DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 through 16 originally filed 26 April 2022. By amendment received 13 November 2025; claims 1, 4, and 5 are amended, claims 3, 6, 7, and 16 are cancelled, and claims 17 through 23 are added. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8 through 15, and 17 through 23 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 Li et al. (Li, US Pub. 2018/0278022), Liao et al. (Liao, US Pub. 2003/0021326), and Xie (US Patent 5,063,569) do not teach or render obvious the limitation "The first high-resistance region has an inner edge located farther from the first axis than an inner edge of the electrode in a direction orthogonal to the first axis" because, according to applicant, the cited references do not teach this feature.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because Li teaches the argued feature. Specifically, Li teaches a VCSEL in which the inner edge of the first high-resistance region is farther from the center than the inner edge of the electrode (Li, ¶41 describing electrode 37 which is shown in Figure 2 as being located relative to first high-resistance region 29a in this manner). Since Li teaches the claimed feature, the argued limitation is obvious in light of the combined teachings of Li and Liao. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
The limitation "The first high-resistance region has an inner edge located farther from the first axis than an inner edge of the electrode in a direction orthogonal to the first axis" is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Li and Liao (see below). Applicant's argument that the cited references do not teach this feature is not persuasive because Li teaches the argued feature.
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Li, Liao, and Xie do not teach or render obvious the limitation "The first high-resistance region has an inner edge located farther from the first axis than an inner edge of the electrode in a direction orthogonal to the first axis" because, according to applicant, Li teaches away from the claimed arrangement. To support this argument, applicant contends that the teachings of Li related to modal control would steer one of ordinary skill in the art to place the high-resistance regions proximate to the aperture and within the effective emission region.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because the teachings of Li contradict this argument. As noted above, Li directly teaches this feature. Additionally, placing the shallower high-resistance region of Li relative to the electrode in the argued manner would render the device of Li non-functional since the electrode would be insulated from the device and incapable of providing the required driving current. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
The limitation "The first high-resistance region has an inner edge located farther from the first axis than an inner edge of the electrode in a direction orthogonal to the first axis" is taught by the combined teachings of Li and Liao (see below). Applicant's argument that Li teaches away from the claimed arrangement is not persuasive because the teachings of Li contradict this argument.
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Li, Liao, and Xie do not teach or render obvious the limitation "The second thickness being larger than the first thickness" because, according to applicant, the claimed feature is not a matter of routine optimization of the teachings of Li, Liao, and Xie. To support this argument, applicant contends without evidence or citation that this feature complexly interacts with other limitations to produce a different current path and junction capacitance distribution.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because it is unsupported by evidence (MPEP §2144.05IIIA & 716.02(b)). Specifically, applicant's argument does not identify any evidence that this feature is critical to exhibiting a desired current path and junction capacitance distribution that is unexpected in light of the cited prior art (MPEP §716.02(b)). To the contrary, Li teaches that the thicknesses and shapes of high-resistance regions may be used to control the current path through the device (Li, ¶35). Additionally, it is understood that altering the thickness of a non-conductive region between two conductive regions naturally alters the capacitance of that region because this is how capacitors are constructed. Since both argued effects of altering the thicknesses of high-resistance regions are present in the prior art and since no unexpected results have been identified in relation to the claimed ranges, adjusting the device according to the combined teachings of Li and Liao to exhibit a thicker second high-resistance region than first high-resistance region would have been a matter of routine optimization. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
The limitation "The second thickness being larger than the first thickness" is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Li and Liao (see below). Applicant's argument that the claimed feature is not a matter of routine optimization of the teachings of Li, Liao, and Xie is not persuasive because it is unsupported by evidence (MPEP §2144.05IIIA & 716.02(b)).
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Li, Liao, and Xie do not teach or render obvious the limitation "The first high-resistance region having a higher peak concentration of the protons than a peak concentration of the protons in the second high-resistance region" because, according to applicant, the claimed feature is not a matter of routine optimization of the teachings of Li, Liao, and Xie. To support this argument, applicant contends without evidence or citation that this feature complexly interacts with other limitations to produce a different current path and junction capacitance distribution.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because it is unsupported by evidence (MPEP §2144.05IIIA & 716.02(b)). Specifically, applicant's argument does not identify any evidence that this feature is critical to exhibiting a desired current path and junction capacitance distribution that is unexpected in light of the cited prior art (MPEP §716.02(b)). To the contrary, Li teaches that the resistance of the high-resistance regions is of concern because it is used for guiding current into the central region of the laser (Li, ¶39 describing the use of the high-resistance regions to control carrier flow). Additionally, it is understood that altering the relative permittivity of a non-conductive region between two conductive regions naturally alters the capacitance of that region because this is how capacitors are constructed. Since both argued effects of altering the concentrations within the high-resistance regions are present in the prior art and since no unexpected results have been identified in relation to the claimed ranges, adjusting the device according to the combined teachings of Li and Liao to exhibit a thicker second high-resistance region than first high-resistance region would have been a matter of routine optimization. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
The limitation "The first high-resistance region having a higher peak concentration of the protons than a peak concentration of the protons in the second high-resistance region" is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Li and Liao (see below). Applicant's argument that the claimed feature is not a matter of routine optimization of the teachings of Li, Liao, and Xie is not persuasive because it is unsupported by evidence (MPEP §2144.05IIIA & 716.02(b)).
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Li, Liao, and Xie do not teach or render obvious the limitation "Wherein a concentration of the protons in the first high-resistance region and a concentration of the protons in the second high-resistance region continuously change according to a depth from the upper surface of the post and each of the first high-resistance region and the second high-resistance region has a plurality of peak concentrations of the protons" because, according to applicant, the cited prior art does not teach these features.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because these features are inherently present in Li. Specifically, Li teaches that the high-resistance regions are formed by ion implantation through plural applications (Li, ¶37 describing the use of plural ion implantations to form high-resistance regions 29a and 29b). This is the same process employed by the present application to achieve the argued features and it is understood that these features naturally follow from creating a high-resistance region in this manner. Since the argued features are inherently present in the arrangement of Li due to the use of plural applications of ion implantation, the argued features are rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Li and Liao. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
The limitation "Wherein a concentration of the protons in the first high-resistance region and a concentration of the protons in the second high-resistance region continuously change according to a depth from the upper surface of the post and each of the first high-resistance region and the second high-resistance region has a plurality of peak concentrations of the protons" is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Li and Liao (see below). Applicant's argument that the cited prior art does not teach these features is not persuasive because these features are inherently present in Li.
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Li, Liao, and Xie do not teach or render obvious the limitation "The second high-resistance region extends from the first depth to a second depth that coincides with a sum of the first thickness and the second thickness" because, according to applicant, the cited prior art does not teach this feature.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because this feature is taught by Liao. Specifically, Liao teaches a device including two ion implant regions with one implant region atop the other and reaching the top surface of the device (Liao, ¶24 describing the arrangement of implant regions 212 and 217 depicted in Figure 3D). By arranging the implant regions thereof in this manner, the lower high-resistance region of Liao necessarily extends from the bottom of the upper high-resistance region to a depth equal to the thicknesses of both high-resistance regions. Since Liao teaches a high-resistance region exhibiting the claimed arrangement, this argued feature is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Li and Liao. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
The limitation "The second high-resistance region extends from the first depth to a second depth that coincides with a sum of the first thickness and the second thickness" is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Li and Liao (see below). Applicant's argument that the cited prior art does not teach this feature is not persuasive because this feature is taught by Liao.
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Li, Liao, and Xie do not teach or render obvious the limitation "Wherein the inner edge of the first high-resistance region is located farther from the first axis than an outer edge of the electrode in the direction orthogonal to the first axis" because, according to applicant, Xie is unrelated to this limitation. To support this argument, applicant contends that the teachings of Xie are related to a dielectric stack and are unrelated to the positioning of implant regions.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because it addresses Xie alone rather than the combined teachings of Li, Liao, and Xie (MPEP §2145IV). Specifically, Li teaches a VCSEL in which a top electrode is placed partially within a region defined by an upper high-resistance region (Li, Fig. 2, pts. 29a and 37). Xie teaches a VCSEL in which the top electrode is placed entirely within a region defined by an upper high-resistance region (Xie, col. 3, lines 26-34 discussing the arrangement of electrode 21 and implant region 29 depicted in Figure 1). Modifying the arrangement of Li to locate the top electrode entirely within the region defined by the upper high-resistance region, as taught by Xie, would allow a greater surface area of the electrode to contact the conductive region of the device and thereby improve conduction between the electrode and the device. While Xie employs a dielectric layer for the upper reflector, the modification of Li according to the teachings of Xie set forth in the rejection does not. Since the modification of Li according to the teachings of Xie exhibits the claimed arrangement, the claimed arrangement is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Li, Liao, and Xie. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
The limitation "Wherein the inner edge of the first high-resistance region is located farther from the first axis than an outer edge of the electrode in the direction orthogonal to the first axis" is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Li, Liao, and Xie (see below). Applicant's argument that Xie is unrelated to this limitation is not persuasive because it addresses Xie alone rather than the combined teachings of Li, Liao, and Xie (MPEP §2145IV).
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Li, Liao, and Xie do not teach or render obvious the limitation "The inner edge of the second high-resistance region is located farther from the first axis than an inner edge of the oxide portion in the direction orthogonal to the first axis" because, according to applicant, Li teaches away from the claimed arrangement. To support this argument, applicant contends that the teachings of Li related to modal control would steer one of ordinary skill in the art to place the high-resistance regions proximate to the aperture and within the effective emission region.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because the teachings of Li contradict this argument. Specifically, Li teaches that the oxide aperture has a smaller diameter than the second high-resistance region and depicts the second high-resistance region having an inner edge further from the center than the inner edge of the oxide region (see ¶64 and ¶65 indicating the relative diameters of the second high-resistance region and the oxide aperture which are, respectively, depicted as 21a and 29b in Figure 2). As such, this argument is not persuasive.
The limitation "The inner edge of the second high-resistance region is located farther from the first axis than an inner edge of the oxide portion in the direction orthogonal to the first axis" is taught by the combined teachings of Li and Liao (see below). Applicant's argument that Li teaches away from the claimed arrangement is not persuasive because the teachings of Li contradict this argument.
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Li, Liao, and Xie do not teach or render obvious the limitations of claims 9 through 15. Applicant's argument is not persuasive because Li either teaches values within or close to those values and no criticality has been identified with respect to those claimed values (MPEP §2145.04IIIC).
Applicant argues that new claims 17 through 23 are not taught or rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Li, Liao, and Xie. Applicant's argument is not persuasive. Upon review of the prior art, the features of these new claims are either taught by or rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Li and Liao. As such, rejections of these claims have been formulated as set forth below.
As such, all claims are addressed as follows:
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, 4, 5, 8 through 15, 17 through 19, and 21 through 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (Li, US Pub. 2018/0278022) in view of Liao et al. (Liao, US Pub. 2003/0021326).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses, "A post disposed on a main surface of a substrate" (p. [0031] and Fig. 2, pts. 13 and 17). "The post extending along a first axis intersecting the main surface of the substrate" (p. [0031] and Fig. 2, pts. 17 and Ax1). "An electrode disposed on an upper surface of the post" (p. [0041] and Fig. 2, pts. 17b and 37). "The electrode surrounding the first axis" (p. [0041] and Fig. 2, pts. 37 and Ax1). "Wherein the post includes a first distributed Bragg reflector" (p. [0040] and Fig. 2, pts. 17, 35, and 35a). "An active layer" (p. [0040] and Fig. 2, pts. 17 and 23). "A second distributed Bragg reflector" (p. [0040] and Fig. 2, pts. 17 and 31). "The substrate, the first distributed Bragg reflector, the active layer, and the second distributed Bragg reflector are arranged in sequence in a direction of the first axis" (p. [0040] and Fig. 2, pts. 13, 23, 31, and 35). "The second distributed Bragg reflector includes a semiconductor region" (p. [0053] and Fig. 2, pt. 31). "[The second distributed Bragg reflector includes] a first high-resistance region" (p. [0034] and Fig. 2, pts. 29a and 31). "[The second distributed Bragg reflector includes] a second high-resistance region" (p. [0034] and Fig. 2, pts. 29b and 31). "The first high-resistance region and the second high-resistance region have higher electrical resistances than an electrical resistance of the semiconductor region" (p. [0035] and Fig. 2, pts. 25a, 25b, 25c, 29a, and 29b). "The first axis extends through the semiconductor region" (p. [0035] and Fig. 2, pts. 25b and Ax1). "The first high-resistance region and the second high-resistance region surround the semiconductor region" (p. [0035] and Fig. 2, pts. 25a, 25b, 25c, 29a, and 29b). "The second high-resistance region is located farther from the upper surface of the post than the first high-resistance region in the direction of the first axis" (p. [0034] and Fig. 2, pts. 17a, 29a, and 29b). "The first high-resistance region has an inner edge located farther from the first axis than an inner edge of the electrode in a direction orthogonal to the first axis" (p. [0041] and Fig. 2, pts. 29a, 37, and Ax1). "The second high-resistance region has an inner edge located closer to the first axis than the inner edge of the electrode in the direction orthogonal to the first axis" (p. [0041] and Fig. 2, pts. 29b, 37, and Ax1). "The first high-resistance region and the second high-resistance region have a first thickness and a second thickness in the direction of the first axis, respectively" (Fig. 2, pts. 29a and 29b). "Wherein each of the first high-resistance region and the second high-resistance region includes protons" (p. [0037] and Fig. 2, pts. 29a and 29b). "Wherein a concentration of the protons in the first high-resistance region and a concentration of the protons in the second high-resistance region continuously change according to a depth from the upper surface of the post" (p. [0037], each region naturally exhibits continuous change in concentration due to the implantation process). "Each of the first high-resistance region and the second high-resistance region has a plurality of peak concentrations of the protons" (p. [0037], where plural injections naturally result in a plurality of peaks). "Wherein the first high-resistance region extends from the upper surface of the post to a first depth that coincides with the first thickness" (Fig. 2, pt. 29a). Li does not explicitly disclose, "The second high-resistance region extends from the first depth to a second depth that coincides with a sum of the first thickness and the second thickness." Liao discloses, "The second high-resistance region extends from the first depth to a second depth that coincides with a sum of the first thickness and the second thickness" (p. [0024] and Figs. 3B and 3D, pts. 214 and 217). 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 Li with the teachings of Liao. In view of the teachings of Li regarding a laser device including multiple implant regions for guiding current through the laser, the alternate arrangement of the implant regions to be formed one atop the other as taught by Liao would enhance the teachings of Li by providing a suitably alternate manner of arranging the implant regions to achieve a similar effect while also allowing a reduction in implantation steps for producing the upper implant region.
The combination of Li and Liao does not explicitly disclose, "The second thickness being larger than the first thickness." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the relative thicknesses of the implanted regions so as to produce a desired refractive index and current constriction profile, 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 Li and Liao does not explicitly disclose, "The first high-resistance region having a higher peak concentration of the protons than a peak concentration of the protons in the second high-resistance 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 relative concentrations of the implanted regions so as to produce a desired refractive index and current constriction profile, 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 4, Li discloses, "Wherein the peak concentration of the protons in the first high-resistance region and the peak concentration of the protons in the second high-resistance region are 1×1018 cm−3 or more" (p. [0037] and Fig. 2, pts. 29a and 29b).
Regarding claim 5, Li discloses, "Wherein the peak concentration of the protons in the first high-resistance region and the peak concentration of the protons in the second high-resistance region are 1×1019 cm−3 or more" (p. [0037] and Fig. 2, pts. 29a and 29b).
Regarding claim 8, Li discloses, "Wherein the post further includes a current confinement layer disposed between the active layer and the second distributed Bragg reflector" (p. [0031] and Fig. 2, pts. 21, 23,and 31). "The current confinement layer includes an aperture portion and an oxide portion surrounding the aperture portion" (p. [0031] and Fig. 2, pts. 21, 21a, and 21b). "The first axis extends through the aperture portion" (p. [0031] and Fig. 2, pts. 21b and Ax1). "The inner edge of the second high-resistance region is located farther from the first axis than an inner edge of the oxide portion in the direction orthogonal to the first axis" (p. [0064], [0065], and Fig. 2, pts. 21a, 25b, 25c, 25e, and 29b).
Regarding claim 9, Li discloses, "Wherein an inner diameter of the oxide portion is from 7 μm to 9 μm" (p. [0064], [0076], and Fig. 2, pts. 21a, 21b, and 25d).
Regarding claim 10, The combination of Li and Liao does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein an inner diameter of the electrode is from 12 μm to 22 μm." 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 inner and outer diameter of the electrode within the claimed range so as to produce a desired current profile as well as to accommodate a larger overall diameter for the post, 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 11, The combination of Li and Liao does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein an outer diameter of the electrode is from 16 μm to 26 μm." 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 inner and outer diameter of the electrode within the claimed range so as to produce a desired current profile as well as to accommodate a larger overall diameter for the post, 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 12, The combination of Li and Liao does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein an inner diameter of the first high-resistance region is from 20 μm to 30 μm." 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 diameter of the first high resistance region within the claimed range so as to produce a desired refractive index and current constriction profile as well as to accommodate a larger overall diameter for the post, 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 13, Li discloses, "Wherein an inner diameter of the second high-resistance region is from 10 μm to 15 μm" (p. [0065], [0072], and Fig. 2, pts. 25c, 25e, and 29b).
Regarding claim 14, Li discloses, "Wherein the first thickness is from 1 μm to 2 μm" (p. [0059] and Fig. 2, pt. 29a).
Regarding claim 15, Li discloses, "Wherein the second thickness is from 3 μm to 5 μm" (p. [0060] and Fig. 2, pt. 29b).
Regarding claim 17, Li discloses, "Wherein the first high-resistance region and the second high-resistance region are formed by first and second proton-implantation steps through respective annular masks" (p. [0067] and [0072]). "[The respective annular masks] having inner diameters D5 and D2" (p. [0067] and [0072]). "D5 greater than an outer diameter of the electrode" (p. [0067] and Fig. 2, pts. 29a and 37). "D2 less than an inner diameter of the electrode" (p. [0072] and Fig. 2, pts. 29b and 37).
The combination of Li and Liao does not explicitly disclose, "A second implantation energy greater than a first implantation energy." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the relative implantation energy used for forming the implanted regions so as to produce a desired refractive index and current constriction profile, 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 18, Li discloses, "Wherein a peak concentration of the protons in the first high-resistance region is 1×1019 cm−3 or more" (p. [0037] and Fig. 2, pt. 29a). Li does not explicitly disclose, "A peak concentration of the protons in the second high-resistance region is 1×1018 cm−3 to less than 1×1019 cm−3." Liao discloses, "A peak concentration of the protons in the second high-resistance region is 1×1018 cm−3 to less than 1×1019 cm−3" (p. [0031]). 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 Li with the teachings of Liao for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, Li discloses, "Wherein an inner edge of the second high-resistance region is located radially between the inner edge of the oxide portion and the inner edge of the electrode" (p. [0072], [0073], and Fig. 2, pts. 21a, 29b, and 37).
Regarding claim 21, Li discloses, "Wherein the semiconductor region of the second distributed Bragg reflector is p-type" (p. [0053], [0089], and Fig. 2, pt. 31, where DBR 31 is inherently p-doped in like manner to the p-DBR in the example embodiment). "The first high-resistance region and the second high-resistance region are located within the p-type second distributed Bragg reflector above the active layer" (p. [0034], [0040], and Fig. 2, pts. 29a, 29b, and 31).
Regarding claim 22, Li discloses, "Wherein the electrode is annular with a central opening aligned with the first axis" (p. [0041] and Fig. 2, pts. 37 and Ax1). "[The electrode] comprises a multilayer metal stack including at least two different metals" (p. [0056] and Fig. 2, pt. 37).
Regarding claim 23, The combination of Li and Liao does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a proton-implantation dose used to form the first high-resistance region is greater than a proton-implantation dose used to form the second high-resistance 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 relative implantation doses of the implanted regions so as to produce a desired refractive index and current constriction profile, 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.
Claims 2 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, in view of Liao, and further in view of Xie (US Patent 5,063,569).
Regarding claim 2, The combination of Li and Liao does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the inner edge of the first high-resistance region is located farther from the first axis than an outer edge of the electrode in the direction orthogonal to the first axis." Xie discloses, "Wherein the inner edge of the first high-resistance region is located farther from the first axis than an outer edge of the electrode in the direction orthogonal to the first axis" (col. 4, lines 26-34 and Fig. 1, pts. 21 and 29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Li and Liao with the teachings of Xie. In view of the teachings of Li regarding a laser device including multiple implant regions for guiding current through the laser, the alternate arrangement of the electrode to fall within the confines of the upper implant region as taught by Xie would enhance the teachings of Li and Liao by providing a suitably alternate manner to arrange these elements as well as facilitating current delivery across the entire surface of the electrode.
Regarding claim 20, The combination of Li, Liao, and Xie does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a radial distance between the inner edge of the first high-resistance region and the outer edge of the electrode is 1 μm or more." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the relative inner diameters of the electrode and the first high resistance region within the claimed range so as to produce a desired current profile as well as to provide a desired contact area between the electrode and the conductive 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Thornton et al. (Thornton, US Patent 6,002,705) is cited for teaching the use of different implantation dosages for different implant regions within a VCSEL.
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