Non-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 .
The examiner issued a restriction requirement on 2/24/2026. Applicant’s election without traverse of group IV, claims 17-21, in the reply filed on 3/4/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 6-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2011/0216796 (“Nagatomo”).
Regarding claim 17, Nagatomo discloses in Fig. 5A and discussion at [0069]-[0073] (see Fig. 4 and discussion [0056]-[0068] for more detail, Fig. 5A only differs in the continuous photonic crystal layer, [0070]) a laser device comprising an array of a plurality of surface-emitting semiconductor laser elements, each of the semiconductor laser elements comprising:
a first semiconductor layer 4030 of a first conductivity type; and
an active zone 4020 configured to generate electromagnetic radiation;
the array further comprising an ordered photonic structure 1010;
a second semiconductor layer of a second conductivity type (1010, [0057]),
a first and a second contact element 4050,4060,
wherein the ordered photonic structure and the second semiconductor layer are associated with at least two semiconductor laser elements (clearly seen in Fig. 5A, the photonic crystal and second layer are shared throughout the device),
the second contact element is electrically connected to the second semiconductor layer, wherein the active zone is disposed between the first semiconductor layer and the second semiconductor layer, the ordered photonic structure is disposed between the active zone and the second contact element (all clearly seen in Figs. 4 and 5A).
Regarding claim 20, the photonic crystal structure 1005/1010 is disposed in the upper (i.e. the second) semiconductor layer, which is adjacent second contact 4050.
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagatomo in view of Inoue et al., Design of photonic-crystal surface-emitting lasers with enhanced in-plane optical feedback for high-speed operation, Optics Express vol. 28 no. 4 (Feb. 2020) (“Inoue”).
Nagatomo describes the limitations of parent claim 17 as above, but does not disclose the claimed dimensions, i.e. horizontal dimension of each laser is less than 10 μm, and a horizontal dimension of the ordered photonic structure is greater than 10 μm. Inoue teaches that it was known in the art for photonic crystal surface emitting lasers to have such small dimensions, with the laser diameter (and thus horizontal dimension) under 10 μm. Abstract, Introduction. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the lasers that small as it helps lower capacitance and facilitate high speed operation, as taught by Inoue. Introduction. It is also generally a widely known goal in semiconductor device fabrication to always be making devices as small as possible so they may fit in smaller and smaller footprints. Note that while the device is made less than 10 μm the photonic crystal structure will remain greater than 10 μm, because it is shared among multiple lasers in the array as in Nagatomo.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagatomo in view of FR 3036004 A1 (“FR 004”).
Nagatomo describes the limitations of parent claim 17 as above, but does not disclose that the active zones of the individual semiconductor laser elements are electrically isolated from each other, and a filling material is disposed in a gap between adjacent semiconductor laser elements. FR 004 Fig. 1 shows a similar array of photonic crystal lasers 3A,3B having a filling material 19 between lasers so that the active zones 15A,15B are electrically isolated. See p. 5 of translation. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include such isolation as it would be apparent to a person skilled in the art that one might want to control the lasers separately, without current injection in one affecting injection in the other. This would also be the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. MPEP 2143 I.C. Nagatomo is a base device like the claimed invention but lacks the electrical isolation, which is found in comparable FR 004. A person of ordinary skill could have included this feature to Nagatomo and the result would have been predictable as electrical isolation is clearly well known and common in laser devices, it would be apparent to a person skilled in the art that such isolation would help allow more independent control of each laser without affecting adjacent lasers. It is also noted that FR 004 keeps the top photonic crystal layer in common with the lasers, and explicitly says that this is beneficial in keeping the distance between lasers small, similar to the present invention. Par. bridging pp. 5-6.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagatomo in view of US 7,012,279 (“Wierer”).
Nagatomo describes the limitations of parent claim 17 as above, but does not disclose these additional layers and tunnel junction as claimed.
Wierer teaches that a photonic crystal light emitting device may include a first conductivity type layer 108, active layer, and second conductivity type layer 116 (these are analogous to Nagatomo), then tunnel junction 1, and a third semiconductor layer 7 of the first conductivity type adjacent to second contact layer 120, the third semiconductor layer 7 having a photonic crystal structure. See discussion of Fig. 2 starting at col. 5 line 42. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include such a tunnel junction because it allows the photonic crystal region to be formed in an n-type layer instead of a p-type layer, avoiding various problems with forming the layer as identified by Wierer. Col. 7 lines 1-10. It also would have been obvious to include such a tunnel junction as it has improved current spreading over devices without a tunnel junction, as taught by Wierer. Col. 7 lines 11-24.
Conclusion
Other relevant references are cited.
US 2019/0288483, US 2019/0312410, and JP 2010-093127 each shows an array of PCSELs, but there is separation between all or most of the layers of each laser and the layers of another, so the photonic crystal layer is not associated with more than one laser as claimed.
US 2022/0320827 Fig. 12 has plurality lasers and it would seem the PC layer is shared.
US 2010/0220763 describes a photonic crystal surface emitting laser array where the layers are shared among adjacent lasers.
US 2013/0039375 and US 2016/0248224 show different laser sections emitting in different directions due to having different photonic crystal sections, with the photonic crystal layer shared among the laser sections.
JP 2008-060433 shares a photonic crystal layer in multiple lasers.
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