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, applicant filed an amendment on 3/17/2026 in which claims 1, 14, 15, and 19 are amended, claims 6 and 20 are cancelled, and claims 21-23 are added. Claims 1-5, 7-19, and 21-23 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2019/0372301 (“Onishi”) in view of US 2024/0128722 (“Hamaguchi”).
Regarding claim 23, Onishi discloses:
23. A laser, comprising:
an active region configured to emit light along and parallel to an optical axis;
an emission surface spaced from the active region and through which the light is emitted; and
Onishi Fig. 1 and discussion thereof, esp. starting at [0056], shows a VCSEL having an active region 21 that emits light along an optical axis and emission surface 19a spaced from the active region through which light is emitted.
an aperture positioned along the optical axis between the active region and the emission surface, wherein the aperture has a cross-sectional area in a plane perpendicular to the optical axis,
There is an oxide aperture 23 along the optical axis between the active region and the emission surface, wherein the aperture has a cross-sectional area in a plane perpendicular to the optical axis as discussed below.
wherein the cross-sectional area defines a non-circular shape;
Onishi gives a number of examples for the shape of the aperture having a non-circular shape. See Figs. 2, 4A, 9-17.
and wherein the non-circular shape comprises at least one inwardly-curved portion with respect to a centroid of the non- circular shape and at least one perturbation that interrupts an otherwise smoothly-curved portion of the non-circular shape;
Every shape will have a centroid. Onishi does not state that the aperture shape comprises at least one inwardly-curved portion with respect to the centroid and at least one perturbation that interrupts an otherwise smoothly-curved portion of the non-circular shape.
Hamaguchi describes a VCSEL and shows a current confinement region may be shaped having an inwardly-curved portion like claimed. Fig. 14. While Fig. 14 shows it as an ion implanted region, see [0111]-[0112], Hamaguchi also uses oxide apertures, (Third Embodiment starting at [0215]) and says the oxide aperture may be shaped like those showed in Figs. 9-16. [0239]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Hamaguchi aperture as a simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143 I.B. The difference between the claim and Onishi is in the shape of the oxide aperture, but this shape is shown in Hamaguchi. The result of substituting one aperture for the other would have been predictable as both are in the same general location and have the same general purpose of carrier confinement. The Hamaguchi aperture is also non-circular with one axis of symmetry, like Onishi’s aperture, so it should maintain the same beneficial properties of Onishi that are caused by those characteristics.
Hamaguchi Fig. 14 also arguably has perturbations that interrupt an otherwise smoothly-curved portion. The corners where the inwardly curved section begin are sharp and are not smoothly curved. Alternatively, even if these are not considered perturbations, Fig. 15 shows an oxide aperture that has perturbations at the corners where the aperture is not smoothly-curved. A person skilled in the art could have easily added such perturbations from Fig. 15 to the corners of the aperture in Fig. 14. “Combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness.” Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Hamaguchi is clear that the examples shown are only exemplary and that various other shapes and combinations of shapes shown are permitted. [0145]. It would have been natural to combine features of two embodiments that are right next to each other.
wherein the aperture is configured to reduce (i) a spectral bandwidth of the light emitted by the laser and (ii) a relative intensity noise of the laser.
Onishi is explicit that the aperture reduces RIN. [0105]. It does not state that it reduces bandwidth. However, a person skilled in the art would understand that it does do this. Onishi explains that because of the shape of the aperture, there is reduced overlap and conflict among modes, [0028]-[0031], [0067], and also explains that the aperture having only one axis of symmetry contains fewer modes, leading to more stable operation, [0106]. This is like the present invention. For example, the specification of the present application explains (see [0047] of published application) that bandwidth is reduced because “the non-circular shapes of the apertures [] may suppress, decrease, and/or separate power in lateral modes (e.g. two or more higher order modes),” and this is due to the non-circular shape of the aperture having only one axis of symmetry. As Onishi also has such a shape, the aperture will likewise have the same properties. When the claimed and prior art structures are substantially the same, claimed properties are presumed to be inherent. MPEP 2112.01 I. The combination with Hamaguchi will not change this, as the aperture may still be made asymmetric as taught by Onishi.
Claims 19, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi in view of Hamaguchi, and further in view of US 2022/0385040 (“Kubota”)
Regarding claim 19, it is apparent that it would have been obvious for the VCSEL of Onishi/Hamaguchi to be formed by this method. It is clear that the specific cross sectional area of an oxide aperture critically affects laser characteristics, and therefore the person of ordinary skill would “determine” an “optimized” area based on their desired output. The skilled artisan does not just hope the laser turns out as desired, it is made with a plan. They would do this first for the standard circular aperture that has been well studied and typical for several decades. In view of Onishi and Hamuguchi’s teachings, the skilled artisan would then alter the aperture to have a non-circular shape with one axis of symmetry to reduce noise, and then modify via Hamguchi’s teachings and the obvious substitution as in the rejection of claim 23. The skilled artisan would then of course make the VCSEL. The oxide aperture is selectively oxidized as claimed.
The oxide aperture layers in Onishi and Hamaguchi appear to ne next to the upper mirror, not part of the upper mirror as claimed. It is typical in VCSELs for the oxide aperture layer to be part of the upper DBR. See Kubota Fig. 2, [0033], oxide aperture 26 in upper DBR 24. Kubota further says that the oxide aperture may be in the upper DBR (like the claim), or it may be between the upper DBR and active layer (more like Onishi and Hamaguchi). A person skilled in the art would have recognized that the aperture essentially does the same thing in either location. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the aperture in the upper DBR as these are art recognized as equivalent alternatives for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06.
Regarding claim 21, the VCSEL of Onishi/Hamaguchi additionally has the following defined:
an active region configured to emit light along and parallel to an optical axis;
an emission surface spaced from the active region and through which the light is emitted;
See rejection of claim 23 above.
a first mirror region positioned along the optical axis between the active region and the emission surface; and a second mirror region positioned along the optical axis on an opposite side of the active region from the first mirror region,
Onishi has mirrors 26,27 along the optical axis on opposing sides of the active region. Fig. 1, [0083].
wherein the aperture is positioned along the optical axis between the active region and the emission surface.
See rejection of claim 23 above.
Regarding claim 22, this is disclosed and obvious over Onishi as in the rejection of claim 23 above.
Response to Argument
The arguments presented in the response have been fully considered.
Many claims are allowed in light of the amendments. Three claims remain rejected over prior art; the rejections are modified from the prior action (or are new) as required by the amendments.
Applicant argues that neither Onishi nor Hamaguchi shows the claimed perturbations. The examiner disagrees and determines that Hamaguchi has perturbations as above, either the sharp points in Fig. 14 or the corners in Fig. 15. While the examiner acknowledges that these are not exactly like what is in Fig. 1b of the application, perturbations is a broad term that is not defined in the specification and the examiner finds that these things in Hamaguchi can be considered perturbations. It is also noted that in general oxide apertures will not oxidize smoothly unless steps are specifically taken to ensure this. See generally US 2020/0358252. As Onishi and Hamaguchi do not specify that such steps are taken, the oxide apertures produced will also have some manner of perturbations. It is not clear how these perturbations are any different than those in the application, and even if Hamaguchi did not show the perturbations in Figs. 14 and 15 any such unintentional perturbation would still meet the claims.
The section 101 rejection of the process claims is withdrawn. The examiner determines that, in light of the amendment, claim 19 can be considered to integrate the exception into a practical application under step 2A. The claim does not merely tie up the exception because there are now tangible steps about how the device is made, the selective oxidation of a mirror layer. While this is certainly not a new step, WURC is considered under prong 2B, not prong 2A, and here we do not reach prong 2B. The selective oxidation of a mirror layer is deemed as effecting a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)) or it is the implementation of the except with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 7-18 are allowed. Claim 6 was indicated as including allowable subject matter in the prior action, and these features were added to independent claims 1 and 14.
Conclusion
US 2024/0250501 is another reference with asymmetrical oxide aperture to reduce noise and could have been applied against former claim 1, but it does not have an inwardly curved portion or an ellipse with a concave portion as now claimed.
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
Prosecution Insights