Final Rejection
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Following a non-final action, applicant filed a response on 4/4/2026 (“Response”) in which claims 1, 4, 7-9, and 15 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10 2020 113 380 (“DE ‘380”)1 in view of US 2018/0287345 (“Laflaquiere”).
Regarding claim 1, DE ‘380 describes in Fig. 1 and discussion thereof a VCSEL ([0001]-[0002]) comprising: a substrate 4; a first reflector region 6 over the substrate; a second reflector region 14 over the first reflector region; an active region 12 between the first reflector region and second reflector region; an oxide aperture 20/22/24 proximate to the active region, wherein the second reflector region comprises a plurality of mirror pairs 16,18, the mirror pair comprises a first layer and a second layer, and an edge of the first layer and an edge of the second layer are aligned along a direction approximately perpendicular to the substrate (apparent in Fig. 1); and a dielectric layer 30 covering the edge of the first layer and the edge of the second layer, wherein the dielectric layer prevents oxidation of the first layer and the second layer during formation of the oxide aperture ([0030], [0032]), the oxide aperture is separate from the plurality of mirror pairs, and the oxide aperture is located between the active region and the second reflector region (apparent from the figures and description. See e.g. [0029] (“A aperture layer 20 is arranged between the upper Bragg mirror arrangement 14 and the active layer 12.”).
DE ‘380 does not give the material of the oxide aperture layer 20, so does not disclose it is formed from a high aluminum-content layer. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that oxide aperture layers in VCSELs are typically made of high Al content layers, as such layers are known to easily selectively oxidize. In any event Laflaquiere describes a similar VCSEL with oxide aperture 50,100,102, and this layer is made of 98% or 93% Al, which may be considered high. [0026], [0051]-[0053], [0060]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a high Al content layer for oxidation as the high Al content allows it to oxidize faster than the other layers of the VCSEL, as taught by Laflaquiere. [0026].
Regarding claim 2, the upper mirror pairs form a DBR. [0028].
Regarding claim 3, DE ’380 does not state what the active material of the invention is made of, but says that the VCSELs known in the art use quantum wells. [0002]. By saying this in plural, DE ‘380 implies multiple quantum wells. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use this as the active layer, as DE ‘380 does not say what is used but says that quantum wells are used in general known in the art VCSELs, so it is natural to look there. Laflaquiere also uses multiple quantum wells, [0024], and it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use them as a simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143 I.B. DE ‘380 does not state the type of active layer, but this is shown in Laflaquiere. A person of ordinary skill would know that multiple quantum wells are incredibly well known in VCSELs and would know how they operate, so their use would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 4, in DE ‘380 the second reflector 14 is surrounded by the dielectric layer 30 and the edge of the first layer and the edge of the second layer 16,18 of the mirror pairs contact the dielectric layer. Fig. 1, 2C-D.
Regarding claim 5, there is only one oxide layer shown and it is closer to the active region than an upper portion of the second reflector region.
Regarding claim 6, there is only one oxide layer, i.e. less than 10.
Regarding claim 8, DE ’380 discloses a method for fabricating a Vertical Cavity Surface Emitting Laser (VCSEL) device ([0001]-[0002]), comprising: growing a first reflector region 6 over a substrate 4; growing an active region 12 over the first reflector region 6; growing an oxide aperture layer 20 over the active region 12; growing a second reflector region 14 over the active region 12 and the oxide aperture layer 20, the second reflector region comprising a mirror pair including a first layer and a second layer 16,18; (Fig. 2A, [0033]-[0034])
removing a portion of the second reflector region by etch, sides of the first layer and the second layer exposed after the portion is removed (Fig. 2B, [0035]);
forming a dielectric layer 30 over the exposed sides of the first and second layers (Fig. 2C, [0036]); and
performing an oxidation process to form an oxide aperture for the VCSEL device (Fig. 2E), wherein the dielectric layer prevents oxidation of the first layer and the second layer during formation of the oxide aperture ([0030], [0040]), the oxide aperture layer is separate from the second reflector region, and the oxide aperture is located between the active region and the second reflector region (apparent from the figures and description. See e.g. [0029] (“A aperture layer 20 is arranged between the upper Bragg mirror arrangement 14 and the active layer 12.”).
It is not stated that the oxide aperture is a high aluminum content layer. This is obvious in view of Laflaquiere for the same reasons discussed above re: claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, before oxidation, layer 20 is exposed, see Fig. 2D where it is etched to expose the sides, Fig. 2E it is oxidized.
Regarding claims 10-11, see rejection of claims 2-3 above.
Regarding claim 12, the edges of the first and second layers 16,18 of the upper DBR are aligned along a direction approximately perpendicular to the substrate after the oxidation process is performed. See Fig. 1, 2E.
Regarding claim 13, the edges of first and second layer 16 contact dielectric layer 30. Fig. 1, 2C-D.
Regarding claim 14, see rejection of claims 5-6 above.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is met for the same reasons as claim 1, and additionally the second reflector 14 is surrounded by a dielectric layer region 30 such that the edge of the first layer and the edge of the second layer 16,18 contact the dielectric layer 30, as plainly seen in Fig. 1.
Regarding claims 16-17, see rejection of claims 2-3 above.
Regarding claim 18, see rejection of claim 12 above.
Regarding claims 19-20, see rejection of claims 5-6 above.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE ‘380 and Laflaquiere as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US 2020/0076162 (“Chen”).
The limitations of claim 1 are taught as above, but the references do not clearly give the Al content of the upper DBR layers. DE ’380 says one layer is AlGaAs, [0029], but does not give the precise amount of Al as compared to the oxide aperture layer, which again is not given. Laflaquiere says that the lower DBR may have a layer of 93% Al, [0049], but is not specific about the upper DBR, just calling it “high,” [0050]. It discloses the oxidized layer may have compositions such as 98%, 93%, or even lower Al. [0051]-[0053], [0060]. It also may be “similar in composition” to the upper mirror layers. [0053]. It also points out the oxidation rate of the DBR layers does not matter due to the presence of the dielectric layer 96, suggesting that higher Al is not prevented. [0076]. All of this suggests it is likely the DBR layer may have the same or greater Al content, but this may not be sufficient to meet the claim.
Chen shows a similar device in Fig. 2 in which upper DBR made of layers 202,204 is protected from oxidation by dielectric 116 on the sides while a layer below is oxidized. Chen further states that the DBR could be made of alternating layers of GaAs and AlAs, i.e. one of the layers has aluminum content of 100%. [0019]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use such layers as they have lower thermal resistivity, as taught by Chen. AlAs would be 100% Al, and thus would be the same or higher in aluminum content to the oxide aperture layers of DE ‘380 and Laflquiere, which is disclosed as at most 98% Al in Laflaquiere. Again, this is fine because it is protected from oxidation by the dielectric layer.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed with the Response have been fully considered, but are moot in light of the new grounds presented above.
Previously the rejections relied on Laflaquiere as primary reference. Applicant amended the claims to require that the oxide aperture is separate from the mirror pairs and is between the active region and the second reflector. In Laflaquiere the oxide aperture is part of the second reflector, so the examiner agrees that the amendment overcomes the reference. But the DE ‘380 oxide aperture is between the DBR and active layer.
It is also noted that US 5,493,577 to Choquette shows that a VCSEL oxide aperture layer may be within the upper DBR (Figs. 3-4), but may alternatively also be between the top DBR and the active region. See Fig. 1 (layer 20 between DBR 16 and active 18). A 103 rejection based on Laflaquiere (applied like in the prior action) in view of Choquette would also seem appropriate.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Menefee whose telephone number is (571)272-1944. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 applications may be obtained from Patent Center. See: 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.
/JAMES A MENEFEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
1 Cited with translation in 1/5/2026 action.
Prosecution Insights