DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 through 68 originally filed 23 November 2021. By preliminary amendment received 23 November 2021; claims 21 through 68 are cancelled and claim 12 is amended. By amendment filed 23 November 2021; claims 1, 3 through 5, 9, 12, 13, and 19 are amended. The amendment filed 23 November 2021 attempts to add claim 21, but this claim number already exists and this new claim is entered as claim 69. By amendment received 18 February 2025; claims 1, 3, 7, 12, 13, 18, and 69 are amended and claim 10 is cancelled. By amendment received 17 April 2025; claims 1, 3, 9, 12, 13, 19, and 69 are amended and claims 6, 7, 10, and 18 are cancelled. By amendment received 15 December 2025; claims 2 through 5, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 69 are amended. Claims 1 through 5, 8, 9, 11 through 17, 19, 20, and 69 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 Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed on 15 December 2025 does not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c) because it lists claim 21 as amended rather than cancelled despite claim 21 having been cancelled in the amendment received 23 November 2023. Amendments to the claims filed on or after July 30, 2003 must comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c) which states:
(c) Claims. Amendments to a claim must be made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes (e.g., additions and deletions) as indicated in this subsection, except when the claim is being canceled. Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, cancellation of an existing claim or addition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims, in the application. The claim listing, including the text of the claims, in the amendment document will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims, in the application. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered).
(1) Claim listing. All of the claims presented in a claim listing shall be presented in ascending numerical order. Consecutive claims having the same status of “canceled” or “not entered” may be aggregated into one statement (e.g., Claims 1–5 (canceled)). The claim listing shall commence on a separate sheet of the amendment document and the sheet(s) that contain the text of any part of the claims shall not contain any other part of the amendment.
(2) When claim text with markings is required. All claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of “currently amended,” and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. Only claims having the status of “currently amended,” or “withdrawn” if also being amended, shall include markings. If a withdrawn claim is currently amended, its status in the claim listing may be identified as “withdrawn—currently amended.”
(3) When claim text in clean version is required. The text of all pending claims not being currently amended shall be presented in the claim listing in clean version, i.e., without any markings in the presentation of text. The presentation of a clean version of any claim having the status of “original,” “withdrawn” or “previously presented” will constitute an assertion that it has not been changed relative to the immediate prior version, except to omit markings that may have been present in the immediate prior version of the claims of the status of “withdrawn” or “previously presented.” Any claim added by amendment must be indicated with the status of “new” and presented in clean version, i.e., without any underlining.
(4) When claim text shall not be presented; canceling a claim.
(i) No claim text shall be presented for any claim in the claim listing with the status of “canceled” or “not entered.”
(ii) Cancellation of a claim shall be effected by an instruction to cancel a particular claim number. Identifying the status of a claim in the claim listing as “canceled” will constitute an instruction to cancel the claim.
(5) Reinstatement of previously canceled claim. A claim which was previously canceled may be reinstated only by adding the claim as a “new” claim with a new claim number.
Since the reply filed on 15 December 2025 appears to be bona fide, the filing will be examined. The claim listing must be corrected by indicating that claim 21 is cancelled. The claim presently submitted in the incorrect claim listing as “claim 21” was entered as claim 69 when it was initially received due to this problem. Accordingly, it is acceptable for the next claim listing submitted to indicate claims 21-68 as cancelled and present or amend the text currently presented as “claim 21” within claim 69 with an appropriate status identifier indicating that text as previously presented or amended as appropriate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered; they are addressed below.
It is noted that all items submitted to the office are converted into black and white before reaching the examination staff. Because of this, some colored lettering can become faded, grainy, difficult to read, or illegible. If it is convenient, it would be appreciated if colors are removed from documents prior to submission or if only colors which convert well to black and white are utilized (e.g., darker colors for black regions). The currently filed items are legible but severely interfered with automatic processing.
Submission of a clean specification in relation to the current amendments thereto is noted and appreciated.
Applicant argues that the amendments to the disclosure resolve the previous objections thereto. While some of the previously noted deficiencies have been corrected, the presently submitted disclosure still includes some of the previously noted deficiencies. Accordingly, the corresponding objections are modified to highlight the portions of the disclosure that still require correction.
Applicant argues that the adjustment to the claim listing resolve the previous objection to the claim listing. However, the present claim listing indicates that claim 21 is amended which does not comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c)(5). Particularly, claim 21 was cancelled by the amendment received 23 November 2021 and cannot be reinstated (37 CFR 1.121(c)(5)). While the amendment received 5 December 2024 attempted to reinstate claim 21 as a new claim, this reinstatement is not possible and the new claim was entered as claim 69. Since the claim listing indicates that claim 21 is "Currently Amended" rather than cancelled, the present claim listing is improper. Submission of a proper claim listing is required . The claim listing must indicate claims 21-68 as cancelled to be proper and should set forth the claim in the improper claim listings as claim 21 as claim 69.
Applicant argues that the amendments to claims 8 and 9 resolve the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(d). This argument is persuasive and the corresponding rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant argues that Park et al. (Park, US Pub. 2002/0105988) does not teach or render obvious the limitation "A total cavity length of a cavity, defined by the curved mirror and the planar mirror, is 8-30 micrometers" because, according to applicant, the arrangement of Park could not be used to achieve this length. To support this argument, applicant contends Park teaches away from modifying the device thereof in a manner that would allow use of a cavity length in the claimed range.
Initially, Official Notice had been taken in relation to this limitation. In light of this argument, Kneissl et al. (Kneissl, US Patent 6,515,308) is cited as evidence supporting the original Officially Noticed fact and the obviousness of this feature in light of Park. Since the addition of Kneissl to this and similar rejections is only as directly corresponding evidence to support the prior common knowledge finding, it does not constitute a new ground of rejection (MPEP §2144.03D).
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because the Kneissl demonstrates alternate techniques for addressing the concerns of Park regarding current spreading and Park does not teach away from these alternate techniques (MPEP §2145XD1). Specifically, Kneissl teaches employing a tunnel junction within a nitride laser cavity in a manner that allows the cavity length to be significantly reduced while permitting adequate lateral spreading of current within the device (col. 4-6, lines 59-24 and Fig. 1, pts. 108, 114, 116, 1118, 120, and 126, where the sum of layer thicknesses produces a total cavity length of less than 3µm). Since Park teaches use of a laser cavity much thicker than the claimed range and since Kneissl teaches that such a laser may be made much thinner than the claimed range by employing a tunnel junction rather than a thick p-type layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a device according to the teachings of Park and Kneissl may be made to have a cavity thickness within the claimed range by employing the tunnel junction of Kneissl within the arrangement of Park and simply not reducing the cavity length as much as in Kneissl (MPEP §2144.05IIA). As such, this argument is not persuasive.
The limitation "A total cavity length of a cavity, defined by the curved mirror and the planar mirror, is 8-30 micrometers" is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Park and Kneissl (see below). Applicant's argument that the arrangement of Park could not be used to achieve this length is not persuasive because the Kneissl demonstrates alternate techniques for addressing the concerns of Park regarding current spreading and Park does not teach away from these alternate techniques (MPEP §2145XD1).
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Park, and Kneissl do not teach or render obvious the limitation "The second layer being undoped, unintentionally doped, or less doped than the first layer" as set forth in amended claim 2 because, according to applicant, Kneissl does not teach this arrangement. To support this argument, applicant contends that Kneissl does not teach providing the reflector thereof on a layer that is differently doped than the contact layer.
Applicant's argument is persuasive in that Park and Kneissl do not explicitly teach this feature. However, the combination of Park and Kneissl render this feature obvious for the same reasons set forth previously regarding claim 11. As such, the rejection of claim 2 has been modified to include the explanation of obviousness previously set forth regarding claim 11.
Applicant argues that Park does not teach or render obvious the limitation "The second DBR is formed on a curved surface of the UID GaN " because, according to applicant, Park does not teach this arrangement. To support this argument, applicant contends that the curved surface of Park on which the DBR is formed is the same layer as the layer in which the electrodes are formed.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because Park teaches that the pedestal may be formed separately. Specifically, Park teaches that the pedestal may be provided by a separate layer formed atop the p-type layer (Park, ¶40 describing the arrangement of Figure 3 in which curved pedestal 48a' is separate from p-layer 54 and ¶66 relating this configuration to the configuration of Figure 23). Additionally, due to this separate pedestal layer of Park not conducting electricity, there is no reason to dope this layer. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ unintentionally doped GaN for the pedestal so as to employ a support material within the material system of the laser device, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Since Park teaches forming the pedestal supporting the DBR separately from the contact layer and since it would have been obvious to form this separately formed layer of any suitable material such as unintentionally doped GaN, Park renders this feature obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
The limitation "The second DBR is formed on a curved surface of the UID GaN" is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Park and Kneissl (see below). Applicant's argument that Park does not teach this arrangement is not persuasive because Park teaches that the pedestal may be formed separately.
Applicant argues that the amendment to claim 13 defines this claim over the cited prior art. This argument is persuasive. However, upon further search and consideration, Corzine et al. (Corzine, US Patent 5,838,715) has been located which renders this feature obvious in combination with the previously cited art. As such, new rejections have been formulated as set forth below.
As such, all claims are addressed as follows:
Specification
The specification is objected to under 37 C.F.R. 1.74. The specification refers to Figures 1, 7, 10, and 11 which are not used in the drawings. It is improper to use constructions such as "Fig. 1" to refer jointly to drawings that are labeled "Fig. 1A" and "Fig. 1B" (see MPEP 608.01f). Appropriate correction is required.
In the present case, these figure numbers appear in the following locations: Figure 1 is mentioned in line 16 of page 15 and line 11 of page 16, Figure 7 is mentioned in line 1 of page 37, Figure 10 is mentioned in line 15 of page 40 and line 10 of page 43, and Figure 11 is mentioned in line 15 of page 40 and line 10 of page 43.
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 5, 8, 9, 11, and 69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (Park, US Pub. 2002/0105988) in view of Kneissl et al. (Kneissl, US Patent 6,515,308).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses, "A III-Nitride based Vertical Cavity Surface Emitting Laser (VCSEL)" (p. [0030], [0064], and Fig. 23). "III-Nitride material comprising a III-Nitride active region between a p-type III-Nitride layer and an n-type III-Nitride layer" (p. [0063], [0064], [0065], and Fig. 23, pts. 102, 108, and 112). "The III-Nitride material having a bottom side; a top side" (Fig. 23, pts. 112 and 210, where the bottom of layer 112 corresponds to the bottom side and the top of layer 210 corresponds to the top side). "[The III-Nitride material having] a thickness defined by epitaxial growth of the III-Nitride material in a direction from the bottom side to the top side" (p. [0063] and Fig. 21, pts. 102 and 112). "A planar mirror comprising a first Distributed Bragg Reflector (DBR) on the bottom side closest to the n-type III-Nitride layer" (p. [0065] and Fig. 23, pts. 112 and 120). "A curved mirror comprising a second DBR on the top side closest to the p-type III-Nitride layer such that the p-type III-Nitride layer is between the III-Nitride active region and the curved mirror" (p. [0053], [0064], and Fig. 23, pts. 102, 108, and 130). "[The total cavity length of a cavity] defined by the curved mirror and the planar mirror" (p. [0064], [0065], and Fig. 23, pts. 120 and 130). Park does not explicitly disclose, "A total cavity length of a cavity… is 8-30 micrometers." Kneissl discloses employing a tunnel junction within a nitride laser cavity in a manner that allows the cavity length to be significantly reduced (col. 4-6, lines 59-24 and Fig. 1, pts. 108, 114, 116, 1118, 120, and 126, where the sum of layer thicknesses produces a total cavity length of less than 3µm). In view of this combination of Park and Kneissl, 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 cavity length of the laser within the noted range to achieve a desired beam waist throughout the cavity and a desired miniaturization of the cavity, 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. 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 Park with the teachings of Kneissl. In view of the teachings of Park regarding a VCSEL, the additional inclusion of a tunnel junction within the VCSEL as taught by Kneissl would enhance the teachings of Park by allowing the number and thickness of p-type layers to be reduced in favor of n-type layers.
The combination of Park and Kneissl does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a distance between the second DBR and the active region is shorter than the distance between first DBR and the active region." 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 position of the active region relative to the first and second DBR layers to a degree that includes positioning the active region closer to the second DBR as a matter of adjusting the diameter of the resonating mode within the active region, 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 2, Park discloses, "Wherein the second DBR is formed on a curved surface of the second layer" (p. [0040] and Fig. 3, pts. 48' and 52). Park does not explicitly disclose, "A first layer on or above the p-type III-Nitride layer." "[The first layer] doped for forming an ohmic contact to a metal contact or ohmic contact material." "A second layer on the first layer." "The first layer on one or more tunnel junction layers on the p-type III-Nitride layer." Kneissl discloses, "A first layer on or above the p-type III-Nitride layer" (col. 6, lines 16-24 and Fig. 1, pts. 116 and 126). "[The first layer] doped for forming an ohmic contact to a metal contact or ohmic contact material" (col. 6, lines 50-54 and Fig. 1, pts. 126 and 130). "A second layer on the first layer" (Fig. 1, pts. 126 and 136, where forming the curved surface of Park between first layer 126 and mirror 136 of Kneissl to produce the curved mirror of Park would involve forming a curved protrusion layer as a second layer in the manner in which layer 48a' is formed in Figure 3 of Park and discussed in p. [0040] thereof). "The first layer on one or more tunnel junction layers on the p-type III-Nitride layer" (col. 6-7, lines 66-6 and Fig. 1, pts. 116, 122, and 126). 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 Park with the teachings of Kneissl for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Park and Kneissl does not explicitly disclose, "The second layer being undoped, unintentionally doped, or less doped than the first layer." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ unintentionally doped GaN for the pedestal so as to employ a support material within the material system of the laser device, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 3, Park does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the first layer comprises n-type or n++-type GaN." Kneissl discloses, "Wherein the first layer comprises n-type or n++-type GaN" (col. 6, lines 16-24 and Fig. 1, pt. 126). 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 Park with the teachings of Kneissl for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Park and Kneissl does not explicitly disclose, "The second layer comprises GaN." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ unintentionally doped GaN for the pedestal so as to employ a support material within the material system of the laser device, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 4, Park discloses, "Wherein the curved surface of the second layer has an etched surface having the curvature" (p. [0040], [0047], and Figs. 3, 10 and 22, pts. 48a', 100, 100a, 100b, 210, 210a, and 210b).
Regarding claim 5, The combination of Park and Kneissl does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the second layer comprises n-type gallium nitride or unintentionally doped gallium nitride." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ unintentionally doped GaN for the pedestal so as to employ a support material within the material system of the laser device, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 8, The combination of Park and Kneissl does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein more than 50% of the VCSEL's cavity is composed of, comprises, or consists essentially of epitaxially grown GaN, unintentionally doped (UID) GaN or n-type GaN." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate the thickest layers of the laser device of GaN in the GaN based device such that more than half of the cavity is composed of GaN so as to simplify the composition of bulk layers by forming those layers of a compatible binary compound, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 9, Park does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the III-Nitride material has the thickness and thickness uniformity defined by the epitaxial growth comprising metal organic chemical vapor deposition (MOCVD) rather than thinning." Kneissl discloses, "Wherein the III-Nitride material has the thickness and thickness uniformity defined by the epitaxial growth comprising metal organic chemical vapor deposition (MOCVD) rather than thinning" (col. 6, lines 25-27). 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 Park with the teachings of Kneissl for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Park discloses, "The second DBR is formed on a curved surface of the UID GaN" (p. [0040] and Fig. 3, pts. 48' and 52, where the material of the separate protrusion portion 48' may be UID GaN). "The n-type III-Nitride layer comprises n-type gallium nitride (n-GaN)" (p. [0030] and [0032]). Park does not explicitly disclose, "[The n-type III-Nitride layer] on a tunnel junction to the p-type III-nitride layer." Kneissl discloses, "[The n-type III-Nitride layer] on a tunnel junction to the p-type III-nitride layer" (col. 6-7, lines 66-6 and Fig. 1, pts. 116, 122, and 126). 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 Park with the teachings of Kneissl for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Park and Kneissl does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the VCSEL further comprises an unintentionally doped gallium nitride (UID GaN) layer on an n-type III-Nitride layer." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ unintentionally doped GaN for the pedestal so as to employ a support material within the material system of the laser device, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
The combination of Park and Kneissl does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the UID GaN is thick (thicker than the n-type III-Nitride layer)." 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 layer on which the reflector is formed so as to adjust the cavity length and thereby adjust the operational mode, 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 Park and Kneissl does not explicitly disclose, "The UID GaN is etched to expose a surface of the n-GaN and the curved surface." "A metal contact or Ohmic contact material is deposited on the exposed surface of the n-GaN." The examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that it was known in the art to deposit a material atop a VCSEL device and subsequently etching that material so as to deposit electrodes atop a doped semiconductor layer in regions not covered by the material to form a good electrical contact with that underlying layer while also allowing the material to be selected without regard to conductivity. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to etch the mirror support material down to a layer that is doped and deposit electrodes on that doped layer, since depositing electrodes directly on a doped layer would improve contact between the electrode and the device.
Regarding claim 69, Park discloses, "Wherein top side comprises a surface removed from a substrate on which the III-Nitride material was grown" (p. [0065] and Figs. 22 and 23, pts. 112 and 200).
Claims 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holder et al. (Holder, US Pub. 2013/0214284), in view of Park, and further in view of Kneissl.
Regarding claim 12, Holder discloses, "Growing an epitaxial VCSEL structure on a gallium nitride (GaN) substrate" (p. [0047], [0070], and Figs. 2A and 4, pts. 204 and 206). "First growing an n-type III-Nitride layer on or above the GaN substrate" (p. [0066], [0070] and Figs. 2A and 4, pt. 204, where the first grown layers of device layer 204 are n-GaN). "Then [growing] a III-Nitride active region on the n-type III-Nitride layer" (p. [0066], [0070] and Figs. 2A and 4, pt. 204). "Then growing a III-Nitride p-type layer on the III-Nitride active region" (p. [0066], [0070] and Figs. 2A and 4, pt. 204, where the last grown semiconductor layer of device layer 204 are p-GaN). "Removing the GaN substrate" (p. [0050] and Fig. 2D, pts. 204 and 206). "Forming a flat mirror" (p. [0070] and Fig. 4). Holder does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the VCSEL structure further comprises a curved mirror on or above the p-type III-Nitride layer such that the p-type III-Nitride layer is between the III-Nitride active region and the curved mirror." "[The cavity length] between the curved mirror and the flat mirror." Park discloses, "Wherein the VCSEL structure further comprises a curved mirror on or above the p-type III-Nitride layer such that the p-type III-Nitride layer is between the III-Nitride active region and the curved mirror" (p. [0037] and Fig. 2, pts. 40, 44, and 52). "[The cavity length] between the curved mirror and the flat mirror" (p. [0037], and Fig. 2, pts. 49 and 52). 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 Holder with the teachings of Park. In view of the teachings of Holder regarding a VCSEL, the additional inclusion of a curved mirror layer as taught by Park would enhance the teachings of Holder by improving the stability of the cavity mode.
The combination of Holder and Park does not explicitly disclose, "A cavity length… is 8-30 micrometers." Kneissl discloses employing a tunnel junction within a nitride laser cavity in a manner that allows the cavity length to be significantly reduced (col. 4-6, lines 59-24 and Fig. 1, pts. 108, 114, 116, 1118, 120, and 126, where the sum of layer thicknesses produces a total cavity length of less than 3µm). In view of this combination of Park and Kneissl, 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 cavity length of the laser within the noted range to achieve a desired beam waist throughout the cavity and a desired miniaturization of the cavity, 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. 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 Holder and Park with the teachings of Kneissl. In view of the teachings of Park regarding a VCSEL, the additional inclusion of a tunnel junction within the VCSEL as taught by Kneissl would enhance the teachings of Holder and Park by allowing the number and thickness of p-type layers to be reduced in favor of n-type layers.
The combination of Holder, Park, and Kneissl does not explicitly disclose, "The GaN substrate can be re-used more than 3 times." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size the host substrate such that it may be reused more than 3 times so as to reduce processing costs, 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 19, Holder does not explicitly disclose, "Growing the epitaxial VCSEL structure using metal organic chemical vapor deposition (MOCVD)." Park discloses, "Growing the epitaxial VCSEL structure using metal organic chemical vapor deposition (MOCVD)" (Fig. 2, where the device is structurally indistinguishable from one grown in the claimed manner). 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 Holder with the teachings of Park for the reasons provided above regarding claim 12.
Claims 13 through 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, in view of Kneissl, and further in view of Corzine et al. (Corzine, US Patent 5,838,715).
Regarding claim 13, Park discloses, "A III-Nitride based Vertical Cavity Surface Emitting Laser (VCSEL)" (p. [0040] and Fig. 3). "Transparent Oxide (TO) material formed on III-Nitride material comprising an active region" (p. [0033] and [0037]). "A curved mirror comprising a Distributed Bragg Reflector (DBR)" (p. [0037], [0040], and Fig. 3, pts. 48a' and 52). "A planar mirror positioned such that the active region is between the planar mirror and the curved mirror" (p. [0034], [0037], and Fig. 3, pts. 40, 49, and 52). Park does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a total cavity length of the cavity is 8-30 micrometers." Kneissl discloses employing a tunnel junction within a nitride laser cavity in a manner that allows the cavity length to be significantly reduced (col. 4-6, lines 59-24 and Fig. 1, pts. 108, 114, 116, 1118, 120, and 126, where the sum of layer thicknesses produces a total cavity length of less than 3µm). In view of this combination of Park and Kneissl, 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 cavity length of the laser within the noted range to achieve a desired beam waist throughout the cavity and a desired miniaturization of the cavity, 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. 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 Park with the teachings of Kneissl for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Park and Kneissl does not explicitly disclose, "[The curved mirror] formed on a curved surface of the Transparent Oxide (TO) material." Corzine discloses, "[The curved mirror] formed on a curved surface of the Transparent Oxide (TO) material" (col. 14, lines 31-41, col. 15, lines 19-25, and Fig. 4B, pts. 411 and 419B). 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 Park and Kneissl with the teachings of Corzine. In view of the teachings of Park regarding a VCSEL having a curved layer on which a reflector is provided, the alternate construction of the layer as a transparent oxide as taught by Corzine would enhance the teachings of Park and Kneissl by indicating suitably alternate materials from which the curved layer may be constructed.
Regarding claim 14, Park discloses, "Wherein the transparent Oxide (TO) material comprises ZnO, Ga2O3, or Al2O3" (p. [0040], [0053], and Figs. 3 and 15, pts. 48a', 52, 101a, and 130).
Regarding claim 15, Park discloses, "A III-Nitride active region between a p-type III-Nitride layer and an n-type III-Nitride layer" (p. [0030] and Fig. 3, pts. 40, 43, and 44). "The transparent Oxide (TO) material on or above the p-type III-Nitride layer such that the p-type III-Nitride layer is between the III-Nitride active region and the Transparent Oxide (TO) material having a curved surface forming the curved mirror" (p. [0040], and Fig. 3, pts. 44, 48a', and 52).
Regarding claim 16, Park does not explicitly disclose, "A III-Nitride tunnel junction on the p-type III-Nitride layer." "Wherein the transparent Oxide (TO) material is grown on or above the IIII-Nitride tunnel junction such that the III-Nitride tunnel junction is between the curved mirror and the p-type III-Nitride layer." Kneissl discloses, "A III-Nitride tunnel junction on the p-type III-Nitride layer" (col. 6-7, lines 66-6 and Fig. 1, pts. 116 and 122). "Wherein the transparent Oxide (TO) material is grown on or above the IIII-Nitride tunnel junction such that the III-Nitride tunnel junction is between the curved mirror and the p-type III-Nitride layer" (col. 6-7, lines 66-6 and Fig. 1, pts. 116, 122, and 136, where employing the tunnel junction of Kneissl in the device of Park positions the tunnel junction between the curved mirror and the p-type layer in the same manner as the tunnel junction is placed between end mirror 136 and p-type layer 116 as in Kneissl). 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 Park with the teachings of Kneissl for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, Park discloses, "Wherein the VCSEL further comprises a flat DBR mirror" (p. [0030] and Fig. 2, pt. 43). "The curved mirror comprises a curved DBR mirror" (p. [0037] and Fig. 2, pt. 52). "The flat DBR mirror and the curved DBR mirror define a cavity of the VCSEL" (Fig. 2, pts. 49 and 52).
Regarding claim 20, The combination of Park, Kneissl, and Corzine does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a thickness of the transparent oxide material is more than 5 micrometers." 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 pedestal on which the reflector is formed within the claimed range so as adjust the cavity length and thereby adjust the operating mode, 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.
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
Prosecution Insights