DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 through 20 originally filed 2 June 2020. By amendment received 21 September 2020; claims 21 and 22 are added. By response to restriction requirement received 13 May 2022; Invention A is elected for examination and claims 11 through 20 and 22 are withdrawn from consideration. By amendment received 19 September 2022; claims 1 through 5, 9 through 15, and 19 through 22 are amended. By amendment received 21 December 2022 and entered 30 January 2023; claims 1, 3 through 6, 11, and 13 through 16 are amended, claims 2 and 12 are cancelled, and claims 23 and 24 are added. By amendment received 17 April 2023; claims 1, 4, 5, 11, 14, 15, and 23 are amended. By amendment received 28 August 2023; claims 3 and 13 are amended. By amendment received 23 April 2024; claims 1, 11, and 23 are amended and claims 25 through 27 are added. By amendment received 19 August 2024; claims 1, 11, and 23 are amended. By amendment received 19 December 2024; claims 1, 11, and 23 are amended and claims 28 and 29 are added. By amendment received 8 May 2025; claims 28 and 29 are amended and claim 30 is added. By amendment received 21 August 2025; claims 1, 7, 11, 17, and 23 are amended, claims 28 through 30 are cancelled, and claims 31 through 33 are added. By amendment received 18 December 2025; claims 1, 23, and 31 are amended, claims 21 and 22 are cancelled, and claims 34 and 35 are added. Claims 1, 3 through 10, 23 through 27, and 31 through 35 are addressed by this 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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered; they are addressed below.
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Ueki et al. (Ueki, US Pub. 2008/0043793), Inoue (US Pub. 2019/0123514), Ou et al. (Ou, "Impedance Characteristics and Parasitic Speed Limitations of High-Speed 850-nm VCSELs", Dec. 15, 2009, IEEE Photonics Technology Letters, vol. 21 ,no. 24, pp. 1840-1842, doi: 10.1109/LPT.2009.2034618.), and Collins et al. (Collins, US Pub. 2007/0217472) do not teach the amended limitation "A first leg portion and a second leg portion extending substantially parallel to each other from opposite ends of the arc portion". This argument is persuasive and the rejections of claims 1 and 23, containing this limitation, as well as dependent claims thereof are withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, Iwata et al. (Iwata, US Pub. 2015/0063394) has been located which, in combination with the previously cited art, renders obvious this feature. As such, new rejections have been formulated as set forth below.
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Ueki, Inoue, Ou, and Collins do not teach or render obvious the limitation "[The arc portion] disposed around at least half of a perimeter of the mesa structure" because, according to applicant, Ueki teaches away from this feature. To support this argument, applicant contends that Ueki teaches that using a contact layer with an arc portion disposed around at least half of a perimeter of the mesa structure would 1) increase the distance at which carriers injected through the electrode diffuse as taught by ¶45 and 2) cause mutual interference as taught by ¶47.
Initially, in light of the above noted change in rejection, claim 1, in which this limitation is present, is now rejected on the basis of the combined teachings of Ueki, Inoue, Ou, Collins, and Iwata. This argument is addressed in relation to the new rejection.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because the cited discussions in Ueki do not identify deficiencies with the arrangement of the claimed arc portion of the contact or the corresponding arc portion of the contact within Collins (MPEP §2145XD1). First, regarding the first argued citation of Ueki, the discussed increase in distance is entirely due to the use of an L-shaped contact portion which has a variable distance from the centrally located emitter (Ueki, ¶43 discussing the use of an L-shape contact portion and ¶45 discussing Fig. 2B illustrating the different distances F2 produced by the L-shaped contact portion 40). Both Ueki and Collins teach shaping the contact region as an arc (Ueki, ¶43 and Collins shown in Fig. 6). The large increase in distance as coverage angle increases cannot be present when the contact region is shaped as an arc because an arc is defined as a segment of a circle having a constant distance from the center. Accordingly, the instructions of Ueki limiting coverage angle only applies to L-shaped contact regions. Since the first argued citation only applies to L-shaped contact regions, the first argued citation of Ueki does not teach away from use of a large coverage angle when an arc shaped contact region is employed as is the case in Ueki or Collins. Second, regarding the second argued citation of Ueki, there is no indication that the modification set forth in the rejection would necessarily result in an increase in mutual interference. Ueki identifies that mutual interference can be caused by "inadequate routing" of the electrodes on the ground side (Ueki, ¶16). Ueki notes causing the two magnetic fields produced in the two directions of the n-side contact to intersect on the surface of the device in relation to a configuration that is noted as not causing mutual interference (Ueki, ¶47). However, this concern of Ueki is related to the arrangement of the electrode that contacts the contact region rather than the contact region itself (Ueki, ¶16 & 47 indicating concerns regarding mutual interference regarding electrodes 4a, 4b, and 34 depicted Figures 3 and 16). Further, it is apparent from Ueki that increasing the angle of the arc of the contact region covered by the electrode beyond π/2 radians would not interfere with configuring the electrode such that the two magnetic fields produced along the wiring directions intersect on the surface of the device (Ueki, where it is observed from Figs. 2A and 3 that increasing angle θ above that which is depicted while aligning electrode 34 with this contact region would necessarily cause the intersection between fields H to move towards the interior of the device). Accordingly, the discussions of Ueki regarding the angle of the contact electrode do not suggest avoiding use of a contact region exceeding π radians. Since the second argued citation does not suggest avoiding use of a contact region exceeding π radians, the second argued citation of Ueki does not teach away from use of a large coverage angle for the contact region. Since neither the first nor the second argued citation teach away from the claimed configuration, Ueki does not teach away from the claimed configuration. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
The limitation "[The arc portion] disposed around at least half of a perimeter of the mesa structure" is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Ueki, Inoue, Ou, Collins, and Iwata (see below). Applicant's argument that Ueki teaches away from this feature is not persuasive because the cited discussions in Ueki do not identify deficiencies with the arrangement of the claimed arc portion of the contact or the corresponding arc portion of the contact within Collins (MPEP §2145XD1).
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Ueki, Inoue, Ou, and Collins do not teach or render obvious the amended limitation "Wherein the arc portion of the second contact layer is disposed on only a portion of the surface of the etched arc" because, according to applicant, Ueki does not teach this limitation.
Initially, in light of the above noted change in rejection the claim in which this limitation is now present is now rejected on the basis of the combined teachings of Ueki, Inoue, Ou, Collins, and Iwata. This argument is addressed in relation to the new rejection.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because, Collins teaches this limitation (MPEP §2145IV). Specifically, Collins teaches this arrangement in relation to parts 112 and 115 of Figure 5F. Since the present rejection is based on the combined teachings of Ueki, Inoue, Ou, Collins, and Iwata and since Collins teaches this feature, the cited combination teaches the argued limitation. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
The limitation "Wherein the arc portion of the second contact layer is disposed on only a portion of the surface of the etched arc" is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Ueki, Inoue, Ou, Collins, and Iwata (see below). Applicant's argument that Ueki does not teach this limitation is not persuasive because, Collins teaches this limitation (MPEP §2145IV).
As such, all claims are addressed as follows:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1, 3 through 10, 23 through 27, and 31 through 35 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, this claim requires "A first leg portion and a second leg portion extending substantially parallel to each other from opposite ends of the arc portion." However, the original disclosure does not use the term "parallel" in relation to these elements and does not depict these elements as parallel in the Figures (see, e.g., Figs. 3 and 5 in which legs 406a and 406b are further from the periphery of the rectangular chip than near the top of the figure than at inflection point 560). While the original disclosure identifies an option that the width of the legs may be approximately constant between the arc and an inflection point (¶29 describing 406a and 406b identified in Fig. 3 and also shown in Figs. 5 and 6), this statement does not relate to whether or not these portions may be parallel. As such, this claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 23, this claim requires "A first leg portion and a second leg portion extending substantially parallel to each other from opposite ends of the arc portion." However, the original disclosure does not use the term "parallel" in relation to these elements and does not depict these elements as parallel in the Figures (see, e.g., Figs. 3 and 5 in which legs 406a and 406b are further from the periphery of the rectangular chip than near the top of the figure than at inflection point 560). While the original disclosure identifies an option that the width of the legs may be approximately constant between the arc and an inflection point (¶29 describing 406a and 406b identified in Fig. 3 and also shown in Figs. 5 and 6), this statement does not relate to whether or not these portions may be parallel. As such, this claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 3 through 10, 24 through 27, and 31 through 35, each of these claims depend properly from claims 1 and 23 and inherit all limitations thereof. As such, these claims also contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3 through 8, 25 through 27, and 31 through 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueki et al. (Ueki, US Pub. 2008/0043793), in view of Inoue (US Pub. 2019/0123514), in view of Ou et al. (Ou, "Impedance Characteristics and Parasitic Speed Limitations of High-Speed 850-nm VCSELs", Dec. 15, 2009, IEEE Photonics Technology Letters, vol. 21 ,no. 24, pp. 1840-1842, doi: 10.1109/LPT.2009.2034618.), in view of Collins et al. (Collins, US Pub. 2007/0217472), and further in view of Iwata et al. (Iwata, US Pub. 2015/0063394).
Regarding claim 1, Ueki discloses, "A mesa structure disposed on a substrate" (p. [0036], [0038], and Fig. 1, pts. 12 and P). "The mesa structure comprising a first reflector stack" (p. [0038] and Fig. 1, pts. 16 and P). "[The mesa structure comprising] a second reflector stack" (p. [0038] and Fig. 1, pts. 22 and P). "[The mesa structure comprising] an active region disposed between the first and second reflector stacks" (p. [0038] and Fig. 1, pts. 16, 20, 22, and P). "A first contact layer configured to serve as an electrical signal layer and disposed at least in part on a surface of the mesa structure opposite the substrate" (p. [0039] and Fig. 1, pts. 12, 24a, and 26). "Wherein the first contact layer defines an aperture of the VCSEL" (p. [0039] and Fig. 1, pts. 26 and 28). "A second contact layer configured to serve as an electrical ground" (p. [0050] and Fig. 1, pts. 32 and 34). "Wherein the second contact layer comprises an arc portion defined by a diameter with respect to the aperture" (p. [0040] and Fig. 1, pts. 34 and P). Ueki does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the active region is configured to cause the VCSEL to emit light having a characteristic wavelength in a wavelength range of 895 to 915 nanometers." "Wherein the active region comprises (1) a plurality of quantum wells… and (2) a plurality of barrier layers." "[The plurality of quantum wells] each comprising InxGa(1-x)As, where x is in a range of 0.11 to 0.18." "[The plurality of barrier layers] comprising AlyGa(1-y)As, where y is in another range of 0.05 to 0.37." "Wherein the active region comprises a multi-quantum well layer stack comprising the plurality of quantum wells and the plurality of barrier layers." Inoue discloses, "Wherein the active region is configured to cause the VCSEL to emit light having a characteristic wavelength in a wavelength range of 895 to 915 nanometers" (p. [0096]). "Wherein the active region comprises (1) a plurality of quantum wells… and (2) a plurality of barrier layers" (p. [0029], [0033], [0096], where use of multiple barrier layers is suggested in ¶29). "[The plurality of quantum wells] each comprising InxGa(1-x)As, where x is in a range of 0.11 to 0.18" (p. [0096]). "[The plurality of barrier layers] comprising AlyGa(1-y)As, where y is in another range of 0.05 to 0.37" (p. [0096], where the optical guide layers also serve as barrier layers to the quantum wells). "Wherein the active region comprises a multi-quantum well layer stack comprising the plurality of quantum wells and the plurality of barrier layers" (p. [0029], [0033], [0096], where use of multiple barrier layers is suggested in ¶29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ueki with the teachings of Inoue. In view of the teachings of Ueki regarding a semiconductor laser device, the alternate construction of the active layer so as to produce emission near 900nm as taught by Inoue would enhance the teachings of Ueki by allowing the laser device to emit at a suitably alternate wavelength.
The combination of Ueki and Inoue does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the VCSEL is configured to provide an optical signal of at least 30 GHz." Ou discloses, "Wherein the VCSEL is configured to provide an optical signal of at least 30 GHz" (Section IV). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Ueki and Inoue with the teachings of Ou. In view of the teachings of Ueki regarding a modulated VCSEL, the alternate construction of the VCSEL to reduce parasitic effects as much as possible such as by including additional oxide regions as taught by Ou would enhance the teachings of Ueki and Inoue by allowing for high-speed modulation.
The combination of Ueki, Inoue, and Ou does not explicitly disclose, "[The arc portion] disposed around at least half of a perimeter of the mesa structure." Collins discloses, "[The arc portion] disposed around at least half of a perimeter of the mesa structure" (p. [0069] and Figs. 5F and 6, pt. 112). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Ueki, Inoue, and Ou with the teachings of Collins. In view of the teachings of Ueki regarding a semiconductor laser in which a lower electrode forms an arc around a laser post, the alternate arrangement of the electrode arc to provide contact over at least half of the circumference of the laser post as well as the alternate degree of connection between the bond pad and the ohmic contact as taught by Collins would enhance the teachings of Ueki, Inoue, and Ou by providing a wider contact area for the electrode for improved current distribution as well as by providing a suitably alternate manner of arranging the lower electrode.
The combination of Ueki, Inoue, Ou, and Collins does not explicitly disclose, "A first leg portion and a second leg portion extending substantially parallel to each other from opposite ends of the arc portion." Iwata discloses electrode configurations for a VCSEL in which leg portions of the outer electrode proceed straight from an arc portion to electrode pads and expresses a desire to minimize spacing between these pads to reduce chip size (p. [0099] and Fig. 6, pts. 952A1, 952B1, 953A1, and 953B1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the spacing between electrode pads in such a manner that the leg portions proceeding to the electrodes become parallel so as to reduce chip size, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The combination of Ueki, Inoue, Ou, Collins, and Iwata does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the multi-quantum well layer stack comprises 6 quantum wells and 7 barrier layers." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the number of quantum well and barrier layers within a range encompassing the claimed values so as to provide a desired emission intensity, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The combination of Ueki, Inoue, Ou, Collins, and Iwata does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a thickness of the multi-quantum well layer stack is in a range of 66 nanometers to 75.6 nanometers." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the thicknesses of the quantum well and barrier layers within the claimed range so as to regulate the efficiency of those layers, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 3, Ueki does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the active region comprises a plurality of quantum well layers." "Each quantum well layer comprising one or more of the plurality of quantum wells." "Wherein the quantum well layers and the barrier layers are alternating within the active region." Inoue discloses, "Wherein the active region comprises a plurality of quantum well layers" (p. [0096]). "Each quantum well layer comprising one or more of the plurality of quantum wells" (p. [0096]). "Wherein the quantum well layers and the barrier layers are alternating within the active region" (p. [0096], where the optical guide layers also serve as barrier layers to the quantum wells). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ueki with the teachings of Inoue for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Ueki does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a thickness and aluminum content of each barrier layer of the plurality of barrier layers is configured to cause the VCSEL to emit light having the characteristic wavelength." Inoue discloses, "Wherein a thickness and aluminum content of each barrier layer of the plurality of barrier layers is configured to cause the VCSEL to emit light having the characteristic wavelength" (p. [0096]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ueki with the teachings of Inoue for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Ueki discloses, "Wherein each of the first and second reflector stacks comprises a plurality of reflector layers" (p. [0037] and Fig. 1, pts. 16 and 22). Ueki does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a thickness of each reflector layer is configured to cause the VCSEL to emit light having the characteristic wavelength." Inoue discloses, "Wherein a thickness of each reflector layer is configured to cause the VCSEL to emit light having the characteristic wavelength" (p. [0096]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ueki with the teachings of Inoue for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Ueki discloses, "Wherein each of the first and second reflector stacks further comprises a buffer layer bordering the active region" (p. [0037] and Fig. 1, pts. 18 and 20). "Each buffer layer having a thickness greater than the thickness of remaining reflector layers of the plurality of reflector layers" (p. [0060], [0061], [0062], and Fig. 1, pts. 16, 18, and 22, where spacer layers 18 must be thicker than any given reflector layer in reflector stacks 16 and 22 because spacer layers 18 result in an integral multiple of wavelength thickness whereas each layer in the multilayer reflectors have only a quarter wavelength thickness).
Regarding claim 7, Ueki discloses, "Wherein the first contact layer has a first diameter" (p. [0039] and Fig. 1, pts. 26 and 28). "The second contact layer has a second diameter greater than the first diameter" (p. [0044] and Fig. 2A, pts. 26 and 40).
Regarding claim 8, The combination of Ueki, Inoue, Ou, Collins, and Iwata does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the second diameter is two to four times greater than the first diameter." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the relative spacing of the electrodes such that the diameter of the larger electrode is between two and four times the diameter of the smaller electrode, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 25, Ueki does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a thickness of each quantum well of the plurality of quantum wells is in a range of 3.5 nanometers to 6 nanometers." Inoue discloses, "Wherein a thickness of each quantum well of the plurality of quantum wells is in a range of 3.5 nanometers to 6 nanometers" (p. [0096]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ueki with the teachings of Inoue for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 26, Ueki does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a thickness of each quantum well of the plurality of quantum wells is in a range of 4.0 nanometers to 5.6 nanometers." Inoue discloses, "Wherein a thickness of each quantum well of the plurality of quantum wells is in a range of 4.0 nanometers to 5.6 nanometers" (p. [0096]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ueki with the teachings of Inoue for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 27, The combination of Ueki, Inoue, Ou, Collins, and Iwata does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a thickness of each barrier layer of the plurality of barrier layers is approximately 6 nanometers." The examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that it was known in the art to adjust the thickness of a barrier layer in a multiple quantum well system so as to adjust the electrical, optical, and mechanical properties of that layer in a predictable manner. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the thickness of the barrier layer to be within the noted range so as to achieve a desired electrical effects while also regulating the structural effects on adjacent layers to within desired ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 31, Ueki discloses, "An etched arc defined by another diameter with respect to the aperture" (p. [0040] and Fig. 1, pt. 32).
The combination of Ueki, Inoue, and Ou does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the arc portion of the second contact layer is disposed on only a portion of the surface of the etched arc." Collins discloses, "Wherein the arc portion of the second contact layer is disposed on only a portion of the surface of the etched arc" (p. [0073] and Fig. 5F, pts. 112 and 115). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Ueki, Inoue, and Ou with the teachings of Collins for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 32, The combination of Ueki, Inoue, and Ou does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the etched arc is disposed around at least half of the perimeter of the mesa structure." Collins discloses, "Wherein the etched arc is disposed around at least half of the perimeter of the mesa structure" (p. [0069] and Figs. 5F and 6, pt. 112, where the trench of Ueki must extend at least to the extent of the electrode of Collins when Ueki is modified to include a contact region commensurate with the extent of the electrode of Collins). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Ueki, Inoue, and Ou with the teachings of Collins for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 33, Ueki discloses, "Wherein the etched arc extends between the opposite ends of the arc portion" (p. [0041] and Figs. 1 and 2A, pts. 32, 34, and 40).
Regarding claim 34, Ueki discloses, "Wherein a width of a portion of the first leg portion extending from the arc portion to an inflection point is approximately constant" (Fig. 2A, pt. 34). "Wherein a width of a portion of the second leg portion extending from the arc portion to the inflection point is approximately constant" (Fig. 2A, pt. 34). "Wherein a width of a portion of the first contact layer extending from the mesa structure to the inflection point widens" (p. [0041] and Fig. 2A, pt. 26 and 44, where pad 44 of electrode 25 widens to an inflection point at the center of the round shape).
Regarding claim 35, Ueki discloses, "Wherein a width of another portion of the first leg portion extending from the inflection point to a distal end of the first leg portion widens" (Fig. 2A, pt. 34). "Wherein a width of another portion of the second leg portion extending from the inflection point to a distal end of the second leg portion widens" (Fig. 2A, pt. 34). "Wherein a width of another portion of the first contact layer extending from the inflection point to a distal end of the first contact layer tapers" (p. [0041] and Fig. 2A, pt. 26 and 44, where pad 44 of electrode 25 tapers after an inflection point at the center of the round shape).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueki, in view of Inoue, in view of Ou, in view of Collins, in view of Iwata, and further in view of Chow et al. (Chow, US Patent 5,712,865).
Regarding claim 9, Ueki discloses, "Wherein a cavity resonance of a VCSEL cavity formed by the first and second reflector stacks" (p. [0061], where dimensioning the cavity in this manner produces resonance).
The combination of Ueki, Inoue, Ou, Collins, and Iwata does not explicitly disclose, "A photoluminescence peak of the active region are detuned to below the characteristic wavelength in an instance in which the first contact layer is not conducting an electrical current and the VCSEL has a temperature below 23 degrees Celsius." Chow discloses, "A photoluminescence peak of the active region are detuned to below the characteristic wavelength in an instance in which the first contact layer is not conducting an electrical current and the VCSEL has a temperature below 23 degrees Celsius" (col. 7, lines 5-19 and Fig. 2A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Ueki, Inoue, Ou, Collins, and Iwata with the teachings of Chow. In view of the teachings of Ueki regarding a semiconductor laser device and the teachings of Inoue regarding emission of such a laser at a particular wavelength, the further adjustment of the active layer such that the emission wavelength is detuned from the resonance wavelength when not in operation as taught by Chow would enhance the teachings of Ueki, Inoue, Ou, Collins, and Iwata by allowing the device to exhibit a measure of temperature insensitivity.
Regarding claim 10, The combination of Ueki, Inoue, Ou, Collins, and Iwata does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the cavity resonance and the photoluminescence peak of the active region are configured to shift towards the characteristic wavelength in an instance in which the first contact layer conducts electrical current and the VCSEL increases in temperature above 23 degrees Celsius." Chow discloses, "Wherein the cavity resonance and the photoluminescence peak of the active region are configured to shift towards the characteristic wavelength in an instance in which the first contact layer conducts electrical current and the VCSEL increases in temperature above 23 degrees Celsius" (col. 7, lines 5-19 and Fig. 2B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Ueki, Inoue, Ou, Collins, and Iwata with the teachings of Chow for the reasons provided above regarding claim 9.
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueki, in view of Inoue, in view of Suzuki et al. (Suzuki, US Pub. 2014/0354367), in view of Ou, in view of Collins, and further in view of Iwata.
Regarding claim 23, Ueki discloses, "A mesa structure disposed on a substrate" (p. [0036], [0038], and Fig. 1, pts. 12 and P). "The mesa structure comprising a first reflector stack" (p. [0038] and Fig. 1, pts. 16 and P). "[The mesa structure comprising] a second reflector stack" (p. [0038] and Fig. 1, pts. 22 and P). "[The mesa structure comprising] an active region disposed between the first and second reflector stacks" (p. [0038] and Fig. 1, pts. 16, 20, 22, and P). "A first contact layer configured to serve as an electrical signal layer and disposed at least in part on a surface of the mesa structure opposite the substrate" (p. [0039] and Fig. 1, pts. 12, 24a, and 26). "Wherein the first contact layer defines an aperture of the VCSEL" (p. [0039] and Fig. 1, pts. 26 and 28). "A second contact layer configured to serve as an electrical ground" (p. [0050] and Fig. 1, pts. 32 and 34). "Wherein the second contact layer comprises an arc portion defined by a diameter with respect to the aperture" (p. [0040] and Fig. 1, pts. 34 and P). Ueki does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the active region is configured to cause the VCSEL to emit light having a characteristic wavelength in a wavelength range of 895 to 915 nanometers." "Wherein the active region comprises (1) a plurality of quantum wells… and (2) a plurality of barrier layers." "[The plurality of quantum wells] each comprising InxGa(1-x)As, where x is in a range of 0.11 to 0.18." "[The plurality of barrier layers] comprising AlyGa(1-y)As, where y is in another range of 0.05 to 0.37." "Wherein the active region comprises a multi-quantum well layer stack comprising the plurality of quantum wells and the plurality of barrier layers." Inoue discloses, "Wherein the active region is configured to cause the VCSEL to emit light having a characteristic wavelength in a wavelength range of 895 to 915 nanometers" (p. [0096]). "Wherein the active region comprises (1) a plurality of quantum wells… and (2) a plurality of barrier layers" (p. [0029], [0033], [0096], where use of multiple barrier layers is suggested in ¶29). "[The plurality of quantum wells] each comprising InxGa(1-x)As, where x is in a range of 0.11 to 0.18" (p. [0096]). "[The plurality of barrier layers] comprising AlyGa(1-y)As, where y is in another range of 0.05 to 0.37" (p. [0096], where the optical guide layers also serve as barrier layers to the quantum wells). "Wherein the active region comprises a multi-quantum well layer stack comprising the plurality of quantum wells and the plurality of barrier layers" (p. [0029], [0033], [0096], where use of multiple barrier layers is suggested in ¶29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ueki with the teachings of Inoue for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Ueki and Inoue does not explicitly disclose, "A plurality of VCSELs." Suzuki discloses, "A plurality of VCSELs" (p. [0042] and Fig. 1, pts. 11, 12, 13, and 14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Ueki and Inoue with the teachings of Suzuki. In view of the teachings of Ueki regarding a particular light emitting element, the additional inclusion of the light emitting element within an array and the configuration of at least one element to be tunable as taught by Suzuki would enhance the teachings of Ueki and Inoue by allowing the devices to be integrated in a single package that emits multiple wavelengths while also providing a mechanism for adjusting the emitted wavelength after device fabrication.
The combination of Ueki, Inoue, and Suzuki does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the at least one VCSEL is configured to provide an optical signal of at least 30 GHz." Ou discloses, "Wherein the at least one VCSEL is configured to provide an optical signal of at least 30 GHz" (Section IV). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Ueki, Inoue, and Suzuki with the teachings of Ou. In view of the teachings of Ueki regarding a modulated VCSEL, the alternate construction of the VCSEL to reduce parasitic effects as much as possible such as by including additional oxide regions as taught by Ou would enhance the teachings of Ueki, Inoue, and Suzuki by allowing for high-speed modulation.
The combination of Ueki, Inoue, Suzuki, and Ou does not explicitly disclose, "[The arc portion] disposed around at least half of a perimeter of the mesa structure." Collins discloses, "[The arc portion] disposed around at least half of a perimeter of the mesa structure" (p. [0069] and Figs. 5F and 6, pt. 112). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Ueki, Inoue, Suzuki, and Ou with the teachings of Collins. In view of the teachings of Ueki regarding a semiconductor laser in which a lower electrode forms an arc around a laser post, the alternate arrangement of the electrode arc to provide contact over at least half of the circumference of the laser post as taught by Collins would enhance the teachings of Ueki, Inoue, Suzuki, and Ou by providing additional contact area for the electrode for improved electrical connection.
The combination of Ueki, Inoue, Suzuki, Ou, and Collins does not explicitly disclose, "A first leg portion and a second leg portion extending substantially parallel to each other from opposite ends of the arc portion." Iwata discloses electrode configurations for a VCSEL in which leg portions of the outer electrode proceed straight from an arc portion to electrode pads and expresses a desire to minimize spacing between these pads to reduce chip size (p. [0099] and Fig. 6, pts. 952A1, 952B1, 953A1, and 953B1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the spacing between electrode pads in such a manner that the leg portions proceeding to the electrodes become parallel so as to reduce chip size, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The combination of Ueki, Inoue, Suzuki, Ou, Collins, and Iwata does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the multi-quantum well layer stack comprises 6 quantum wells and 7 barrier layers." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the number of quantum well and barrier layers within a range encompassing the claimed values so as to provide a desired emission intensity, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The combination of Ueki, Inoue, Suzuki, Ou, Collins, and Iwata does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a thickness of the multi-quantum well layer stack is in a range of 66 nanometers to 75.6 nanometers." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the thicknesses of the quantum well and barrier layers within the claimed range so as to regulate the efficiency of those layers, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 24, The combination of Ueki and Inoue does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein one or more VCSELs of the plurality of VCSELs are wavelength tunable VCSELs." Suzuki discloses, "Wherein one or more VCSELs of the plurality of VCSELs are wavelength tunable VCSELs" (p. [0159]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Ueki and Inoue with the teachings of Suzuki for the reasons provided above regarding claim 23.
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 Sean P Hagan whose telephone number is (571)270-1242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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.
/SEAN P HAGAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2828