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 . Claims 1-17 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4 “difference to” is grammatically incorrect, it appears “different from” should be used instead.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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 1-2, 5-7, 11-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0129866 (“Hicks”).
Regarding claim 1, Hicks discloses a light emitting element comprising a meta-surface, see Fig. 11 and [0066]. The meta-surface wherein the meta-surface comprises a semiconductor alloy of a first semiconductor and a second semiconductor, wherein a composition defines relative amounts of the first semiconductor and the second semiconductor in the alloy, and wherein the semiconductor alloy has a first composition.
Regarding claim 2, the metasurface may be silicon-germanium. [0106].
Regarding claims 5 and 7, the light emitting element is a VCSEL array. [0111]-[0112], [0118]-[0119].
Regarding claim 6, the metasurface is disposed on a light emitting surface of the light emitting element. See Fig. 11, 1122, [0066].
Regarding claim 11, this is a method of manufacturing the same light emitting element with a meta-surface as in claim 1, using CVD to apply the semiconductor and then fabricating the meta-surface. The device is shown as in the rejection of claim 1 above, and [0102] uses CVD in fabricating the metasurface.
Regarding claim 12, see rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 15, see rejection of claim 2.
Claims 1, 5-6, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0259307 (“Sharma”).
Regarding claim 1, Sharma discloses in Fig. 14 a light emitting element 1420 comprising a meta-surface 1430/1435. [0116] et seq. Sharma also states that the nanostructures, which is what the metamaterials are made of, may be made of one or more materials, such as various semiconductors. [0142].
Regarding claim 5, the light source may be a VCSEL. [0116].
Regarding claim 6, the meta-surface may be on the light emitting surface. See [0116] (distance d in Fig. 14 may be 0); [0118] (meta-surface and light source may be adjacent).
Regarding claim 11, this is a method of manufacturing the same light emitting element with a meta-surface as in claim 1, using CVD to apply the semiconductor and then fabricating the meta-surface. The device is shown as in the rejection of claim 1 above. Sharma further discloses that the optical element may be made by CVD. [0047], [0052]. It is not clearly stated that this is applicable to the Fig. 14, but since the Fig. 14 embodiment also calls the metamaterial an “optical element” [0117] and it is not otherwise said how it is fabricated it is deemed to be sufficiently disclosed. Alternatively, the claim is rejected under 103 below.
Regarding claim 12, see rejection of claim 6.
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 7-8, 11-12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma.
Regarding claim 7, it is not shown in the Fig. 14 embodiment that this is an array. Sharma elsewhere in other embodiments uses arrays of lasers. See Figs. 5-6, [0081]-[0082]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use arrays as they are known as useable to provide various control of the output for various reasons, for example they may provide higher power, different output from different locations in the array, etc.
Regarding claim 8, Sharma further teaches that the nanostructures, i.e. the metamaterial, may have a varied and non-uniform composition throughout the layer. [0144]. Elsewhere it is suggested that the nanostructures may be randomly located. [0138]. With this varied non-uniformity and randomness there will be different compositions at the different lasers of the array.
Regarding claim 11, this is a method of manufacturing the same light emitting element with a meta-surface as in claim 1, using CVD to apply the semiconductor and then fabricating the meta-surface. The device is shown as in the rejection of claim 1 above. Sharma further discloses that the optical element may be made by CVD. [0047], [0052]. It is not clearly stated that this is applicable to the Fig. 14, but since the Fig. 14 embodiment also calls the metamaterial an “optical element” [0117] and it is not otherwise said how it is fabricated it is deemed to be sufficiently disclosed. Alternatively, the claim is rejected under 103. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use CVD as this is commonly done in making semiconductor based layers such as these, so it is natural to look to other parts of Sharma to determine how to make the layers.
Regarding claim 12, see rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 17, as discussed above CVD is used or obvious, but it is not said to use MOCVD or PECVD. The examiner takes Official Notice that both of these are well known in the art types of CVD. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use these as they are a subset of CVD and are typical to use when making semiconductor layers. MOCVD is commonly used to provide good control to form complicated and precise devices such as lasers and to form compound semiconductors such as the type being used here, and PECVD is commonly used when the higher temperatures of regular CVD would be problematic or when greater speeds are wanted.
Claims 2-4 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma in view of Hicks and/or US 2020/0067278 (“Han”).
Regarding claims 2-4, Sharma discloses as above that the metamaterial may be made of multiple semiconductor materials, and also that GaAs may be used, one of those claimed. [0142]. Sharma does not disclose that the second (or third) is also one of those listed. However, Sharma is not restrictive about the ones it chooses, it is merely listing examples, and a variety are given, including semiconductors, semi-metals, and metals. [0143]. Hicks teaches a similar device with metamaterial and teaches that Ge and Si can be used. See 102 rejection above based on Hicks. Han is also a similar device, a VCSEL with metamaterial lens 15 on the output surface. See Fig. 1-2 and discussion. Han teaches that the metamaterial may be made of several materials including several that are and similar to those claimed. [0078]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the metamaterial of the materials as claimed. Sharma can use multiple semiconductor materials, and the other references show that it was known to use materials such as those claimed as metamaterials lens on a VCSEL. It is generally not inventive to select known materials from a list and use them for their known purpose. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claims 15-16, parent claim 11 is obvious as above, and see rejection of claims 2-4.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks.
Regarding claim 17, as discussed above re: claim 11 CVD is used, but it is not said to use MOCVD or PECVD. The examiner takes Official Notice that both of these are well known in the art types of CVD. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use these as they are a subset of CVD and are typical to use when making semiconductor layers. MOCVD is commonly used to provide good control to form complicated and precise devices such as lasers and to form compound semiconductors such as the type being used here, and PECVD is commonly used when the higher temperatures of regular CVD would be problematic or when greater speeds are wanted.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 and 13-14 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.
Regarding claim 9, there is not taught or disclosed in the art a light emitting array as claimed comprising a plurality of regions, wherein each region comprises light emitting elements with metasurfaces with a single composition, wherein the composition in each region is different from compositions in other regions.
Claim 10 depends on claim 9.
Regarding claim 13, there is not taught or disclosed in the art a method of manufacturing a light emitting array comprising a plurality of light emitting elements, each light emitting element comprising a meta-surface, the method further comprising:
prior to the step of using chemical vapour deposition to apply a layer of semiconductor alloy, masking one or more light emitting element in the array;
after using chemical vapour deposition to apply the layer of semiconductor alloy, unmasking the masked one or more light emitting elements;
masking one or more of previous unmasked light emitting element in the array; and
applying a second semiconductor alloy with a second composition different from the first composition; unmasking the masked light emitting elements; and fabricating a meta-surface in the alloy.
Claim 14 depends on claim 13.
Conclusion
US 2019/0309925 also shows that meta-surface lens may be made of “at least one of: several of the materials as claimed. [0029]-[0040].
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