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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Roucka’s circular aperture cannot combine with Kubota’s asymmetric aperture because they address different technical challenges that are not related to mode competition noise reduction, which is the claimed invention’s intended results, neither reference teaches or suggests the polygonal shape is formed by etching a plurality of trenches with unequal spacing and partially oxidizing the oxide confined layer and there is no suggestion in either reference that a polygonal aperture would provide the unexpected benefits of relative intensity noise and improved spectral consistency demonstrated in the present application. Examiner does not find these arguments to be persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that Roucka and Kubota do not teach aperture that are specifically designed to reduce mode competition noise and relative intensity noise, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). As to the argument about the polygonal shape being formed by etching Examiner points out the limitation is a product by process claim limitation and does not receive any weight to patentability, See Claim 1 for more detail. For the given reasons the arguments against Claim 1 are unpersuasive and Examiner maintains the rejection for Claim 1.
Applicant argues that Claim 8 the process of etching trenches with unequal spacing and partially oxidizing results in a structurally distinct VCSEL with improved properties. However, Applicant does not describe how the VCSEL is structurally distinct. “Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an nonobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 803, 218 USPQ 289, 292-33 (Fed. Cir. 1983)” (MPEP 2113 II) Applicant has argued that Claim 8 is structurally distinct but has not provided evidence explaining why. As such Examiner does not find the argument persuasive.
The 112 rejections are withdrawn due to amendments to the Claims.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-9 are rejected as being unpatentable over 35 U.S.C. 103 over Roucka et al. US 20220069546 in view of Kubota US 20220385040.
Regarding Claim 1, Roucka teaches A vertical cavity surface emitting laser (Fig. 4, 400 Paragraph 0066 “FIG. 4 is a sectional view of an example of a VCSEL 400, structured according to the idea of the invention.”), wherein the high-speed vertical cavity surface emitting laser includes a substrate layer (Fig. 4, 402 Paragraph 0066 “VCSEL 400 includes a substrate 402,”), a first electrode layer (Fig. 4, 418 Paragraph 0066 “a first metal contact layer 418”), a first reflector layer (Fig. 4, 404 Paragraph 0066 “a first mirror 404 overlying the substrate,”), an active layer (Fig. 4, 408 Paragraph 0066 “an active region 408”), an oxide-confined layer (Fig. 4, 414 Paragraph 0066 “The oxidation process forms confinement region 414”), a second reflector layer (Fig. 4, 412 Paragraph 0066 “a second mirror 412”), and a second electrode layer (Fig. 4, 420 Paragraph 0066 “a second metal contact layer 420.”),
wherein the polygonal shape is formed by etching a plurality of trenches with unequal spacing and partially oxidizing the oxide confined layer. (The way the polygonal shape is formed found in Claim 1 is a product-by-process claim limitation. The limitations, therefore cannot be relied upon to establish patentability over the prior art. See MPEP 2113.)
Roucka does not teach the oxidation aperture in the oxide-confined layer has the shape of a polygon having imperfect symmetry, the polygonal shape being selected from the group consisting of a pentagon, a hexagon, and a tetragon.
However,
Kubota teaches the oxidation aperture in the oxide-confined layer has the shape of a polygon having imperfect symmetry the polygonal shape being selected from the group consisting of a pentagon, a hexagon, and a tetragon.(Fig. 4, 26a Paragraph 0038 “FIG. 4 is a sectional view of a current confinement layer according to a first modification. In the present modification, the aperture portion 26a has an asymmetric shape in the XY section.” Oxidation aperture 26a has 5 sides making it a penatagon)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified oxidation aperture as taught by Roucka by having it have the shape of a polygon having imperfect symmetry as disclosed by Kubota. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce change in the optical output distribution of laser light when changing the value of the current. (Kubota Paragraph 0020)
Regarding Claim 2, Roucka teaches the oxidation aperture is disposed in the middle of the oxide-confined layer. (Fig. 4 shows the oxidation aperture disposed in the middle of the oxide-confined layer.)
Regarding Claim 3, Roucka teaches the first electrode layer is located under the substrate layer (Fig. 4 shows the first electrode layer 418 is located under the substrate layer 402), and the first reflector layer, the active layer, the oxide-confined layer, the second reflector layer and the second electrode layer are sequentially stacked on the substrate layer (Fig. 4 shows the first reflector layer 404, the active layer 408, the oxide confined layer 414, the second reflector layer 412, and the second electrode layer 420 all stacked sequentially on the substrate layer 402).
Regarding Claim 4, Roucka teaches the first reflector layer and the second reflector layer are at least one of a distributed Bragg reflector layer and a high contrast grating layer. (Paragraph 0020 “In substantially any implementation containing first and second confining material layers, at least one of the first and second reflectors may be configured as a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR),”)
Regarding Claim 6, Roucka teaches the active layer is any one of a single quantum well layer and a multiple quantum well layer. (Paragraph 0066 “FIG. 4 is a sectional view of an example of a VCSEL 400, structured according to the idea of the invention. VCSEL 400 is similar to VCSEL 300, except it uses an oxide-confined aperture.” Paragraph 0057 “It will be understood that active region 308 can include various light emitting structures, such as quantum dots, quantum wells, or the like, which substantially improve a light emitting efficiency of VCSEL 300.”)
Regarding Claim 7, Roucka teaches An electronic device, wherein the electronic device includes the high-speed vertical cavity surface emitting laser. (Paragraph 0003)
Regarding Claim 8, Roucka teaches A manufacturing method for a high-speed vertical cavity surface emitting laser, the method includes: Providing a substrate layer, and sequentially forming a first reflector layer, an active layer, an oxide-confined layer and a second reflector layer on the substrate layer; Disposing a plurality of trenches, and exposing the oxide-confined layer by etching, and performing partially oxidation on the oxide-confined layer to obtain an oxidation aperture in polygon having imperfect symmetry; and Filling the etched trenches with a metal, and forming the first electrode layer on the substrate layer, and forming the second electrode layer on the second reflector layer. (The manufacturing steps found in Claim 8 are a product-by-process claim. The limitations, therefore cannot be relied upon to establish patentability over the prior art. See MPEP 2113.)
Regarding Claim 9, Roucka teaches the distances among the trenches are equal or unequal. (The manufacturing steps found in Claim 9 are a product-by-process claim. The limitations, therefore cannot be relied upon to establish patentability over the prior art. See MPEP 2113.)
Claim 5 is rejected as being unpatentable over 35 U.S.C. 103 over Roucka and Kubota in view of Wang et al. US 20200244040.
Regarding Claim 5, Roucka in combination with Kubota does not teach the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer respectively are any one of a N-type electrode layer and a P-type electrode layer.
However,
Wang teaches the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer respectively are any one of a N-type electrode layer and a P-type electrode layer. (Paragraph 0030 “a cathode contact 113” Paragraph 0030 “Additionally, an anode contact 114”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrodes as taught by Roucka by having one is a N-type electrode and the other is a P-type electrode as disclosed by Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow current to flow between electrodes to emit light from the VCSEL device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ezaki et al. US 20030063649 Fig. 2b appears teach a VCSEL with a oxide aperture that has imperfect symmetry.
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 STEPHEN SUTTON KOTTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1859. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00.
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.
/STEPHEN SUTTON KOTTER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2828 /MINSUN O HARVEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2828