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 . This application was filed with claims 1-18, which are pending.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2022/0094137 to Weichmann et al. (“Weichmann”).
Regarding claim 1, Weichmann discloses in Fig. 2 and the discussion thereof starting at [0053] a VCSEL comprising a DBR 16, a photodiode structure 34 located within the DBR, an active region 14 overlying the DBR; and an upper reflector 12 disposed over the active region.
Regarding claim 2, the DBR is made of alternating pairs of high and low refractive index layers. [0056]
Regarding claim 3, the DBR is epitaxially grown. [0054].
Regarding claim 5, as the DBR is made of alternating pairs of high and low index layers, the photodiode will be between a high refractive index layer and a low refractive index layer of the lower DBR.
Regarding claims 6-7, the photodiode has p-i-n junctions. [0059].
Regarding claim 8, the active region may have multiple quantum wells. [0062].
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 2, 4, 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weichmann.
Regarding claims 2 and 5, alternative to the above, Weichmann is only explicit that the alternating layers are different index, and this might not necessarily be considered high and low, although it is noted that high and low are not defined in the specification. However, to the extent Weichmann may not meet this, the examiner takes Official Notice that it is known in DBRs that greater contrast in the index of the layers leads to higher reflectivity and bandwidth. It therefore would have been obvious to use “high” and “low” index pairs with greater contrast for this reason.
Regarding claim 4 and 9, these materials for the DBR and the quantum wells are not given. However, the examiner takes Official Notice that such materials for all of these layers are well known, and a person of ordinary skill would understand that the materials of a laser may be chosen depending on what laser output characteristics are desired, for example output wavelength, reflectivity of the layers, optical confinement of the layers, electrical conductivity, etc. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select such known materials that are suitable for making a laser depending on the desired output characteristics. See also MPEP 2144.07 (selecting known materials for their normal intended use generally obvious).
Claims 10-12 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weichmann in view of US 6,744,805 to Wang et al. (“Wang”).
Regarding claims 10-12 and 15, Weichmann describes the parent claim, but Weichmann’s VCSEL does not have active region spaced from the upper reflector by an air gap, the upper reflector being a MEMS grating or configured to change due to an applied voltage. Wang teaches that a VCSEL upper reflector may be a MEMS grating spaced from the active region by an air gap, with the gap changing via a change to an applied voltage. See Fig. 1 and discussion, MEMS grating 12, air gap 8, active 6. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure the VCSEL in this way as it permits tuning of the wavelength, as taught by Wang. Col. 8 line 65-col. 9 line 11.
Regarding claims 16-18, these are combinations of various other claims rejected above, and the limitations are taught by Weichmann and Wang for the same reasons.
Regarding claims 19-20, these method steps are also clearly taught and obvious over Weichmann and Wang as in the other claims discussed above.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weichmann in view of US 2011/0280269 to Chang-Hasnain et al. (“Chang-Hasnain”).
Weichmann describes the parent claim but does not use an HCG as upper reflector. It is known that the upper reflector of a VCSEL can comprise a HCG. See Chang-Hasnain Fig. 1, HCG 34. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a HCG as fabrication of the upper mirror of a VCSEL often has problems particularly at long wavelengths, see background [0008]-[0012], and using a HCG helps solve these problems and provides numerous advantages as taught by Chang-Hasnain. [0013]-[0020].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weichmann in view of US 5,291,502 to Pezeshki et al. (“Pezeshki”).
Weichmann describes the parent claim but does not use a PSG or metallic mirror as upper reflector. Pezeshki describes a vertical cavity laser where the upper reflector is an aluminum mirror. Fig. 1, element 23. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use such a mirror as its position can be changed by application of an electrostatic field for tuning the laser, as taught by Pezeshki. Col. 3 lines 47-col. 4 line 5.
Other Pertinent Art
US 6,023,485 and US 2003/0021322, US 5,757,837 are also relevant VCSELs integrated with photodetectors.
Conclusion
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