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, an amendment was filed 3/24/2026 in which the specification and claims 1-4, 8, 10, 14-17 are amended. Claims 1-22 are pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-8 and 10-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/140,034 (reference application) (See 3/9/2026 amendment in that file) as listed below.
Claim 2 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/140,034 (reference application) in view of US 7,079,562 (“Sakamoto”).
Claims 9 and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/140,034 (reference application) in view of US 2004/0081215 (“Johnson”).
Claims 21-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/140,034 (reference application) in view of Zhou et al., Low Series Resistance High-Efficiency GaAs / AlGaAs Vertical-Cavity Surface-Emitting Lasers with Continuously Graded Mirrors Grown By MOCVD, IEEE Photonics Technology Letters vol. 3 no. 7 pp. 591-593 (Year: 1991) (“Zhou”).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as follows.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
This application
18/140,034
1. A laser, comprising: an active region configured to emit light, wherein the active region defines an optical axis; and a mirror region proximate the active region and disposed along the optical axis,
1. A laser, comprising: an active region configured to emit light, wherein the active region defines an optical axis; and a mirror region disposed along the optical axis and positioned proximate the active region,
wherein the mirror region comprises a plurality of alternating (i) first mirror layers and (ii) second mirror layers, wherein the first mirror layers have a lower aluminum fraction than the second mirror layers, and wherein at least one second mirror layer of the second mirror layers comprises:
wherein the mirror region comprises a plurality of alternating (i) first mirror layers and (ii) second mirror layers, wherein the first mirror layers have a lower aluminum fraction than the second mirror layers, and wherein at least one of the second mirror layers comprises:
a first portion proximate the active region having a first aluminum fraction; a second portion proximate the first portion having a second aluminum fraction that is less than the first aluminum fraction; and a third portion proximate the second portion having a third aluminum fraction that is greater than the first aluminum fraction, wherein the second portion is disposed between the first portion and the third portion, and wherein aluminum in the third portion of the at least one second mirror layer is oxidized to comprise an oxide aperture.
a first portion proximate the active region having a first aluminum fraction; a second portion proximate the first portion having a second aluminum fraction that is less than the first aluminum fraction; and a third portion proximate the second portion having a third aluminum fraction that is greater than the first aluminum fraction, wherein the second portion is disposed between the first portion and the third portion, wherein aluminum in the third portion is oxidized to form an oxide aperture….
2. The laser of claim 1, wherein: the oxide aperture is configured to reduce a spectral width of the light emitted by the active region; and the first portion of the mirror layer is configured to longitudinally confine an optical field of the light.
This is not claimed. Sakamoto teaches that in a VCSEL if the oxide aperture is made small enough it can achieve single mode oscillation, i.e. it will reduce the spectral width. Col. 13 lines 58-63. A person skilled in the art would understand this also longitudinally confines the field of light. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to do this as the skilled artisan would recognize that single mode oscillation is often preferred as it is a higher quality beam.
Furthermore, the first portion configured to part is a claimed property that is presumed inherent given that the structures are the same, as discussed above in the 103 rejections. The Al content is the same as in the rejection of claim 7 below.
3. The laser of claim 1, wherein the at least one second mirror layer comprises a first intermediate portion between the first portion and the second portion, wherein the first intermediate portion has a graded aluminum fraction that decreases from the first aluminum fraction adjacent the first portion to the second aluminum fraction adjacent the second portion.
9. The laser of claim 1, wherein the mirror layer comprises a first intermediate portion between the first portion and the second portion, wherein the first intermediate portion has a graded aluminum fraction that decreases from the first aluminum fraction adjacent the first portion to the second aluminum fraction adjacent the second portion.
4. The laser of claim 3, wherein the at least one second mirror layer comprises a second intermediate portion between the second portion and the third portion, wherein the second intermediate portion has a graded aluminum fraction that increases from the second aluminum fraction adjacent the second portion to the third aluminum fraction adjacent the third portion.
10. The laser of claim 9, wherein the mirror layer comprises a second intermediate portion between the second portion and the third portion, wherein the second intermediate portion has a graded aluminum fraction that increases from the second aluminum fraction adjacent the second portion to the third aluminum fraction adjacent the third portion.
5. The laser of claim 1, wherein aluminum of the first portion and the second portion is substantially unoxidized.
11. The laser of claim 1, wherein aluminum of the first portion and the second portion is substantially unoxidized.
6. The laser of claim 1, wherein the first aluminum fraction is greater than 0.6.
7. The laser of claim 1, wherein the first aluminum fraction is greater than 0.8.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that DBRs of a VCSEL are generally made of alternating pairs of high and low index materials, and when made of AlGaAs typically have a high Al and a low Al layer. It is generally obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. MPEP 2144.07. AlGaAs in a DBR with Al greater than 0.8 is such a known material.
8. The laser of claim 1, wherein the at least one second mirror layer comprises AlGaAs.
12. The laser of claim 1, wherein the mirror layer comprises AlGaAs.
9. The laser of claim 1, wherein the first portion is not aligned with an electric field node.
This is not claimed. Johnson teaches that in a VCSEL with an oxide aperture the oxide aperture may be located at a null or a node of the electric field, but this is not required and it may be somewhere else depending on the user’s application. [0031],[0042]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to locate the oxide aperture in a way such that the first portion is not aligned with an electric field node, or forming the third epitaxial layers such that the third epitaxial layers are not aligned with an electric field node, as the oxide aperture may be located either at the null of the electric field, the node, or anywhere in between depending on the user’s application, as taught by Johnson.
10. The laser of claim 1, wherein the at least one second mirror layer reduces a spectral width of the light emitted by the active region to less than 5 modes.
Claim 3 calls the laser single mode.
11. The laser of claim 1, wherein: the first portion has a first thickness along the optical axis of between about 30 nanometers and 80 nanometers; the second portion has a second thickness along the optical axis of between about 5 nanometers and 15 nanometers; and the third portion has a third thickness along the optical axis of between about 20 nanometers and 40 nanometers.
The thicknesses is not claimed. Where the general conditions of a claim are met in the prior art it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II. A person of ordinary skill would understand that the layer thickness of mirror layers would affect things like reflectivity, wavelength, or phase. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to find the optimal thickness of the various layers through routine optimization.
12. The laser of claim 1, wherein a thickness along the optical axis of the oxide aperture is substantially uniform in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis.
8. The laser of claim 1, wherein a thickness along the optical axis of the oxide aperture is substantially uniform in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis.
13. The laser of claim 1, wherein the laser is a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser.
13. The laser of claim 1, wherein the laser is a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser.
14. The laser of claim 1, wherein the at least one second mirror layer is a first mirror layer of a distributed Bragg reflector.
14. The laser of claim 1, wherein the mirror layer is a first mirror layer of a distributed Bragg reflector.
15. The laser of claim 1, wherein the at least one second mirror layer comprises a plurality of epitaxial layers, and wherein each of the first portion, the second portion, and the third portion comprises a subset of the plurality of epitaxial layers.
15. The laser of claim 1, wherein the mirror layer comprises a plurality of epitaxial layers, and wherein each of the first portion, the second portion, and the third portion comprises a subset of the plurality of epitaxial layers.
16. A method of manufacturing a laser, the method comprising:
forming a mirror region comprising a plurality of alternating (i) first mirror layers and (ii) second mirror layers, wherein the first mirror layers have a lower aluminum fraction than the second mirror layers, and wherein forming at least one second mirror layer of the second mirror layers comprises:
16. A method of manufacturing a laser, the method comprising:
forming a mirror region comprising a plurality of alternating (i) first mirror layers and (ii) second mirror layers, wherein the first mirror layers have a lower aluminum fraction than the second mirror layers, and wherein forming at least one of the second mirror layers comprises:
forming first epitaxial layers proximate an active region, wherein the active region defines an optical axis and is configured to emit light parallel to the optical axis,
forming first epitaxial layers proximate an active region, wherein the active region defines an optical axis,
[by definition a laser active region emits light along or parallel to the optical axis]
and wherein the first epitaxial layers have a first aluminum fraction;
forming second epitaxial layers proximate the first epitaxial layers, wherein the second epitaxial layers have a second aluminum fraction that is less than the first aluminum fraction; and forming third epitaxial layers proximate the second epitaxial layers, wherein the third epitaxial layers have a third aluminum fraction that is greater than the first aluminum fraction, and wherein the second epitaxial layers are between the first epitaxial layers and the third epitaxial layers; and oxidizing the third epitaxial layers of the at least one second mirror layer to form an oxide aperture.
wherein the first epitaxial layers have a first aluminum fraction;
forming second epitaxial layers proximate the first epitaxial layers, wherein the second epitaxial layers have a second aluminum fraction that is less than the first aluminum fraction; forming third epitaxial layers proximate the second epitaxial layers, wherein the third epitaxial layers have a third aluminum fraction that is greater than the first aluminum fraction, and wherein the second epitaxial layers are between the first epitaxial layers and the third epitaxial layers; oxidizing the third epitaxial layers to form an oxide aperture….
17. The method of claim 16, wherein the first epitaxial layers, the second epitaxial layers, and the third epitaxial layers form at least a portion of the at least one second mirror layer.
18. The method of claim 16, wherein the first epitaxial layers, the second epitaxial layers, and the third epitaxial layers form at least a portion of a mirror layer of a plurality of mirror layers.
18. The method of claim 16, further comprising, before forming the second epitaxial layers, selecting the second aluminum fraction to be low enough to prevent oxidation of the second epitaxial layers and the first epitaxial layers while oxidizing the third epitaxial layers.
19. The method of claim 16, further comprising, before forming the second epitaxial layers, selecting the second aluminum fraction to be low enough to prevent oxidation of the second epitaxial layers and the first epitaxial layers while oxidizing the third epitaxial layers.
19. The method of claim 16, further comprising, before forming the first epitaxial layers, selecting the first aluminum fraction to be high enough to longitudinally confine an optical field of the light.
20. The method of claim 16, further comprising, before forming the first epitaxial layers, selecting the first aluminum fraction to be high enough to longitudinally confine the optical field of the light.
20. The method of claim 16, wherein forming the third epitaxial layers comprises forming the third epitaxial layers such that the third epitaxial layers are not aligned with an electric field node.
This is not claimed. Johnson teaches that in a VCSEL with an oxide aperture the oxide aperture may be located at a null or a node of the electric field, but this is not required and it may be somewhere else depending on the user’s application. [0031],[0042]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to locate the oxide aperture in a way such that the first portion is not aligned with an electric field node, or forming the third epitaxial layers such that the third epitaxial layers are not aligned with an electric field node, as the oxide aperture may be located either at the null of the electric field, the node, or anywhere in between depending on the user’s application, as taught by Johnson.
21. The method of claim 16, further comprising, before forming the second epitaxial layers, forming first intermediate epitaxial layers, wherein the first intermediate epitaxial layers are disposed between the first epitaxial layers and the second epitaxial layers, and wherein the first intermediate epitaxial layers have a graded aluminum fraction that decreases from the first aluminum fraction adjacent the first epitaxial layers to the second aluminum fraction adjacent the second epitaxial layers.
22. The method of claim 21, comprising, before forming the third epitaxial layers, forming second intermediate epitaxial layers, wherein the second intermediate epitaxial layers are disposed between the second epitaxial layers and the third epitaxial layers, and wherein the second intermediate epitaxial layers have a graded aluminum fraction that increases from the second aluminum fraction adjacent the second epitaxial layers to the third aluminum fraction adjacent the third epitaxial layers.
Graded intermediate layers between the mirror layers are not claimed. Zhou teaches that it was known in VCSELs to include a graded interface between the high and low Al layers of a DBR. Fig. 1, p. 591 right col. bottom par. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include such graded interface as it reduces series resistance and threshold voltage, as taught by Zhou, p. 593 first par.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-22 are allowed, subject to overcoming double patenting as above.
There is not taught or disclosed in the prior art as in claim 1 a laser including, inter alia, a mirror region as claimed wherein the mirror region comprises “a plurality of alternating (i) first mirror layers and (ii) second mirror layers, wherein the first mirror layers have a lower aluminum fraction than the second mirror layers, and wherein at least one second mirror layer of the second mirror layers comprises:
a first portion proximate the active region having a first aluminum fraction; a second portion proximate the first portion having a second aluminum fraction that is less than the first aluminum fraction; and a third portion proximate the second portion having a third aluminum fraction that is greater than the first aluminum fraction, wherein the second portion is disposed between the first portion and the third portion, and wherein aluminum in the third portion of the at least one second mirror layer is oxidized to comprise an oxide aperture.”
The claim requires that the mirror region is a plurality of alternating first and second layers, as is typical in the art—first layer, second layer, first layer, second layer, etc. However, here at least one of the second layers is replaced by the first to third portions with different relations of aluminum content. So, first layer, first portion, second portion, third portion, first layer, second layer, etc.
The reference to Shinigawa was previously able to meet the claim because it was not specified that the claimed portions were one of the second mirror layers. Shinigawa replaced one of its Al0.9 layers with an AlAs layer, so the examiner previously could shift around what was being applied to each layer.1 So Shinigawa’s layers go in order: Al0.2, Al, Al0.2, Al0.9, Al0.2, Al0.9, and so on. Accordingly, the appropriate layers in Shinigawa for item matching would be Al0.2 for first layer, Al for the first portion, Al0.2 for the second portion, Al0.9 for the third portion, Al0.2 for the first layer, and so on. This does not meet the claim, which requires the Al content of the third portion is greater than that of the first portion—0.9 is not greater than 1. The layers are simply in the wrong order compared to the current claims, and there is no reason to rearrange them. Furthermore, even if other layers were used, this would require using one of the “first” layers as the “second portion” of the “second” layer. But the first layers must have a lower Al fraction than the second layers, so the first layer cannot be used as this layer or it will be the same Al fraction, not lower.
There is not taught or disclosed in the prior art as in claim 16 a method of manufacturing a laser as claimed. The features are similar to those of claim 1.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed with the response are generally persuasive in that the claims are amended to include the allowable subject matter above.
The specification objection is overcome by the amendment.
Conclusion
The Haglund reference is cited. It was cited in 18/140,034 in the action mailed on or about the same date as this action.
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. See: 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.
/JAMES A MENEFEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
1 This is not improper hindsight as argued by the applicant. If something anticipates it anticipates. Hindsight is the use of applicant’s disclosure to show obviousness. This was merely applying art in a broad way to a broader claim, but the claim is now more specific.
Prosecution Insights