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The Examiner acknowledge amended claims 1, and 16 as well as the withdrawn claims 4, 17 and 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding Applicant’s request for Rejoinder, the Examiner response is: rejoinder will be considered if/when the case is allowed (MPEP 821.04).
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.
Claim 16, 18 and 19 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 16 recites the limitation " the aperture " in lines 9-10 page 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected due to its dependency with claim 16.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being unpatentable by Wang (Us Patent US-7564887-B2) in the view of Wasserbauer (US Patent US-6751245-B1).
Regarding claim 1 Wang teaches a surface emitting laser comprising:
a Vertical-Cavity Surface Emitting Laser VCSEL structure (Fig. 2A VCSEL) having:
a top Distributed Bragg Reflector DBR (Fig. 2a semiconductor DBR 150 & dielectric DBR 170, see column 6 lines 25-37); and
an oxide aperture (Fig. 2A current aperture 156) provided by a current confinement structure (Fig. 2A current confinement region 154); and
an optically discontinuous portion (Fig. 2A metallic layer 160) formed in the top DBR (Fig. 2A metallic layer 160 is formed in the top DBR 150 & DBR 170),
wherein the optically discontinuous portion (Fig. 2A metallic layer 160) is disposed spaced apart from the oxide aperture in a plan view of the surface-emitting laser (Fig. 2A shows the cross section of the device where metallic layer 160 is spaced apart of the current aperture 156 by a distance “W3”, see annotated figure below; therefore it is inherent that the top view would show the metallic layer 160 is spaced apart of the current aperture 156), and
wherein the top DBR comprises a multilayer structure including a semiconductor DBR and a dielectric DBR (Fig. 2a semiconductor DBR 150 & dielectric DBR 170, see column 6 lines 25-37),
a bottom surface of the optically discontinuous portion is physically in contact with the semiconductor DBR (Fig. 2A Fig. 2A bottom surface of metallic layer 160 is physically in contact with the semiconductor 150), and
a top surface and a side surface of the optically discontinuous portion is physically in contact with the dielectric DBR (Fig. 2A a top surface and a left side surface of the metallic layer 160 is physically in contact with the dielectric DBR 170).
PNG
media_image1.png
518
742
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wang fails to teach an oxide aperture formed by selective oxidation.
However, Wasserbauer teaches an oxide aperture (Fig. 4a current constriction 38) formed by selective oxidation (column 14 lines 31-32 states “The current constriction 38 may be formed by selective oxidation”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Wang’s device with an oxide aperture formed by selective oxidation as taught by Wasserbauer because using selective oxidation would result in a current constriction that provides reduced overall threshold current and provides faster optical rise and fall times (from Wasserbauer column 14 lines 36-38).
Regarding claim 2, Wang’s modified device teaches the surface emitting laser according to claim 1, has a distance between a side of the oxide aperture and the side of the optically discontinuous portion (annotated figure in claim 1 Fig. 2A distance “W3”).
Wang’s modified device fails to teach a distance between a side of the oxide aperture and the side of the optically discontinuous portion is shorter than 3 mm.
However, having a distance between a side of the oxide aperture and the side of the optically discontinuous portion is shorter than 3 mm can be reached by routine optimization (e.g. Wang already teaches a distance W3 between side of the oxide aperture 154 and the side of the metallic layer 160), see MPEP 2144.05 II A. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Wang’s device to have a distance between a side of the oxide aperture and the side of the optically discontinuous portion is shorter than 3 mm because it would result in a compact laser device as a result of routine optimization, see MPEP 2144.05 II B.
Regarding claim 3, Wang’s modified device teaches the surface emitting laser according to claim 1, has a distance between a side of the oxide aperture and the side of the optically discontinuous portion (annotated figure in claim 1 Fig. 2A distance “W3”).
Wang’s modified device fails to teach a distance between a side of the oxide aperture and the side of the optically discontinuous portion is shorter than 2 mm.
However, having a distance between a side of the oxide aperture and the side of the optically discontinuous portion is shorter than 2 mm can be reached by routine optimization (e.g. Wang already teaches a distance W3 between side of the oxide aperture 154 and the side of the metallic layer 160), see MPEP 2144.05 II A. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Wang’s device to have a distance between a side of the oxide aperture and the side of the optically discontinuous portion is shorter than 2 mm because it would result in a compact laser device as a result of routine optimization, see MPEP 2144.05 II B.
Regarding claim 6, Wang’s modified device teaches the surface emitting laser according to claim 1, wherein the optically discontinuous portion is formed of a metal material (Fig. 2A metallic layer 160).
Regarding claim 7, Wang’s modified device teaches the surface emitting laser according to claim 1, wherein the optically discontinuous portion (Fig. 2A metallic layer 160) is structured as a p-type electrode (Fig. 2A semiconductor DBR 250 is a p-type, see column 6 lines 25-37; hence, metallic layer 160 is a p-type electrode) for injecting a current to the VCSEL structure (it is inherent that metallic layer 160 together with metallic layer 120 for injecting a current to the VCSEL structure).
Regarding claim 12, Wang’s modified device teaches the surface emitting laser according to claim 1, wherein the optically discontinuous portion (Fig. 2A metallic layer 160) is formed at a boundary between the semiconductor DBR and the dielectric DBR (Fig. 2A metallic layer 160 is formed at a boundary between the semiconductor DBR 150 and the dielectric DBR 170).
Regarding claim 15, Wang’s modified device teaches the surface emitting laser according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of the optically discontinuous portions (Fig. 2A metallic layer 160 left and right side) are formed in different transverse directions with respect to the oxide aperture (Fig. 2A metallic layer 160 left and right are formed in different directions with respect to current confinement region 154).
Claim(s) 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being unpatentable by Wang (Us Patent US-7564887-B2) in the view of Wasserbauer (US Patent US-6751245-B1), hereinafter Wasserbauer and .
Regarding claim 16 Wang teaches a surface emitting laser comprising:
a Vertical-Cavity Surface Emitting Laser VCSEL structure (Fig. 2A VCSEL) having:
a top Distributed Bragg Reflector DBR (Fig. 2a semiconductor DBR 150 & dielectric DBR 170, see column 6 lines 25-37); and
an oxide aperture (Fig. 2A current aperture 156) provided by a current confinement structure (Fig. 2A current confinement region 154); and
an optically discontinuous portion (Fig. 2A metallic layer 160) formed in the top DBR (Fig. 2A metallic layer 160 is formed in the top DBR 150 & DBR 170),
wherein, in a plan view of the surface-emitting laser, the optically discontinuous portion (Fig. 2A metallic layer 160) is arranged in a region spaced apart from the aperture with a gap therebetween (Fig. 2A shows the cross section of the device where metallic layer 160 is a spaced apart of the current aperture 156 by a distance “W3”, see annotated figure in claim 1, W3 is considered the gap; therefore it is inherent that the top view would show the metallic layer 160 is spaced apart of the current aperture 156),
the top DBR comprises a multilayer structure including a semiconductor DBR and a dielectric DBR (Fig. 2a semiconductor DBR 150 & dielectric DBR 170, see column 6 lines 25-37),
a bottom surface of the optically discontinuous portion is physically in contact with the semiconductor DBR (Fig. 2A Fig. 2A bottom surface of metallic layer 160 is physically in contact with the semiconductor 150), and
a top surface and a side surface of the optically discontinuous portion is physically in contact with the dielectric DBR (Fig. 2A a top surface and a left side surface of the metallic layer 160 is physically in contact with the dielectric DBR 170)
in a plan view of the surface emitting laser, a portion in which the oxide aperture is formed constitutes a main resonator (Fig. 2A it is inherent that where current aperture 156 is the main resonator), and a region sandwiched between the oxide aperture and the optically discontinuous portion constitutes an external resonator (Annotated Fig. 2A in claim 1 region “W3”; since the description matches the Applicants claim as well as the spacing defined in the Specification, it is inherent that this region constitutes an external resonator).
Wang fails to teach an oxide aperture formed by selective oxidation, the optically discontinuous portion reflects a slow light towards the aperture.
However, Wasserbauer teaches an oxide aperture (Fig. 4a current constriction 38) formed by selective oxidation (column 14 lines 31-32 states “The current constriction 38 may be formed by selective oxidation”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Wang’s device with an oxide aperture formed by selective oxidation as taught by Wasserbauer because using selective oxidation would result in a current constriction that provides reduced overall threshold current and provides faster optical rise and fall times (from Wasserbauer column 14 lines 36-38).
Wang’s modified device failed to teach the optically discontinuous portion reflects a slow light towards the aperture.
However, Hashiya teaches the optically discontinuous portion reflects a slow light (for example Fig. 41 electrodes #62 form an optically discontinuous portion because the top layer formed by electrodes #62 are separated by mirror #30; optical waveguide #20 is “slow-light waveguide”: paragraph [0177] states “the waveguide element 10 has such characteristics that the propagation conditions of light are largely changed according to changes in the wavelength of the light, the thickness of the optical waveguide layer 20, and the refractive index of the optical waveguide layer 20. Such a waveguide is referred to as a “reflective waveguide” or a “slow light waveguide.””; paragraph [0449] states “ FIG. 41 is an illustration showing a structural example in which electrodes 62 that generate an attractive force are disposed in portions that do not impede propagation of light”; hence, electrodes #63 allows bouncing the light through #20; paragraph [0449] states “In this example, it is not necessary that the electrodes 62 be transparent. ” & paragraph [0431] states “Various conductive materials can be used for the electrodes 62. For example, conductive materials including metal materials such as Ag, Cu, Au, Al, Pt, Ta, W, Ti, Rh, Ru, Ni, Mo, Cr, and Pd,”; therefore, electrodes #62 reflects the slow light of optical wave #20). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Wang’s device in the view of Wasserbauer with an optically discontinuous portion reflects a slow light as taught by Hashiya (e.g. having metallic layer 160 from Wang made of metal materials as disclosed by Hashiya) because it would allow to reflect light (see paragraph [0449] from Hashiya) as well as to have a higher conductivity.
Regarding claim 19, Wang’s modified device teaches the surface emitting laser according to claim 16, wherein the optically discontinuous portion is formed of a metal material (Fig. 2A metallic layer 160).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 and 18 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.
Wang’s modified device teaches the surface emitting laser according to claims 1 and 16. Wang’s modified device fails to teach wherein a portion of the semiconductor DBR which overlaps with the oxide aperture has a thickness that is smaller than that of the other portions of the semiconductor DBR as claimed in claim 5 and 18.
Wasserbauer (US Patent US-6901099-B1) teaches a portion of the DBR which overlaps with the current injection aperture has a thickness that is smaller than that of the other portions of the DBR (Fig. 15 recess #300 is the first mirror layer of dielectric upper mirror #302; from Fig. 15 we can see that the thickness of #300 above the current aperture #140 is thinner than outside this region, thickness in A is thinner than thickness of B, see annotated figure of claim 5 from Non Final Rejection 09/19/2025 page 8).
However, there is no motivation to modified Wang’s device with the teachings of Wasserbauer since it would result in a totally different device as compared to Wang’s original invention in Fig. 2A.
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 FERNANDA ADRIANA CAMACHO ALANIS whose telephone number is (703)756-1545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:30pm Friday off.
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 on (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.
/FERNANDA ADRIANA CAMACHO ALANIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2828 /MINSUN O HARVEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2828