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 .
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 3, 6, 10, 11, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites the limitation of: “comprises at least one of a vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL) and a vertical light emitting diode (VLED).” The applicant’s specification [0055] recites: “a vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL) or a vertical light emitting diode (VLED)”. The written description does not seem to indicate a device that includes both a VCSEL and a VLED, nor how such a device would work.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites the limitation of: “a cavity including one of a gas and a vacuum region”. The applicant’s specification [0057] recites: “the package defines a gas or vacuum cavity”. The written description does not seem to indicate a device that includes both a gas and a vacuum region, but rather, a gas or a vacuum region.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites the limitation of: “a bottom electrically conductive distributed Bragg reflector of one of an n-type and a p-type” and “a top electrically conductive distributed Bragg reflector of another one of the n-type and the p-type”. The applicant’s specification [0061] “a bottom electrically conductive distributed Bragg reflector that is either n-type or p-type” and “a top electrically conductive distributed Bragg reflector of the other one of the n-type and the p-type (i.e., bottom is N top is P or bottom is P top is N)”. The applicant’s specification does not seem to indicate that the bottom distributed Bragg reflector is both an n-type and a p-type nor the top distributed Bragg reflector as both an n-type and a p-type. Claim 11 inherits the same deficiency as claim 10 based on dependence.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites the limitation of: “a bottom electrically conductive distributed Bragg reflector of one of an n-type and a p-type” and “a top electrically conductive distributed Bragg reflector of another one of the n-type and the p-type”. The applicant’s specification [0061] “a bottom electrically conductive distributed Bragg reflector that is either n-type or p-type” and “a top electrically conductive distributed Bragg reflector of the other one of the n-type and the p-type (i.e., bottom is N top is P or bottom is P top is N)”. The applicant’s specification does not seem to indicate that the bottom distributed Bragg reflector is both an n-type and a p-type nor the top distributed Bragg reflector as both an n-type and a p-type. Claims 14-16 inherit the same deficiency as claim 13 based on dependence.
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 3, 6, 10, 11, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites the limitation of: “comprises at least one of a vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL) and a vertical light emitting diode (VLED).” In view of the specification, it is unclear how the claimed emitter comprises both a VCSEL and a VLED. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets claim 3 as, “The system of Claim 2, wherein the emitter unit comprises at least one of a vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL) or a vertical light emitting diode (VLED).”
Regarding claim 6 claim 6 recites the limitation of: “a cavity including one of a gas and a vacuum region”. It is unclear how the claimed cavity of the claimed system can include both a gas and a vacuum region. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets claim 6 as, “The system of Claim 5, wherein the package defines a cavity including one of a gas or a vacuum region coupling the emitter unit and the detector unit.”
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites the limitation of: “a bottom electrically conductive distributed Bragg reflector of one of an n-type and a p-type” and “a top electrically conductive distributed Bragg reflector of another one of the n-type and the p-type”. It is unclear how a singular (as in top or bottom) Bragg reflector can be both an n-type and a p-type. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets claim 10 as “The system of Claim 4, wherein: the bottom electrically conductive and optically reflective layer comprises a bottom electrically conductive distributed Bragg reflector of one of an n-type ” Claim 11 inherits the same deficiency as claim 10 based on dependence.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites the limitation of: “a bottom electrically conductive distributed Bragg reflector of one of an n-type and a p-type” and “a top electrically conductive distributed Bragg reflector of another one of the n-type and the p-type”. It is unclear how a singular (as in top or bottom) Bragg reflector can be both an n-type and a p-type. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets claim 13 as “The system of Claim 12, wherein: the bottom electrically conductive and optically reflective layer comprises a bottom electrically conductive distributed Bragg reflector of one of an n-type magnetic tunnel junction, the magnetic tunnel junction comprising an inmost tunnel barrier layer; a middle ferromagnetic layer; and an outer capping layer.” Claims 14-16 inherits the same deficiency as claim 13 based on dependence.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Abellan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0387660 A1), hereinafter, “Abellan”
With regards to claim 1, the Examiner notes that patentable weight is not given to the preamble of independent claim 1 due to “system” not being referred back to in the body of the claim nor the dependent claims. Abellan teaches:
comprising: an emitter unit that generates random numbers encoded in light polarization; (Fig. 1 item 101 as a VCSEL emitter, 103 (photodetector), 104 (digitizer); [0038] regarding the signals emitted from the VCSEL being polarized. Furthermore the signals from the VCSEL being random; [0061] regarding the VCSEL outputting a signal to the photodetector, and the photodetector generating a signal, which is translated into an electrical current signal; [0058] regarding the digitizer connected to the photodetector, digitizing the signal from the photodetector, creating the random numbers; As interpreted by the Examiner, as shown in Fig. 1, the digitizer outputs numbers based on the photodetector signal, the photodetector signal comes from the light polarization of the VCSEL emitter, thus the random numbers come from the light polarization of the VCSEL);
and a detector unit positioned with respect to the emitter unit, (Fig. 1 item 101 as a VCSEL, and emitter, 103 as a photodetector receiving a signal from the VCSEL);
wherein the detector unit receives the random numbers encoded in light polarization from the emitter unit and converts the random numbers encoded in light polarization into an electrical signal. ([0061] regarding the VCSEL outputting a signal to the photodetector, and the photodetector generating a signal, which is translated into an electrical current signal; [0058] regarding the digitizer connected to the photodetector, digitizing the signal from the photodetector, creating the random numbers; As interpreted by the Examiner, as shown in Fig. 1, the digitizer outputs numbers based on the photodetector signal, the photodetector signal comes from the light polarization of the VCSEL emitter, thus the random numbers come from the light polarization of the VCSEL);
With regards to claim 2, Abellan teaches the system of Claim 1, as referenced above.
Abellan further teaches:
wherein the emitter unit is configured to generate the random numbers as true random numbers corresponding to thermal noise. ([0038] regarding quantum mechanical characteristics (as thermal noise) causing the VCSEL to produce random values in each laser pulse).
With regards to claim 3, Abellan teaches the system of claim 2, as referenced above.
Abellan further teaches:
wherein the emitter unit comprises at least one of a vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL) and a vertical light emitting diode (VLED). (Fig. 1 item 101 as a VCSEL).
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 following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abellan in view of Bhattacharya et al. (P. Bhattacharya, D. Basu and D. Saha, "Spin polarized lasers," 2009 Device Research Conference, University Park, PA, USA, 2009, pp. 41-55), hereinafter, “Bhattacharya”, and in further view of Žutić et al. (Igor Žutić, Gaofeng Xu, Markus Lindemann, Paulo E. Faria Junior, Jeongsu Lee, Velimir Labinac, Kristian Stojšić, Guilherme M. Sipahi, Martin R. Hofmann, Nils C. Gerhardt, Spin-lasers: spintronics beyond magnetoresistance, Solid State Communications, Volumes 316–317, 2020, 113949, ISSN 0038-1098, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssc.2020.113949. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038109820301472)), hereinafter, “Žutić”.
With regards to claim 4, Abellan teaches the system of claim 2, as referenced above.
Abellan further teaches:
wherein the emitter unit; (Fig. 1 item 101 VCSEL emitter);
Abellan does not explicitly teach:
comprises: a substrate;
a bottom electrically conductive and optically reflective layer outward of the substrate;
an active medium layer, outward of the bottom electrically conductive and optically reflective layer, configured to convert spin information carried by injected spin-polarized electrical carriers into light polarization information carried by light emitted from radiative recombination of the electrical carriers;
a top electrically conductive and optically reflective layer outward of the active medium layer;
a bottom electrically conductive contact electrically interconnected with the bottom electrically conductive and optically reflective layer;
a top electrically conductive contact electrically interconnected with the top electrically conductive and optically reflective layer;
and an electrically conductive carrier spin-polarizer layer located between, and electrically interconnected with, the bottom electrically conductive and optically reflective layer and the bottom electrically conductive contact.
However, Bhattacharya teaches:
comprises: a substrate; (Abstract page 42 paragraph 1 regarding the molecular beam epitaxy substrate)
a bottom electrically conductive and optically reflective layer outward of the substrate; (Fig. 6 regarding the bottom DBR layer)
an active medium layer, outward of the bottom electrically conductive and optically reflective layer, configured to convert spin information carried by injected spin-polarized electrical carriers into light polarization information carried by light emitted from radiative recombination of the electrical carriers; (Abstract page 41 paragraph 2 regarding carriers with spin orientation transported to an active region where polarized photons are emitted after radiative recombination. Furthermore, regarding the active region is spin injected. Furthermore, regarding the active region as the gain medium; Fig. 6 regarding the active region as the GaAs [Symbol font/0x6C]-cavity)
a top electrically conductive and optically reflective layer outward of the active medium layer; (Fig. 6 regarding a top DBR layer above the active medium layer)
a bottom electrically conductive contact electrically interconnected with the bottom electrically conductive and optically reflective layer; (Abstract page 42 paragraph 1 regarding ferromagnetic and non-magnetic contacts made for electron injection. Furthermore, regarding the non-magnetic contacts as Ti/AU layers. Furthermore, regarding the ferromagnetic contacts as MnAs layers; Fig. 6 regarding the Nonmagnetic Ti/Au contacts, and MnAs contacts around the outside of device)
and an electrically conductive carrier spin-polarizer layer located between, and electrically interconnected with, the bottom electrically conductive and optically reflective layer and the bottom electrically conductive contact. (Abstract page 42 paragraph 1 regarding ferromagnetic and non-magnetic contacts made for electron injection. Furthermore, regarding the ferromagnetic contacts as MnAs layers; Fig. 6 regarding the Nonmagnetic Ti/Au contacts around the outside of device on top of, connected to Al0.1Ga0.9As, which is sitting on top of, connected to, the bottom DBR)
Abellan teaches of A VCSEL emitter, but does not go further into detail as to the construction of the device. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Abellan with Bhattacharya, because the VCSEL of Bhattacharya is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results MPEP 2141(III)(B).
Abellan nor Bhattacharya explicitly teach:
a top electrically conductive contact electrically interconnected with the top electrically conductive and optically reflective layer;
However, Žutić teaches:
a top electrically conductive contact electrically interconnected with the top electrically conductive and optically reflective layer; (Fig. 2 regarding the top contact touching the top DBR)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Abellan in view of Bhattacharya with Žutić because it is simply combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results MPEP 2141(III)(A).
With regards to claim 5, Abellan in view of Bhattacharya in further view of Žutić teaches the system of claim 4, as referenced above.
Abellan further teaches:
further comprising a package into which the emitter unit and the detector unit are integrated. (Fig. 2A regarding VCSELs and Photodetectors on the same system (packaged together)).
With regards to claim 7, Abellan in view of Bhattacharya in further view of Žutić teaches the system of claim 5, as referenced above.
Abellan further teaches:
wherein the detector unit is located on the substrate. (Fig. 2A; [0078] regarding the random number generators (which includes the VCSEL emitter and photodetector) located on a single chip).
With regards to claim 8, Abellan in view of Bhattacharya in further view of Žutić teaches the system of claim 5, as referenced above.
Abellan does not explicitly teach:
wherein the detector unit is located on a detector unit substrate different than the substrate of the emitter unit.
However, Abellan discloses the claimed invention except for the detector unit is located on a detector unit substrate different than the substrate of the emitter unit. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the detector unit and the emitter unit on separate substrates, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
With regards to claim 9, Abellan in view of Bhattacharya in further view of Žutić teaches the system of claim 5, as referenced above.
Abellan further teaches:
further comprising an optical element coupling the emitter unit and the collector unit. (Fig. 2A regarding VCSELs and Photodetectors on the same system (packaged together), with optical isolators 221, 241 between the VCSEL and Photodetector).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abellan in view of Bhattacharya in further view of Žutić, and in further view of Chong et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0337400 A1), hereinafter, “Chong”.
With regards to claim 6, Abellan in view of Bhattacharya in further view of Žutić teaches the system of Claim 5, as referenced above.
Abellan does not explicitly teach:
wherein the package defines a cavity including one of a gas and a vacuum region coupling the emitter unit and the detector unit.
However, Chong teaches:
wherein the package defines a cavity including one of a gas and a vacuum region coupling the emitter unit and the detector unit. ([0019] regarding a vacuum state, as waveguides, coupled to the light emitter; [0020] regarding the waveguides coupled to the photodetector)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Abellan in view of Bhattacharya in further view of Žutić with Chong because coupling a vacuum state to the emitter and photodetector is simply combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results MPEP 2141(III)(A).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abellan in view of Bhattacharya, in further view of Žutić, and in further view of Lou et al. (Lou, x, Adelmann, c, Furis, M., Crooker, S. A., Palmstrom, C. J., & Crowell, P. A. (2006b, May). Electrical detection of spin accumulation at a ferromagnet-semiconductor interface | phys. rev. Lett. https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.176603), hereinafter, “Lou”.
With regards to claim 10, Abellan in view of Bhattacharya in further view of Žutić teaches the system of claim 4, as referenced above.
Abellan does not explicitly teach:
wherein: the bottom electrically conductive and optically reflective layer comprises a bottom electrically conductive distributed Bragg reflector of one of an n-type and a p-type;
the active medium layer comprises one of a quantum well layer and a quantum dot layer;
the top electrically conductive and optically reflective layer comprises a top electrically conductive distributed Bragg reflector of another one of the n-type and the p-type,
and having an aperture therein;
and the electrically conductive carrier spin-polarizer layer comprises a magnetic tunnel junction,
the magnetic tunnel junction comprising an inmost tunnel barrier layer;
a middle ferromagnetic layer;
and an outer capping layer.
However, Bhattacharya teaches:
wherein: the bottom electrically conductive and optically reflective layer comprises a bottom electrically conductive distributed Bragg reflector of one of an n-type and a p-type; (Fig. 6 regarding the bottom DBR layer as n+ (as n-type))
the active medium layer comprises one of a quantum well layer and a quantum dot layer; (Abstract paragraph 2 regarding the active region as having quantum wells or dots)
the top electrically conductive and optically reflective layer comprises a top electrically conductive distributed Bragg reflector of another one of the n-type and the p-type, (Fig. 6 regarding the top DBR layer as P+ (as p type))
and having an aperture therein; (Abstract page 42 paragraph 1 regarding the spin polarizer layer (FM contact layer) forming a Schottky tunnel; Fig. 6 GaAs l-cavity as an aperture; Abstract page 42 paragraph 1 regarding the quantum wells or quantum dots centered in the GaAs l-cavity (as an aperture))
and the electrically conductive carrier spin-polarizer layer comprises a magnetic tunnel junction, (Abstract page 42 paragraph 1 regarding the spin polarizer layer (FM contact layer) forming a Schottky tunnel)
the magnetic tunnel junction; (Abstract page 42 paragraph 1 regarding the spin polarizer layer (FM contact layer) forming a Schottky tunnel
a middle ferromagnetic layer; (Abstract page 42 paragraph 1 regarding the spin polarizer layer (FM contact layer) forming a Schottky tunnel)
Abellan teaches of A VCSEL emitter, but does not go further into detail as to the construction of the device. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Abellan with Bhattacharya, because the VCSEL of Bhattacharya with is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results MPEP 2141(III)(B).
Abellan nor Bhattacharya explicitly teach:
comprising an inmost tunnel barrier layer;
and an outer capping layer.
However, Lou teaches:
comprising an inmost tunnel barrier layer; (Page 1 Column 1 paragraph 1 regarding injection of electrons from a ferromagnetic metal through a tunnel barrier, a Schottky barrier; Page 1 Column 2 paragraph 1 regarding the Schottky tunnel formed by Fe and n+-GaAs layer)
and an outer capping layer. (Page 1 Column 1 paragraph 1 regarding injection of electrons from a ferromagnetic metal through a tunnel barrier, a Schottky barrier; Page 1 Column 2 paragraph 1 regarding the Schottky tunnel formed by Fe and n+-GaAs layer. Furthermore, the Fe film followed by a capping layer)
Bhattacharya teaches the VCSEL having a Schottky tunnel, but does not explicitly teach some of the claim limitations, however, Lou teaches these missing limitations in regards to Schottky tunnels. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Abellan in view of Bhattacharya in further view of Žutić, and in further view of Lou, because the prior art elements of the Schottky of Lou is simply combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results MPEP 2141(III)(A).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abellan in view of Bhattacharya, in further view of Žutić, in further view of Lou, and in further view of Epotek (Dielectric properties of epoxies. (2021). https://www.epotek.com/docs/en/Related/Tech Tip 25 Dielectric Properties of Epoxies.pdf), hereinafter, “Epotek”.
With regards to claim 11, Abellan in view of Bhattacharya, in further view of Žutić, in further view of Lou teaches the system of Claim 10, as referenced above.
Abellan does not explicitly teach:
further comprising: a dielectric layer electrically isolating the top and bottom electrically conductive contacts;
and a vertical dielectric separating the bottom electrically conductive contact and the spin- polarizer layer from the active medium layer.
However, Bhattacharya teaches:
a vertical space separating the bottom electrically conductive contact and the spin- polarizer layer from the active medium layer (Fig. 6 regarding a space between the bottom contact and the active medium)
Abellan teaches of A VCSEL emitter, but does not go further into detail as to the construction of the device. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Abellan with Bhattacharya, because the VCSEL of Bhattacharya with is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results MPEP 2141(III)(B).
However, Epotek teaches:
further comprising: a dielectric layer electrically isolating the top and bottom electrically conductive contacts; (Page 1 paragraph 1 regarding encapsulating circuits in dielectric insulation. Furthermore, regarding dielectric material used for providing insulating barrier between two conductors in multi-layered circuits, and encapsulating circuits; Page 2 Common Applications section regarding use in semiconductor and electronic packaging applications as well as potting and encapsulation of circuits)
and a vertical dielectric separating the bottom electrically conductive contact and the spin- polarizer layer from the active medium layer. (Page 1 paragraph 1 regarding encapsulating circuits in dielectric insulation. Furthermore, regarding dielectric material used for providing insulating barrier between two conductors in multi-layered circuits, and encapsulating circuits; Page 2 Common Applications section regarding use in semiconductor and electronic packaging applications as well as potting and encapsulation of circuits)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Abellan in view of Bhattacharya, in further view of Žutić, in further view of Lou, and in further view of Epotek because the dielectric materials of Epotek are good for “providing an insulating barrier between two conductors (as in cross over and multi-layered circuits) and for encapsulating circuits”. [Epotek: page 1 paragraph 1].
Claims 12, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhattacharya, view of Žutić.
With regards to claim 12, the Examiner notes that patentable weight is not given to the preamble of independent claim 1 due to “apparatus” not being referred back to in the body of the claim nor the dependent claims. Bhattacharya teaches:
comprising: a substrate; (Abstract page 42 paragraph 1 regarding the molecular beam epitaxy substrate);
a bottom electrically conductive and optically reflective layer outward of the substrate; (Fig. 6 regarding the bottom DBR layer)
an active medium layer, outward of the bottom electrically conductive and optically reflective layer, configured to convert spin information carried by injected spin-polarized electrical carriers into light polarization information carried by light emitted from radiative recombination of the electrical carriers; (Abstract page 41 paragraph 2 regarding carriers with spin orientation transported to an active region where polarized photons are emitted after radiative recombination. Furthermore, regarding the active region is spin injected. Furthermore, regarding the active region as the gain medium; Fig. 6 regarding the active region as the GaAs l-cavity);
a top electrically conductive and optically reflective layer outward of the active medium layer; (Fig. 6 regarding a top DBR layer above the active medium layer);
a bottom electrically conductive contact electrically interconnected with the bottom electrically conductive and optically reflective layer; (Abstract page 42 paragraph 1 regarding ferromagnetic and non-magnetic contacts made for electron injection. Furthermore, regarding the non-magnetic contacts as Ti/AU layers. Furthermore, regarding the ferromagnetic contacts as MnAs layers; Fig. 6 regarding the Nonmagnetic Ti/Au contacts, and MnAs contacts around the outside of device);
and an electrically conductive carrier spin-polarizer layer located between, and electrically interconnected with, the bottom electrically conductive and optically reflective layer and the bottom electrically conductive contact. (Abstract page 42 paragraph 1 regarding ferromagnetic and non-magnetic contacts made for electron injection. Furthermore, regarding the ferromagnetic contacts as MnAs layers; Fig. 6 regarding the Nonmagnetic Ti/Au contacts around the outside of device on top of, connected to Al0.1Ga0.9As, which is sitting on top of, connected to, the bottom DBR).
Bhattacharya does not explicitly teach:
a top electrically conductive contact electrically interconnected with the top electrically conductive and optically reflective layer;
However, Žutić teaches:
a top electrically conductive contact electrically interconnected with the top electrically conductive and optically reflective layer; (Fig. 2 regarding the top contact touching the top DBR)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Bhattacharya with Žutić because it is simply combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results MPEP 2141(III)(A).
With regards to claim 17, the Examiner notes that patentable weight is not given to the preamble of independent claim 1 due to “method” not being referred back to in the body of the claim nor the dependent claims. Bhattacharya teaches:
comprising: forming a vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL) epitaxy stack, (Fig. 6 regarding a VCSEL grown by molecular beam epitaxy);
the epitaxy stack including: a substrate; (Abstract page 42 paragraph 1 regarding the molecular beam epitaxy substrate);
a bottom electrically conductive and optically reflective layer outward of the substrate; (Fig. 6 regarding the bottom DBR layer);
an active medium layer, outward of the bottom electrically conductive and optically reflective layer, configured to convert spin information carried by injected spin-polarized electrical carriers into light polarization information carried by light emitted from radiative recombination of the electrical carriers; (Abstract page 41 paragraph 2 regarding carriers with spin orientation transported to an active region where polarized photons are emitted after radiative recombination. Furthermore, regarding the active region is spin injected. Furthermore, regarding the active region as the gain medium; Fig. 6 regarding the active region as the GaAs l-cavity);
and a top electrically conductive and optically reflective layer outward of the active medium layer; (Fig. 6 regarding a top DBR layer above the active medium layer);
forming a vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL) mesa in the top electrically conductive and optically reflective layer, the active medium layer, and a portion of the bottom electrically conductive and optically reflective layer; (Fig. 6 regarding the Heterostructure of a spin VCSEL with a top and bottom DBR, and an active medium layer; Abstract page 42 paragraph 1 regarding the layers of the VCSEL, including top and bottom distributed brag reflectors and an active (medium) region);
forming a dielectric spacer defining a spin-polarizer region on the bottom electrically conductive and optically reflective layer, (Abstract page 42 paragraph 1 regarding the distributed brag reflectors, including the bottom DBR, being dielectric; Fig. 6 regarding the bottom DBRs);
the spin-polarizer region being located adjacent the mesa when viewed in plan; (Abstract page 42 paragraph 1 regarding ferromagnetic and non-magnetic contacts made for electron injection. Furthermore, regarding the non-magnetic contacts as Ti/AU layers. Furthermore, regarding the ferromagnetic contacts as MnAs layers; Fig. 6 regarding the Nonmagnetic Ti/Au contacts, and MnAs contacts around the outside of device);
forming an electrically conductive carrier spin-polarizer layer in the spin-polarizer region and forming a bottom electrically conductive contact, electrically interconnected with the bottom electrically conductive and optically reflective layer, (Abstract page 42 paragraph 1 regarding ferromagnetic and non-magnetic contacts made for electron injection. Furthermore, regarding the ferromagnetic contacts as MnAs layers; Fig. 6 regarding the Nonmagnetic Ti/Au contacts around the outside of device on top of, connected to Al0.1Ga0.9As, which is sitting on top of, connected to, the bottom DBR);
the bottom electrically conductive contact being located adjacent the mesa when viewed in plan; (Abstract page 42 paragraph 1 regarding ferromagnetic and non-magnetic contacts made for electron injection. Furthermore, regarding the non-magnetic contacts as Ti/AU layers. Furthermore, regarding the ferromagnetic contacts as MnAs layers; Fig. 6 regarding the Nonmagnetic Ti/Au contacts, and MnAs contacts around the outside of device);
Bhattacharya does not explicitly teach:
and forming a top electrically conductive contact electrically interconnected with the top electrically conductive and optically reflective layer.
However, Žutić teaches:
and forming a top electrically conductive contact electrically interconnected with the top electrically conductive and optically reflective layer. (Fig. 2 regarding the top contact touching the top DBR)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Bhattacharya with Žutić because it is simply combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results MPEP 2141(III)(A).
With regards to claim 18, Bhattacharya in view of Žutić teaches the method of claim 17, as referenced above.
Bhattacharya further teaches:
further comprising forming an aperture in a sub-layer of the top electrically conductive and optically reflective layer within the mesa. (Fig. 6 GaAs l-cavity as an aperture; Abstract page 42 paragraph 1 regarding the quantum wells or quantum dots centered in the GaAs l-cavity (as an aperture)).
Claims 13, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhattacharya, view of Žutić, and in further view of Lou.
With regards to claim 13, Bhattacharya in view of Žutić teaches the apparatus of Claim 12, as referenced above.
Bhattacharya further teaches:
wherein: the bottom electrically conductive and optically reflective layer comprises a bottom electrically conductive distributed Bragg reflector of one of an n-type and a p-type; (Fig. 6 regarding the bottom DBR layer as n+ (as n-type));
the top electrically conductive and optically reflective layer comprises a top electrically conductive distributed Bragg reflector of another one of the n-type and the p-type, (Fig. 6 regarding the top DBR layer as P+ (as p type));
and having an aperture therein; (Fig. 6 GaAs l-cavity as an aperture; Abstract page 42 paragraph 1 regarding the quantum wells or quantum dots centered in the GaAs l-cavity (as an aperture));
and the electrically conductive carrier spin-polarizer layer comprises a magnetic tunnel junction, (Abstract page 42 paragraph 1 regarding the spin polarizer layer (FM contact layer) forming a Schottky tunnel);
a middle ferromagnetic layer; (Abstract page 42 paragraph 1 regarding the spin polarizer layer (FM contact layer) forming a Schottky tunnel);
Bhattacharya does not explicitly teach:
comprising an inmost tunnel barrier layer;
and an outer capping layer.
However, Lou teaches:
comprising an inmost tunnel barrier layer; (Page 1 Column 1 paragraph 1 regarding injection of electrons from a ferromagnetic metal through a tunnel barrier, a Schottky barrier; Page 1 Column 2 paragraph 1 regarding the Schottky tunnel formed by Fe and n+-GaAs layer)
and an outer capping layer. (Page 1 Column 1 paragraph 1 regarding injection of electrons from a ferromagnetic metal through a tunnel barrier, a Schottky barrier; Page 1 Column 2 paragraph 1 regarding the Schottky tunnel formed by Fe and n+-GaAs layer. Furthermore, the Fe film followed by a capping layer)
Bhattacharya teaches the VCSEL having a Schottky tunnel, but does not explicitly teach some of the claim limitations, however, Lou teaches these missing limitations in regards to Schottky tunnels. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Bhattacharya in view of Žutić, with Lou, because the prior art elements of the Schottky of Lou is simply combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results MPEP 2141(III)(A).
With regards to claim 16, Bhattacharya in view of Žutić in further view of Lou teaches the apparatus of Claim 13, as referenced above.
Bhattacharya further teaches:
wherein the spin-polarizer layer is annular when viewed in plan. (Abstract Page 42 paragraph 1 regarding the Schottky tunnel as n+-A10.1Ga0.9As; Fig. 6 regarding n+-A10.1Ga0.9As (Schottky tunnel) around the outside, and on both sides) of the structure. As interpreted by the Examiner, the spin polarizer (Schottky contacts) are surrounding, in an annular fashion, the structure).
With regards to claim 19, Bhattacharya in view of Žutić teaches the method of claim 18, as referenced above.
Bhattacharya further teaches:
wherein the electrically conductive carrier spin-polarizer layer comprises a magnetic tunnel junction, (Abstract page 42 paragraph 1 regarding the spin polarizer layer (FM contact layer) forming a Schottky tunnel);
(Abstract page 42 paragraph 1 regarding the spin polarizer layer (FM contact layer) forming a Schottky tunnel);
a middle ferromagnetic layer, (Abstract page 42 paragraph 1 regarding the spin polarizer layer (FM contact layer) forming a Schottky tunnel);
Bhattacharya does not explicitly teach:
and wherein forming the electrically conductive carrier spin- polarizer layer comprises depositing an inmost tunnel barrier layer,
and an outer capping layer.
However, Lou teaches:
and wherein forming the electrically conductive carrier spin- polarizer layer comprises depositing an inmost tunnel barrier layer, (Page 1 Column 1 paragraph 1 regarding injection of electrons from a ferromagnetic metal through a tunnel barrier, a Schottky barrier; Page 1 Column 2 paragraph 1 regarding the Schottky tunnel formed by Fe and n+-GaAs layer)
and an outer capping layer. (Page 1 Column 1 paragraph 1 regarding injection of electrons from a ferromagnetic metal through a tunnel barrier, a Schottky barrier; Page 1 Column 2 paragraph 1 regarding the Schottky tunnel formed by Fe and n+-GaAs layer. Furthermore, the Fe film followed by a capping layer)
Bhattacharya teaches the VCSEL having a Schottky tunnel, but does not explicitly teach some of the claim limitations, however, Lou teaches these missing limitations in regards to Schottky tunnels. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Bhattacharya in view of Žutić, with Lou, because the prior art elements of the Schottky of Lou is simply combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results MPEP 2141(III)(A).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhattacharya, view of Žutić, in further view of Lou, and in further view of Epotek.
With regards to claim 14, Bhattacharya, view of Žutić, in further view of Lou teaches the apparatus of Claim 13, as referenced above.
Bhattacharya further teaches:
a vertical space separating the bottom electrically conductive contact and the spin- polarizer layer from the active medium layer (Fig. 6 regarding a space between the bottom contact and the active medium)
Bhattacharya does not explicitly teach:
further comprising: a dielectric layer electrically isolating the top and bottom electrically conductive contacts;
and a vertical dielectric separating the bottom electrically conductive contact and the spin- polarizer layer from the active medium layer.
However, Epotek teaches:
further comprising: a dielectric layer electrically isolating the top and bottom electrically conductive contacts; (Page 1 paragraph 1 regarding encapsulating circuits in dielectric insulation. Furthermore, regarding dielectric material used for providing insulating barrier between two conductors in multi-layered circuits, and encapsulating circuits; Page 2 Common Applications section regarding use in semiconductor and electronic packaging applications as well as potting and encapsulation of circuits)
and a vertical dielectric separating the bottom electrically conductive contact and the spin- polarizer layer from the active medium layer. (Page 1 paragraph 1 regarding encapsulating circuits in dielectric insulation. Furthermore, regarding dielectric material used for providing insulating barrier between two conductors in multi-layered circuits, and encapsulating circuits; Page 2 Common Applications section regarding use in semiconductor and electronic packaging applications as well as potting and encapsulation of circuits)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Bhattacharya, in view of Žutić, in further view of Lou, and in further view of Epotek because the dielectric materials of Epotek are good for “providing an insulating barrier between two conductors (as in cross over and multi-layered circuits) and for encapsulating circuits”. [Epotek: page 1 paragraph 1].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhattacharya, view of Žutić, in further view of Lou, in further view of Zheng et al. (Wenji Zheng, Yanan Dong, Tiantian Li, JiaHong Chen, Xi Chen, Yan Dai, Gaohong He, MgO blocking layer induced highly UV responsive TiO2 nanoparticles based self-powered photodetectors, Journal of Alloys and Compounds, Volume 869, 2021, 159299, ISSN 0925-8388, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2021.159299. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925838821007076)), hereinafter, “Zheng”, in further view of Liang et al. (Liang, J., Wang, F., Chen, Q., Wang, G., Zhou, X., Jiang, W., Kou, Z., Huang, Z., Xu, Q., Du, J., You, B., & Zhai, Y. (2020). Investigation on Interfacial Effect of CoFeB/GaAs Heterostructure.), hereinafter, “Liang”, and in further view of Zhao et al. (R.H. Zhao, Z.Y. Ren, J.P. Cao, Y.S. Yuan, G.L. Zhao, X.G. Xu, K.K. Meng, J. Miao, Y. Jiang, Influence of heavy-metal capping layers on perpendicular magnetic anisotropy and spin-orbit torques of Pt/Co/HM stacks structures, Solid State Communications, Volume 332, 2021, 114340, ISSN 0038-1098, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssc.2021.114340. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038109821001435)), hereinafter, “Zhao”.
With regards to claim 15, Bhattacharya, view of Žutić, in further view of Lou teach the apparatus of Claim 13, as referenced above.
Bhattacharya does not explicitly teach:
wherein: the inmost tunnel barrier layer comprises magnesium oxide;
the middle ferromagnetic layer comprises CoFeB;
and the outer capping layer comprises tantalum.
However, Zheng teaches:
wherein: the inmost tunnel barrier layer comprises magnesium oxide; (Section I page 1 paragraph 1 regarding discussion of Schottky tunnels; Section I page 1 paragraph 5 regarding using MgO (magnesium oxide) tunnel barriers)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Bhattacharya in view of Žutić, in further view of Lou with Zheng because “Al2O3 /MgO tunnel barriers show lower area resistance and predicted equivalent magnetoresistance signal at nonzero applied voltage” (Zheng: Section I page 2 paragraph 1).
Liang teaches:
the middle ferromagnetic layer comprises CoFeB; (Section 2 page 2 paragraph 1 regarding applying a CoFeB film to a GaAs wafer; Section 1 page 1 regarding films of a Schottky contact; Section 3 page 3 paragraph 7 regarding the results of the CoFeB film for the Schottky barrier)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Bhattacharya in view of Žutić, in further view of Lou with Liang because with the CoFeB film, “It is similar with the Schottky barrier height of Fe/GaAs… and about twice as much as ferromagnetic Fe3O4” (Liang: Section 3 page 3 paragraph 7).
Zhao teaches:
and the outer capping layer comprises tantalum. (Section 1 page 1 paragraph 4 regarding a magnetic multilayers with a Ta (as Tantalum) capping layer features the largest anisotropy energy density and largest spin-orbit torques)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Bhattacharya in view of Žutić, in further view of Lou with Zhao because “a Ta capping layer features the largest anisotropy energy density… and the largest spin-orbit torques (SOT) switching efficiency” (Zhao: Section 1 page 1 paragraph 4).
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhattacharya, view of Žutić, in further view of Lou, and in further view of Kuchuk et al. (Kuchuk, A. V., Borowicz, P., Wzorek, M., Borysiewicz, M., Ratajczak, R., Golaszewska, K., Kaminska, E., Kladko, V., Piotrowska, A., Ni-Based Ohmic Contacts to n-Type 4H-SiC: The Formation Mechanism and Thermal Stability, Advances in Condensed Matter Physics, 2016, 9273702, 26 pages, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/9273702), hereinafter, “Kuchuk”.
With regards to claim 20, Bhattacharya, view of Žutić, in further view of Lou teach the method of Claim 19, as referenced above.
Bhattacharya further teaches:
further comprising of the inmost layer, (Abstract page 42 paragraph 1 regarding the spin polarizer layer (FM contact layer) forming a Schottky tunnel);
the middle ferromagnetic layer, (Abstract page 42 paragraph 1 regarding the spin polarizer layer (FM contact layer) forming a Schottky tunnel);
and the outer capping layer.
Bhattacharya does not explicitly teach:
carrying out rapid thermal annealing (RTA)
tunnel barrier
and the outer capping layer.
However, Lou teaches:
tunnel barrier (Page 1 Column 1 paragraph 1 regarding injection of electrons from a ferromagnetic metal through a tunnel barrier, a Schottky barrier; Page 1 Column 2 paragraph 1 regarding the Schottky tunnel formed by Fe and n+-GaAs layer)
and the outer capping layer. (Page 1 Column 1 paragraph 1 regarding injection of electrons from a ferromagnetic metal through a tunnel barrier, a Schottky barrier; Page 1 Column 2 paragraph 1 regarding the Schottky tunnel formed by Fe and n+-GaAs layer. Furthermore, the Fe film followed by a capping layer)
Bhattacharya teaches the VCSEL having a Schottky tunnel, but does not explicitly teach some of the claim limitations, however, Lou teaches these missing limitations in regards to Schottky tunnels. Therefore, it would have been obvi