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 3/9/2026 in which claims 1, 5-6, and 16 are amended and claims 21-24 added. Claims 1-24 are pending. Note the examiner of record has changed.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because paragraph [0001] needs to be updated with the appropriate application number.
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 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 22 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.
Each of these claims refers to “the mirror layer.” Following the amendment, there is no longer antecedent basis for this term in parent claim 1. Claim 1 now refers to first mirror layers and second mirror layers so it is not clear which is being referenced. Correction is required. It is believed these are meant to refer to “the at least one second mirror layer” similar to in commonly owned 18/140,028.
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 1-4, 7-20, 22, and 24 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/140,028 (reference application) (See 3/24/2026 amendment in that file) as listed below, in view of US 7,079,562 (“Sakamoto”).
Claims 5-6, 21, and 23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/140,028 (reference application) (See 3/24/2026 amendment in that file) as listed below, in view of US Sakamoto, and further in view of Haglund et al., High-power single transverse and polarization mode VCSEL for silicon photonics integration, Optics Express, vol. 27 no. 13 (Jun. 2019).
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
18/140,028
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,
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,
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:
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,
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 has a thickness that limits vertical oxidation from the third portion into the first portion
It is apparent to a person skilled in the art that the oxide aperture shape affects a number of characteristics of a laser, things like mode control, optical confinement, current confinement. Likewise, the aperture shape is affected by the oxidation of the layer, which can be affected by things like Al fraction, oxidation time, or thickness of the layers. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to alter the thickness as needed, as it is a result effective variable and therefore can be adjusted to optimize the output as desired for a particular application.
Additionally, the claimed characteristics already promote this function, given that the Al fraction of the second portion is lower than the other layers. It therefore already can be said to “limit” the oxidation from the third to the first portion, as there is no limitation as to how much it must be limited.
wherein aluminum in the third portion is oxidized to form an oxide aperture
“1… wherein aluminum in the third portion of the at least one second mirror layer is oxidized to form an oxide aperture.”
wherein the oxide aperture is configured to increase a side-mode suppression ratio of the laser.
This is not claimed. Sakamoto teaches that in a VCSEL if the oxide aperture is made small enough it can achieve single mode oscillation. Col. 13 lines 58-63. 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. Making it single mode would increase side mode suppression.
2. The laser of claim 1, wherein the oxide aperture is configured to provide low transverse confinement of the optical field of the light.
Applicant explains in the specification that it is the unique shape of the oxide aperture that provides low transverse confinement. The reference claim has the same shape due to the various aluminum fractions being the same as in the claim. As the claim and reference claim have the same structure, this claimed property is deemed inherent.
3. The laser of claim 1, wherein the laser is configured to emit a single mode of the light having a wavelength of between about 740 nanometers and 1,100 nanometers.
4. The laser of claim 1, wherein the laser is configured to emit a single mode of the light having a wavelength of between about 1,000 nanometers and 1,100 nanometers.
Again it is taught as in claim 1 that the laser may be made single mode. The wavelengths are not given. However, a person skilled in the art would understand that they may select a particular wavelength as needed for their application by changing the various materials in the laser. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the wavelength as needed for their particular application.
5. The laser of claim 21, wherein the mode filter has a diameter of between about 3.5 microns and 5 microns, and wherein the side-mode suppression ratio of the laser is greater than 25 decibels for a drive current greater than 2 amps.
6. The laser of claim 21, wherein the mode filter has a diameter of between about 3 microns and 6 microns, and wherein the side-mode suppression ratio of the laser is greater than 30 decibels for a drive current greater than 4 amps.
Haglund’s mode filter is said to be optimally set at 3 microns, falling within claim 6, but Haglund tries other filter sizes including over 3.5 microns, falling within claim 5. The use of “about” additionally gives some leeway, and a person skilled in the art would not understand 3 and about 3.5 to be substantially different in operation, thus the claim is not patentably distinct. The mode filter is said to give over 30 dbs of mode suppression. P. 188893 first few lines. The drive current is not given, as claimed, but this is not a patentable distinction as a person skilled in the art would understand that VCSELs with higher drive current may be set as needed depending on the application the VCSEL is being used for; for example, LIDAR systems generally use VCSELs and generally use several amps of drive current.
7. The laser of claim 1, wherein the third portion comprises an upper section opposite the active region, and wherein the upper section has a graded aluminum fraction that increases from zero to the first aluminum fraction.
Grading of the third portion is not claimed. But claims 3 and 4 include grading of the first portion and the second portion. This suggests to a person of ordinary skill that grading is normal and useful in such layers, and it would have been obvious to do so as the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. MPEP 2143 I.C. Grading of this layer portion is not claimed, but grading of other similar layers is shown. A person of ordinary skill therefore knows how to use grading and knows how it will affect the device, therefore expanding its use to the third portion would have been predictable.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
11. The laser of claim 1, wherein aluminum of the first portion and the second portion is substantially unoxidized.
5. The laser of claim 1, wherein aluminum of the first portion and the second portion is substantially unoxidized.
12. The laser of claim 1, wherein the mirror layer comprises AlGaAs.
8. The laser of claim 1, wherein the at least one second mirror layer comprises AIGaAs.
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 mirror layer is a first mirror layer of a distributed Bragg reflector.
14. The laser of claim 1, wherein the at least one second mirror layer is a first mirror layer of a distributed Bragg reflector.
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.
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.
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 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 second mirror layer of the second mirror layers comprises:
forming first epitaxial layers proximate an active region, wherein the active region defines an optical axis,
forming first epitaxial layers proximate an active region, wherein the active region defines an 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; 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 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; 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 oxide aperture is configured to increase a side-mode suppression ratio of the laser,
This is not claimed. Sakamoto teaches that in a VCSEL if the oxide aperture is made small enough it can achieve single mode oscillation. Col. 13 lines 58-63. 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. Making it single mode would increase side mode suppression.
and wherein a combined thickness of the second epitaxial layers limits vertical oxidation from the third portion into the first portion.
It is apparent to a person skilled in the art that the oxide aperture shape affects a number of characteristics of a laser, things like mode control, optical confinement, current confinement. Likewise, the aperture shape is affected by the oxidation of the layer, which can be affected by things like Al fraction, oxidation time, or thickness of the layers. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to alter the thickness as needed, as it is a result effective variable and therefore can be adjusted to optimize the output as desired for a particular application.
Additionally, the claimed characteristics already promote this function, given that the Al fraction of the second portion is lower than the other layers. It therefore already can be said to “limit” the oxidation from the third to the first portion, as there is no limitation as to how much it must be limited.
17. The method of claim 16, wherein the laser is configured to emit a single mode of the light having a wavelength of between about 740 nanometers and 1,100 nanometers.
Again it is taught as in claim 16 that the laser may be made single mode. The wavelengths are not given. However, a person skilled in the art would understand that they may select a particular wavelength as needed for their application by changing the various materials in the laser. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the wavelength as needed for their particular application.
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.
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.
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.
18. The method of claim 17, 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.
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.
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.
21. The laser of claim 1, further comprising a mode filter positioned along the optical axis, wherein the mode filter is configured to suppress side-modes of the light.
A mode filter is not claimed. Haglund shows a VCSEL having a mode filter thereon along the optical axis, permitting single mode operation i.e. suppressing side modes. Entire doc. is relevant. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a mode filter because it is an alternative way of making the VCSEL single mode, while allowing the oxide aperture to be bigger permitting higher power, as taught by Haglund.
22. The laser of claim 1, wherein the first portion of the mirror layer is configured to provide high longitudinal confinement of an optical field of the light.
2. The laser of claim 1, wherein: . . .the first portion of the at least one second mirror layer is configured to longitudinally confine an optical field of the light.
It does not claim that confinement is “high” but this is a term of degree that is considered broad. The reference claim and the present claim quite clearly have the same structure, so this claimed property is considered inherent in the reference. Furthermore, the rejection of the parent claim shows we are limiting the side modes, so this is considered high enough confinement to likewise meet the claim.
23. The method of claim 16, further comprising disposing a mode filter along the optical axis, wherein the mode filter is configured to suppress side-modes of the light emitted by the laser.
See rejection of claim 21, in view of Haglund.
24. The method of claim 16, wherein the first epitaxial layers are configured to provide high longitudinal confinement of an optical field of light emitted by the laser.
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.
It does not claim that confinement is “high” but this is a term of degree that is considered broad. The reference claim and the present claim quite clearly have the same structure, so this claimed property is considered inherent in the reference. Furthermore, the rejection of the parent claim shows we are limiting the side modes, so this is considered high enough confinement to likewise meet the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-24 are allowed, subject to overcoming double patenting and 112 issues 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 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, cited on the 1/9/2026 IDS, was previously able to meet similar claims in commonly owned 18/140,028, and is also deemed the closest art here. Previously 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. 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.
Toritsuka, applied previously in this case, is no better than Shinigawa. The examiner applied multiple of the first and second mirror layers as different portions of the second mirror layer1 and the layers do not match up as now claimed. Furthermore, the way that the item matching was done in the prior action (see page 7, annotated Fig. 4) seems to be in the opposite order, as the first portion needs to be proximate the active region as claimed but here appears to be furthest from the active region 13.
The examiner previously said that WO 2016/198282 Fig. 5 meets claim 1, but the examiner fails to see how the different aluminum fractions are met as claimed.
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 examiner agrees that the various relative terminology is sufficiently definite and understood in light of the specification and understanding of someone skilled in the art. The prior 112 rejections are withdrawn. New 112 rejections are applied herein, necessitated by the amendment to claim 1.
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. 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