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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1 shown in Figs. 1B-4B in the reply filed on 08/27/2025 is acknowledged.
Priority
Examiner notes the present application as a continuation of application number 16/797,600 with the filing date of 02/21/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 09/02/2022 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore,
“A vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL) array, comprising: a plurality of VCSELs, each of the plurality of VCSELs having a diameter;
wherein a pitch between two adjacent VCSELs, of the plurality of VCSELs, is less than the diameter of each of the two adjacent VCSELs” as recited in claim 21 and ,
“An emitter array, comprising:
a first emitter; and
a second emitter, adjacent to the first emitter,
wherein a distance from a center of the first emitter to a center of the second emitter is less than a first diameter of the first emitter and less than a second diameter of the second emitter.” As recited in claim 37
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Examiner notes that Fig. 3 discloses a VCSEL array but does not disclose or show any diameter or pitch, nor a relationship between the diameter and pitch values of any of the VCSELs shown.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 21 and 37 discloses that each VCSEL of a plurality of VCSELs has a diameter, and a pitch between two adjacent VCSELs is less than the diameter of each of the two adjacent VCSELS. The specification filed 09/02/2022 does not disclose any pitch or diameter values or disclose any relationship between the pitch and diameter values of respective VCSELs.
Claims 22-36 and 38-40 are also rejected at least on their dependency to claims 21 and 37.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21, 22, 37 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Thornton (US 6208681 B1).
Regarding claim 21, Thornton discloses in Figs. 11 and 12
A vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL) array [Fig. 12] (Col. 7, lines 21 and 50-53), comprising:
a plurality of VCSELs [single device shown in Fig. 11] (Col. 7, lines 21 and 50-53), each of the plurality of VCSELs having a diameter [“S”] (Col. 7, lines 50-53);
wherein a pitch [“L” Fig. 12] (Col. 7, lines 50-53) between two adjacent VCSELs [Fig. 12], of the plurality of VCSELs, is less than the diameter [“S”] of each of the two adjacent VCSELs (Col. 7, lines 63-67).
Regarding claim 22, Thornton discloses in Figs. 11 and 12
wherein each diameter, of the plurality of VCSELs, is inclusive of an oxidation trench [226 Fig. 11] (Col. 7, lines 58-63).
Regarding claim 37, Thornton discloses in Figs. 11 and 12
An emitter array [Fig.12], comprising:
a first emitter [leftmost emitter Fig. 12] (See Examiners Markup below); and
a second emitter [emitter directly to the right of leftmost emitter Fig. 12] (See Examiners Markup below);
adjacent to the first emitter,
wherein a distance [“L”] from a center of the first emitter to a center of the second emitter is less than a first diameter [“S”] of the first emitter and less than a second diameter [“S”] of the second emitter (Col. 7, lines 63-67).
PNG
media_image1.png
384
597
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 40, Thornton as applied to claim 37 above further discloses in Figs. 11 and 12
wherein the first emitter and the second emitter [Fig. 12 See Examiners Markup] are vertical cavity surface emitting lasers (VCSELs) (Col. 7, lines 21 and 50-53).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 23-26,31-33,35,38 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thornton in view of Ezaki et al. (hereinafter Ezaki) (US 20040165636 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Thornton discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 21 above and further discloses in Fig. 11,
Oxidation trenches [226] (Col 7, line 56)
Thornton fails to disclose,
The oxidation trenches interdigitzed with extended portions along an outer perimeter of an isolation layer of least one of the plurality of VCSEL’s
Ezaki discloses in Figs. 11A-11C,
Oxidation trenches [120 Fig. 11B] (Paras. [0124-0126]) interdigitized with extended portions [150 between 120 shown in Fig. 11C] (Para. [0121]) along an outer perimeter of an isolation layer [150 Fig. 11C] (Para. [0121])
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 isolation structure including the extended portions between oxidation trenches as shown by Ezaki between the oxidation trenches of Thornton for the purpose of selective electrical isolation and prevention of leaking current. (Ezaki Paras. [0130,0139])
Regarding claim 24, Thornton in view of Ezaki as applied to claim 23 above further discloses in Ezaki,
Wherein the extended portions [150 between 120 shown in Fig. 11C] (Para. [0121]) along the outer perimeter of the isolation layer [150 Fig. 11C] (Para. [0121]) are shaped as a cog wheel shape [Fig. 11A]
Examiner notes that the portions extending out between 120 are seen as the “cogs”.
Regarding claim 25, Thornton in view of Ezaki as applied to claim 23 above discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 23 but fails to disclose,
a metal layer formed on the isolation layer
Ezaki discloses in Fig. 11C,
A metal layer [9] (Para. [0121]) formed on the isolation layer [150] (Para. [0121]) through openings in an insulating film [8] (Para. [0108])
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 insulating film and electrode structure of Ezaki into the modified device of Thornton for the purpose of allowing current to be passed through the VCSEL diode in a desired current path. (Ezaki Para. [0121])
Regarding claim 26, Thornton in view of Ezaki as applied to claim 25 above further discloses in Ezaki Fig. 11C,
Wherein a radius associated with the isolation layer [150] (Para. [0121]), is less than or equal to a radius associated with the metal layer [9] (Para. [0121])
Fig. 11C of Ezaki shows the metal layer [9] extending farther than a width of the isolation layer [150]
Regarding claim 31, Thornton discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 21 above and further discloses,
wherein at least one of the plurality of VCSELs [Fig. 12]comprises:
An oxidation aperture [222 Fig. 11] formed by an oxidation layer (Col. 7, lines 58-63)
Thornton fails to disclose,
An optical aperture to emit a laser beam
Ezaki discloses in Figs. 11A-11C,
An optical aperture [23 Fig. 11B] to emit a laser beam, with the optical aperture [23 Fig. 11B] being located above an oxidation aperture [aperture in 6a Fig. 11B] (Para. [0055])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the optical aperture as shown in Ezaki above the oxidation aperture of Thornton for the purpose of having a smaller light emitting opening in the middle of the device and for confining current inside the device. (Ezaki Paras. [0055,0133])
Regarding claim 32, Thornton in view of Ezaki as applied to claim 31 above further discloses in Ezaki Fig. 11B,
Wherein the oxidation layer is located below the optical aperture [23] (Para. [0133])
See rejection of claim 31 above regarding position of optical aperture in relation to the oxidation layer.
Regarding claim 33, Thornton in view of Ezaki as applied to claim 31 above further discloses in Thornton Figs. 11 and 12
wherein, for the at least one of the plurality of VCSELs, an oxidation trench [226 Fig. 11] includes one or more openings that allow oxygen to access an epitaxial layer from which the oxidation layer is formed (Col. 7, lines 58-63).
Regarding claim 35, Thornton discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 21 above and further discloses in Fig. 11,
Oxidation trenches [226] (Col 7, line 56)
Thornton fails to disclose,
At least one oxidation trench formed in an irregular shape
Ezaki discloses in Fig. 11A,
Oxidation trenches [120] (Paras. [0134,0136]) formed in an irregular shape
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 oxidation trench shape of Ezaki in place of the oxidation trench shape of Thornton for the purpose of shaping the oxidation trenches in a flush manner with respect to the shape of the isolation regions.
Regarding claim 38, Thornton discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 37 above and further discloses,
Oxidation trenches [226] (Col 7, line 56)
Thornton fails to disclose,
The oxidation trenches interdigitzed with extended portions along an outer perimeter of an isolation layer of at least one of the first emitter or the second emitter
Ezaki discloses,
Oxidation trenches [120 Fig. 11B] (Paras. [0124-0126]) interdigitized with extended portions [150 between 120 shown in Fig. 11C] (Para. [0121]) along an outer perimeter of an isolation layer [150 Fig. 11C] (Para. [0121])
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 isolation structure including the extended portions between oxidation trenches as shown by Ezaki between the oxidation trenches of Thornton for the purpose of selective electrical isolation and prevention of leaking current. (Ezaki Paras. [0130,0139])
Regarding claim 39, Thornton discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 37 above and further discloses in Fig. 11,
Oxidation trenches [226] (Col 7, line 56)
Thornton fails to disclose,
Wherein the oxidation trenches are irregularly shaped
Ezaki discloses in Fig. 11A,
Oxidation trenches [120] (Paras. [0134,0136]) formed in an irregular shape
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 oxidation trench shape of Ezaki in place of the oxidation trench shape of Thornton for the purpose of shaping the oxidation trenches in a flush manner with respect to the shape of the isolation regions.
Claims 27,29,30 and 34 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thornton in view of Masui et al. (hereinafter Masui) (US 20110249696 A1).
Regarding claim 34, Thornton discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 21 above but fails to disclose
A passivation layer that includes a plurality of openings,
Wherein a metal layer is located in each of the plurality of openings
Masui discloses in Fig. 1B and 2B,
A passivation layer [34 Fig. 2B] (Para. [0041]) that includes a plurality of openings [spaces under 31 Fig. 1B, Fig. 2B] (Para. [0041])
Wherein a metal layer [31 Figs. 1B,2B] is located in each of the plurality of openings (Para. [0041])
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 insulating and metal layer structure of Masui into the device of Thornton for the purpose of allowing selective electrical connection to specific points in the device of Thornton.
Regarding claim 27, Thornton discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 21 but fails to disclose,
A dielectric via opening formed on a dielectric layer of at least one of the plurality of VCSELs,
wherein the dielectric via opening includes a plurality of connected dielectric via opening portions
Masui discloses
a dielectric via opening [space under 31 Fig. 1B, Fig. 2B] (Para. [0041]) formed on a dielectric layer [34 Fig. 2B] (Para. [0041]) of a VCSEL
wherein the dielectric via opening [space under 31 Fig. 1B, Fig. 2B] (Para. [0041]) includes a plurality of connected dielectric via opening portions [spaces under each 31 Fig. 1B, Fig. 2B] (Para. [0041])
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 insulating and metal layer structure of Masui into the device of Thornton for the purpose of allowing selective electrical connection to specific points in the device of Thornton.
Regarding claim 29, Thornton in view of Masui as applied to claim 27 above discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 27 but fails to disclose
Wherein the plurality of connected dielectric via opening portions form a full ring-shape
Masui discloses in Fig. 8,
Wherein the plurality of connected dielectric via opening portions [openings under 31] form a full ring-shape [full connection of spaces under 31 Fig. 8]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the full ring-shape modification of Masui in place of the partial-ring shape of Masui in Fig. 1B for the purpose of allowing point-symmetric formation of the upper electrodes.
Regarding claim 30, Thornton in view of Masui as applied to claim 27 above further discloses in Masui Fig. 1B
Wherein the plurality of connected dielectric via opening portions [spaces under 31 Fig. 1B] (Para. [0041]) form a partial ring-shape [openings under each 31 Fig. 1B show partial ring shape]
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thornton in view of Masui as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Ezaki.
Regarding claim 28, Thornton in view of Masui discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 27 above and further discloses in Masui
Wherein the plurality of connected dielectric via opening portions [spaces under 31 Figs. 1B,2B] (Para. [0041]) are connected via at least one arcuate segment [36 Fig. 1A] (para. [0041])
Examiner notes that the term “connected” will be understood to mean “electrical connection.
Thornton in view of Masui fails to disclose,
The dielectric via opening portions being connected between two or more oxidation trenches
Ezaki discloses in Figs 11A-11C,
Two or more oxidation trenches [120 Figs. 11A,11B] (Paras. [0134,0136])
with a dielectric via opening [opening portions in 8 Fig. 11B] (Para. [0133]) between them
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 dielectric via openings of Thornton in view of Masui between the oxidation trenches as shown in Ezaki for the purpose of allowing selective current confinement to the middle of the device. (Ezaki Para. [0119])
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thornton in view of Shchegrov (US 20060280219 A1).
Regarding claim 36, Thornton discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 21 above but fails to disclose,
Wherein the VCSEL array is a non-grid VCSEL array
Shchegrov discloses,
A non-periodic emitter array (Para. [0181])
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 non-periodic array arrangement of Shchegrov with the laser devices of Thornton for the purpose of optimizing thermal performance. (Shchegrov Para. [0181])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Examiner particularly notes US 20120009704 A1 which discloses a cog-wheel shape of extending portion between oxidation trenches. (See PTO-892 form.)
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