned to receive a leakage light from the DBR that is emitted towards the substrate.
Photodiode 12 is between substrates 20,54 and receives leakage light 14 from bottom DBR that is emitted to the substrate. As the photodiode is between substrates, it may not be considered integrated into a substrate. Swirhun shows a photodiode integrated with a substrate as in the above 102 rejection. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Swirhun’s photodiode in place of Lebby’s as a simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143 I.B. Lebby’s device differs from the claim in that its photodiode arguably is not integrated with the substrate, but Swirhun shows this. A person of ordinary skill could have used Swirhun’s instead and the result would have been predictable because both are doing essentially the same thing—an integrated photodiode is detecting the light from the bottom DBR of a VCSEL, only the details of the photodiode are a bit different.
Regarding claim 2, Lebby’s photodetector is in the middle of the device, and therefore is at least partially in a portion of the substrate that is coupled to the DBR.
Regarding claims 3-4, Lebby’s photodetector is neither adjacent to the DBR nor adjacent to the bottom contact, therefore there is a layer of material at least partially between the DBR and the photodiode and at least partially adjacent to the photodiode opposite the DBR.
Regarding claim 6, Lebby’s photodetector is in the middle of the device, along the VCSEL emission axis.
Regarding claims 7-8, Lebby uses the photodetector to provide an automatic power control feedback loop, whose purpose is to provide a constant and consistent output, i.e. a constant power control loop. Col. 5 lines 29-35; col. 1 lines 24-26.
Regarding claim 9, the photodiode detects a level of emitted light, and responsive to the level of emitted light being outside of a predetermined range the constant optical power control loop increases or decreases a current input level of the VCSEL. Col. 4 lines 64-67; automatic power control is done based on the photodetector output, col. 5 lines 26-35, col. 5 line 6 to col. 6 line 4, col. 6 lines 50-51.
Regarding claim 12, Lebby is not explicit that the leakage light comprises less than 50% of a total quantity of light emitted by the VCSEL. Swirhun shows that the leakage light may be 10% as discussed in the Swirhun rejections above. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the leakage light less than 50% because a person skilled in the art would want to use the bulk of the laser light for the actual lasing application, not use most of the light just for monitoring which, while important, does not need to have high power.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swirhun in view of US 2006/0071229 to Guenter (“Guenter”).
Regarding claim 4, Swirhun shows the photodiode at the bottom of the substrate, i.e. there is not a layer of material adjacent the photodiode opposite the DBR. Guenter also shows a laser mounted on a substrate with photodiode integrated in the substrate. Guenter does this similar to Swirhun, by doping the substrate to form pn junctions. Guenter differs in that the photodiode is at the top of the substrate(as in Fig. 2B) with part of the substrate remaining underneath, i.e. there is a layer of material adjacent the photodiode on the opposite side from the laser. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Guenter’s photodiode in place of Swirhun’s as a simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143 I.B. Swirhun’s device differs from the claim in that its photodiode is placed in a different location of the substrate, but Guenter shows this. A person of ordinary skill could have used Guenter’s instead and the result would have been predictable because both are doing essentially the same thing—an integrated photodiode is detecting the light from a VCSEL, only the details of the photodiode are a bit different.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swirhun in view of US 2003/0021322 to Steinle et al. (“Steinle”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lebby and Swirhun as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Steinle.
The primary references show the features of claim 1, but do not show a second photodiode is integrated into the semiconductor substrate and is positioned to accept a second leakage light from the lower DBR. Steinle teaches a VCSEL with integrated photodiode and teaches that there may be a second integrated photodiode (not shown). [0044]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include such a second photodiode because they may be used to have different properties for compensation purposes, as taught by Steinle.
Claims 7-9, 13, 14, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swirhun.
Swirhun does not use the Fig. 8 embodiment, relied on above to reject claim 1, with any sort of feedback control system. Swirhun uses other integrated VCSEL/photodiodes in a feedback control system, for example Fig. 2 showing feedback using the Fig. 1 embodiment. The entire point of Swirhun is to use the integrated photodiode for feedback control, so this is very likely also implicit in Fig. 8. However, in an abundance of caution, the examiner merely considers this obvious rather than inherent. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the feedback control described as to other embodiments in the Fig. 8 embodiment, as the point of having the integrated photodiode is to detect the laser output so that the laser can be controlled if the output is not as desired. Col. 1 lines 14-34.
Regarding claims 7-8, the photodiode is used in a feedback control system to regulate a constant optical power of the VCSEL, which may be considered a constant optical power control loop. Col. 6 lines 17-24.
Regarding claim 9, the photodiode detects a level of emitted light, and responsive to the level of emitted light being outside of a predetermined range the constant optical power control loop increases or decreases a current input level of the VCSEL. Col. 6 lines 17-24.
Regarding claim 13: A method for measuring power output from a vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL) comprising: detecting an amount of optical power of a leakage light emitted towards a semiconductor substrate by a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) coupled directly to the substrate in a VCSEL configured to emit light away from the substrate;
Swirhun Fig. 8 and discussion again shows a method of measuring power output from a VCSEL by detecting power of light leaking from a bottom DBR of the VCSEL to a photodiode in the substrate that is coupled to the VCSEL.
calculating an output level of the VCSEL based upon the amount of optical power of the leakage light; and adjusting the output level of the VCSEL responsive to the output level being greater or lesser than a target output level or range.
The power is calculated based on the photodiode reading the leakage light and output of the VCSEL is adjusted responsive to the measurement to maintain a constant intensity, i.e. if power is outside a range. Col. 6 lines 17-24. Again this is a 103 due to potential mixing of embodiments.
Regarding claims 14 and 16, detecting comprises measuring a first current level passing through a first photodiode that is integrated into the VCSEL, and adjusting the output level includes using a constant optical power control loop. Col. 6 lines 17-24.
Regarding claims 17-18, only one photodiode is shown. It is well known that multiple optical or electronic devices may be used in systems for redundancy purposes in situations where reliability is crucial. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a redundant photodiode as a backup or a check in a situation where reliability is critical and photodiode failure would have a great impact. It is additionally typically the case that a mere duplication of parts is obvious unless it gives some unexpected result. See MPEP 2144.04 VI.B. Using redundant duplicate systems as a backup or cross check does not provide anything unexpected, rather that would be an expected result.
Claims 10-11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swirhun as applied to the parent claims, and further in view of US 2007/0114361 to Kunst et al. (“Kunst”).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lebby and Swirhun as applied to the parent claims, and further in view of Kunst.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lebby in view of Kunst.
Regarding claims 10 and 15, the features of the parent claims are shown as above, but Lebby and Swirhun do not show the feedback control system includes a constant current control loop. As above, both show automatic power control but do not clearly show current control. Kunst teaches a control system having an automatic power control circuit for a laser device wherein the feedback control system may include a constant current control loop. See Figs. 5-6, current feedback configuration; [0041]-[0042]. It is also suggested that there may be both optical feedback control and current feedback control. [0043]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of the primary references to also have a constant current control loop as taught by Kunst as there may be applications where it is useful to have multiple avenues of control.
Regarding claim 11, this is in the primary references, see rejection of claim 9 above.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lebby.
Regarding claims 17-18, Lebby shows the parent claim above, but only one photodiode is shown. It is well known that multiple optical or electronic devices may be used in systems for redundancy purposes in situations where reliability is crucial. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a redundant photodiode as a backup or a check in a situation where reliability is critical and photodiode failure would have a great impact. It is additionally typically the case that a mere duplication of parts is obvious unless it gives some unexpected result. See MPEP 2144.04 VI.B. Using redundant duplicate systems as a backup or cross check does not provide anything unexpected, rather that would be an expected result.
Other Pertinent Art
US 2006/0146904, US 2011/0064110 also show a VCSEL with photodiode integrated in a substrate. US 2005/0041714 shows a VCSEL with photodiode between the VCSEL and substrate. US 5,732,101 and US 2005/0201665 show a VCSEL integrated with multiple photodetectors.
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. See https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit 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