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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention, corresponding claims 1 – 7 and 13 – 20 in the reply filed on November 25, 2025 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawing submitted on December 28, 2022 has been considered and accepted by the examiner.
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 – 7 and 13 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US 2008/0031295) in view of Noda et al. (US 2023/0275398).
PNG
media_image1.png
378
486
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka disclose a semiconductor device (see Annotation Figure 12, The examiner rejects the claims using Annotation Figure 12 upside down), comprising:
a first contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, characters 3’ (which include contact (3), insulating film (19), film made of silicon oxide (10) and substrate (1), Abstract and paragraph [0052 and 0118]) having a first surface (see Annotation Figure 12, character 3a) and a second surface (see Annotation Figure 12, character 3b) opposite to the first surface (see Annotation Figure 12, character 3a), wherein the second surface (see Annotation Figure 12, character 3’) has a plurality of microstructures (see Annotation Figure 12, character 1 (which include rear face (72), lens part (72a) and other part (72b));
a second contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 8, paragraph [0052 and 0118], the reference called “DBR layer”, The DBR layer could act as a contact layer, since it is electrically connected to the first contact layer) located below the first surface (see Annotation Figure 12, character 3a) of the first contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 3’);
an active layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 6 and paragraph [0052 and 0118]) located between the first contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 3’) and the second contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 8);
a passivation layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 20 and paragraph [0053 and 0097]) located on the second contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 8);
a first electrode (see Annotation Figure 12, character 41 and paragraph [0057 and 0126]) located on the passivation layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 20) and electrically connected to the first surface (see Annotation Figure 12, character 3a) of the first contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 3’); and
a second electrode (see Annotation Figure 12, character 41 and paragraph [0057 and 0126]) located on the passivation layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 20) and electrically connected to the second contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 8).
PNG
media_image2.png
340
318
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Tanaka discloses the claimed invention except for a photonic crystal layer located between the active layer and the second contact layer. Noda teaches a photonic crystal layer (see Figure 1A, character 14P). However, it is well known in the art to apply the photonic crystal layer as discloses by Noda in (see Figure 1A, Abstract and paragraphs [0036]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply the photonic crystal layer as suggested to the device of Tanaka, to manipulate light by controlling the propagation of light through the crystal structure. This manipulation is achieved through the periodic variation of the refractive index, which affects the wave behavior of light. Additionally, photonic crystals can be used to create resonant cavities, which are structures that trap light modes and can be used to enhance the efficiency of lasers. The ability to change the refractive index of the material allows for the manipulation of light in various ways, making photonic crystals a versatile tool in the field of photonics and laser.
Regarding claim 2, Tanaka and Noda, Tanaka disclose the first contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 3’) is a p-type contact layer (see paragraph [0052]), and the second contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 8) is n-type contact layer (see paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 3, Tanaka and Noda, Tanaka disclose a first cladding layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 5 and paragraph [0052]) located between the first contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 3’) and the active layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 6); and a second cladding layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 7 and paragraph [0052]) located between the second contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 8) and the photonic crystal layer (see claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 4, Tanaka and Noda discloses the claimed invention except for the first contact layer, the first cladding layer, the active layer, the photonic crystal layer, the second cladding layer and the second contact layer are made of homogeneous materials. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the first contact layer, the first cladding layer, the active layer, the photonic crystal layer, the second cladding layer and the second contact layer are made of homogeneous materials to the device of Tanaka and Noda, in order to provide uniform composition and properties throughout its entire structure. A homogeneous material exhibits uniformity in composition and properties at every point within the material, meaning that any sample taken from it will have the same physical and chemical characteristics, such as density, thermal conductivity, electrical conductivity, and mechanical strength. This uniformity allows for predictable behavior under stress and consistent performance in engineering applications, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 5, Tanaka and Noda, Tanaka disclose the second electrode (see Annotation Figure 12, character 41) is in contact with the second contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 8).
Tanaka and Noda discloses the claimed invention except for a width of the second electrode in contact with the second contact layer is less than a width of the photonic crystal layer. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was to apply and/or modify the a width of the second electrode in contact with the second contact layer is less than a width of the photonic crystal layer as suggested to the device of Tanaka and Noda, in order to provide a compact device, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In addition, the selection of the width between second electrode and photonic crystal layer, it’s obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed [a width of the second electrode in contact with the second contact layer is less than a width of the photonic crystal layer] or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen [a width of the second electrode in contact with the second contact layer is less than a width of the photonic crystal layer] or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen [a width of the second electrode in contact with the second contact layer is less than a width of the photonic crystal layer] are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 6, Tanaka and Noda, Tanaka disclose each of the microstructures (see Annotation Figure 12, character 1 (which include rear face (72), lens part (72a) and other part (72b)) has a bottom (see Annotation Figure 12, character 72’) and a protruding portion (see Annotation Figure 12, characters 72, 72a and 72b), wherein the protruding portions (see Annotation Figure 12, characters 72, 72a and 72b) are disposed on the bottoms (see Annotation Figure 12, character 72’), and a projected area (see Annotation Figure 12, characters 72a) of the protruding portions (see Annotation Figure 12, characters 72, 72a and 72b).
Tanaka and Noda discloses the claimed invention except for a projected area of the protruding portions on the bottoms is less than a projected area of the bottoms. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the projected area of the protruding portions on the bottoms is less than a projected area of the bottoms to the device of Tanaka and Noda, to provide a compact device and provide a desired beam size, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In addition, the selection of projected area of the protruding portions on the bottoms is less than a projected area of the bottoms, it’s obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed [projected area of the protruding portions on the bottoms is less than a projected area of the bottoms] or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen [projected area of the protruding portions on the bottoms is less than a projected area of the bottoms] or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen [projected area of the protruding portions on the bottoms is less than a projected area of the bottoms] are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 7, Tanaka and Noda discloses the claimed invention except for the bottoms are square or hexagonal, and the protruding portions are circle, square, rectangular, or a combination thereof. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the except for the bottoms are square or hexagonal, and the protruding portions are circle, square, rectangular, or a combination thereof to the device of Tanaka and Noda, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular dimensions because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 13, Tanaka disclose a semiconductor device, comprising:
a first contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, characters 3’ (which include contact (3), insulating film (19), film made of silicon oxide (10) and substrate (1), Abstract and paragraph [0052 and 0118]) having a first surface (see Annotation Figure 12, character 3a) and a second surface (see Annotation Figure 12, character 3b) opposite to the first surface (see Annotation Figure 12, character 3a), wherein the second surface (see Annotation Figure 12, character 3’) has a plurality of microstructures (see Annotation Figure 12, character 1 (which include rear face (72), lens part (72a) and other part (72b));
a second contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 8, paragraph [0052 and 0118], the reference called “DBR layer”, The DBR layer could act as a contact layer, since it is electrically connected to the first contact layer) located below the first surface (see Annotation Figure 12, character 3a) of the first contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 3’);
a passivation layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 20 and paragraph [0053 and 0097]) located on the second contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 8);
a first electrode (see Annotation Figure 12, character 41 and paragraph [0057 and 0126]) located on the passivation layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 20) and electrically connected to the first surface (see Annotation Figure 12, character 3a) of the first contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 3’); and
a second electrode (see Annotation Figure 12, character 41 and paragraph [0057 and 0126]) located on the passivation layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 20) and electrically connected to the second contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 8).
Tanaka discloses the claimed invention except for a first guiding layer located between the first contact layer and the second contact layer, a photonic crystal layer located between the active layer and the second contact layer and a second guiding layer located between the first guiding layer and the second contact layer. Noda teaches a first guide layer (see Figure 1A, character 14), second guiding layer (see Figure 1A, character 16) and a photonic crystal layer (see Figure 1A, character 14P). However, it is well known in the art to apply the first and second guiding layers and photonic crystal layer as discloses by Noda in (see Figure 1A and paragraphs [0031 and 0034 – 0038]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply the first and second guiding layers and photonic crystal layer as suggested to the device of Tanaka, the guide layers could be used to confining the light beam within the active region, which is essential for achieving high power density and efficiency. The photonic crystal layer could be used to manipulate light by controlling the propagation of light through the crystal structure. This manipulation is achieved through the periodic variation of the refractive index, which affects the wave behavior of light. Additionally, photonic crystals can be used to create resonant cavities, which are structures that trap light modes and can be used to enhance the efficiency of lasers. The ability to change the refractive index of the material allows for the manipulation of light in various ways, making photonic crystals a versatile tool in the field of photonics and laser.
Regarding claim 14, Tanaka and Noda, Tanaka disclose the first contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 3’) is a p-type contact layer (see paragraph [0052]), and the second contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 8) is n-type contact layer (see paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 15, Tanaka and Noda, Tanaka disclose a first cladding layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 5 and paragraph [0052]) located between the first contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 3’) and the first guiding layer (see claim 13 rejection).
Regarding claim 16, Tanaka and Noda, Tanaka disclose second cladding layer located (see Annotation Figure 12, character 7 and paragraph [0052]) between the first cladding layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 5) and the second contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 8).
Regarding claim 17, Tanaka and Noda discloses the claimed invention except for the first contact layer, the first cladding layer, the first guiding layer, the second guiding layer, the photonic crystal layer, the second cladding layer and the second contact layer are made of homogeneous materials. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the first contact layer, the first cladding layer, the first guiding layer, the second guiding layer, the photonic crystal layer, the second cladding layer and the second contact layer are made of homogeneous materials to the device of Tanaka and Noda, in order to provide uniform composition and properties throughout its entire structure. A homogeneous material exhibits uniformity in composition and properties at every point within the material, meaning that any sample taken from it will have the same physical and chemical characteristics, such as density, thermal conductivity, electrical conductivity, and mechanical strength. This uniformity allows for predictable behavior under stress and consistent performance in engineering applications, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 18, Tanaka and Noda, Tanaka disclose the second electrode (see Annotation Figure 12, character 41) is in contact with the second contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 8).
Tanaka and Noda discloses the claimed invention except for a width of the second electrode in contact with the second contact layer is less than a width of the photonic crystal layer. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was to apply and/or modify the a width of the second electrode in contact with the second contact layer is less than a width of the photonic crystal layer as suggested to the device of Tanaka and Noda, in order to provide a compact device, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In addition, the selection of the width between second electrode and photonic crystal layer, it’s obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed [a width of the second electrode in contact with the second contact layer is less than a width of the photonic crystal layer] or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen [a width of the second electrode in contact with the second contact layer is less than a width of the photonic crystal layer] or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen [a width of the second electrode in contact with the second contact layer is less than a width of the photonic crystal layer] are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 19, Tanaka and Noda, Tanaka disclose each of the microstructures (see Annotation Figure 12, character 1 (which include rear face (72), lens part (72a) and other part (72b)) has a bottom (see Annotation Figure 12, character 72’) and a protruding portion (see Annotation Figure 12, characters 72, 72a and 72b), wherein the protruding portions (see Annotation Figure 12, characters 72, 72a and 72b) are disposed on the bottoms (see Annotation Figure 12, character 72’), and a projected area (see Annotation Figure 12, characters 72a) of the protruding portions (see Annotation Figure 12, characters 72, 72a and 72b).
Tanaka and Noda discloses the claimed invention except for a projected area of the protruding portions on the bottoms is less than a projected area of the bottoms. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the projected area of the protruding portions on the bottoms is less than a projected area of the bottoms to the device of Tanaka and Noda, to provide a compact device and provide a desired beam size, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In addition, the selection of projected area of the protruding portions on the bottoms is less than a projected area of the bottoms, it’s obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed [projected area of the protruding portions on the bottoms is less than a projected area of the bottoms] or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen [projected area of the protruding portions on the bottoms is less than a projected area of the bottoms] or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen [projected area of the protruding portions on the bottoms is less than a projected area of the bottoms] are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 20, Tanaka and Noda discloses the claimed invention except for the bottoms are square or hexagonal, and the protruding portions are circle, square, rectangular, or a combination thereof. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the except for the bottoms are square or hexagonal, and the protruding portions are circle, square, rectangular, or a combination thereof to the device of Tanaka and Noda, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular dimensions because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references “Monolithically Integrated Metasurface on a PCSEL for Depth Perception" disclose dot projectors are pivotal for depth perception in modern consumer electronics, from smartphones to extended reality devices, enabling applications in computational imaging, machine vision, and privacy-preserving technologies. However, existing dot projector designs face significant challenges related to their size and power consumption. Here, we demonstrate the first monolithic integration of a metasurface hologram and a photonic crystal surface-emitting laser (PCSEL) to realize a chip-scale structured light projector. This approach achieves unprecedented reductions in both device footprint and power usage, while preserving practical 3D sensing capabilities. Our wafer-level design features a compact footprint of 0.025 mm3, representing an approximately 2450-fold reduction in volume compared to commercial DOE-VCSEL dot projectors, while also reducing power consumption by 28.7%. The integration strategy offers promising fabrication compatibility and represents a transformative advancement in a compact transceiver system, paving the way for next-generation applications in biometrics, extended reality, and consumer electronics.
"Photonic Crystal Surface Emitting Lasers with Naturally Formed Periodic ITO Structures” disclose a GaAs-based photonic crystal surface emitting lasers with low threshold current density of 0.45 kA/cm2 by increasing the thickness of indium-tin-oxide (ITO) top cladding layer appropriately. The thicker ITO top cladding layer contributes to lower scattering loss at the surface and more uniform carrier injection. Furthermore, periodic patterns are formed naturally on the surface of ITO layer during the deposition process, resulting in the deflection of the output beam with an angle of 4.5 degrees from the vertical direction and maintaining a small divergence angle. The turn-on voltage, series resistance and slope efficiency of the laser pumped at room temperature are 2.09 V, 5.10 Ω and 0.24 W/A, respectively. Lasing wavelengths of different laser devices can be varied from 913.3 nm to 954.4 nm with several lattice constants designed from 265 to 280 nm. Based on the simple fabrication process, great energy efficiency, small divergence output and possible beam steering capability by adjusting the periodicity of top cladding layer, such kind of lasers have great potential to be applied in the field of 3D optical sensing, such as vehicle light detection ad ranging, facial identification, environmental sensing, and so on.
US12046874 disclose a light-emitting device comprising a reflective metasurface modulating a phase for each of pixels constituting a one- or two-dimensional array. The light-emitting device comprises a surface emitting laser element, a light guide layer, and the metasurface. The metasurface has a light transmissive layer including a dielectric layer, one metal film on one surface thereof, and the other metal film on the other surface thereof. In each of unit regions corresponding to the pixels, the light transmissive layer includes a portion exposed without being covered with the metal film. The width of each unit region and the thickness of the light transmissive layer are smaller than the wavelength of the laser light to the metasurface. The metasurface modulates the phase of the laser light for each unit region. A first light output surface outputs the modulated laser.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Delma R. Forde whose telephone number is (571)272-1940. The examiner can normally be reached M - TH 7:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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 O 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.
/Delma R Forde/Examiner, Art Unit 2828
/TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828