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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9, as well as 10 due to its dependency, recites “the second reflector.” It is unclear which second reflector the claim refers to as each light emitting element originally recited in claim 1 includes “a second reflector.” For purposes of claim interpretation, it is assumed to be “the second reflector of the third semiconductor light emitting element.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP-2008277615 (Nishida).
For claim 1, Nishida teaches a light source device in which a plurality of semiconductor light-emitting elements are disposed (fig. 1-2, 100 and 200, [0025] and [0029]), each of the plurality of semiconductor light-emitting elements being configured with a first reflector (fig. 1, 102, [0021] and [0029]), a resonator cavity including an active layer (fig. 1, 103 and 203, [0021] and [0029]), and a second reflector which are stacked in this sequence on a semiconductor substrate (fig. 1, 104 and 204, [0021] and [0029]),
wherein in each of the semiconductor light-emitting elements, an electric contact region for supplying carriers to the active layer is disposed on a surface of the second reflector on an opposite side thereof to the active layer (fig. 1 and 2, 109 and 209, [0025] and [0030]), and
wherein the plurality of semiconductor light-emitting elements include a first semiconductor light-emitting element of which shape of the contact region is a first shape (fig. 1 and 2, light emitting element 100 with contact region 109), and a second semiconductor light-emitting element of which shape of the contact region is a second shape (fig. 1 and 2, light emitting element 200 with contact region 209) which is different from the first shape (fig. 2, shapes are different due to different inner diameter 119 and 219).
For claim 2, Nishida teaches the first shape is circular (fig. 2, 109, particularly 109a is a circular ring shape), and wherein the second shape is annular (fig. 2, 209, particularly 209a is an annular circular ring shape). Note that the term circular and annular are not mutually exclusive as used in the claim.
For claim 3, Nishida teaches each of the semiconductor light-emitting elements includes a current constriction portion (fig. 1, 105/115 and 205/215), which is configured with an annular low conductivity region (fig. 1, 105 and 205; [0024] and [0030]) and a high conductivity region disposed on the inner side of the low conductivity region (fig. 1, 115 and 215; [0024] and [0033]), in at least any of the first reflector, the resonator cavity, and the second reflector (fig. 1), and wherein the contact region is included in the high conductivity region of the current constriction portion in planar view (fig. 1 and [0028], [0030]).
For claim 4, Nishida teaches a center of the first shape and a center of the second shape match with a center of the high conductivity region of the current constriction portion in planar view (fig. 1 and 2).
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.
Claim 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2008277615 (Nishida) in view of JP-2006278572 (Yoshikawa).
For claim 5, Nishida teaches in at least one of the plurality of semiconductor light-emitting elements, wherein the contact region is configured with an insulation film (fig. 1, 600, [0065])
Nishida does not teach the insulation film, a part of which has been removed, and which is disposed on the second reflector, and a conductive film which is in contact with the second reflector in a portion where the insulation film has been removed.
However, Yoshikawa teaches a light source similar to Nishida’s (fig. 1) including an insulation film (fig. 1, 113, [0025]), which is disposed on the second reflector (fig. 1, 108) a part of the second reflector is not covered by the insulation film (fig. 1), and a conductive film which is in contact with the second reflector in a portion not covered by the insulation film (fig. 1, 115).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the insulation film of Yoshikawa as a simple substitution for the insulation film of Nishida as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art and the substitution would have yielded predictable results. In the present case, the substituted component provides an alternative configuration to provide electrical insulation from the conductive film except in the desired contact location. See MPEP 2143 I.B.
While the combination does not explicitly teach the portion not covered by the insulation film is “a part of which has been removed,” the limitation is directed to the method of manufacturing the device and does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Further, the examiner takes official notice that etching and removal was well-known in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention in order to leave uncovered regions. 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 well-known etching with the device of the previous combination in order to manufacture the uncovered portion of the second reflector in the combination.
For claim 11, Nishida teaches in each of the plurality of semiconductor light-emitting elements, wherein a reflectance of the first reflector is higher than a reflectance of the second reflector ([0022], the first reflector has 40 pairs resulting in a higher reflectivity than the 25 pairs of the second reflector), wherein light is emitted from the front face of the second reflector (top surface of 104 and 204).
Nishida does not teach a transparent conductive film is formed on a front face of the second reflector. However, Yoshikawa teaches a transparent conductive film (fig. 1, 109, [0025]) is formed on a front face of the second reflector (fig. 1, 108, [0024]) in order to form a contact layer ([0025]).
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 transparent conductive film of Yoshikawa with the device of Nishida in order to form a contact layer.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2008277615 (Nishida) in view of US 5,136,603 (Hasnain).
For claim 9, Nishida teaches the plurality of semiconductor light-emitting elements include a third semiconductor light-emitting element (fig. 1 and 2, 300) which includes a first contact region (fig. 1 and 2, 309) on the surface of the second reflector (fig. 1, 304).
Nishida does not teach a second contact region, which are connected to different power supplies respectively, on the surface of the second reflector.
However, Hasnain teaches a second contact region (fig. 1, 16), which is connected to different power supplies (fig. 1, VPD) from a different power supply (fig. 1, VLD) of a first contact region (fig. 1, 17; connected through the LD, layers 1-12 and 15), on the surface of a second reflector (fig. 1, 11) in order to provide a photodiode or modulator for the laser (fig. 1 and abstract).
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 second contact and power supply of Hasnain with the invention of Nishida in order to provide a photodiode or modulator for the laser.
For claim 10, Hasnain teaches the first contact region is a region that includes a center of the second reflector (fig. 1, “a center” of the second reflector 11 can be interpreted as a region of the reflector which extends beyond the inner dimeter of contact 17 but not to the outer diameter and there is therefore overlap between the “center” and the first contact region such that the first contact region includes a center of the first reflector region), and wherein the second contact region (fig. 1, 16) is a region that is separated from the first contact region (fig. 1, 17) and encloses the second contact region (the second contact region encloses itself; that is there is no portion of the second contact region outside of the second contact region).
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2008277615 (Nishida) in view of US 2001/0006528 (Sato).
For claim 12, Nishida does not teach in each of the plurality of semiconductor light-emitting elements, wherein a reflectance of the first reflector is lower than a reflectance of the second reflector, and wherein light is emitted via the semiconductor substrate.
However, Sato teaches a semiconductor light emitting element wherein light is emitted via the semiconductor substrate (fig. 5, 101) in order to provide an array with excellent thermal characteristics ([0071]).
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 substrate emission of Sato in the device of Nishida in order to provide an array with excellent thermal characteristics.
The combination does not teach a reflectance of the first reflector is lower than a reflectance of the second reflector; however, the examiner takes official notice that reflectance of the first and second reflectors in a laser were known results effective variable before the effective filing date of the claimed invention effecting threshold and light output.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the optimal reflectivities of the first and second reflectors such that a reflectance of the first reflector is lower than a reflectance of the second reflector in order to balance desired threshold and output, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2008277615 (Nishida) in view of US 2021/0296862 (Kondo).
For claim 13, Nishida teaches a ranging device comprising: the light source device according to claim 1 as described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Nishida does not teach a sensor that detects reflected light of light generated by the light source device; and a processing unit that acquires distance information, based on a detection timing to detect the reflected light.
However, Kondo teaches combining a light emitting device (fig. 2, 4) with a sensor that detects reflected light of light generated by the light source device (fig. 2, 5); and a processing unit that acquires distance information, based on a detection timing to detect the reflected light (fig. 2, 8, [0036]-[0039]) in order to provide user authentication ([0040]).
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 sensor and processing unit of Kondo with the light source of Nishida in order to provide user authentication.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: While tunnel junctions were generally known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there is no clear suggestion or motivation to modify Yoshida with the claimed tunnel junction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2022/0069546 provides a variety of different contacts.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael W Carter whose telephone number is (571)270-1872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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 contact the examiner at the above number.
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.
/Michael Carter/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828