DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the amendments made to claims 1,5 and 16. Claim 15 stands as cancelled. No new claims have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 and 16-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been withdrawn in light of the amendment made to claim 5.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes that claims 6,10 and 12 are recognized as product-by-process claims further described in MPEP § 2113 (I). Specifically, the term “etched feature” in claims 6, 10 and 12. The term “etched feature” implies the feature shown by element number [146] in Fig. 1 must be formed by etching. Therefore, the limitation of the feature needing to be an “etched feature” as described in claims 6, 10 and 12 is not given patentable weight after being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al. (hereinafter Liao) (US 20030022406 A1) in view of Liang (US 20140204967 A1) and Wasserbauer et al. (hereinafter Wasserbauer) (US 6720585 B1)
Regarding claim 1, Liao discloses,
A vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser [Figs. 3(A)-3(E)] (Para. [0023]) (VCSEL) comprising:
a first reflector [210 Fig. 3(A)] (Para. [0023]);
a second reflector [212,215 Fig. 3(C)] (Para. [0023,0024]); and
an active region [211 Fig. 3(A)] (Para. [0023]) disposed between the first reflector [210 Fig. 3(A)] and the second reflector [212 Fig. 3(A)] (Para. [0023]),
wherein the first reflector [210 Fig. 3(A)], the active region [211 Fig. 3(A)], and the second reflector [212 Fig. 3(A)] (i) are aligned with one another along an emission axis of the VCSEL [emission axis between 218 Fig. 3 (D)] and (ii) do not comprise a trench surrounding the emission axis in a first plane that is perpendicular to the emission axis,
wherein the first reflector [210 Fig. 3(C) defines a first reflector characteristic dimension in a second plane that is perpendicular to the emission axis [left and right across 210 Figs. 3(A)-3(E)] and the second reflector [212,215 Figs. 3(C)] defines a second reflector characteristic dimension in a third plane that is perpendicular to the emission axis [left and right across 212,215 Figs. 3(A)-3(C)], and
wherein the first reflector [210 Fig. 3(C)] characteristic dimension is equal to the second reflector [212,215 Fig. 3(C)] characteristic dimension [210,212 and 215 share same width see Fig. 3(C)].
Liao fails to disclose,
wherein a thermal impedance defined by a combination of material properties and characteristic dimensions of the first reflector, the active region, and the second reflector is less than 1800 K/W
Liang discloses,
a thermal impedance defined by characteristic dimensions of a device (Para. [0016]) that is less than 1800 K/W (Para. [0016])
Examiner notes that the units of C/W equate to K/W.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the 50µm device size of Liang into the device of Liao for the purpose of improved ability to dissipate heat. (Liang Para. [0016])
Liao in view of Liang fails to disclose,
wherein a thermal impedance defined by a combination of material properties and characteristic dimensions of the first reflector, the active region, and the second reflector is less than 1800 K/W
Wasserbauer discloses,
a reduction of a thermal impedance value defined by material properties of a reflector (Col. 5, lines 62-65, Col. 6, lines 14-19)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the improved thermal material properties of the reflectors of Wasserbauer in addition to the increased device size of Liao in view of Liang for the purpose of reducing the thermal impedance of the device. (Wasserbauer Col. 6, lines 14-17)
Regarding claim 2, Liao in view of Liang and Wasserbauer as applied to claim 1 above further discloses
wherein the active region [211 Fig. 3(C)] (Para. [0023]) defines an active region characteristic dimension in a fourth plane that is perpendicular to the emission axis [left and right across 211 Figs. 3(A)-3(C)] and the active region characteristic dimension is equal to the first reflector characteristic dimension [left and right across 210 Figs. 3(A) 3(E)] and to the second reflector characteristic dimension [left and right across 212,215 Figs. 3(A)-3(C)].
Regarding claim 3, Liao in view of Liang and Wasserbauer as applied to claim 1 above further discloses in Liang,
wherein the second reflector characteristic dimension is greater than 30 microns (Liang Para. [0016])
Regarding claim 4, Liao in view of Liang and Wasserbauer as applied to claim 1 further discloses in Liao,
wherein a surface of the second reflector [top surface 215 Fig. 3(C)] that is opposite the active region [211 Fig. 3(C)] along the emission axis [vertically] is planar across the second reflector characteristic dimension [215 shows planar top surface Figs. 3(C)-3(E)].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao in view of Liang and Wasserbauer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chirovsky et al. (hereinafter Chirovsky) (US 6169756).
Regarding claim 5, Liao in view of Liang and Wasserbauer discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
Wherein the VCSEL has an aperture of 6 microns
Chirovsky discloses,
a VCSEL with an aperture [18.6] with a diameter of 6 microns (Col. 7, lines 1-7)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the 6 micron diameter of the aperture of Chirovsky as the aperture diameter of Liao in view of Liang and Wasserbauer for the purpose of allowing sufficient space for current to flow through the aperture into the active layer of the device. (Chirovsky Col. 3, lines 47-51)
Claims 6,7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao in view of Liang and Wasserbauer as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Jayaraman (US 5985686 A)
Regarding claim 6, Liao in view of Liang and Wasserbauer discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses
wherein the second reflector [212 Fig. 3(B)] comprises an ion implantation region [214 Fig. 3(B)] (Para. [0024])
Liao in view of Liang and Wasserbauer fails to disclose,
an etched feature
Jayaraman discloses in Fig. 3,
an etched feature [32] (Col. 5, lines 53-55) which creates a mode confining layer that can be performed in any of the plurality of layers of the composite-layer structure. (Jayaraman Col. 5, lines 45-47)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the etched feature as disclosed in Jayaraman into the first portion of the second reflector of Liao in view of Liang and Wasserbauer for the purpose of creating a mode confining layer. (Jayaraman Col. 5, lines 44-66)
Regarding claim 7, Liao in view of Liang, Wasserbauer and Jayaraman as applied to claim 6 above further discloses in Liao,
wherein the second reflector [212,215 Fig. 3(A)-3(E)] is a distributed Bragg reflector comprising alternating layers of higher and lower Al-content AIGaAs (Para. [0017]), and the ion implantation region [214 Fig. 3(B)] is formed in a GaAs layer [234 Fig. 3(A)] (Para. [0023]) of the distributed Bragg reflector (Para. [0017,0023,0024]).
Regarding claim 9, Liao in view of Liang, Wasserbauer and Jayaraman as applied to claim 6 above further discloses in Liao,
wherein the ion implantation region [214 Fig. 3(B)] (Para. [0024]) is lithographically defined (Para. [0024]).
Regarding claim 10, Liao in view of Liang, Wasserbauer and Jayaraman as applied to claim 6 above further discloses,
wherein the etched feature [Jayaraman 32 Fig. 3] has a height of 5 to 70 nm in a direction parallel to the emission axis
Col. 5, lines 55-57 of Jayaraman states that the etch depth in the mode confining layer is less than one-quarter of the emission wavelength. The device of Liao comprises an active region with a quantum well structure comprising any of the materials of (InGaAs, GaAs, AlGaAs, InGaAsN, or InAlGaAs) (Liao Para. [0016]. When using these materials for the active layer, the emitted wavelength must be above 300nm (all material options listed operate in wavelength values above 300nm). Since the etch depth of the mode confining layer is less than one-quarter of the emission wavelength and the emission wavelength value must be over 300nm, the device of Liao with the implemented etched feature of Jayaraman can include an etch feature with a height between 5nm and 70nm.
Regarding claim 11, Liao in view of Liang, Wasserbauer and Jayaraman as applied to claim 6 above further discloses in Liao,
wherein the ion implantation region [214 Fig. 3(B)] defines an electrical aperture of the VCSEL (Para. [0024]).
Regarding claim 12, Liao in view of Liang, Wasserbauer and Jayaraman as applied to claim 6 above further discloses in Jayaraman,
wherein the etched feature [32 Fig. 3] defines an optical aperture of the VCSEL (Col. 5, lines 1-5).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao in view of Liang, Wasserbauer and Jayaraman as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Kushibe et al. (hereinafter Kushibe) (US 20070047607 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Liao in view of Liang, Wasserbauer and Jayaraman discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 6 above but fails to disclose
wherein the ion implantation region is disposed within 500 nm of the active region.
Kushibe discloses in Fig. 6,
conducting ion implantation withing 0.1 µm of an active layer [4] (Para. [0151])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to conduct the ion implantation of the modified device of Liao within 0.1µm of the active layer as shown in Kushibe for the purpose of controlling precision of the diameter of the confining region. (Kushibe Para. [0151])
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao in view of Liang and Wasserbauer as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Tanaka (US 20070241354 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Liao in view of Liang and Wasserbauer discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
further comprising a via, a first contact, and a first contact pad, the via and the first contact configured to place the first contact pad in electrical communication with a first surface of the active region.
Tanaka discloses in Fig. 2,
further comprising a via [13] (Para. [0056]), a first contact [17] (Para. [0056]), and a first contact pad [33] (Para. [0057]), the via [13] and the first contact [17] configured to place the first contact pad [33] in electrical communication with a first surface of the active region [6a] (Para. [0050]) (Para. [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the first contact and via structure of Tanaka into the device of Liao in view of Liang and Wasserbauer for the purpose of having both electrodes on a single side of the device, allowing easier pad bonding (Tanaka Para. [0099]).
Regarding claim 14, Liao in view of Liang and Wasserbauer discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Liao Fig. 3(D),
further comprising a second contact [218] (Para. [0027]) wherein the second contact [218] at least partially defines an emission aperture of the VCSEL (Para. [0027])
Contact [218] is disclosed to be metallic (Para. [0027]), and is shown to cover parts of the top mirror in Fig. 3(D). Therefore, the metallic contacts at least partially define an emission aperture as the metallic material of the contact will block or effect the emitted light.
Liao in view of Liang and Wasserbauer fails to disclose,
a second contact pad, the second contact in electrical communication with the second pad
Tanaka discloses in Fig. 2,
a second contact pad [23] (Para. [0052])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a contact pad as shown in Tanaka over a second contact of Liao in view of Liang and Wasserbauer for the purpose of allowing easier electrical connection to the second contact of Liao. (Tanaka Para. [0099])
Claims 16 and 18-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao in view of Liang, Wasserbauer and Jayaraman (US 5985686 A).
Regarding claim 16, Liao discloses
a method for fabricating a VCSEL [Figs. 3(A)-3(E)] (Para. [0023]), the method comprising:
fabricating a first reflector [210 Fig. 3(A)] (Para. [0023]), active region [211 Fig. 3(A)] (Para. [0023]), and a first portion of a second reflector [212 Fig. 3(A)] (Para. [0023]);
forming an ion implantation region [214 Fig. 3(B)] (Para. [0024,0028]) in the first portion of the second reflector [212 Fig. 3(B)] (Para. [0024]), the ion implantation region [214 Fig. 3(B)] defining an electrical aperture (Para. [0024]); and
forming a second portion of the second reflector [215 Fig. 3(C)] (Para. [0025])
wherein the first reflector [210 Fig. 3(C)], the active region [211 Fig. 3(C)], and the second reflector [212,215 Fig. 3(C)] do not comprise a trench surrounding an emission axis of the VCSEL in a first plane that is perpendicular to the emission axis,
wherein the first reflector [210 Fig. 3(C)] defines a first reflector characteristic dimension in a second plane that is perpendicular to the emission axis of the VCSEL [left and right across 210 Figs. 3(A) 3(E)], and the second reflector defines a second reflector characteristic dimension in a third plane that is substantially perpendicular to the emission axis [left and right across 212,215 Figs. 3(A)-3(C)], and
wherein the first reflector characteristic dimension is substantially equal to the second reflector characteristic dimension (See Fig. 3(C)).
Liao fails to disclose,
etching an etched feature in the first portion of the second reflector, the etched feature defining an optical aperture
wherein a thermal impedance defined by a combination of material properties and characteristic dimensions of the first reflector, the active region, and the second reflector is less than 1800 K/W,
Liang discloses,
a thermal impedance defined by characteristic dimensions of a device (Para. [0016]) that is less than 1800 K/W (Para. [0016])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the 50µm device size of Liang into the device of Liao for the purpose of improved ability to dissipate heat. (Liang Para. [0016])
Liao in view of Liang fails to disclose,
etching an etched feature in the first portion of the second reflector, the etched feature defining an optical aperture
wherein a thermal impedance defined by a combination of material properties and characteristic dimensions of the first reflector, the active region, and the second reflector is less than 1800 K/W
Wasserbauer discloses,
a reduction of a thermal impedance value defined by material properties of a reflector (Col. 5, lines 62-65, Col. 6, lines 14-19)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the improved thermal material properties of the reflectors of Wasserbauer in addition to the increased device size of Liao in view of Liang for the purpose of reducing the thermal impedance of the device. (Wasserbauer Col. 6, lines 14-17)
Liao in view of Liang and Wasserbauer fails to disclose,
Etching an etched feature in the first portion of the second reflector, the etched feature defining an optical aperture
Jayaraman discloses in Fig. 3,
etching an etched feature [32] (Col. 5, lines 53-55) which creates a mode confining layer that can be performed in any of the plurality of layers of the composite-layer structure. (Jayaraman Col. 5, lines 45-47)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the etched feature as disclosed in Jayaraman into the first portion of the second reflector of Liao for the purpose of creating a mode confining layer. (Jayaraman Col. 5, lines 44-66)
Regarding claim 17, Liao in view of Liang, Wasserbauer and Jayaraman as applied to claim 16 above further discloses in Liao
wherein the first reflector [210 Fig. 3(A)], the active region [211 Fig. 3(A)], and the first portion of the second reflector [212 Fig. 3(A)] are formed by one or more epitaxial growth processes (Para. [0023,0024]) and the second portion of the second reflector [215 Fig. 3(C)] is formed by an epitaxial regrowth process (Para. [0025]).
Regarding claim 20, Liao in view of Liang, Wasserbauer and Jayaraman as applied to claim 16 above further discloses in Jayaraman,
wherein the etched feature [32 Fig. 3] has a height in a range of 5 nm to 70 nm. (Col. 5, lines 55-57)
Col. 5, lines 55-57 of Jayaraman states that the etch depth in the mode confining layer is less than one-quarter of the emission wavelength. The device of Liao comprises an active region with a quantum well structure comprising any of the materials of (InGaAs, GaAs, AlGaAs, InGaAsN, or InAlGaAs) (Liao Para. [0016]. When using these materials for the active layer, the emitted wavelength must be above 300nm (all material options listed operate in wavelength values above 300nm). Since the etch depth of the mode confining layer is less than one-quarter of the emission wavelength and the emission wavelength value must be over 300nm, the device of Liao with the implemented etched feature of Jayaraman can include an etch feature with a height between 5nm and 70nm.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao in view of Liang, Wasserbauer and Jayaraman as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Kushibe.
Regarding claim 18, Liao in view of Liang, Wasserbauer and Jayaraman discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 16 above and further discloses in Liao
wherein the ion implantation region [214 Fig. 3(B)] (Para. [0024]) is formed by applying a mask [213 Fig. 3(B)] (Para. [0024]) that defines the electrical aperture (Para. [0024]) and dosing the first portion of the second reflector [212 Fig. 3(B)] with ions with an ion energy that causes the ions to be implanted in the ion implantation region [214 Fig. 3(B)] (Para. [0024,0028])
Liao in view of Liang, Wasserbauer and Jayaraman fails to disclose,
the ion implantation region within 500 nm of the active region.
Kushibe discloses in Fig. 6,
conducting ion implantation withing 0.1 µm of an active layer [4] (Para. [0151])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to conduct the ion implantation of the modified method of Liao within 0.1µm of the active layer as shown in Kushibe for the purpose of controlling precision of the diameter of the confining region. (Kushibe Para. [0151])
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao in view of Liang, Wasserbauer and Jayaraman as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Tanaka.
Regarding claim 19, Liao in view of Liang, Wasserbauer and Jayaraman discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 16 above but fails to disclose,
further comprising forming one or more vias and depositing one or more contacts onto the VCSEL.
Tanaka discloses,
Forming a via [13] (Fig. 7) (Para. [0056]), a first contact [17] (Fig. 8) (Para. [0056])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the forming of the first contact and via structure of Tanaka into the modified method of Liao for the purpose of having both electrodes on a single side of the device, allowing easier pad bonding. (Tanaka Para. [0099]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao in view of Liang, Wasserbauer and Jayaraman as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Chirovsky.
Regarding claim 21, Liao in view of Liang, Wasserbauer and Jayaraman discloses the method outlined in the rejection of claim 16 above but fails to disclose,
Wherein the optical aperture has a diameter of 6 microns
Chirovsky discloses,
a VCSEL with an aperture with a diameter of 6 microns (Col. 6, lines 57-67)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the 6 micron diameter of the aperture of Chirovsky as the aperture diameter of Liao in view of Liang, Wasserbauer and Jayaraman for the purpose of allowing sufficient space for current to flow through the aperture into the active layer of the device. (Chirovsky Col. 3, lines 47-51)
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Examiner notes (US 20070153861 A1) which discloses that thermal impedance is inversely proportional to aperture diameter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNTER J NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5318. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:30am-5:00 ET.
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.
/H.J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2828 /TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828