DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 through 21 originally filed 29 April 2022. By amendment received 8 December 2025; claims 1, 9, 18, and 20 are amended. Claims 1 through 21 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 amendments to the abstract overcome the previous objection thereto. This argument is persuasive and the corresponding objection is withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the amendments to the drawings and specification overcome the previous objections thereto. The present amendments overcome most previous drawing objections and those drawing objections that are overcome are withdrawn.
However, the disclosure still uses the reference character "200b" to refer to more than one element throughout. Particularly, the reference character "200b" is used in the disclosure to refer to both the "active layer" and the "second multilayer film reflector". Considering the totality of the disclosure and drawings, it is apparent that reference character "200b" should only refer to the "active layer" and the instances of "200b" that refer to the "second multilayer film reflector" in ¶240, ¶246, and ¶247 should be changed to the reference character "200c". The objection related to this reference character is maintained and clarified below.
Applicant argues that the amendments to the claims overcome the previous objections thereto. This argument is persuasive and the corresponding objections are withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Kaneko (US Pub. 2003/0016713), Eitel (US Pub. 2003/0231682), Bradley et al. (Bradley, US Patent 4,901,327), and Inaba et al. (Inaba, US Patent 4,797,890) do not teach or render obvious the limitation "[The impurity area is provided] over a side wall section of a portion of the mesa structure wherein the portion includes the first multilayer film reflector" because, according to applicant, Bradley teaches away from the claimed configuration. To support this argument, applicant contends that Bradley employs the impurity area thereof for lateral current injection whereas the claimed device is configured for vertical current flow.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because it does not consider the effect of the cited teachings in combination (MPEP §2145IV). Specifically, Kaneko and Eitel are directed to vertical cavity laser devices in which current flows vertically through the active layer (Kaneko, ¶60 & 70 describing Figure 1 which shows laser 120 having active region 105 that receives vertical current flow between contact regions 109 and 111 as well as Eitel, ¶86 & 89 describing Fig. 2C that shows a vertical flow of charge carriers 214 and 215 through active region 211 and constriction layer 213). In Kaneko, the lower electrode contacts a contact region that includes a high carrier density to provide excellent ohmic contact (Kaneko, ¶98 describing the formation of contact region 111 shown in Figure 6 and ¶18 describing the advantage of this formation). In Eitel, the lower electrode contacts the sidewall of the mesa structure of the device and close to the active region so as to reduce resistive losses (Eitel, ¶92 describing the placement of electrode 202 shown in Figure 2C close to active region 211 for this purpose). Bradley teaches that a vertical cavity laser having a mesa may also include doping along the sidewalls of the mesa (Bradley, col. 7, lines 32-40 describing the provision of impurity layers 124 along the sidewalls of the mesa as in Fig. 6). This teaching of Bradley indicates that a device according to the combined teachings of Kaneko and Eitel may, in addition to including electrodes along the sidewalls of the mesa, extend the contact region along sidewalls of the mesa so as to achieve the good ohmic contact described in Kaneko when employing electrodes along the sidewall as in Eitel. In this combination according to the teachings of Kaneko, Eitel, and Bradley, the contact layers continue to provide connection between the electrode and the semiconductor device and also continue to convey current from the electrode toward the active region of the device. Since Kaneko and Eitel convey current vertically through the active region and since the introduction of the cited teachings of Bradley into this combination does not alter the current flow thereof, the device according to the combined teachings of Kaneko, Eitel, Bradley, and Inaba does not exhibit the horizontal current flow of Bradley alone. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
The limitation "[The impurity area is provided] over a side wall section of a portion of the mesa structure wherein the portion includes the first multilayer film reflector" is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Kaneko, Eitel, Bradley, and Inaba (see below). Applicant's argument that Bradley teaches away from the claimed configuration is not persuasive because it does not consider the effect of the cited teachings in combination (MPEP §2145IV).
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Kaneko, Eitel, and Salinas et al. (Salinas, US Pub. 2007/0161217) do not teach or render obvious the limitation "A step of diffusing impurities from the adjacent area to a side wall section of a portion of the first mesa structure" because, according to applicant, Kaneko does not teach this limitation. To support this argument, applicant contends that the impurities of Kaneko are not diffused into the mesa structure.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because it does not strictly correspond to that which is claimed (MPEP §2145VI). Specifically, the text of the claim requires the step to diffuse impurities from the adjacent area to a side wall section of a portion of the first mesa structure. In the present rejection, the phrase "to a side wall section of a portion of the first mesa structure" is interpreted as merely further defining the location of the "adjacent area". Kaneko discloses a mesa having a side wall section of a portion of the mesa structure as well as an implantation region adjacent to a sidewall of the mesa (Kaneko, Fig. 7 depicting mesa 110 and an implantation region defined by mask 112 from which impurities diffuse to create region 111). Since Kaneko teaches diffusing impurities from a region meeting all locational requirements set forth in the claim, the combined teachings of Kaneko, Eitel, and Salinas render obvious the feature as claimed. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
The limitation "A step of diffusing impurities from the adjacent area to a side wall section of a portion of the first mesa structure" is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Kaneko, Eitel, and Salinas (see below). Applicant's argument that Kaneko does not teach this limitation is not persuasive because it does not strictly correspond to that which is claimed (MPEP §2145VI).
As such, all claims are addressed as follows:
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4).
The description uses the reference character "200b" to refer to more than one part. The same reference character must never be used to designate different parts.
In the present case, the reference character "200b" appears to be erroneously mentioned in ¶240, ¶246, and ¶247. By context, these references should be "200c"
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 2, 4, 8 through 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko (US Pub. 2003/0016713), in view of Eitel (US Pub. 2003/0231682), in view of Bradley et al. (Bradley, US Patent 4,901,327), and further in view of Inaba et al. (Inaba, US Patent 4,797,890).
Regarding claim 1, Kaneko discloses, "A substrate" (p. [0060] and Fig. 1, pt. 101). "A mesa structure formed on the substrate" (p. [0060] and Fig. 1, pts. 101 and 110). "An active layer stacked on the first multilayer film reflector" (p. [0060] and Fig. 1, pts. 103 and 105). "A second multilayer film reflector stacked on the active layer" (p. [0060] and Fig. 1, pts. 105 and 108). "An impurity area is provided over a contact area that is adjacent to the mesa structure" (p. [0063] and Fig. 1, pts. 110 and 111). "[The impurity area] contacts an electrode" (p. [0067] and Fig. 1, pts. 111 and 117). Kaneko does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the mesa structure includes at least a part of a first multilayer film reflector stacked on the substrate." Eitel discloses, "Wherein the mesa structure includes at least a part of a first multilayer film reflector stacked on the substrate" (p. [0081] and Fig. 2C, pt. 210). 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 Kaneko with the teachings of Eitel. In view of the teachings of Kaneko regarding a VCSEL including a doped conduction region to the side of a mesa structure and associated with a lower electrode, the alternate construction of the mesa to include a portion of the lower multilayer reflector as well as the alternate construction of the electrode to be formed along the sidewalls thereof and the additional inclusion of the laser device in larger electronic equipment as taught by Eitel would enhance the teachings of Kaneko by allowing a wider contact area for the lower contact as well as a reduction in parasitic capacitance along the current path within the device as well as indicating applications in which the combined device may be employed.
The combination of Kaneko and Eitel does not explicitly disclose, "[The impurity area is provided] over a side wall section of a portion of the mesa structure." Bradley discloses, "[The impurity area is provided] over a side wall section of a portion of the mesa structure" (col. 7, lines 32-40 and Fig. 6, pt. 124). 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 Kaneko and Eitel with the teachings of Bradley. In view of the teachings of Kaneko regarding a VCSEL including a doped conduction region to the side of a mesa structure and associated with a lower electrode and the teachings of Eitel regarding a VCSEL in which an electrode is provided along the sidewall of a mesa, the alternate configuration of the doped conduction region to extend along the sidewall of the mesa as taught by Bradley would enhance the teachings of Kaneko and Eitel by allowing good connection between the electrode and the entire surface to which the electrode is connected.
The combination of Kaneko, Eitel, and Bradley does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the portion includes the first multilayer film reflector." Inaba discloses, "Wherein the portion includes the first multilayer film reflector" (col. 10-11, lines 62-25, and Fig. 18, pts. 124, 126, and 127). 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 Kaneko, Eitel, and Bradley with the teachings of Inaba. In view of the teachings of Kaneko regarding a VCSEL including a doped conduction region to the side of a mesa structure and associated with a lower electrode, the teachings of Eitel regarding a VCSEL in which an electrode is provided along the sidewall of a mesa, and the teachings of Bradley regarding providing the doped conduction region to extend along the sidewall of the mesa, the further clarification that the doped sidewall may exist within an DBR sidewall and the additional configuration of the device as a two-dimensional array as taught by Inaba would enhance the teachings of Kaneko, Eitel, and Bradley by indicating that the sidewall doping of Bradley may be employed along the sidewall of the DBR of Eitel within the combined teachings of Kaneko, Eitel, and Bradley so as to produce predictable results as well as by indicating alternate configurations in which multiple emitters may be implemented.
Regarding claim 2, The combination of Kaneko and Eitel does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the impurity area is continuous from the contact area to the side wall section." Bradley discloses, "Wherein the impurity area is continuous from the contact area to the side wall section" (col. 7, lines 32-40 and Fig. 6, pt. 124). 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 Kaneko and Eitel with the teachings of Bradley for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Kaneko discloses, "The contact area includes a part of the bottom section of the first multilayer film reflector" (p. [0067] and Fig. 1, pts. 103 and 111). Kaneko does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the mesa structure includes a portion other than a bottom section of the first multilayer film reflector." Eitel discloses, "Wherein the mesa structure includes a portion other than a bottom section of the first multilayer film reflector" (p. [0081] and Fig. 2C, pt. 210). 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 Kaneko with the teachings of Eitel for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Kaneko discloses, "Wherein an impurity concentration of the impurity area is lower than 5×1019 cm-3" (p. [0099] and Fig. 1, pt. 111).
Regarding claim 9, Kaneko discloses, "Wherein other electrodes contact a surface of the mesa structure" (p. [0070] and Fig. 1, pts. 110 and 113). "[The surface] is located on a same side where the electrode is arranged corresponding to the contact area" (p. [0070] and Fig. 1, pts. 113 and 115).
Regarding claim 10, Kaneko discloses, "Wherein the substrate is a semi-insulating substrate or a low-doped substrate" (p. [0060] and Fig. 1, pt. 101, where the substrate is not identified as doped).
Regarding claim 11, Kaneko discloses, "Wherein light is emitted toward a side of the substrate that the side is opposite to a mesa-structure side" (p. [0073] and Fig. 1, pts. 101 and 110).
Regarding claim 12, Kaneko discloses, "Wherein an AlGaAs-based compound semiconductor or a GaN-based compound semiconductor is used" (p. [0065]).
Regarding claim 13, Kaneko does not explicitly disclose, "A current constriction layer arranged between the first multilayer film reflector and the second multilayer film reflector." Eitel discloses, "A current constriction layer arranged between the first multilayer film reflector and the second multilayer film reflector" (p. [0091] and Fig. 2C, pts. 210, 212, and 213). 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 Kaneko with the teachings of Eitel for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Kaneko discloses, "Wherein at least one of the first and second multilayer film reflectors is a semiconductor multilayer film reflector" (p. [0060] and Fig. 1, pts. 103 and 108).
Regarding claim 16, The combination of Kaneko, Eitel, and Bradley does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the surface emission laser is arrayed two-dimensionally." Inaba discloses, "Wherein the surface emission laser is arrayed two-dimensionally" (col. 12, lines 1-5 and Fig. 21). 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 Kaneko, Eitel, and Bradley with the teachings of Inaba for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, Kaneko does not explicitly disclose, "Electronic equipment comprising the surface emission laser array." Eitel discloses, "Electronic equipment comprising the surface emission laser array" (p. [0002]). 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 Kaneko with the teachings of Eitel for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko, in view of Eitel, in view of Bradley, in view of Inaba, in view of Iwata et al. (Iwata, US Pub. 2015/0311675), and further in view of Jewell et al. (Jewell, US Patent 5,729,566).
Regarding claim 3, The combination of Kaneko, Eitel, Bradley, and Inaba does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the mesa structure includes the whole of the first multilayer film reflector." Iwata discloses, "Wherein the mesa structure includes the whole of the first multilayer film reflector" (p. [0026] and Fig. 2, pt. 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 the combination of Kaneko, Eitel, Bradley, and Inaba with the teachings of Iwata. In view of the teachings of Kaneko regarding a VCSEL including a doped conduction region to the side of a mesa structure and associated with a lower electrode, the additional inclusion of a lower contact layer between the substrate and the lower multilayer reflector as taught by Iwata would enhance the teachings of Kaneko, Eitel, Bradley, and Inaba by allowing enhanced lateral conduction to the laser region.
The combination of Kaneko, Eitel, Bradley, Inaba, and Iwata does not explicitly disclose, "The contact area includes a part of the substrate." Jewell discloses, "The contact area includes a part of the substrate" (col. 12, lines 54-57 and Fig. 2, pts. 14 and 38'). 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 Kaneko, Eitel, Bradley, Inaba, and Iwata with the teachings of Jewell. In view of the teachings of Kaneko regarding a VCSEL including a doped conduction region to the side of a mesa structure and associated with a lower electrode, the additional extension of the conduction region to the substrate as taught by Jewell would enhance the teachings of Kaneko, Eitel, Bradley, Inaba, and Iwata by allowing an enlarged surface area for the conduction region to deliver current.
Regarding claim 6, The combination of Kaneko, Eitel, Bradley, Inaba, and Iwata does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the contact area includes a part of the substrate." Jewell discloses, "Wherein the contact area includes a part of the substrate" (col. 12, lines 54-57 and Fig. 2, pts. 14 and 38'). 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 Kaneko, Eitel, Bradley, Inaba, and Iwata with the teachings of Jewell for the reasons provided above regarding claim 3.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko, in view of Eitel, in view of Bradley, in view of Inaba, and further in view of Iwata.
Regarding claim 5, The combination of Kaneko, Eitel, Bradley, and Inaba does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the mesa structure includes the whole of the first multilayer film reflector." "The surface emission laser further includes a contact layer arranged between the substrate and the first multilayer film reflector." "The contact area includes a part of the contact layer." Iwata discloses, "Wherein the mesa structure includes the whole of the first multilayer film reflector" (p. [0026] and Fig. 2, pt. 22). "The surface emission laser further includes a contact layer arranged between the substrate and the first multilayer film reflector" (p. [0026] and Fig. 2, pts. 11, 21, and 22). "The contact area includes a part of the contact layer" (p. [0036] and Fig. 2, pts. 21 and 911, where providing a contact area by selective doping as in Kaneko requires at least the portion of Iwata contacted by electrode 911 to include a doped contact area). 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 Kaneko, Eitel, Bradley, and Inaba with the teachings of Iwata for the reasons provided above regarding claim 3.
Regarding claim 7, The combination of Kaneko, Eitel, Bradley, Inaba, and Iwata does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a thickness of the contact layer is equal to or smaller than 1 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 thickness of the contact layer to within the noted range so as to minimize the required thickness thereof, 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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko, in view of Eitel, in view of Bradley, in view of Inaba, and further in view of Jewell.
Regarding claim 15, The combination of Kaneko, Eitel, Bradley, and Inaba does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein at least one of the first and second multilayer film reflectors is a dielectric multilayer film reflector." Jewell discloses, "Wherein at least one of the first and second multilayer film reflectors is a dielectric multilayer film reflector" (col. 12, lines 43-50 and Fig. 2, pts. 48' 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 Kaneko, Eitel, Bradley, and Inaba with the teachings of Jewell. In view of the teachings of Kaneko regarding a VCSEL including a doped conduction region to the side of a mesa structure and associated with a lower electrode, the additional extension of the conduction region to the substrate as taught by Jewell would enhance the teachings of Kaneko, Eitel, Bradley, and Inaba by allowing an enlarged surface area for the conduction region to deliver current.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko, in view of Eitel, and further in view of Salinas et al. (Salinas, US Pub. 2007/0161217).
Regarding claim 18, Kaneko discloses, "A step of stacking at least a first multilayer film reflector, an active layer, and a second multilayer film reflector on a substrate in this order, and producing a stacked layer body" (p. [0087] and Fig. 3, pts. 103, 105a, 108a, and 150). "A step of forming an insulating film in the first mesa structure and an area adjacent to the first mesa structure" (p. [0092]). "A step of removing the insulating film formed in the adjacent area" (p. [0093] and Fig. 6, pts. 103a and 114). "A step of diffusing impurities from the adjacent area to a side wall section of a portion of the first mesa structure" (p. [0097] and Fig. 7, pts. 103a and 111). "Wherein the portion includes the first multilayer film reflector" (p. [0097] and Fig. 7, pts. 103a and 111). "A step of providing an electrode on an area adjacent to the second mesa structure" (p. [0101] and Fig. 1, pts. 110 and 117). Kaneko does not explicitly disclose, "A step of etching the stacked layer body until a part of a side surface of at least the first multilayer film reflector is exposed, and forming a first mesa structure." Eitel discloses, "A step of etching the stacked layer body until a part of a side surface of at least the first multilayer film reflector is exposed, and forming a first mesa structure" (p. [0082] and Fig. 2C, pts. 205 and 210). 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 Kaneko with the teachings of Eitel for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Kaneko and Eitel does not explicitly disclose, "A step of further etching the stacked layer body until another section of the side surface of at least the first multilayer film reflector is exposed." "Forming a second mesa structure to replace the first mesa structure." Salinas discloses, "A step of further etching the stacked layer body until another section of the side surface of at least the first multilayer film reflector is exposed" (p. [0042] and Fig. 11, pt. 30, where etching through the doped area of Kaneko in this manner would necessarily expose the side surface of the multilayer reflector). "Forming a second mesa structure to replace the first mesa structure" (p. [0042] and Fig. 11, pt. 30). 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 Kaneko and Eitel with the teachings of Salinas. In view of the teachings of Kaneko and Eitel regarding a VCSEL including a doped conduction region to the side of a mesa structure and associated with a lower electrode, the additional inclusion of an etched trench through the conduction region into which the electrode is situated as taught by Salinas would enhance the teachings of Kaneko and Eitel by indicating an alternate manner of establishing connection with the doped region.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko, in view of Eitel, in view of Salinas, and further in view of Iwata.
Regarding claim 19, The combination of Kaneko, Eitel, and Salinas does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein at the step of producing the stacked layer body, a contact layer is stacked on the substrate before the first multilayer film reflector is stacked on the substrate." "At the step of forming the second mesa structure, the stacked layer body in which the first mesa structure is formed is etched until at least the contact layer is exposed." Iwata discloses, "Wherein at the step of producing the stacked layer body, a contact layer is stacked on the substrate before the first multilayer film reflector is stacked on the substrate" (p. [0025], [0026], and Fig. 2, pts. 11, 21, and 22). "At the step of forming the second mesa structure, the stacked layer body in which the first mesa structure is formed is etched until at least the contact layer is exposed" (Fig. 2, pts. 21 and 22, where including this trench in the lower multilayer reflector through the process set forth in Kaneko and Eitel requires the lower multilayer reflector to be etched until the contact layer is exposed). 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 Kaneko, Eitel, and Salinas with the teachings of Iwata. In view of the teachings of Kaneko regarding a VCSEL including a doped conduction region to the side of a mesa structure and associated with a lower electrode, the additional inclusion of a lower contact layer between the substrate and the lower multilayer reflector as taught by Iwata would enhance the teachings of Kaneko, Eitel, and Salinas by allowing enhanced lateral conduction to the laser region.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko in view of Eitel.
Regarding claim 20, Kaneko discloses, "A step of stacking at least a first multilayer film reflector, an active layer, and a second multilayer film reflector on a substrate in this order, and producing a stacked layer body" (p. [0087] and Fig. 3, pts. 103, 105a, 108a, and 150). "A step of forming an insulating film in the mesa structure and an area adjacent to the mesa structure" (p. [0092]). "A step of removing the insulating film formed in the adjacent area" (p. [0093] and Fig. 6, pts. 103a and 114). "A step of diffusing impurities from the adjacent area to a side wall section of a portion of the mesa structure" (p. [0097] and Fig. 7, pts. 103a and 111). "Wherein the portion includes the first multilayer film reflector" (p. [0097] and Fig. 7, pts. 103a and 111). "A step of providing an electrode on the adjacent area" (p. [0101] and Fig. 1, pts. 110 and 117). Kaneko does not explicitly disclose, "A step of etching the stacked layer body until at least a part of a side surface of at least the first multilayer film reflector is exposed, and forming a mesa structure." Eitel discloses, "A step of etching the stacked layer body until at least a part of a side surface of at least the first multilayer film reflector is exposed, and forming a mesa structure" (p. [0082] and Fig. 2C, pts. 205 and 210). 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 Kaneko with the teachings of Eitel for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko, in view of Eitel, and further in view of Iwata.
Regarding claim 21, The combination of Kaneko and Eitel does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein at the step of producing the stacked layer body, a contact layer is stacked on the substrate before the first multilayer film reflector is stacked on the substrate." "At the step of forming the mesa structure, the stacked layer body is etched until at least the contact layer is exposed." Iwata discloses, "Wherein at the step of producing the stacked layer body, a contact layer is stacked on the substrate before the first multilayer film reflector is stacked on the substrate" (p. [0025], [0026], and Fig. 2, pts. 11, 21, and 22). "At the step of forming the mesa structure, the stacked layer body is etched until at least the contact layer is exposed" (Fig. 2, pts. 21 and 22, where including this trench in the lower multilayer reflector through the process set forth in Kaneko and Eitel requires the lower multilayer reflector to be etched until the contact layer is exposed). 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 Kaneko and Eitel with the teachings of Iwata. In view of the teachings of Kaneko regarding a VCSEL including a doped conduction region to the side of a mesa structure and associated with a lower electrode, the additional inclusion of a lower contact layer between the substrate and the lower multilayer reflector as taught by Iwata would enhance the teachings of Kaneko and Eitel by allowing enhanced lateral conduction to the laser region.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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