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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has amended claim 1. Applicant’s amendment overcomes the previous rejection. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Takamizu (US20220271507A1) in view of Choi et al. (US20210336419A1).
Applicant has added new claims 11-17. These new claims are addressed below.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 7, applicant contends that amended claim 1 “recites a structure that allows light emission in only one direction”. This is not consistent with the art and is not claimed. Nothing in the structure of claim 1 requires “light emission in only one direction”. See, e.g., US20210336419A1 [0067]-[0069] which disclose numerous materials including metal and non-metals that still allow for light emission; US6185241 Fig. 1 which discloses an ITO and metal electrode in the emission direction; and US20130034117A1 Fig. 1J that shows metal contacts can be provided on both surfaces and still allow emission in both directions. Since applicant has failed to claim “light emission in only one direction”. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
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 05/05/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the first application on the merits on 01/05/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 05/05/2026. These drawings are accepted.
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, 9, and 11-15 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 an electrode configured with metal in the stacked sequency and the conductive film is a transparent conductive film. However, Choi discloses an electrode configured with metal in the stacked sequence (Fig. 5 element 11; [0069]) and the conductive film is a transparent conductive film (Fig. 5 element 60; [0067]). An advantage, as is known in the art, is 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. 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 an electrode configured with metal in the stacked sequency and the conductive film is a transparent conductive film as disclosed by Choi 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 Choi 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 claims 9, 14, and 15, 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).
Regarding claim 11, Choi further discloses the electrode is disposed on an entire back surface of the substrate (Fig. 5 element 11).
Regarding claim 12, 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 and in a cross-sectional view perpendicular to a line passing through a center of a mesa formed by the resonator cavity and the second reflector, the insulation film and the transparent conductive film formed over the opening in the insulation film cover a portion of a top surface of the mesa, and extend onto both sides of the mesa to cover the semiconductor layer. However, Choi discloses the conductive film is a transparent conductive film (Fig. 5 element 60; [0067]) and in a cross-sectional view perpendicular to a line passing through a center of a mesa formed by the resonator cavity and the second reflector (Fig. 5 elements 40 and 51), the insulation film (Fig. 5 element 80) and the transparent conductive film formed over the opening in the insulation film (Fig. 5 element 60) cover a portion of a top surface of the mesa (Fig. 5 elements 80 and 60 cover the top of elements 40 and 50), and extend onto both sides of the mesa to cover the semiconductor layer (Fig. 5 elements 80 and 60 cover the sides of elements 40 and 50). An advantage is to decrease contact resistance by increasing contact area allowing for higher optical power output ([0008]-[0009]). 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 and in a cross-sectional view perpendicular to a line passing through a center of a mesa formed by the resonator cavity and the second reflector, the insulation film and the transparent conductive film formed over the opening in the insulation film cover a portion of a top surface of the mesa, and extend onto both sides of the mesa to cover the semiconductor layer as disclosed by Choi in order to decrease contact resistance by increasing contact area allowing for higher optical power output.
Regarding claim 13, 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 and light emits from a side on which the transparent conductive film is disposed. However, Choi discloses the conductive film is a transparent conductive film (Fig. 5 element 60; [0067]) and light emits from a side on which the transparent conductive film is disposed ([0126]). An advantage is to decrease contact resistance by increasing contact area allowing for higher optical power output ([0008]-[0009]). 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 and light emits from a side on which the transparent conductive film is disposed as disclosed by Choi in order to decrease contact resistance by increasing contact area allowing for higher optical power output.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamizu in view of Choi, 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. 5-81) 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 Choi 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 Choi 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 Choi 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.
Claims 10, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamizu in view of Choi, as applied to claim 1, 12, and 13, in further view of Koyama et al. (US20210184426A1), hereafter Koyama.
Regarding claims 10, 16, and 17, Takamizu in view of Choi 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.
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).
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 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 06/27/2026
1 The Office notes that each individual layer of a DBR mirror is transparent. Light is reflected at the interface between the layers.
Prosecution Insights