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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 6 of the response, applicant states “Yumoto, however, does not disclose or hint at least the final limitation of amended claim 1, namely, the optical beam combiner emits a sum of different frequencies of electromagnetic radiation or light output from the array of surface emitting lasers to some or all of the optical waveguides above the emitting surface”. Applicant does not provide any reasoning as to why the combination of Joseph and Yumoto do not disclose this limitation. Applicant appears to imply a wavelength multiplexer as different from an “optical beam combiner emits a sum of different frequencies”. Both structures result in a combined beam of different frequencies. Accordingly, it is unclear how these structures are different. As is outlined below, the combination teaches amended claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8-12, 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoving (US20090003390A1), hereafter Hoving, in view of Yumoto et al. (US20060013270A1), hereafter Yumoto.
Regarding claim 1, Hoving discloses a semiconductor laser assembly (Title; Fig. 4) comprising: an array of surface emitting lasers having a light emitting surface and an opposing surface (Fig. 4 elements 21(R), 21(G), and 21(B); See also annotated Fig. 4 below); at least one electrical contact electrically connected to provide to the array of surface emitting lasers an electrical bias from an external electrical source (Implicit from [0001] “The present invention specifically relates to a technology platform utilizing frequency conversion of electrically-pumped Vertical Cavity Surface Emitting Lasers ("VCSELs"); [0026] “e.g. battery”; See also [0023]-[0026], Table 1 and Table 2 discussing the electrical efficiency of the various lasers. Since the devices are electrically pumped, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that some type of electrode is necessary present to allow the electrical bias to be applied to the lasers from the battery); and multiple optical waveguides over the light emitting surface, wherein the optical waveguide comprises lithium (Fig. 4 elements 32(R), 32(G), and 32(B); [0017] “three (3) optical waveguides 32 (e.g., periodically poled lithium niobate frequency-doubling crystals)”), and the optical waveguides are periodically poled 180o ([0021] implicitly discloses this feature. The definition of periodic poling involves a process which generates periodic reversals in the domain orientation of a non-linear crystal so the sign of the nonlinear coefficient changes. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the poling to be 180o or there would not be a “reversal”), wherein an optical waveguide is positioned directly over the light emission surface (Fig. 4 elements 32 are positioned above the light emitting surface1).
PNG
media_image1.png
680
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hoving does not explicitly disclose an optical beam combiner positioned between the array of surface emitting lasers and the optical waveguide, wherein the optical waveguides comprise those that are positioned over the light emitting surface via the optical beam combiner and those that are positioned directly over the light emitting surface without the optical beam combiner, and wherein the optical beam combiner emits a sum of different frequencies of electromagnetic radiation or light output from the array of surface emitting lasers to some or all of the optical waveguides above the emitting surface. However, Yumoto discloses an optical beam combiner positioned between the array of emitters and the optical waveguide (Fig. 6 element 143) and wherein the optical beam combiner emits a sum of different frequencies of electromagnetic radiation or light output from the array of emitters to some or all of the optical waveguides above the emitting surface (Fig. 6 element 143; [0116]). An advantage is to access wavelengths in bands where semiconductor lasers cannot readily access directly (Abstract). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hoving with an optical beam combiner positioned between the array of surface emitting lasers and the optical waveguide as disclosed by Yumoto in order to access wavelengths in bands where semiconductor lasers cannot readily access directly. Additionally, the combination of Hoving and Yumoto naturally results in the optical waveguides comprise those that are positioned over the light emitting surface via the optical beam combiner and those that are positioned directly over the light emitting surface without the optical beam combiner. Yumoto discloses combining the output of two lasers (140a and 141) to input into a single waveguide (151). Hoving discloses 3 lasers each having a waveguide. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the output from two of Hoving’s lasers based on the teachings of Yumoto to result in a first laser having a waveguide placed directly over it and the output of the second and third laser being combined via a beam combiner to output to another waveguide that is over the beam combiner as taught by Yumoto.
Regarding claim 3, Hoving further discloses the optical waveguide comprises lithium niobate ([0017] “three (3) optical waveguides 32 (e.g., periodically poled lithium niobate frequency-doubling crystals)”).
Regarding claim 4, Hoving does not explicitly disclose the optical waveguide comprises lithium tantalate. However, Yumoto discloses the optical waveguide comprises lithium tantalate ([0103] discloses lithium niobate and lithium tantalate are known alternatives). An advantage, as is known in the art, is to select a known material to achieve the desired wavelength and power output based on the intended use of the device. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hoving with the optical waveguide comprises lithium tantalate as disclosed by Yumoto in order to select a known material to achieve the desired wavelength and power output based on the intended use of the device and 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 6, Hoving further discloses the array of surface emitting lasers comprises a plurality of vertical cavity surface emitting lasers or a plurality of photonic crystal surface emitting lasers ([0017] “including three (3) infrared VCSELs 21”).
Regarding claim 8, Hoving in view of Yumoto do not explicitly disclose at least one emitter configured to emit electromagnetic radiation at a wavelength between 1850nm and 1950nm. However, However, Yumoto discloses optimizing the wavelength to be combined (See, e.g., [0111]-[0113]). An advantage, as is known in the art, is to achieve the desired output wavelength via sum frequency generation based on the intended use of the device. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further modify Hoving in view of Yumoto with at least one emitter configured to emit electromagnetic radiation at a wavelength between 1850nm and 1950nm since Yumoto discloses optimizing the wavelength to be combined which is known in the art to achieve the desired output wavelength via sum frequency generation based on the intended use of the device and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 9, Hoving further discloses the array of surface emitting lasers comprises at least one emitter configured to emit electromagnetic radiation at a wavelength between 1200nm and 1300nm ([0018] discloses the IRR beam is frequency double to create an RLB beam at approximately 630 nm meaning the IRR beam must be at a wavelength of ~1260 nm2).
Regarding claim 10, Hoving further discloses the array of surface emitting lasers comprises at least one emitter configured to emit electromagnetic radiation at a wavelength between 1000nm and 1100nm ([0019] discloses the IRG beam is frequency double to create an GLB beam at approximately 540 nm meaning the IRG beam must be at a wavelength of ~1080 nm3).
Regarding claim 11, Hoving further discloses the array of surface emitting lasers comprises at least one emitter configured to emit electromagnetic radiation at a wavelength between 900nm and 1000nm ([0020] discloses the IRB beam is frequency double to create an BLB beam at approximately 450 nm meaning the IRB beam must be at a wavelength of ~900 nm4).
Regarding claim 12, Hoving does not explicitly disclose at least one emitter configured to emit electromagnetic radiation at a wavelength between 1500nm and 1600nm. However, Yumoto discloses at least one emitter configured to emit electromagnetic radiation at a wavelength between 1500nm and 1600nm ([0113]). An advantage is to access wavelengths in bands where semiconductor lasers cannot readily access directly (Abstract). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hoving with at least one emitter configured to emit electromagnetic radiation at a wavelength between 1500nm and 1600nm as disclosed by Yumoto in order to access wavelengths in bands where semiconductor lasers cannot readily access directly and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 18, Hoving does not explicitly disclose an anti-reflective coating over the optical waveguide. However, Yumoto discloses an anti-reflective coating over the optical waveguide ([0245]). An advantage, as is known in the art, is to allow converted light to be readily emitted from the waveguide. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hoving with an anti-reflective coating over the optical waveguide as disclosed by Yumoto in order to allow converted light to be readily emitted from the waveguide.
Claims 2, 7, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoving in view of Yumoto, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Joseph et al. (US20110148328A1), hereafter Joseph.
Regarding claim 2, Hoving in view of Yumoto do not explicitly disclose the at least one electrical contact includes: a contact over the light emitting surface and another contact over the opposing surface, or a pair of contacts over the opposing surface. However, Joseph discloses at least one electrical contact includes: a contact over the light emitting surface and another contact over the opposing surface, or a pair of contacts over the opposing surface (Fig. 9 elements 902 is on the light emitting surface and element 906 is on the opposite surface5). An advantage is to electrical connection with the VCSEL while promoting direct transfer of heat to the heatsink ([0135]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Hoving in view of Yumoto with at least one electrical contact includes: a contact over the light emitting surface and another contact over the opposing surface, or a pair of contacts over the opposing surface as disclosed by Joseph in order to provide electrical connection with the VCSEL while promoting direct transfer of heat to the heatsink.
Regarding claim 7, Hoving in view of Yumoto do not explicitly disclose the array of surface emitting lasers comprises top emitting lasers or bottom emitting lasers. However, Joseph discloses the array of surface emitting lasers comprises top emitting lasers (Fig. 6) or bottom emitting lasers (Fig. 9). An advantage of bottom emitting lasers is better thermal management ([0022]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Hoving in view of Yumoto with the array of surface emitting lasers comprises top emitting lasers or bottom emitting lasers as disclosed by Joseph in order to provide better thermal management.
Regarding claim 15, Hoving in view of Yumoto do not explicitly disclose a semi-insulating substrate positioned between the surface emitting laser and the optical waveguide. However, Joseph discloses a semi-insulating substrate positioned between the surface emitting laser and the optical waveguide (Fig. 9 element 900; Fig. 8 element 700; [0084]). An advantage of bottom emitting lasers is better thermal management ([0022]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Hoving in view of Yumoto with a semi-insulating substrate positioned between the surface emitting laser and the optical waveguide as disclosed by Joseph in order to provide better thermal management.
Regarding claim 16, Hoving in view of Yumoto in further view of Joseph do not explicitly disclose the semi-insulating substrate comprises gallium arsenide (GaAs). However, Joseph further discloses the substrate may be made of GaAs ([0084]) and that a heavily doped n-contact layer on a substrate may improve the design of the device by not requiring deep implant into the substrate ([0085]). Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would further modify Hoving in view of Yumoto in further view of Joseph with the semi-insulating substrate comprises gallium arsenide (GaAs), since Joseph discloses that doped GaAs may be used in a different embodiment and that undoped (i.e. semi-insulating) substrates, such as undoped GaAs, may be beneficial in designing the device and 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.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoving in view of Yumoto, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Takeda (US20080174738A1), hereafter Takeda.
Regarding claim 13, Hoving further discloses that each emitter having a mirror that polarizes the emitted light ([0018]-[0020]). Hoving in view of Yumoto do not explicitly disclose at least one emitter having a polarization aligned with a width of the optical waveguide. However, Takeda discloses that light may be polarized in the width (z-direction) of the wavelength conversion element so long as the poling domains are oriented in the same direction ([0092]). An advantage, as is known in the art, to use a known material to allow efficient conversion based on the polarization direction of the light. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Hoving in view of Yumoto with at least one emitter having a polarization aligned with a width of the optical waveguide as disclosed by Takeda in order to use a known material to allow efficient conversion based on the polarization direction of the light and 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 14, Hoving further discloses that each emitter having a mirror that polarizes the emitted light ([0018]-[0020]). Hoving in view of Yumoto does not explicitly disclose at least one emitter having a polarization perpendicular to a width of the optical waveguide. However, Takeda discloses that light may be polarized in the height direction (y-direction) of the wavelength conversion element so long as the poling domains are oriented in the same direction ([0062]). An advantage, as is known in the art, to use a known material to allow efficient conversion based on the polarization direction of the light. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Hoving in view of Yumoto with at least one emitter having a polarization perpendicular to a width of the optical waveguide as disclosed by Takeda in order to use a known material to allow efficient conversion based on the polarization direction of the light and 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited. See, e.g., WO2023158635A1 disclosing a multiwavelength VCSEL array coupled/bonded with a PPLN waveguide ([076]-[077]; Figs. 20 and 21).
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 JOSHUA KING whose telephone number is (571)270-1441. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10am-5pm MT.
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, Min Sun 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.
/Joshua King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828 05/30/2026
1 The Office notes that Mirrors 31 are part of the light emitting surface.
2 Frequency and wavelength are related by the equation c=λ*f. Accordingly, if the original frequency is doubled, the resulting wavelength is half the original wavelength.
3 Frequency and wavelength are related by the equation c=λ*f. Accordingly, if the frequency is doubled, the resulting wavelength is half the original wavelength.
4 Frequency and wavelength are related by the equation c=λ*f. Accordingly, if the frequency is doubled, the resulting wavelength is half the original wavelength.
5 The Office notes that elements 908 and 910 may also be considered “contacts” are an both over the opposing surface.
Prosecution Insights