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 .
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amending of claims 1, 6, 10, 12, 13, 18, 19 and the cancellation of claims 3, 9 and 15.
Drawings
Figures 1 and 2 are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous 112 rejections are withdrawn due to the current amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant has argued the art of Shimizu, Takeda and especially Brenner do not teach the currently amended claim limitation describing a beam to be emitted through the substrate layer and the passivation layer and away from the oxide layer.
The Examiner does not agree. The Applicant’s arguments appear to be based on the emission having a starting point within the active layer and proceeding along a path which does not cross/enter the oxide layer. This degree of detail is not found in the claims. The claims only state the beam travels through the substrate and passivation layers and also away from the oxide layer. The claim does not say the beam does not pass through/enter/cross the oxide layer, only that the beam travels away from the oxide layer and further does not state any relation of the beam path to that of the active layer.
As can be seen from the device of figure 1j of Brenner, the beam is emitted through the substrate, would pass through the passivation layer which would be beneath the substrate in the modified device based on the teachings of Takeda, and is clearly shown to be traveling in a direction away from the oxide layer as the beam is under the substrate/passivation layer as it is emitted from the device and the oxide layer is above the substrate and passivation layer, thereby the beam is emitted away from the oxide layer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, 10-14, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al. (US 2012/0251039) in view of Takeda et al. (US 2016/0064900) and further in view of Brenner et al. (US 2018/0226768)..
With respect to claim 1, Shimizu teaches a vertical cavity surface emitting laser (fig.2), comprising a substrate layer (fig.2 #20), a first electrode layer (fig.2 #10), a first reflector layer (fig.2 #30), an active layer (fig.2 #50), an oxide layer (fig.2 #70/72), a second reflector layer (fig.2 #90), a second electrode layer (fig.2 #34), , wherein the oxide layer comprises an aperture (fig.2 near label #74), therethrough, and a thickness of the oxide layer tapers off towards the aperture (fig.2 #72). Shimizu does not teach a passivation layer. Takeda teaches a related VCSEL device (fig.1a) with a tapered oxide (fig.1a #108a) and the use of a passivation layer on the emission surface (fig.1a #112a, [0028] wherein the stated materials passivate/protect the semiconductor). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to make use of a passivation layer on the emission surface of Shimizu as demonstrated by Takeda in order to protect the emission region (Takeda, [0028]).
Shimizu, as modified, teaches the vertical cavity surface emitting laser outlined above, including the use of a passivation layer on the emission surface (Takeda, see claim 1 rejection) but does not teach the emission surface to be below the substrate with the passivation layer thereon such that the first electrode layer and the passivation layer are located under the substrate layer, and the first reflector layer, the active layer, the oxide layer, the second reflector layer and the second electrode layer are sequentially stacked on the substrate layer; wherein the vertical cavity surface emitting laser is configured to emit a beam through the substrate layer and the passivation layer and away from the oxide layer. Brenner teaches a related VCSEL device (fig.1J) including a tapered aperture layer (fig.1J #143a) and further teaches the emission surface can be beneath the substrate (fig.1J see arrow at bottom). It would have been obvious before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Shimizu and Takeda such that the emission surface is below the substrate with the passivation layer thereon such that the first electrode layer and the passivation layer are located under the substrate layer, and the first reflector layer, the active layer, the oxide layer, the second reflector layer and the second electrode layer are sequentially stacked on the substrate layer as Brenner has demonstrated the position of the substrate side emission which would enable output from an alternate direction (Brenner, [0082]).
Note that when the emission surface of Shimizu is moved from the top of the device to the bottom the passivation layer would thereby be placed on the bottom and result in the claimed ordering of the layers.
Further note “wherein the vertical cavity surface emitting laser is configured to emit a beam through the substrate layer and the passivation layer and away from the oxide layer” would be met as the modified device would emit the beam through the substrate, then the passivation and then proceed in a direction downward, away from the oxide layer which is disposed above the substrate and thereby meet the claimed emission direction.
With respect to claim 2, Shimizu, as modified, teaches the first electrode layer is located under the substrate layer, and the first reflector layer, the active layer, the oxide layer, the second reflector layer, the second electrode layer and the passivation layer are sequentially stacked on the substrate layer (as outlined in the rejection to claim 1 and seen in fig.2).
With respect to claim 4, Shimizu, as modified, teaches the first reflector layer and the second reflector layer comprise at least one of a distributed Bragg reflector layer ([0031]) and/or a high contrast grating layer respectively.
With respect to claim 5, Shimizu, as modified, teaches the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer respectively comprise one N-contact layer (fig.2 #10 on n side) and one P-contact layer (fig.2 #34 on p side).
With respect to claim 6, Shimizu, as modified, teaches the active layer comprises a single quantum well layer and or a quantum well layer ([0032]).
With respect to claim 7, Shimizu, as modified, teaches an electronic device (fig.11/14), wherein the electronic device comprises the vertical cavity surface emitting laser of claim 1 ([0023, 26]).
Claims 8, 10, 11 and 12 are rejected for the same reasons outlined in the rejections of claims 2, 4, 5 and 6 above.
With respect to claim 13, Shimizu, as modified, teaches a manufacturing method for the vertical cavity surface emitting laser of claim 1 ([0008]), comprising: forming the first reflector layer (fig.2 #30), the active layer (fig.2 #50), the oxide layer (fig.2 #70/72), the second reflector layer (fig.2 #90), and the second electrode layer (fig.2 #34) on the substrate layer, and forming the first electrode layer (fig.2 #10 under #20) and the passivation layer (as modified by Takeda) under the substrate layer (as modified by Brenner), wherein the oxide layer is obtained by oxidizing AlxGa1xAs ([0053]) wherein x peaks in an interior of the oxide layer and tapers off toward upper and lower sides of the oxide layer (fig.8 Al content ramps from low in #701 to high in #705 and back to low in #711; [0053-56]).
Claims 14, 16, 17 and 18 are rejected for the same reasons outlined in the rejections of claims 2, 4, 5 and 6 above.
With respect to claim 19, Shimizu, as modified, teaches the thickness of the AlxGa1-xAs layer to be a result effective variable which allows for control of the device capacitance ([0044]), but does not specify the AlxGa1-xAs layer in which the content of the aluminum composition is gradually varied has a thickness ranging from 5 nm to 20 nm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the thickness of the AlxGa1-xAs layer in which the Al composition is gradually varied as Shimizu has taught the thickness to be a result effective variable allowing for choice of a device capacitance (see also MPEP 2144.05 II A/B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see the previously included pto892 form for a list of related tapered aperture VCSEL references.
US 5822356 and 2021/0028603 are noted as being particularly close to the claimed invention.
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 TOD THOMAS VAN ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8447. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8AM-430PM.
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.
/TOD T VAN ROY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights