DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 through 20 originally filed 30 June 2021. By amendment received 24 July 2024; claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 12 through 14, and 17 through 19 are amended. By amendment received 4 December 2024 and entered 8 January 2025; claim 10 is amended. By amendment received 15 April 2025 and entered 7 May 2025; claims 1, 8, 10, 12, 13, 17, and 18 are amended. By amendment received 17 November 2025; claims 1, 6, 11, 12, and 17 are amended. Claims 1 through 20 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 Shimizu et al. (Shimizu, US Pub. 2008/0212633), Jiang et al. (Jiang, US Pub. 2003/0157739), Shiu et al. (Shiu, US Pub. 2012/0132913), and Maros et al. (Maros, US Pub. 2020/0052137) do not teach or render obvious the limitation "After removal, a top surface of the spacer coincides with a local minimum of a standing wave of an optical field of the VCSEL device." This argument is persuasive, however, upon further search and consideration, Kondow et al. (Kondow, US Pub. 2002/0176465) has been located which, in combination with the previously cited art, renders this feature obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, new rejections have been formulated as set forth below.
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Shimizu, Jiang, Shiu, and Maros do not teach or render obvious the limitation "Forming a second portion of the spacer on the first portion of the spacer using a second MOCVD process during a second MOCVD phase of the multiphase growth sequence and after removal of the interim cap" because, according to applicant, Maros does not teach this limitation. To support this argument, applicant contends that Maros teaches that the buffer layer thereof is finished with a MBE step rather than an MOCVD step.
Initially, in light of the above noted change in rejection, this claim is rejected on the basis of the combined teachings of Shimizu, Jiang, Shiu, Maros, and Kondow (see below). Accordingly, this argument is considered in light of this new rejection.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because it does not address the effects of employing the technique of Maros when using a growth sequence according to Jiang to fabricate a VCSEL according to Shimizu (MPEP §2145IV). Specifically, Shimizu teaches a VCSEL having a first DBR, a first cladding layer, an active layer, a tunnel junction, a second cladding layer, and a second DBR in sequence (Shimizu, ¶26 describing a VCSEL including respective layers 3, 4, 5, 6, and 9 and ¶51 indicating that such a VCSEL may additionally include tunnel junction 13 and cladding layer 8). Jiang teaches that VCSEL formation may be improved by forming layers such as the DBR layers by an MOCVD process occurring atop cladding layers (Jiang, ¶19-22 describing the growth process). Maros teaches that, where multiple growth processes are employed, the regrowth interface may be positioned within a buffer layer rather than adjacent to a more sensitive component such as a tunnel junctions (Maros, ¶75 describing placement of the regrowth interface within layer 506 rather than adjacent to tunnel junction 508). Since Jiang teaches a method for forming a laser device, such as Shimizu, that includes growth interrupts atop cladding layers and since Maros teaches that a growth interrupt may, alternately, be positioned within a layer rather than atop that layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the device of Shimizu according to a growth sequence according to the combined teachings of Jiang and Maros such that the growth interrupt of the sequence of Jiang is repositioned to occur within the cladding layer in like manner to how the growth interrupt of the sequence of Maros is repositioned to occur within the buffer layer so as to achieve the results experienced by Maros within the device according to the combined teachings of Shimizu, Jiang, and Maros. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
The limitation "Forming a second portion of the spacer on the first portion of the spacer using a second MOCVD process during a second MOCVD phase of the multiphase growth sequence and after removal of the interim cap" is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Shimizu, Jiang, Shiu, Maros, and Kondow (see below). Applicant's argument that Maros does not teach this limitation is not persuasive because it does not address the effects of employing the technique of Maros when using a growth sequence according to Jiang to fabricate a VCSEL according to Shimizu (MPEP §2145IV).
As such, all claims are addressed as follows:
Claim Interpretation
The claimed "evaporation process", as set forth in claim 18, is understood as referring to a removal process given the context. However, the term "evaporation process" is not recognized as a standardized term that refers to a specific process. As such, the term "evaporation process" will be understood as encompassing any process that causes the removed layer to be dispersed as a vapor. Particularly, the process of "thermal desorption" is understood to be an "evaporation process". This interpretation was initially set forth in the Office Action dated 11 October 2024.
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.
Claims 1 through 20 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 "After removal, a top surface of the spacer coincides with a local minimum of a standing wave of an optical field of the VCSEL device." This claim also specifies that the spacer is composed of a remainder of a first portion and a second portion with the first portion and second portion formed by different growth processes. This requirement relating to the growth sequence of the spacer identifies that the regrowth interface related to this spacer is within the spacer rather than at the top of the spacer. However, the claimed positioning of the regrowth interface within the spacer and a local minimum of the standing wave at the top of the spacer does not agree with the original disclosure. Particularly, the original disclosure is clear that a local minimum of the standing wave is positioned at the regrowth interface related to the spacer and does not otherwise discuss the local minima of the standing wave (see ¶49 and 51 of the pre-grant publication of the original disclosure). 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 12, this claim requires "After removal, a top surface of the spacer coincides with a local minimum of a standing wave of an optical field of the VCSEL device." This claim also specifies that the spacer is composed of a remainder of a first portion and a second portion with the first portion and second portion formed by different growth processes. This requirement relating to the growth sequence of the spacer identifies that the regrowth interface related to this spacer is within the spacer rather than at the top of the spacer. However, the claimed positioning of the regrowth interface within the spacer and a local minimum of the standing wave at the top of the spacer does not agree with the original disclosure. Particularly, the original disclosure is clear that a local minimum of the standing wave is positioned at the regrowth interface related to the spacer and does not otherwise discuss the local minima of the standing wave (see ¶49 and 51 of the pre-grant publication of the original disclosure). 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 17, this claim requires "After removal, a top surface of the spacer coincides with a local minimum of a standing wave of an optical field of the VCSEL device." This claim also specifies that the spacer is composed of a remainder of a first portion and a second portion with the first portion and second portion formed by different growth processes. This requirement relating to the growth sequence of the spacer identifies that the regrowth interface related to this spacer is within the spacer rather than at the top of the spacer. However, the claimed positioning of the regrowth interface within the spacer and a local minimum of the standing wave at the top of the spacer does not agree with the original disclosure. Particularly, the original disclosure is clear that a local minimum of the standing wave is positioned at the regrowth interface related to the spacer and does not otherwise discuss the local minima of the standing wave (see ¶49 and 51 of the pre-grant publication of the original disclosure). 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 2 through 11, 13 through 16, and 18 through 20, each of these claims depend properly from one of claims 1, 12, and 17 and inherit all limitations thereof. 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.
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 1 through 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
Regarding claim 1, this claim requires "After removal, a top surface of the spacer coincides with a local minimum of a standing wave of an optical field of the VCSEL device." However, the "spacer" of this claim is composed of a remainder of a "first portion" formed before the claimed removal process and a "second portion" formed after the claimed removal process. By the use of the term "spacer", this limitation suggests a local minimum of the standing wave is positioned at the top of the spacer which is composed of the remainder of the first portion and the second portion. However, by specifying that the removal is performed such that "a top surface of the spacer" is at the noted position "after removal", the limitation suggests that a local minimum of the standing wave is positioned at the top of the remainder of the first portion of the spacer. Accordingly, it is unclear what is meant by the term "a top surface of the spacer" because there are multiple possible interpretations of this term. As such, this claim is 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. For the purposes of applying prior art, this claim will be interpreted, as meaning that the local minimum of a standing wave must coincide with the top of the spacer that exists prior to formation of the second portion of the spacer.
Regarding claim 12, this claim requires "After removal, a top surface of the spacer coincides with a local minimum of a standing wave of an optical field of the VCSEL device." However, the "spacer" of this claim is composed of a remainder of a "first portion" formed before the claimed removal process and a "second portion" formed after the claimed removal process. By the use of the term "spacer", this limitation suggests a local minimum of the standing wave is positioned at the top of the spacer which is composed of the remainder of the first portion and the second portion. However, by specifying that the removal is performed such that "a top surface of the spacer" is at the noted position "after removal", the limitation suggests that a local minimum of the standing wave is positioned at the top of the remainder of the first portion of the spacer. Accordingly, it is unclear what is meant by the term "a top surface of the spacer" because there are multiple possible interpretations of this term. As such, this claim is 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. For the purposes of applying prior art, this claim will be interpreted, as meaning that the local minimum of a standing wave must coincide with the top of the spacer that exists prior to formation of the second portion of the spacer.
Further, this claim requires a "spacer", a "first spacer", and a "second spacer". When using ordinal designations, it is necessary to start with an initial ordinal designation such as "first" and introduce further elements in numerical order from that point. Failure to adhere to such an ordering creates the implication of additional elements without strictly indicating the presence thereof. Due to this implication, it is unclear whether or not the claim actually requires the presence of the implied features. As such, this claim is deemed indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. For the remainder of this action, this claim will be interpreted such that references to the "spacer" are understood as referring to the "first spacer".
Regarding claim 17, this claim requires "After removal, a top surface of the spacer coincides with a local minimum of a standing wave of an optical field of the VCSEL device." However, the "spacer" of this claim is composed of a remainder of a "first portion" formed before the claimed removal process and a "second portion" formed after the claimed removal process. By the use of the term "spacer", this limitation suggests a local minimum of the standing wave is positioned at the top of the spacer which is composed of the remainder of the first portion and the second portion. However, by specifying that the removal is performed such that "a top surface of the spacer" is at the noted position "after removal", the limitation suggests that a local minimum of the standing wave is positioned at the top of the remainder of the first portion of the spacer. Accordingly, it is unclear what is meant by the term "a top surface of the spacer" because there are multiple possible interpretations of this term. As such, this claim is 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. For the purposes of applying prior art, this claim will be interpreted, as meaning that the local minimum of a standing wave must coincide with the top of the spacer that exists prior to formation of the second portion of the spacer.
Regarding claims 2 through 11, 13 through 16, and 18 through 20, each of these claims depend properly from one of claims 1, 12, and 17 and inherit all limitations thereof. As such, these claims are also indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. For the remainder of this action, these claims will also be interpreted as noted above regarding claims 1, 12, and 17.
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 11 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, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 11, this claim only requires "Wherein the spacer has a particular optical thickness, wherein the particular optical thickness causes a regrowth interface at the top surface of the spacer to coincide with the local minimum." However, parent claim 1 already requires "After removal, a top surface of the spacer coincides with a local minimum of a standing wave of an optical field of the VCSEL device" and that the spacer is composed of a remainder of a first portion and a second portion with the first portion and second portion formed by different growth processes. This requirement of parent claim 1 relating to the growth sequence of the spacer identifies that the regrowth interface related to this spacer is within the spacer rather than at the top of the spacer. However, this requirement of parent claim 1 is incompatible with the requirement of this claim that the regrowth interface appears at "the top surface of the spacer". As such, this claim is of improper dependent form for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 through 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al. (Shimizu, US Pub. 2008/0212633), in view of Jiang et al. (Jiang, US Pub. 2003/0157739), in view of Shiu et al. (Shiu, US Pub. 2012/0132913), in view of Maros et al. (Maros, US Pub. 2020/0052137), and further in view of Kondow et al. (Kondow, US Pub. 2002/0176465).
Regarding claim 1, Shimizu discloses, "Forming a first mirror over a substrate" (p. [0026] and Fig. 2, pts. 2 and 3). "[Forming the first mirror] using a first metal-organic chemical vapor deposition (MOCVD) process during a first MOCVD phase of the multiphase growth sequence" (p. [0038] and Fig. 2, pt. 3). "Forming an active region over the first mirror" (p. [0026] and Fig. 2, pts. 3 and 5). "Forming an oxidation aperture (OA) layer over the active region" (p. [0029] and Fig. 2, pts. 5 and 7). "Forming… a first portion of a spacer on a surface of the OA layer" (p. [0026] and Fig. 2, pts. 7 and 8). "Wherein the spacer comprises gallium arsenide (GaAs)" (p. [0026] and Fig. 2, pt. 8). "Forming a tunnel junction over the second portion of the spacer" (p. [0051] and Fig. 7, pts. 8 and 13). "Forming a second mirror over the tunnel junction" (p. [0026], [0050], and Fig. 7, pts. 13 and 19). Shimizu does not explicitly disclose, "[Forming the active region] using a molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) process during an MBE phase of the multiphase growth sequence." "[Forming the first portion of the spacer] during the MBE phase." "Forming an interim cap over the spacer." "[Forming the second mirror] using the second MOCVD process." Jiang discloses, "[Forming the active region] using a molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) process during an MBE phase of the multiphase growth sequence" (p. [0021] and Fig., pt. 108). "[Forming the first portion of the spacer] during the MBE phase" (p. [0022] and Fig., pt. 110, where the lower portion of the cladding layer operates as the first portion of the spacer layer). "Forming an interim cap over the spacer" (p. [0022] and Fig., pt. 110, where the upper portion of the cladding layer operates as a cap). "[Forming the second mirror] using the second MOCVD process" (p. [0025] and Fig., 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 Shimizu with the teachings of Jiang. In view of the teachings of Shimizu regarding a VCSEL that includes a small amount of nitrogen in the active layer, the alternate formation sequence in which DBR layers are formed by MOCVD while the active region is formed by MBE as taught by Jiang would enhance the teachings of Shimizu by allowing for easier absorption of nitrogen radicals.
The combination of Shimizu and Jiang does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the interim cap comprises at least one of indium arsenide (InAs) or arsenic (As)." "Causing the interim cap and at least a portion of the first portion of the spacer to be removed." Shiu discloses, "Wherein the interim cap comprises at least one of indium arsenide (InAs) or arsenic (As)" (p. [0037]). "Causing the interim cap and at least a portion of the first portion of the spacer to be removed" (p. [0037]). 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 Shimizu and Jiang with the teachings of Shiu. In view of the teachings of Shimizu regarding a VCSEL and the teachings of Jiang regarding the formation of a VCSEL using different growth techniques, the alternate formation of a protective layer as a dedicated layer formed entirely of arsenic as taught by Shiu would enhance the teachings of Shimizu and Jiang by allowing the protective layer to be separated from the spacer layers at a particular thickness.
The combination of Shimizu, Jiang, and Shiu does not explicitly disclose, "Forming a second portion of the spacer on the first portion of the spacer." "[Forming the second portion of the spacer] using a second MOCVD process during a second MOCVD phase of the multiphase growth sequence." "[Forming the second portion of the spacer] after removal of the interim cap." "[Forming the tunnel junction] using the second MOCVD process." Maros discloses, "Forming a second portion of the spacer on the first portion of the spacer" (p. [0066], [0075], and Fig. 5A, pt. 506). "[Forming the second portion of the spacer] using a second MOCVD process during a second MOCVD phase of the multiphase growth sequence" (p. [0066], [0075], and Fig. 5A, pt. 506, where forming the spacer 8 of Shimizu by forming the spacer partially in the initial growth chamber and completing the spacer in the subsequent growth chamber in like manner to how the buffer 506 of Maros is formed causes the upper portion of the spacer to be formed by the MOCVD process). "[Forming the second portion of the spacer] after removal of the interim cap" (p. [0066], [0075], and Fig. 5A, pt. 506). "[Forming the tunnel junction] using the second MOCVD process" (p. [0051] and Fig. 3A, pts. 317 and 327, where it is acceptable to form the tunnel junction by MOCVD when the tunnel junction falls within an MOCVD formation region as is the case of the combination of Shimizu and Jiang). 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 Shimizu, Jiang, and Shiu with the teachings of Maros. In view of the teachings of Shimizu regarding a VCSEL including a tunnel junction located above an oxide layer and the teachings of Jiang regarding the formation of a VCSEL using different growth techniques with the upper oxide layer formed in the MOCVD process, the alternate implementation of the growth process transition to occur in the middle of a layer as well as the recognition that an upper tunnel junction may be formed in a MOCVD process as taught by Maros would enhance the teachings of Shimizu, Jiang, and Shiu by allowing the growth interrupt interface to be spaced apart from intricate layers and by indicating layers that are acceptable to grow during the MOCVD process.
The combination of Shimizu, Jiang, Shiu, and Maros does not explicitly disclose, "After removal, a top surface of the spacer coincides with a local minimum of a standing wave of an optical field of the VCSEL device." Kondow discloses, "After removal, a top surface of the spacer coincides with a local minimum of a standing wave of an optical field of the VCSEL device" (p. [0024] and Fig. 7). 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 Shimizu, Jiang, Shiu, and Maros with the teachings of Kondow. In view of the teachings of Shimizu regarding a VCSEL and the teachings of Jiang regarding the formation of a VCSEL using different growth techniques requiring a regrowth interface, the additional technique of positioning a regrowth interface at a node of the standing wave as taught by Kondow would enhance the teachings of Shimizu, Jiang, Shiu, and Maros by ensuring that the regrown interface does not become a factor of absorption and scattering.
Regarding claim 2, Shimizu discloses, "Wherein the VCSEL device is configured to emit an output beam" (p. [0025]). "Wherein the output beam is associated with a wavelength range of 1200-1600 nanometers" (p. [0025]).
Regarding claim 3, Shimizu discloses, "Wherein the substrate comprises GaAs" (p. [0026] and Fig. 2, pt. 2). "The active region comprises at least one of a dilute nitride quantum well or an indium gallium arsenide (InGaAs) or InAs quantum dot layer" (p. [0028] and Fig. 2, pt. 5a). "The spacer comprises a p-doped GaAs layer" (p. [0026] and Fig. 2, pt. 8). "The first mirror and the second mirror each comprise a set of alternating GaAs layers and aluminum gallium arsenide (AlGaAs) layers" (p. [0027] and Fig. 2, pt. 9).
The combination of Shimizu and Jiang does not explicitly disclose, "The interim cap comprises As." Shiu discloses, "The interim cap comprises As" (p. [0037]). 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 Shimizu and Jiang with the teachings of Shiu for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Shimizu discloses, "Wherein the first mirror is an n-doped distributed Bragg reflector (DBR)" (p. [0027] and Fig. 2, pt. 3). "The second mirror is a p-doped DBR" (p. [0027] and Fig. 2, pt. 9).
Regarding claim 5, Shimizu discloses, "Wherein the first mirror is an n-doped distributed Bragg reflector (DBR)" (p. [0027] and Fig. 2, pt. 3). "The second mirror is an n-doped DBR" (p. [0052] and Fig. 7, pt. 19).
Regarding claim 6, Shimizu discloses, "Wherein the second mirror is formed on a surface of the tunnel junction" (p. [0051] and Fig. 7, pts. 13 and 19).
Regarding claim 7, Shimizu discloses, "Wherein at least one of the first mirror or the OA layer is formed using the MBE process during the MBE phase" (p. [0038] and Fig. 2, pt. 7).
Regarding claim 8, Shimizu does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the OA layer [is] formed using the MBE process during the MBE phase." "The interim cap [is] formed using the MBE process during the MBE phase." Jiang discloses, "Wherein the OA layer [is] formed using the MBE process during the MBE phase" (p. [0022] and Fig., pts. 108 and 110, where the oxide layer 7 of Shimizu is located between the cladding layer 8 and the active layer 5 and is formed by the same MBE process as these layers when employing the growth sequence of Jiang). "The interim cap [is] formed using the MBE process during the MBE phase" (p. [0022] and Fig., pt. 110, where the upper portion of the cladding layer operates as a cap). 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 Shimizu with the teachings of Jiang for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Shimizu and Jiang does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein causing the interim cap to be removed further comprises: causing the interim cap to be removed before the second mirror is formed using the MOCVD process during the MOCVD phase." Shiu discloses, "Wherein causing the interim cap to be removed further comprises: causing the interim cap to be removed before the second mirror is formed using the MOCVD process during the MOCVD phase" (p. [0037]). 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 Shimizu and Jiang with the teachings of Shiu for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Shimizu does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the first mirror is formed using an additional MOCVD process during an additional MOCVD phase." "The method further comprises: forming an additional spacer on the first mirror using the additional MOCVD process during the additional MOCVD phase." Jiang discloses, "Wherein the first mirror is formed using an additional MOCVD process during an additional MOCVD phase" (p. [0019] and Fig., pt. 104). "The method further comprises: forming an additional spacer on the first mirror using the additional MOCVD process during the additional MOCVD phase" (p. [0020] and Fig., pts. 104 and 106). 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 Shimizu with the teachings of Jiang for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Shimizu does not explicitly disclose, "Forming another interim cap over the additional spacer using the additional MOCVD process during the additional MOCVD phase." "Wherein causing the interim cap to be removed further comprises: causing the other interim cap to be removed before the active region is formed using the MBE process during the MBE phase." Jiang discloses, "Forming another interim cap over the additional spacer using the additional MOCVD process during the additional MOCVD phase" (p. [0020] and Fig., pt. 106, where the upper portion of the cladding layer operates as a cap). "Wherein causing the interim cap to be removed further comprises: causing the other interim cap to be removed before the active region is formed using the MBE process during the MBE phase" (p. [0021] and Fig., pt. 106). 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 Shimizu with the teachings of Jiang for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Shimizu discloses, "Wherein the spacer has a particular optical thickness" (p. [0026] and Fig. 4).
The combination of Shimizu, Jiang, Shiu, and Maros does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the particular optical thickness causes a regrowth interface at the top surface of the spacer to coincide with the local minimum." Kondow discloses, "Wherein the particular optical thickness causes a regrowth interface at the top surface of the spacer to coincide with the local minimum" (p. [0024] and Fig. 7). 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 Shimizu, Jiang, Shiu, and Maros with the teachings of Kondow for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Shimizu discloses, "Forming a first mirror over a substrate" (p. [0026] and Fig. 2, pts. 2 and 3). "[Forming the first mirror] using a first metal-organic chemical vapor deposition (MOCVD) process during a first MOCVD phase of the multiphase growth sequence" (p. [0038] and Fig. 2, pt. 3). "Forming… a first portion of a first spacer on a surface of the first mirror" (p. [0026] and Fig. 2, pts. 3 and 4). "[Forming the first portion of the first spacer] during the first MOCVD phase" (p. [0038] and Fig. 2, pt. 4). "Wherein the first spacer comprises gallium arsenide (GaAs)" (p. [0026] and Fig. 2, pt. 4). "Forming an active region over the first spacer" (p. [0026] and Fig. 2, pts. 3 and 5). "Forming an oxidation aperture (OA) layer over the active region" (p. [0029] and Fig. 2, pts. 5 and 7). "Forming a second spacer on a surface of the OA layer" (p. [0026] and Fig. 2, pts. 7 and 8). "Forming a second mirror over the second spacer" (p. [0026] and Fig. 2, pts. 8 and 9). Shimizu does not explicitly disclose, "Forming an interim cap over the first spacer." "[Forming the active region] using the MBE process during the MBE phase." "[Forming the second mirror] using a second MOCVD process during a second MOCVD phase of the multiphase growth sequence." Jiang discloses, "Forming an interim cap over the first spacer" (p. [0020] and Fig., pt. 106, where the upper portion of the cladding layer operates as a cap). "[Forming the active region] using the MBE process during the MBE phase" (p. [0021] and Fig., pt. 108). "[Forming the second mirror] using a second MOCVD process during a second MOCVD phase of the multiphase growth sequence" (p. [0025] and Fig., 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 Shimizu with the teachings of Jiang for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Shimizu and Jiang does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the interim cap comprises at least one of indium arsenide (InAs) or arsenic (As)." "Causing the interim cap and at least a portion of the first portion of the spacer to be removed." Shiu discloses, "Wherein the interim cap comprises at least one of indium arsenide (InAs) or arsenic (As)" (p. [0037]). "Causing the interim cap and at least a portion of the first portion of the spacer to be removed" (p. [0037]). 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 Shimizu and Jiang with the teachings of Shiu for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Shimizu, Jiang, and Shiu does not explicitly disclose, "Forming a second portion of the first spacer on the first portion of the first spacer." "[Forming the second portion of the first spacer] using a molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) process during an MBE phase of the multiphase growth sequence." "[Forming the second portion of the first spacer] after removal of the interim cap." Maros discloses, "Forming a second portion of the first spacer on the first portion of the first spacer" (p. [0066], [0075], and Fig. 5A, pt. 506). "[Forming the second portion of the first spacer] using a molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) process during an MBE phase of the multiphase growth sequence" (p. [0066], [0075], and Fig. 5A, pt. 506, where forming the spacer 4 of Shimizu by forming the spacer partially in the initial growth chamber and completing the spacer in the subsequent growth chamber in like manner to how the buffer 506 of Maros is formed causes the upper portion of the spacer to be formed by the MBE process). "[Forming the second portion of the first spacer] after removal of the interim cap" (p. [0066], [0075], and Fig. 5A, pt. 506). 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 Shimizu, Jiang, and Shiu with the teachings of Maros for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Shimizu, Jiang, Shiu, and Maros does not explicitly disclose, "After removal, a top surface of the spacer coincides with a local minimum of a standing wave of an optical field of the VCSEL device." Kondow discloses, "After removal, a top surface of the spacer coincides with a local minimum of a standing wave of an optical field of the VCSEL device" (p. [0024] and Fig. 7). 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 Shimizu, Jiang, Shiu, and Maros with the teachings of Kondow for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Shimizu does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the interim cap is formed using the first MOCVD process during the first MOCVD phase." "Wherein causing the interim cap to be removed further comprises: causing the interim cap to be removed during a transition period between the first MOCVD phase and the MBE phase." Jiang discloses, "Wherein the interim cap is formed using the first MOCVD process during the first MOCVD phase" (p. [0020] and Fig., pt. 106, where the upper portion of the cladding layer operates as a cap). "Wherein causing the interim cap to be removed further comprises: causing the interim cap to be removed during a transition period between the first MOCVD phase and the MBE phase" (p. [0021] and Fig., pt. 106). 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 Shimizu with the teachings of Jiang for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Shimizu discloses, "Wherein the substrate comprises GaAs" (p. [0026] and Fig. 2, pt. 2). "The active region comprises at least one of a dilute nitride quantum well or an indium gallium arsenide (InGaAs) or InAs quantum dot layer" (p. [0028] and Fig. 2, pt. 5a). "The first spacer comprises at least one of an undoped GaAs layer or an n-doped GaAs layer" (p. [0026] and Fig. 2, pt. 4). "The second spacer comprises a p-doped GaAs layer" (p. [0026] and Fig. 2, pt. 8). "The first mirror and the second mirror each comprise a set of alternating GaAs layers and aluminum gallium arsenide (AlGaAs) layers" (p. [0027] and Fig. 2, pt. 9).
The combination of Shimizu and Jiang does not explicitly disclose, "The interim cap comprises As." Shiu discloses, "The interim cap comprises As" (p. [0037]). 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 Shimizu and Jiang with the teachings of Shiu for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Shimizu does not explicitly disclose, "Cleaning a surface of the first spacer during a transition period between the first MOCVD phase and the MBE phase." Jiang discloses, "Cleaning a surface of the first spacer during a transition period between the first MOCVD phase and the MBE phase" (p. [0021] and Fig., pt. 106). 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 Shimizu with the teachings of Jiang for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Shimizu discloses, "Wherein the second mirror is formed on a surface of the tunnel junction" (p. [0051] and Fig. 7, pts. 13 and 19).
The combination of Shimizu, Jiang, and Shiu does not explicitly disclose, "Forming a tunnel junction on a surface of the second spacer using the second MOCVD process during the second MOCVD phase." Maros discloses, "Forming a tunnel junction on a surface of the second spacer using the second MOCVD process during the second MOCVD phase" (p. [0051] and Fig. 3A, pts. 317 and 327, where it is acceptable to form the tunnel junction by MOCVD when the tunnel junction falls within an MOCVD formation region as is the case of the combination of Shimizu and Jiang). 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 Shimizu, Jiang, and Shiu with the teachings of Maros for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, Shimizu discloses, "Forming a first mirror over a substrate" (p. [0026] and Fig. 2, pts. 2 and 3). "Forming an active region over the first mirror" (p. [0026] and Fig. 2, pts. 3 and 5). "Forming… an oxidation aperture (OA) layer over the active region" (p. [0029] and Fig. 2, pts. 5 and 7). "[Forming the OA layer] during the MBE phase" (p. [0038] and Fig. 2, pt. 7). "Forming… a first portion of a spacer on a surface of the OA layer" (p. [0026] and Fig. 2, pts. 7 and 8). "Wherein the spacer comprises gallium arsenide (GaAs)" (p. [0026] and Fig. 2, pt. 8). "Forming… a second mirror over the spacer" (p. [0026] and Fig. 2, pts. 8 and 9). "Forming… a cap layer over the second mirror" (p. [0026] and Fig. 2, pt. 9, where the top layer of the top DBR serves as the cap layer). Shimizu does not explicitly disclose, "[Forming the active region] using a molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) process during an MBE phase of the multiphase growth sequence." "[Forming the first portion of the spacer] during the MBE phase." "Forming an interim cap over the spacer." "[Forming the second mirror] during the MOCVD phase." "[Forming the cap layer] during the MOCVD phase." Jiang discloses, "[Forming the active region] using a molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) process during an MBE phase of the multiphase growth sequence" (p. [0021] and Fig., pt. 108). "[Forming the first portion of the spacer] during the MBE phase" (p. [0022] and Fig., pt. 110, where the lower portion of the cladding layer operates as the first portion of the spacer layer). "Forming an interim cap over the spacer" (p. [0022] and Fig., pt. 110, where the upper portion of the cladding layer operates as a cap). "[Forming the second mirror] during the MOCVD phase" (p. [0025] and Fig., pt. 112). "[Forming the cap layer] during the MOCVD phase" (p. [0025] and Fig., 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 Shimizu with the teachings of Jiang for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Shimizu and Jiang does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the interim cap comprises at least one of indium arsenide (InAs) or arsenic (As)." "Causing the interim cap and at least a portion of the first portion of the spacer to be removed." Shiu discloses, "Wherein the interim cap comprises at least one of indium arsenide (InAs) or arsenic (As)" (p. [0037]). "Causing the interim cap and at least a portion of the first portion of the spacer to be removed" (p. [0037]). 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 Shimizu and Jiang with the teachings of Shiu for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Shimizu, Jiang, and Shiu does not explicitly disclose, "Forming a second portion of the spacer on the first portion of the spacer." "[Forming the second portion of the spacer] using a metal-organic chemical vapor deposition (MOCVD) process during an MOCVD phase of the multiphase growth sequence." "[Forming the second portion of the spacer] after removal of the interim cap." Maros discloses, "Forming a second portion of the spacer on the first portion of the spacer" (p. [0066], [0075], and Fig. 5A, pt. 506). "[Forming the second portion of the spacer] using a metal-organic chemical vapor deposition (MOCVD) process during an MOCVD phase of the multiphase growth sequence" (p. [0066], [0075], and Fig. 5A, pt. 506, where forming the spacer 8 of Shimizu by forming the spacer partially in the initial growth chamber and completing the spacer in the subsequent growth chamber in like manner to how the buffer 506 of Maros is formed causes the upper portion of the spacer to be formed by the MOCVD process). "[Forming the second portion of the spacer] after removal of the interim cap" (p. [0066], [0075], and Fig. 5A, pt. 506). 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 Shimizu, Jiang, and Shiu with the teachings of Maros for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Shimizu, Jiang, Shiu, and Maros does not explicitly disclose, "After removal, a top surface of the spacer coincides with a local minimum of a standing wave of an optical field of the VCSEL device." Kondow discloses, "After removal, a top surface of the spacer coincides with a local minimum of a standing wave of an optical field of the VCSEL device" (p. [0024] and Fig. 7). 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 Shimizu, Jiang, Shiu, and Maros with the teachings of Kondow for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, Shimizu does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the interim cap is formed using the MBE process during the MBE phase." Jiang discloses, "Wherein the interim cap is formed using the MBE process during the MBE phase" (p. [0022] and Fig., pt. 110, where the upper portion of the cladding layer operates as a cap). 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 Shimizu with the teachings of Jiang for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Shimizu and Jiang does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein causing the interim cap to be removed further comprises: causing the interim cap to be removed by an evaporation process during a transition period between the MBE phase and the MOCVD phase." Shiu discloses, "Wherein causing the interim cap to be removed further comprises: causing the interim cap to be removed by an evaporation process during a transition period between the MBE phase and the MOCVD phase" (p. [0037], where thermal desorption is a removal process that employs evaporation). 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 Shimizu and Jiang with the teachings of Shiu for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, Shimizu discloses, "Wherein the substrate comprises GaAs" (p. [0026] and Fig. 2, pt. 2). "The active region comprises at least one of a dilute nitride quantum well or an indium gallium arsenide (InGaAs) or InAs quantum dot layer" (p. [0028] and Fig. 2, pt. 5a). "The spacer comprises a p-doped GaAs layer" (p. [0026] and Fig. 2, pt. 8). "The first mirror and the second mirror each comprise a set of alternating GaAs layers and aluminum gallium arsenide (AlGaAs) layers" (p. [0027] and Fig. 2, pt. 9).
The combination of Shimizu and Jiang does not explicitly disclose, "The interim cap comprises As." Shiu discloses, "The interim cap comprises As" (p. [0037]). 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 Shimizu and Jiang with the teachings of Shiu for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, Shimizu discloses, "Wherein the second mirror is formed on a surface of the tunnel junction" (p. [0051] and Fig. 7, pts. 13 and 19).
The combination of Shimizu, Jiang, and Shiu does not explicitly disclose, "Forming a tunnel junction on a surface of the spacer using the MOCVD process during the MOCVD phase." Maros discloses, "Forming a tunnel junction on a surface of the spacer using the MOCVD process during the MOCVD phase" (p. [0051] and Fig. 3A, pts. 317 and 327, where it is acceptable to form the tunnel junction by MOCVD when the tunnel junction falls within an MOCVD formation region as is the case of the combination of Shimizu and Jiang). 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 Shimizu, Jiang, and Shiu with the teachings of Maros for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
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