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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the amendments made to claims 1 and 16. Claims 3 and 15 stand as cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1,2,4-14 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/20/2026 regarding the argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modified the reflectors of Liao based on the dimensions of Liang have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument that the cited references do not disclose, teach, or suggest reflector characteristic dimensions that are greater than 30 microns in a VCSEL, Examiner has fully considered and respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that paragraph [0014] of Liang discloses that the device [100] may include other devices such as a distributed Bragg reflector. Further, paragraph [0016] of Liang discloses a direct relationship of ability of a device to dissipate heat and the relation of the heat dissipation to device size. Liang discloses that the ability to dissipate heat may increase quadratically as a function of device diameter. Therefore, the improved heat dissipation due to an increased device size is applicable for multiple device types, including a distributed Bragg reflector as stated in paragraph [0014] of Liang. Therefore, Liang directly discloses that an increased device size of a Bragg reflector. The disclosure of paragraphs [0014-0016] of Liang are directed toward a device without a thermal shunt and is directly disclosing the relationship of device size to improved thermal characteristics outside of an additional thermal shunt.
Since paragraph [0014] of Liang discloses that the device can include a distributed Braff reflector (DBR), and paragraph [0016] discloses a device diameter of 50µm, Liang is therefore disclosing a characteristic dimension of a DBR that is greater than 50 µm. Examiner notes that Liang provides the motivation of improved ability to dissipate heat with a larger device diameter.
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 1,2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al. (hereinafter Liao) (US 20030022406 A1) in view of Lear (US 5568499 A) and Liang (US 20140204967 A1)
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 measured across the first reflector 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 measured across the second reflector 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 each of the first reflector characteristic dimension and the second reflector characteristic dimension are greater than 30 microns
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
Lear discloses in Fig. 8b,
A thermal impedance [thermal resistance Fig. 8b] defined by a combination of material properties (Col. 19, lines 36-43) and characteristic dimensions of a reflector (Col. 19, lines 36-43,59 and 60) and active region (Col. 19, lines 19-25,59 and 60) that is less than 1800 K/W (see Fig. 8B, thermal resistance values of less than 1800K/W)
Examiner notes the units of 1 °c/mW is equivalent to 1000K/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 improved thermal resistance structure of the VCSEL of Lear in the device of Liao for the purpose of improved thermal resistance and reduced heat generation in the device. (Lear Col. 19, lines 44-48)
Liao in view of Lear fails to disclose,
wherein each of the first reflector characteristic dimension and the second reflector characteristic dimension are greater than 30 microns
Liang discloses,
a characteristic dimension of a Bragg reflector (Para. [0014]) greater than 30 microns (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])
Regarding claim 2, Liao in view of Lear and Liang as applied to claim 1 above further discloses in Liao,
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 4, Liao in view of Lear and Liang 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 Lear and Liang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shi et al. (hereinafter Shi) (US 20140050240 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Liao in view of Lear and Liang discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
Wherein the VCSEL has an optical aperture of 6 microns
Shi discloses in Fig. 1,
a VCSEL [100] with an optical aperture [301] of 6 microns (Para. [0034])
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 optical aperture diameter as shown in Shi in the modified device of Liao for the purpose of ensuring a stable single mode output. (Shi Para. [0034])
Claims 6,7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao in view of Lear and Liang as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Jayaraman (US 5985686 A)
Regarding claim 6, Liao in view of Lear and Liang discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Liao,
wherein the second reflector [212 Fig. 3(B)] comprises an ion implantation region [214 Fig. 3(B)] (Para. [0024])
Liao in view of Lear and Liang 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 Lear and Liang for the purpose of creating a mode confining layer. (Jayaraman Col. 5, lines 44-66)
Regarding claim 7, Liao in view of Lear and Liang 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 Lear and Liang 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 Lear and Liang 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 Lear and Liang 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 Lear and Liang 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 Lear and Liang 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 Lear and Liang 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 Lear and Liang as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Tanaka (US 20070241354 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Liao in view of Lear and Liang 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 Lear and Liang 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 Lear and Liang 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 Lear and Liang 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 Lear and Liang 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 Lear and Liang 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 measured across the first reflector 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 measured across the second reflector 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 each of the first reflector characteristic dimension and the second reflector characteristic dimension are greater than 30 microns
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
Lear discloses in Fig. 8b,
A thermal impedance [thermal resistance Fig. 8b] defined by a combination of material properties (Col. 19, lines 36-43) and characteristic dimensions of a reflector (Col. 19, lines 36-43,59 and 60) and active region (Col. 19, lines 19-25,59 and 60) that is less than 1800 K/W (see Fig. 8B, thermal resistance values of less than 1800K/W)
Examiner notes the units of 1 °c/mW is equivalent to 1000K/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 improved thermal resistance structure of the VCSEL of Lear in the device of Liao for the purpose of improved thermal resistance and reduced heat generation in the device. (Lear Col. 19, lines 44-48)
Liao in view of Lear fails to disclose,
etching an etched feature in the first portion of the second reflector, the etched feature defining an optical aperture
wherein each of the first reflector characteristic dimension and the second reflector characteristic dimension are greater than 30 microns
Liang discloses,
a characteristic dimension of a Bragg reflector (Para. [0014]) greater than 30 microns (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 Lear and Liang 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 Lear, Liang 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 Lear, Liang 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 Lear, Liang and Jayaraman as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Kushibe.
Regarding claim 18, Liao in view of Lear, Liang 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 Lear, Liang 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 Lear, Liang and Jayaraman as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Tanaka.
Regarding claim 19, Liao in view of Lear, Liang 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 Lear, Liang and Jayaraman as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Shi.
Regarding claim 21, Liao in view of Lear, Liang 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
Shi discloses in Fig. 1,
a VCSEL [100] with an optical aperture [301] of 6 microns (Para. [0034])
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 optical aperture diameter as shown in Shi in the modified device of Liao for the purpose of ensuring a stable single mode output. (Shi Para. [0034])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Examiner particularly notes (US 20230020718 A1) which discloses a thermal impedance value of less than 1800 K/W based on an active 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
/XINNING(Tom) NIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights