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 7/27/2026 in which claims 1-2, 4-6, 10-15, and 17 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 as amended now includes “an optical emitter located on the emitting side of the VCSEL structure.” Dependent claim 14 requires “wherein the VCSEL structure comprises an optical emitter on an emitter side of the VCSEL structure,” and then further limits the optical emitter. Because these optical emitters are introduced separately it is not clear if they are meant to be the same optical emitter or two separate optical emitters. The specification shows several alternatives for optical emitters, but generally only shows one, so this is presumed to be the same optical emitter as in claim 1. The part of claim 14 stating “wherein the VCSEL structure comprises an optical emitter on an emitter side of the VCSEL structure,” should be deleted as it is already in claim 1 and adds this confusion. Claims 15-20 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 14.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 only requires that the VCSEL is back-side emitting, but parent claim 1 as amended now requires this. Claim 3 includes nothing that is not already in claim 1.
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, 6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2022/0352693 (“Barve”).
Regarding claim 1:
A system, the system comprising:
a back-side emitting (BSE) vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL) structure comprising:
Barve discloses in Fig. 1 a system comprising a VCSEL. [0007]. It can be bottom emitting or top emitting, i.e. can be back side emitting. [0017].
a first mirror stack on a non-emitting side of the VCSEL structure;
a second mirror stack on an emitting side of the VCSEL structure;
There is first mirror stack 104 and second mirror stack 112. As this is a VCSEL one will be on the emitting side and one the non-emitting side.
a grating positioned between the first mirror stack and the second mirror stack and operable to polarize incident waves of the BSE VCSEL;
There is a grating 110 between the mirrors and operable to polarize incident waves of the VCSEL. [0016], [0022].
and an optical emitter located on the emitting side of the VCSEL structure.
Layer 114 is on an emitting side of the VCSEL. [0024]. It “facilitate[s] emission of the output beam from a surface” of the VCSEL and therefore may be called an “optical emitter.”
Regarding claim 2, the control layer i.e. the grating may be areas of GaAs. [0040]-[0042].
Regarding claim 3, the VCSEL may be bottom emitting. [0017].
Regarding claim 6, the VCSEL structure may comprise GaAs/AlGaAs mirrors on an emitting side of the VCSEL structure. [0019],[0023].
Regarding claims 8-9, these are product by process claims, telling us how the layers are made. Such claims are not limited by the method steps, only the structure implied by such steps. MPEP 2113. The structure of the mirror layers of Barve appears to be substantially identical to those claimed, therefore the claims are met by Barve.
Regarding claim 10, the Barve VCSEL includes active layer 106 between the mirrors, the active layer may include quantum wells. [0020].
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 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barve in view of US 2015/0132870 (“Kalem”).
Regarding claims 4-5, it is not disclosed that the mirror on the non-emitting side is dielectric, made of alternating layers of Si and SiN. Kalem teaches that it was known in the art to use Si/SiN as a DBR in a VCSEL. [0045]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use such materials for the DBR as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. MPEP 2143 I.B. The VCSEL was known in Barve except that the claim uses a different DBR, but such a DBR was known in the art as in Kalem. A person of ordinary skill could use one DBR in place of the other and the result would have been predictable because the VCSEL still operates in the same way, it merely has a different reflector, which is operating as it typically does. It has additionally generally been considered obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose. MPEP 2144.07.
It is also not disclosed the mirror layers are quarter wavelength layers. The examiner takes Official Notice that it is common and typical for DBR layers to be quarter wavelength thick. This statement of Official Notice was not challenged by applicant and therefore is now considered admitted prior art. MPEP 2144.03 C. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to do so as this provides constructive interference allowing the DBR to be highly reflective with little loss at the desired wavelength.
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barve.
Regarding claim 7, it is not disclosed in Barve the mirror layers are quarter wavelength layers. The examiner takes Official Notice that it is common and typical for DBR layers to be quarter wavelength thick. This statement of Official Notice was not challenged by applicant and therefore is now considered admitted prior art. MPEP 2144.03 C. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to do so as this provides constructive interference allowing the DBR to be highly reflective with little loss at the desired wavelength.
Regarding claim 13, Barve is not explicit that this VCSELs of its invention may be in an array as claimed. However Barve does say that it is known in the art to include multiple VCSELs in an array. [0003]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the Barve VCSEL in an array as Barve already suggests this is possible and a person skilled in the art would understand that arrays with multiple lasers for output are useful in certain applications. The VCSELs are necessarily “addressable.” They inherently can be turned on or off. The VCSELs are necessarily in “zones” wherever they are located. The VCSELs are necessarily “operable to perform an optical function.” This would be whatever application the user wants to use them for. The examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known that different parts of a laser array can have different functions. This is a broad limitation, and could be as simple as different lasers of the array having different colors/wavelengths. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to do this as a wide variety of user’s application may require multiple different lasers having different emissions.
Claims 11, 14-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barve in view of US 2003/0179800 (“Uebbing”).
Regarding claim 11, the Barve VCSEL includes GaAs substrate 102. [0017]. It is not disclosed that there is a lens on the emitting side of the VCSEL, i.e. so the substrate is between the emitting side mirrors and the lens. As noted above the Barve VCSEL may be bottom emitting. [0017]. A person skilled in the art would understand that in such a case the emission would be out the substrate side. Furthermore, Uebbing shows a bottom emitting VCSEL in the same configuration, with a substrate 12 between the emission side mirrors 46 and a lens 24. Fig. 1, [0025]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include such an element as it allows the user to control where exactly the laser beam will go. For example, Uebbing uses this lens to focus the laser light into a fiber.
Regarding claims 14-17 and 19, Barve includes optical emitter layer 114 for facilitating emission from the output surface, but does not say what it is. Uebbing teaches that a VCSEL may include on its emission surface a lens 24 for beam shaping, which may be a diffractive optical element and may collimate the beam from the VCSEL. [0025], [0032]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include such an element as it allows the user to control where exactly the laser beam will go. For example, Uebbing uses this optical element to focus the laser light into a fiber.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barve in view of US 2022/0209503 (“Berk”).
Regarding claim 12, as above Barve shows the grating is a polarizing grating and it is near the cavity. While the grating may be GaAs it is not disclosed as also GaAs/Air. Note that “generated via wafer bonding” is a product by process limitation that does not necessarily require any particular structure and therefore does not get patentable weight. MPEP 2113. Berk teaches that a grating in a VCSEL may be made of GaAs and air. Figs. 5, [0081]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use such materials for the grating as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. MPEP 2143 I.B. The VCSEL was known in Barve except that the claim uses a different grating, but such a grating was known in the art as in Berk. A person of ordinary skill could use one grating in place of the other and the result would have been predictable because the VCSEL still operates in the same way, it merely has a different grating, which will still operating as it does in Barve. It has additionally generally been considered obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose. MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barve and Uebbing as applied to claim 14, and further in view of US 2019/0041660 (“Ahmed”).
Barve includes optical emitter layer 114 for facilitating emission from the output surface, but does not say what it is. Ahmed teaches that a VCSEL may include on its emission surface a metasurface. Figs. 8-9, [0066] et seq. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include such an element as it allows control of the illumination as desired, as taught by Ahmed.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barve and Uebbing as applied to claim 14, and further in view of US 2006/0029118 (“Chen”).
Barve includes optical emitter layer 114 for facilitating emission from the output surface, but does not say what it is. Chen teaches that a VCSEL may include on its emission surface an AR coating 48. [0020]-[0021] It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include such an element as it allows control of the output of the VCSEL to be single mode, as taught by Chen.
Response to Arguments
The argument filed in the response have been fully considered. Applicant merely argues that it has amended the claims, rendering the rejections moot. The examiner has altered the rejections as above in light of the amendments.
Conclusion
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