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 .
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges and accepts the amendment filed on 04/06/26.
Claims 11-12, 15, 17 and 20 are amended;
Claims 1-2, 4 and 7 are withdrawn-amended;
Claims 3, 5-6 and 8-10 remain withdrawn; and
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/06/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 11, the Applicant argues that “the grating layer 122 of Fattal is not "an optical cavity" having "a second DBR disposed on the optical cavity" as originally recited in the claims. Instead, because the grating layer 122 forms an upper reflector (rather than "an optical cavity" as argued by the Patent Office), the VCSEL array 100 of Fattal does not include a second DBR and a second electrode 114 (rather than a second DBR as recited in the claims) is disposed on the grating layer 122.” (see last paragraph on page 6 bridging pages 6-7 of 04/06/26 Remarks)
The Examiner disagrees because Fattal, in the combination, is not relied to disclose the grating layer 122 being “an optical cavity” nor having an upper DBR disposed on the grating layer 122 since these claimed features have already been disclosed by the primary reference Amann (see paragraph 16 on pages 5-6 of the 01/05/26 Office action). Contrary to the Applicant’s argument, the combination is directed to modify the grating layer of Amann having a single period with the grating layer of Fattal having multiple grating periods in order to obtain multiple output wavelengths and shapes one or more internal cavity modes and shapes one or more external transverse modes emitted through the grating (see abstract of Fattal). Therefore, the argument is moot.
The Applicant further argues that “Additionally, the grating layer 122 is not "planar", as the sub-wavelength grating 132-135 are formed by lines 306 and grooves 308 (FIG. 3A), posts (FIG. 3B), holes (FIG. 3C), etc.” (top paragraph on page 7 of 04/06/26 Remarks)
The Examiner disagrees because the claim merely recites “a planar optical cavity” including the cavity layer, but fails to require the cavity layer being a planar cavity layer. Even if the claim recited “a planar cavity layer”, the term “planar” is defined to be on a same plane and the sub-wavelength grating layers of Fattal are disposed on the same plane and would be considered planar. Therefore, the argument is also moot.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 11-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amann et al. (US PG Pub 2010/0128749 A1, 12/12/23 IDS) in view of Fattal et al. (US PG Pub 2012/0093189 A1, 12/12/23 IDS).
Regarding claim 11, Amann discloses a vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL) (100, FIG. 1), comprising:
a substrate (10, FIG. 1, [0036]);
a first distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) (20, FIG. 1, [0036]) disposed on the substrate;
a planar optical cavity (formed between 20/90, FIG. 1), disposed on the first DBR, comprising:
an active region (40, FIG. 1, [0036]); and
a cavity layer (80, FIG. 1, [0037]); and
a second DBR (90, FIG. 3, [0037]) disposed on the planar optical cavity.
Amann does not disclose the cavity layer having two or more wavelength-specific regions, each wavelength-specific region having a different filling factor such that each wavelength-specific region of the VCSEL has a different optical thickness.
Fattal discloses a VCSEL array (100, FIGS. 1A-1B, [0027]) comprising a grating layer (112, FIG. 1A-1B, [0027]) having sub-wavelength gratings (132-135, FIG. 1B, [0028]) configured to emit a plurality of wavelength (λ1-λ4, FIG. 1A, [0029]), each of the sub-wavelength grating includes a plurality of sub-patterns (301-303, FIG. 3A, [0039]) with different linewidths, periods, and thicknesses (various thicknesses between the sub-patterns can be seen in FIG. 4), wherein each of the plurality of sub-patterns includes a first plurality of sub-patterns (402/403, FIG. 4, [0044]) having a first depth (t1, FIG. 4, where t1 is equivalent to a first depth, [0044]) from the surface and a second plurality of sub-patterns (404/405, FIG. 4, [0044]) having a second depth (t2, FIG. 4, where t2 is equivalent to a second depth and t1>t2, [0044]) from the surface different from the first depth.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cavity layer (the grating layer) of Amann with the grating layer having the sub-wavelength gratings having two or more wavelength-specific regions, each wavelength-specific region having a different filling factor such that each wavelength-specific region of the VCSEL has a different optical thickness as taught by Fattal in order to obtain multiple output wavelengths and shapes one or more internal cavity modes and shapes one or more external transverse modes emitted through the grating (see abstract of Fattal).
Regarding claim 12, Amann, as modified, discloses each wavelength-specific region of the optical cavity has a different refractive index (it’s implicitly taught by the sub-wavelength grating layers 132-135 including the plurality of sub-patterns with different linewidths, periods and thicknesses, FIG. 4 of Fattal).
Regarding claim 13, Amann, as modified, discloses each wavelength-specific region of the VCSEL generates optical emissions at a different wavelength (λ1-λ4, FIG. 1A).
Regarding claim 14, Amann, as modified, discloses the wavelength-specific regions of the cavity layer are selectively etched at substantially the same depth (FIG. 3A of Fattal shows an enlarged view of the grating sub-patterns having substantially the same depth).
Regarding claim 20, Amann, as modified, discloses discloses the wavelength-specific regions having the different filling factors are: defined using photolithography, electron-beam lithography, or nanoimprint lithography ([0031] of Fattal); and etched using wet etching or reactive-ion etching ([0031] of Fattal).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 15-16
The cited prior art fails to disclose or suggest “the cavity layer comprises: a first cavity sublayer having the wavelength-specific regions, with the different filling factors; and a second cavity sublayer disposed on the first cavity sublayer” as recited in claim 15. In particular, the combination of Amann/Fattal fails to disclose the cavity layer having any cavity sublayer. Therefore, claim 15 is allowable over the cited prior art and claim 16 is also allowable as it directly depends on claim 15.
Claim 17
The cited prior art fails to disclose or suggest “each wavelength-specific region of the second cavity sublayer has a different physical thickness” as recited in claim 17. In particular, Sato discloses the second cavity sublayer 112 in each of the wavelength-specific regions having the same thickness and the combination of Amann/Fattal fails to disclose the cavity layer having any cavity sublayer. Therefore, claim 17 is allowable over the cited prior art.
Claims 18-19
The cited prior art fails to disclose or suggest “a relatively thin cavity sublayer, disposed on the first cavity sublayer, having the wavelength-specific regions with the different filling factors” as recited in claim 18. In particular, Sato discloses all cavity sublayer have the same thickness and fails to disclose or suggest any relatively thin cavity sublayer disposed between the first/second cavity sublayers with different filling factors and the combination of Amann/Fattal fails to disclose or suggest the cavity layer having any cavity sublayer. Therefore, claim 18 is allowable over the cited prior art and claim 19 is also allowable as it directly depends on claim 18.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 YUANDA ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1439. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 AM - 6:30 PM.
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, 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 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.
/YUANDA ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights