DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 through 16 originally filed 17 March 2022. By amendment received 1 August 2025; claims 1 and 2 are amended. By amendment received 30 December 2025; claim 1 is amended and claim 5 is cancelled. Claims 1 through 4 and 6 through 16 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 Tan et al. (Tan, US Pub. 2017/0214218) and Kitamura et al. (Kitamura, US Pub. 2002/0137245) do not teach or render obvious the limitation "Wherein the number of pairs of the second DBR layer is equal to or less than half of the number of pairs of the first DBR layer" because, according to applicant, there is no motivation for modifying the relative number of DBR layers in the claimed manner.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because selecting an appropriate relative number of reflector layers in a DBR is a matter of routine optimization (MPEP §2144.05II). Specifically, it is understood that the number of layers in a multilayer reflector determines the reflectivity of that reflector (see Tan, ¶17 describing this effect in relation to the relative reflectivities produced between reflector 140 and the region in which mesa 145 is present). Further, Tan suggests that the particular arrangement thereof allows the top reflector to employ fewer layers to achieve a desired reflectivity while also exhibiting reduced electrical resistance (Tan, ¶22 describing the use of a metal reflector to augment the operation of reflector 140 and ¶26 describing how this arrangement allows for the use of fewer pairs in reflector 140). While Tan does not explicitly state the relative number of layers that should be used for the top and bottom reflectors, these considerations of Tan demonstrate that the number of layers in the top and bottom reflectors is a result effective variable that is useful in selecting reflectivity as well as resistance of an upper reflector layer (MPEP §2144.05IIB). Since Tan indicates that the number of layers in top and bottom reflectors are result effective variables, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a number of layers in these reflectors within the claimed range so as to achieve predictable results based on the teachings of Tan. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
The limitation "Wherein the number of pairs of the second DBR layer is equal to or less than half of the number of pairs of the first DBR layer" is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Tan and Kitamura (see below). Applicant's argument that there is no motivation for modifying the relative number of DBR layers in the claimed manner is not persuasive because selecting an appropriate relative number of reflector layers in a DBR is a matter of routine optimization (MPEP §2144.05II).
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 through 4, 6 through 9, 12, and 14 through 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan et al. (Tan, US Pub. 2017/0214218) in view of Kitamura et al. (Kitamura, US Pub. 2002/0137245).
Regarding claim 1, Tan discloses, "An active layer" (p. [0015] and Fig. 4A, pt. 132). "A first DBR (distributed Bragg reflector) layer and a second DBR layer that interpose the active layer therebetween" (p. [0015] and Fig. 4A, pts. 120, 132, and 140). "An insulation film and a metal layer that are provided at a position that faces a light-emission region of the active layer" (p. [0033], [0036], and Fig. 4A, pts. 132, 190, and 192). "[The insulation film and metal layer] correspond to an end part of a reflection mirror on the second DBR layer side as viewed from the active layer" (p. [0033], [0036], and Fig. 4A, pts. 140, 190, and 192). "A first contact layer provided in the first DBR layer or in contact with the first DBR layer" (p. [0019] and Fig. 4A, pts. 120 and 151, where the top layer of DBR 120 serves as a contact for electrode 151). "A second contact layer provided in contact with the second DBR layer" (p. [0036] and Fig. 4A, pts. 140 and 183, where the top layer of DBR 140 serves as a contact for electrode 183). "A first electrode layer comprised of a non-alloy" (p. [0019] and Fig. 4A, pt. 151). "[The first electrode layer] provided in contact with the first contact layer" (p. [0019] and Fig. 4A, pts. 120 and 151). "[The second electrode layer] is in contact with the second contact layer" (p. [0036] and Fig. 4A, pts. 140 and 183). "[The second electrode layer] provided at a position that does not face the light-emission region of the active layer" (p. [0036] and Fig. 4A, pts. 132, 170, and 183). Tan does not explicitly disclose, "A second electrode layer comprised of an alloy." Kitamura discloses, "A second electrode layer comprised of an alloy" (p. [0057] and Fig. 1, pt. 4, where the material used for the p-side electrode is used for electrode 183). 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 Tan with the teachings of Kitamura. In view of the teachings of Tan regarding a laser with both electrode on the same side, the additional indication that the electrodes may be formed of alloys that are selected according to the doping of the layer to which the electrodes are attached as well as the additional inclusion of a base on which an bonding pad is provided that makes contact with the lower electrode as taught by Kitamura would enhance the teachings of Tan by providing suitable materials from which to form the electrodes and by allowing the bonding surfaces to appear the same level and thereby facilitate connecting to the bond pads.
The combination of Tan and Kitamura does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the number of pairs of the second DBR layer is equal to or less than half of the number of pairs of the first DBR layer." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the relative number of first and second DBR layers within the range that the second DBR contains fewer pairs than the first DBR so as to produce desired degrees of reflection in the first and second DBR layers, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 2, Tan discloses, "Wherein the metal layer includes a non-alloy" (p. [0022], [0036], and Fig. 4A, pt. 192, where metallic layer 192 may be a single metal layer in the same manner as metallic layer 182 ).
Regarding claim 3, Tan discloses, "Wherein the metal layer is in contact with the second electrode layer" (p. [0036] and Fig. 4A, pts. 183 and 192).
Regarding claim 4, Tan discloses, "Wherein the second electrode layer comprises a ring electrode layer having an opening at a position that faces the light-emission region of the active layer" (p. [0036] and Fig. 4A, pts. 140 and 183). "The insulation film is formed in the opening of the second electrode layer" (p. [0036] and Fig. 4B, pts. 183 and 190). "The metal layer is formed to block the opening of the second electrode layer" (p. [0036] and Fig. 4B, pts. 183, 190, and 192).
Regarding claim 6, Tan discloses, "[The mesa part] includes the second DBR layer" (p. [0033] and Fig. 4A, pt. 140). "Wherein the first electrode layer is in contact with a position of the first contact layer that does not face the mesa part" (p. [0019] and Fig. 4A, pts. 132, 140, and 151). Tan does not explicitly disclose, "A mesa part that includes all or a part of the first DBR layer." Kitamura discloses, "A mesa part that includes all or a part of the first DBR layer" (p. [0060] and Fig. 1, pts. 2A and 22). 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 Tan with the teachings of Kitamura for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Tan discloses, "A semi-insulating semiconductor substrate provided in contact with a side of the first DBR layer or the first contact layer that is opposite to the active layer side" (p. [0014] and Fig. 4A, pts. 110, 120, and 132). "The semiconductor substrate allowing light emitted from the mesa part to transmit therethrough" (p. [0015] and Fig. 4A, pts. 101 and 110). "Wherein the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer are disposed on a side opposite to a light output face of the semiconductor substrate" (p. [0019], [0036], and Fig. 4A, pts. 110, 151, and 183).
Regarding claim 8, Tan does not explicitly disclose, "A base section that includes a structure common to the mesa part on a side opposite to the light output face of the semiconductor substrate." "A third electrode layer provided on the base section." "A coupling layer that electrically couples the first electrode layer and the third electrode layer to each other." Kitamura discloses, "A base section that includes a structure common to the mesa part on a side opposite to the light output face of the semiconductor substrate" (p. [0048] and Fig. 1, pts. 2, 2A, and 2B). "A third electrode layer provided on the base section" (p. [0056] and Figs. 1 and 2, pts. 2B and 42). "A coupling layer that electrically couples the first electrode layer and the third electrode layer to each other" (p. [0056] and Figs. 1 and 2, pts. 21, 41, and 42, where the third electrode is the portion of 41 in contact with contact layer 21, the coupling layer is the remainder of 41 that fills the via, and the third electrode is 42). 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 Tan with the teachings of Kitamura for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, The combination of Tan and Kitamura does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the coupling layer comprises a plating layer." The examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that it was known in the art to provide electrodes that include different levels and connections between those levels by a plating method. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the conductive metal layers of the prior art by a plating method, since plating is a technique known in the art to be suitable for forming the required layers.
Regarding claim 12, The combination of Tan and Kitamura does not explicitly disclose, "A SiN layer that is in contact with a side face of the mesa part." The examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that it was known in the art to coat the sidewalls of a VCSEL with an insulating layer so as to both protect the laser and control the contact regions of conductive layers and that such an insulating layer may be composed of SiN. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to coat the sidewalls of the VCSEL with SiN, since such a coating would both protect the sidewalls of the VCSEL as well as prevent undesired electrical connections.
Regarding claim 14, The combination of Tan and Kitamura does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the second DBR layer includes a low dope layer at a position close to the active layer and in which a dope amount is relatively low." "A high dope layer at a position away from the active layer as compared with the low dope layer and in which a dope amount is relatively high." The examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that it was known in the art to reduce the doping concentration in layers that are near the active region of a VCSEL so as to ensure the active region is undoped. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dope at least a portion of the second DBR layer that is close to the active region less than the remainder of the second DBR layer is doped, since providing lower doped regions that are close to the active region helps ensure the active region is undoped.
Regarding claim 15, Tan discloses, "Wherein the first contact layer is provided at a location that is in the first DBR layer" (p. [0019] and Fig. 4A, pts. 120 and 151, where the top layer of DBR 120 serves as a contact for electrode 151).
The combination of Tan and Kitamura does not explicitly disclose, "[The first contact layer is provided at a location] where an optical field intensity is relatively low." The examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that it was known in the art to position layers in a VCSEL that are highly doped at nodes of the standing wave so as to avoid interaction between the optical mode and the highly doped layer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the contact layer at a node of the standing wave within the laser, since such positioning would avoid interaction between the optical mode and the contact layer.
Regarding claim 16, The combination of Tan and Kitamura does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the insulation film includes a stacked body." "[The stacked body] in which two or three sets of a pair of Si and SiO2 are stacked." The examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that it was known in the art to provide an insulating mode control layer atop a VCSEL that is composed of multiple layers of silicon and SiO2 that provides a desired interaction between the insulating layer and the operating mode so as to control the operating mode. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to compose the insulating layer of multiple alternating layers of silicon and SiO2, so as to enhance the mode control properties of the insulating layer.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan, in view of Kitamura, and further in view of Trezza et al. (Trezza, US Pub. 2002/0072138).
Regarding claim 10, Tan discloses, "Wherein each of the emitters includes the active layer" (p. [0033] and Fig. 4A, pt. 132). "The first DBR layer" (p. [0033] and Fig. 4A, pt. 120). "The second DBR layer" (p. [0033] and Fig. 4A, pt. 140). "The insulation film" (p. [0033] and Fig. 4A, pt. 190). "The metal layer" (p. [0036] and Fig. 4A, pt. 192). "The first contact layer" (p. [0019] and Fig. 4A, pts. 120 and 151, where the top layer of DBR 120 serves as a contact for electrode 151). "The second contact layer" (p. [0036] and Fig. 4A, pts. 140 and 183, where the top layer of DBR 140 serves as a contact for electrode 183). "The first electrode layer" (p. [0019] and Fig. 4A, pts. 120 and 151). "The second electrode layer" (p. [0036] and Fig. 4A, pts. 140 and 183). Tan does not explicitly disclose, "The base section." "The third electrode." "The coupling layer." Kitamura discloses, "The base section" (p. [0048] and Fig. 1, pts. 2, 2A, and 2B). "The third electrode" (p. [0056] and Figs. 1 and 2, pts. 2B and 42). "The coupling layer" (p. [0056] and Figs. 1 and 2, pts. 21, 41, and 42, where the third electrode is the portion of 41 in contact with contact layer 21, the coupling layer is the remainder of 41 that fills the via, and the third electrode is 42). 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 Tan with the teachings of Kitamura for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Tan and Kitamura does not explicitly disclose, "A laser chip including a plurality of emitters." "A driver IC that faces a face on the plurality of emitters side of the laser chip." "The driver IC is electrically coupled to the second electrode layer of each of the emitters." "[The driver IC is electrically coupled to] the third electrode." "[The driver IC is electrically coupled] via a plurality of bumps." "[The driver IC] controls a light emission and a light extinction of each of the emitters via the plurality of bumps, the second electrode layer of each of the emitters, and the third electrode." Trezza discloses, "A laser chip including a plurality of emitters" (p. [0031] and Fig. 1, pts. 20 and 22). "A driver IC that faces a face on the plurality of emitters side of the laser chip" (p. [0031] and Fig. 1, pts. 10 and 20). "The driver IC is electrically coupled to the second electrode layer of each of the emitters" (p. [0033] and Fig. 2, pts. 10, 14, 20, and 26). "[The driver IC is electrically coupled to] the third electrode" (p. [0033] and Fig. 2, pts. 10, 14, 20, and 26). "[The driver IC is electrically coupled] via a plurality of bumps" (p. [0033] and Fig. 2, pts. 10, 14, 20, and 26). "[The driver IC] controls a light emission and a light extinction of each of the emitters via the plurality of bumps, the second electrode layer of each of the emitters, and the third electrode" (p. [0031] and Fig. 2, pts. 10, 14, 20, and 26). 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 Tan and Kitamura with the teachings of Trezza. In view of the teachings of Tan and Kitamura regarding a laser that is flip chip bonded, the additional inclusion of a driving chip to which the laser is attached as taught by Trezza would enhance the teachings of Tan and Kitamura by providing a support element that also situates driving elements in close proximity to the laser devices.
Regarding claim 11, Tan discloses, "Wherein the first DBR layer is configured by a p-type semiconductor" (p. [0014] and Fig. 4A, pt. 120). "The second DBR layer is configured by an n-type semiconductor" (p. [0014] and Fig. 4A, pt. 140).
The combination of Tan, Kitamura, and Trezza does not explicitly disclose, "The driver IC includes an NMOS driver that controls the light emission and the light extinction of each of the emitters." The examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that it was known in the art to embody a laser driver circuit as an NMOS driver so as to provide a suitable circuit for driving the laser device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to embody the laser driver as an NMOS driver, since such a driver was understood in the art as being capable of driving a laser device.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan, in view of Kitamura, and further in view of Cunningham et al. (Cunningham, US Patent 6,258,616).
Regarding claim 13, The combination of Tan and Kitamura does not explicitly disclose, "An etching stop layer that is provided in the mesa part." "[The etching stop layer] in contact with the first contact layer." Cunningham discloses, "An etching stop layer that is provided in the mesa part" (col. 4, lines 26-39 and Fig. 4, pts. 48 and 50). "[The etching stop layer] in contact with the first contact layer" (col. 4, lines 26-39 and Fig. 4, pts. 42 and 50). 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 Tan and Kitamura with the teachings of Cunningham. In view of the teachings of Tan and Kitamura regarding a laser in which at least some layers are etched to a particular desired level, the additional inclusion of an etch stop layer as taught by Cunningham would enhance the teachings of Tan and Kitamura by allowing the depth of etching to be precisely controlled.
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