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's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite “a first reflector layer, an oxidation layer, a light-emitting layer and a second reflector layer which are stacked in sequence”. On pages 5 and 6 of the response, applicant contends this amendment overcomes the previous rejection because (1) Shouji discloses the active layer is below the oxidized layer, (2) Shouji’s groove only reaches the active layer or the substrate, (3) Yoshikawa’s groove cuts into the lower DBR possibly causing similar damage, (4) a person of ordinary skill in the art would find combining Shouji and Yoshikawa difficult, and (5) Yoshikawa has two different oxidized layers which is different from Shouji and the claimed solution.
These arguments are not persuasive, because they misconstrue what is actually claimed and make bare allegations without explanation or evidentiary support. Applicant’s claim language requires “a first reflector layer, an oxidation layer, a light-emitting layer and a second reflector layer which are stacked in sequence” and “the oxidation groove cuts through at least from the top of the laser precursor to the top of the first reflector layer”.
With regards to applicant’s first argument, Shouji will not be relied on to teach the active layer is above the oxidized layer. The Office will rely on Yoshikawa to teach this feature as is outlined below. Applicant’s claim did not previously require the oxidation layer to be below the active layer. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
With regards to applicant’s second and third arguments, applicant admits Shouji discloses a groove to the substrate and through part of the first reflector of Yoshikawa. The claim recites “the oxidation groove cuts through at least from the top of the laser precursor to the top of the first reflector layer (emphasis added)”. “At least” describes the minimum extent of the groove. Accordingly, the claim explicitly allows for the groove to extend into the first reflector or even all the way through the first reflector to the substrate. Additionally, the Office notes that Shouji was not relied on to teach this feature. The Office relies on Yoshikawa to teach this feature. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Additionally, applicant’s allegation of further damage to the first reflector is not supported by any evidence. However, even if it was supported by evidence, Shouji shows that the protection film extends throughout the groove regions regardless of depth. Accordingly, the combination would result in the protection film that could be used to negate any potential damage.
With regards to applicant’s fourth argument, applicant’s bare allegation is not supported by explanation or evidence. There does not appear to be any difficulty in combining the references and Yoshikawa provides explicit motivation to combine the references.
With regards to applicant’s fifth argument, the Office acknowledges that neither applicant’s claim nor Shouji disclose multiple oxide layers. However, applicant’s claim uses the transitional phrase “comprising” that allows for other unrecited components. Additionally, Yoshikawa provides explicit motivation for the combination with Shouji.
Applicant applies arguments 1-3 on pgs. 6-7 to the rejection of claim 8. The responses above apply equally. Accordingly, these arguments are also unpersuasive.
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 10/24/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the first action on the merits on 10/01/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shouji et al. (US20110211869A1), hereafter Shouji, in view of Yoshikawa (US20100208760A1), hereafter Yoshikawa.
Regarding claim 1, Shouji discloses a vertical cavity surface emitting laser (Title; Fig. 12), comprising: a laser precursor (See annotated Fig. 12 below), wherein the laser precursor comprises a first reflector layer (Fig. 12 Lower Reflecting Mirror; [0105] element 103), an oxidation layer (See annotated Fig. 12 below; [0082]), a light-emitting layer ([0105] element 105) and a second reflector layer which are stacked (Fig. 12 element Upper Reflecting Mirror), the laser precursor further comprises two or more light-emitting regions (See annotated Fig. 12 below), an oxidation groove is provided between at least adjacent light-emitting regions (See annotated Fig. 12 below); wherein the second reflector layer comprises a plurality of first reflection layers and a plurality of second reflection layers, the first reflection layers and the second reflection layers are stacked alternately (Fig. 12 stacked layers forming the Upper Reflecting Mirror; [0083]), and a groove is formed on the side of the second reflection layer from the oxidation groove and in a direction away from the oxidation groove (Fig. 9; [0084]; Fig. 12 inset); and a protection layer which is arranged on the laser precursor (Fig. 12 element 111; [0095]), and the protection layer at least covers the inner wall of the oxidation groove, and the groove is filled with a part of the protection layer (Fig. 12 inset element 111; [0095]). Shouji does not explicitly disclose a first reflector layer, an oxidation layer, a light-emitting layer and a second reflector layer which are stacked in sequence and the oxidation groove cuts through at least from the top of the laser precursor to the top of the first reflector layer. However, Yoshikawa discloses a first reflector layer (Fig. 2 element 106 below element 106a), an oxidation layer (Fig. 2 element 106a), a light-emitting layer (Fig. 2 element 108) and a second reflector layer (Fig. 2 element 110) which are stacked in sequence (Fig. 2 elements 106, 106a, 108, and 110) and the oxidation groove cuts through at least from the top of the laser precursor to the top of the first reflector layer (Fig. 2 element 114). An advantage is to expose the location of the oxidation layers based on the desired function ([0031]). 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 Shouji with a first reflector layer, an oxidation layer, a light-emitting layer and a second reflector layer which are stacked in sequence and the oxidation groove cuts through at least from the top of the laser precursor to the top of the first reflector layer as disclosed by Yoshikawa in order to expose the location of the oxidation layers based on the desired function.
PNG
media_image1.png
517
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Shouji further discloses the groove is completely filled with the protection layer (Fig. 12 inset shows element 111 completely filing the groove).
Regarding claim 3, Shouji further discloses the protection layer is a silica protection layer or a silicon nitride protection layer ([0095]).
Regarding claim 4, Shouji further discloses both the plurality of first reflection layer and the plurality second reflection layer are aluminum gallium arsenide reflection layers ([0072]), and the aluminum content of each of the plurality of second reflection layers is greater than each of the plurality of the first reflection layers ([0072]).
Regarding claim 5, Shouji further discloses the oxidation layer comprises an unoxidized region (Fig. 8 element 108b) and an oxidized region surrounding the unoxidized region (Fig. 8 element 108a), the unoxidized region is arranged in one-to-one correspondence with the light emitting region (Fig. 12 element 108; [0082]); in the depth direction of the groove, the depth of the groove is less than the oxidation depth of the oxidation region (Fig. 8 element 108a extends deeper than 151).
Regarding claim 6, Shouji further discloses the depth of each groove is the same or different (Fig. 8 element 151).
Regarding claim 7, Shouji further discloses a thickness of each of first reflection layers or each of the plurality of second reflection layers is the same or different ([0072]).
Claims 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shouji in view of Yoshikawa in further view of Hanaoka (US20110123227A1), hereafter Hanaoka.
Regarding claim 8, Shouji discloses a manufacturing method for the vertical cavity surface emission laser (Title), comprising the following steps: providing a laser precursor (Fig. 7A), wherein the laser precursor comprises a first reflector layer (Fig. 7A element 103), an oxidation layer (Fig. 7A element 108), a light-emitting layer (Fig. 7A element 105) and a second reflector layer which are stacked (Fig. 7A element 108), the laser precursor comprises two or more light-emitting regions (See annotated Fig. 12 above); the second reflector layer comprises a plurality of first reflection layers and a plurality of second reflection layers ([0072]; Figs. 8-9), the first reflection layers and the second reflection layers are stacked alternately ([0072]; Figs. 8-9); forming an oxidation groove between at least adjacent light-emitting regions by etching (Fig. 7B; [0080]), performing oxidation on the oxidation layer in the oxidation groove ([0082]), so as to form an unoxidized region (Fig. 8 element 108a) and an oxidized region surrounding the unoxidized region (Fig. 8 element 108b), and forming a groove on the side of the second reflection layer (Fig. 9; [0083]), from the oxidation groove and in a direction away from the oxidation groove (Fig. 9; [0083]); arranging a protection layer on the laser precursor through a vapor deposition process (Fig. 12 element 111; [0095]), wherein the protection layer at least covers the inner wall of the oxidation groove (Fig. 12 element 111), and the groove is filled with a part of the protection layer (Fig. 12 element 111). Shouji does not explicitly disclose a first reflector layer, an oxidation layer, a light-emitting layer and a second reflector layer which are stacked in sequence and the oxidation groove cuts through at least from the top of the laser precursor to the top of the first reflector layer; in the vapor deposition process, the operation temperature is from 180 *C to 220 *C, and the operation pressure is 0 hPa - 1 hPa. However, Yoshikawa discloses a first reflector layer (Fig. 2 element 106 below element 106a), an oxidation layer (Fig. 2 element 106a), a light-emitting layer (Fig. 2 element 108) and a second reflector layer (Fig. 2 element 110) which are stacked in sequence (Fig. 2 elements 106, 106a, 108, and 110) and the oxidation groove cuts through at least from the top of the laser precursor to the top of the first reflector layer (Fig. 2 element 114). An advantage is to expose the location of the oxidation layers based on the desired function ([0031]). 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 Shouji with a first reflector layer, an oxidation layer, a light-emitting layer and a second reflector layer which are stacked in sequence and the oxidation groove cuts through at least from the top of the laser precursor to the top of the first reflector layer as disclosed by Yoshikawa in order to expose the location of the oxidation layers based on the desired function. Shouji in view of Yoshikawa do not explicitly disclose in the vapor deposition process, the operation temperature is from 180 *C to 220 *C, and the operation pressure is 0 hPa - 1 hPa. However, Hanaoka discloses forming a protection film in a vapor deposition process at an operation pressure of 0 hPa - 1 hPa ([0105] 70 Pa is 0.7 hPA) and controlling the temperature and pressure of the deposition process in order to control the properties of the film and the deposition speed ([0105]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shouji in view of Yoshikawa with in the vapor deposition process, the operation temperature is from 180 *C to 220 *C, and the operation pressure is 0 hPa - 1 hPa, since Hanaoka discloses a protection film in a vapor deposition process at an operation pressure of 0 hPa - 1 hPa and controlling the temperature and pressure of the deposition process in order to control the properties of the film and the deposition speed and it has been held that discovering an optimum value, such as the desired deposition temperature, of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited. US20040151221A1 discloses forming an insulating film using CVD with a pressure of 26.6 Pa and a temperature of 250 C. US20040099857A1 discloses forming a passivating layer using a vapor process ALD at a temperature of 200-400 C.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 03/30/2026
Prosecution Insights