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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/29/2022, 04/07/2023, 01/07/2025, 07/10/2025, 09/15/2025, and 11/11/2025 were filed on or after the filing date of this application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The IDS filed 01/07/2025 contains a German Office Action. Applicant has not provided either a brief explanation of relevance or a translation of this document. Accordingly, this document fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3) and cannot be considered.
The IDS filed 07/10/2025 contains a Japanese Office Action. Applicant has not provided either a brief explanation of relevance or a translation of this document. Accordingly, this document fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3) and cannot be considered.
Drawings
Figure 13 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated1. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 § 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 1-3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamizu (US20220271507A1), hereafter Takamizu, in view of Lai et al. (US20180138663A1), hereafter Lai.
Regarding claim 1, Takamizu discloses a semiconductor light-emitting element (Abstract; Title) having a structure in which a substrate (Fig. 3 element 7; [0023]), a first reflector (Fig. 3 element 10; [0025]), a resonator cavity ([0019]; [0033]) including an active layer (Fig. 3 element 11; [0025]), a second reflector (Fig. 3 element 12; [0025]) and a conductive film (Fig. 3 element 62c; [0065]) are stacked in this sequence (Fig. 3), the semiconductor light-emitting element comprising: a first current constriction portion (Fig. 3 elements 34 restrict current to element 36; [0038]) configured with an oxidation constriction layer (Fig. 3 elements 34 constrict current to region 36; [0040]); and a second current constriction portion (Fig. 3 element 51 restricts current to region 52) configured with an insulation film (Fig. 3 element 51; [0049]), which is formed on an upper face of the second reflector (Fig. 3 element 51 is formed on element 12) and has an opening (Fig. 3 element 51 has opening 52; [0049]), and a contact portion between the conductive film and a semiconductor layer with which the conductive film is in contact (Fig. 3 element 62c contacts element 13 at opening 52), wherein a width d2 of the second current constriction portion is smaller than a width d1 of the first current constriction portion ([0050]). Takamizu does not explicitly disclose the conductive film is a transparent conductive film. However, Lai discloses the conductive film is a transparent conductive film (Fig. 4 element 150; [0035]). An advantage is to improve light emitting efficiency without sacrificing electrical and optical performance ([0005]) while allowing for primary emission in one direction and secondary emission in another direction to allow for easy monitoring of the VCSEL as is known in the art. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takamizu with the conductive film is a transparent conductive film as disclosed by Lai in order to improve light emitting efficiency without sacrificing electrical and optical performance while allowing for primary emission in one direction and secondary emission in another direction to allow for easy monitoring of the VCSEL as is known in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Takamizu further discloses the opening of the insulation film in the second current constriction portion is included in a non-oxidized portion on an inner side of the oxidation constriction layer in the first current constriction portion in planar view (Fig. 3 element 51 extends beyond element 34, because D2 is smaller than D1)
Regarding claim 3, Takamizu in view of Lai do not explicitly disclose the width d1 of the first current constriction portion satisfies 30 µm ≤ d1 ≤ 70 µm. However, Takamizu discloses that the width D1 of the first current constriction portion satisfies 28 µm ≤ D1 ≤ 1998 µm ([0042]). An advantage of optimizing the width of the current constriction portion is to satisfy the desired electrical properties of the device based on the size of the VCSEL. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Takamizu in view of Lai with the width d1 of the first current constriction portion satisfies 30 µm ≤ d1 ≤ 70 µm, since Takamizu discloses an overlapping range and it is known in the art to optimize the width of the current constriction portion is to satisfy the desired electrical properties of the device based on the size of the VCSEL and 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).
Regarding claim 9, Takamizu further discloses a light-emitting device comprising, side-by-side, a plurality of the semiconductor light-emitting elements (Fig. 12; [0124]-[0125]) according to claim 1 (See the rejection of claim 1 above).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamizu in view of Lai, as applied to claim 1 in further view of Jansen (US20090207873A1), hereafter Jansen.
Regarding claim 4, Takamizu discloses a p-type contact layer (Fig. 3 element 13; [0025]) disposed on an uppermost portion of the second reflector (Fig. 3 element 12), and wherein the insulation film (Fig. 3 element 51) and the conductive film (Fig. 3 element 62c) are disposed on the p-type contact layer, and the conductive film (Fig. 3 element 62c) is in contact with the second reflector (Fig. 3 element 12)2. As modified in claim 1 above, Takamizu in view of Lai disclose the conductive film is a transparent conductive film (See the rejection of claim 1 above). Takamizu in view of Lai do not explicitly disclose a tunnel junction. However, Jansen discloses that a tunnel junction may be used to replace a p-type contact layer ([0044]). An advantage, as is known in the art, is to allow external contact to be made to an n-type layer which typically have good current spreading properties and favorable contact resistance values.
Regarding claim 5, Takamizu, as modified in claim 4 above, further discloses the tunnel junction layer is disposed on the uppermost portion of the second reflector, so as to include at least a non-oxidized portion on an inner side of the oxidation constriction layer in the first current constriction portion in planar view (Fig. 3 element 13 extends across the mesa such that a central portion overlaps with element 36 in plane view and element 13 would be replaced by a tunnel junction as discussed in the rejection of claim 4 above).
Regarding claim 6, Takamizu in view of Lai in further view of Jansen do not explicitly disclose the width d1 of the first current constriction portion satisfies 50 µm ≤ d1 ≤ 100 µm. However, Takamizu discloses that the width D1 of the first current constriction portion satisfies 28 µm ≤ D1 ≤ 1998 µm ([0042]). An advantage of optimizing the width of the current constriction portion is to satisfy the desired electrical properties of the device based on the size of the VCSEL. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Takamizu in view of Lai in further view of Jansen with the width d1 of the first current constriction portion satisfies 50 µm ≤ d1 ≤ 100 µm, since Takamizu discloses an overlapping range and it is known in the art to optimize the width of the current constriction portion is to satisfy the desired electrical properties of the device based on the size of the VCSEL and 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 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamizu in view of Lai, as applied to claim 1 in further view of Sun (US6185241B1), hereafter Sun.
Regarding claim 7, Takamizu in view of Lai do not explicitly disclose a transparent insulation film is disposed on the transparent conductive film. However, Sun discloses a transparent insulation film (Fig. 1 element 134; col. 3 ll. 5-83) is disposed on the transparent conductive film (Fig. 1 element 126). An advantage is to cause a phase shift in the reflection between the transparent insulation film and the transparent conductive layer film to result in a single mode output light (col. 3 ll. 50-60). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takamizu in view of Lai with a transparent insulation film is disposed on the transparent conductive film as disclosed by Sun in order to cause a phase shift in the reflection between the transparent insulation film and the transparent conductive layer film to result in a single mode output light.
Regarding claim 8, Takamizu in view of Lai do not explicitly disclose a third reflector formed of a dielectric substance is further disposed on the second reflector. However, Sun discloses a third reflector (Fig. 1 element 134) formed of a dielectric substance (col. 3 ll. 5-8) is further disposed on the second reflector (Fig. 1 element 114). An advantage is to form a highly reflective output mirror to maximize the reflectivity for the emitted fundamental mode (col. 4 ll. 22-25). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takamizu in view of Lai with a third reflector formed of a dielectric substance is further disposed on the second reflector as disclosed by Sun in order to cause a phase shift in the reflection between the transparent insulation film and the transparent conductive layer film to result in a single mode output light.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamizu in view of Lai, as applied to claim 1 in further view of Koyama et al. (US20210184426A1), hereafter Koyama.
Regarding claim 10, Takamizu in view of Lai disclose the semiconductor light-emitting element according to claim 1 (See the rejection of claim 1 above). Takamizu in view of Lai do not explicitly disclose a ranging device comprising: a light source including; a sensor that detects reflected light of light generated by the light source; and a processing unit that acquires distance information, based on a detection timing to detect the reflected light. However, Koyama discloses a ranging device (Fig. 15) comprising: a light source (Fig. 15 element 501); a sensor that detects reflected light of light generated by the light source (Fig. 15 element 502); and a processing unit that acquires distance information (Fig. 15 element 500), based on a detection timing to detect the reflected light ([0110]). An advantage is to allow a laser to accurately measure distance ([0117]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takamizu in view of Lai with a ranging device comprising: a light source including; a sensor that detects reflected light of light generated by the light source; and a processing unit that acquires distance information, based on a detection timing to detect the reflected light as disclosed by Koyama in order to allow the laser to accurately measure distance.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 4 and 6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14 and 16 of copending Application No. 18/145,547 (reference application) in view of Jansen. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 14 contains all the limitations of claim 4 except for the tunnel junction layer “is disposed on an uppermost portion of the second reflector”. However, Jansen discloses a tunnel junction may be used to replace a p-type contact layer ([0044]). An advantage, as is known in the art, is to allow external contact to be made to an n-type layer which typically have good current spreading properties and favorable contact resistance values. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 14 of 18/145,547 with the tunnel junction is disposed on an uppermost portion of the second reflector to use the tunnel junction in place of a p-type contact layer as disclosed by Jansen in order to allow external contact to be made to an n-type layer which typically have good current spreading properties and favorable contact resistance values and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 6 recites a range that overlaps with the range of claim 16. An advantage of optimizing the width of the current constriction portion is to satisfy the desired electrical properties of the device based on the size of the VCSEL. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a value in the overlapping region of the claimed ranges in order to optimize the width of the current constriction portion is to satisfy the desired electrical properties of the device based on the size of the VCSEL and 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).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited.
US20080067532A1 [0055] discloses advantages of tunnel junction contact layers.
US6144682 discloses a VCSEL having a first current aperture (Fig. 1 element 120), a second current aperture (Fig. 1 element 134), the width of the second current aperture is smaller than the width of the first current aperture (col. 2 ll. 53-54; col. 3 ll. 27-29) using a transparent conductive film (Fig. 1 element 138).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA KING whose telephone number is (571)270-1441. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10am-5pm MT.
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, Min Sun 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.
/Joshua King/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828 12/12/2025
1 While applicant doesn’t explicitly refer to Fig. 13 as prior art, Fig. 13 is a copy of Fig. 7 from JP2006114915, which is cited by applicant in [0007] of the specification as originally filed.
2 These elements are at least in electrical contact.
3 The Office notes that each individual layer of a DBR mirror is transparent. Light is reflected at the interface between the layers.