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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 2023103536151, filed on 04/06/2023.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Translation of the certified copy is required in order to perfect the priority claim made for this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/12/2024 was filed after the mailing date of the Application Data Sheet on 04/24/2023. 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 information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/09/2024 filed after the mailing date of the Application Data Sheet on 04/24/2023. 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 information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/28/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Application Data Sheet on 04/24/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0043], line 2, there is a closed parenthesis but no open parenthesis to complete the pair.
In paragraph [0042], “the hybrid reflector” is described but lacks antecedent basis.
In paragraph [0008], “the shape of the corresponding region of the near wavelength grating” is described but “the corresponding region” lacks antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “the hybrid reflector” [0042] has no antecedent basis in the specification.
.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 5, 6/5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14/3, 15/14, 16/14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the shape of the corresponding region of the near wavelength grating” in lines 10 and 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation will be read as “a shape of the corresponding region of the near wavelength grating”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the shape of the corresponding region of the near wavelength grating” in lines 10-11. What is meant to be “the corresponding region of the near wavelength grating” is indefinite. For examination purposes, this limitation will be taken to mean the area that the near wavelength grating physically occupies.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the conformal layers” in lines 16, 17, and 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation will be read as “a plurality of conformal layers”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a planarized layer is further provided above the conformal layers” in lines 16-17. It is unclear from the scope of the claim if the planarized layer is a result of forming the conformal layers with a sufficient thickness, or is instead an additional layer added to the existing device. In light of the specification, it is suggested that the at least one conformal layer forms the planarized layer (paragraph [0044], lines 8-11). This inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim as uncertain. See MPEP § 2173.03. For purposes of examination the limitation will be taken as the planarized layer being a result of forming the conformal layers with a sufficient thickness.
Claim 6 is rejected by its dependency on Claim 5.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the conformal layer” I lines 19-20. It is not defined by the scope of the claim which of the at least one conformal layer is being referred to. For examination purposes, it is taken as any one of the at least one conformal layers.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “comprise at least one of a SiN layer, an Al203 layer, a TiO2 layer and a SiO2 layer” in lines 20-21. It is not defined by the scope of the claim if the SiO2 layer is required to be part of the stopping layer, or if it is not required to be part of the stopping layer but at least one of the preceding layer alternatives are. For examination purposes, the SiO2 layer is taken to be optional.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the cap layer” in line 26. here is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, this limitation will be read as “a cap layer”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein the stopping layer comprises at least one of a Si layer, a Ge layer, a GaN layer, an AlGaN layer, a GaAs layer, an AlGaAs layer, an InGaP layer, an InGaAs layer, and an AlAs layer”. It is not defined by the scope of the claim if the AlAs layer is required to be part of the stopping layer, or if it is not required to be part of the stopping layer but at least one of the preceding layer alternatives are. For examination purposes, the AlAs layer is taken to be optional.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the interior of the cap layer” in line 39. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, this limitation will be read as “an interior of the cap layer”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein the stopping layer comprises at least one of a Si layer, a Ge layer, a GaN layer, an AlGaN layer, a GaAs layer, an AlGaAs layer, an InGaP layer, an InGaAs layer, and an AlAs layer”. It is not defined by the scope of the claim if the AlAs layer is required to be part of the stopping layer, or if it is not required to be part of the stopping layer but at least one of the preceding layer alternatives are. For examination purposes, the AlAs layer is taken to be optional.
Claim 14 is rejected by its dependency on Claim 3. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected by heir dependency on Claim 14, precedingly dependent on Claim 3.
Claim 15 rejected by its dependency on Claim 14.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the interior of the cap layer” in line 48. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, this limitation will be read as “an interior of a cap layer”.
Claim 16 is rejected by its dependency on Claim 14.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “wherein the stopping layer comprises at least one of a Si layer, a Ge layer, a GaN layer, an AlGaN layer, a GaAs layer, an AlGaAs layer, an InGaP layer, an InGaAs layer, and an AlAs layer”. It is not defined by the scope of the claim if the AlAs layer is required to be part of the stopping layer, or if it is not required to be part of the stopping layer but at least one of the preceding layer alternatives are. For examination purposes, the AlAs layer is taken to be optional.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Liao et al. (“Polarization control and mode optimization of 850 nm multi-mode VCSELs using surface grating”, applicant submitted prior art), hereinafter Liao, in view of Matsushita et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 2011/0317540), hereinafter Matsushita.
Regarding Claim 1, Liao teaches a vertical cavity surface emitting laser, comprising a substrate layer (Fig. 4, “GaAs substrate”), a first reflector layer (Fig.4, “N-DBR”), a light emitting layer (Fig. 4, “active region”), a polarization selective hybrid layer (Abstract) and an electrode layer (p. 5, left column, first paragraph) that are stacked, the polarization selective hybrid layer comprising a second reflector layer (Fig.4, “P-DBR”), and a near wavelength grating layer (Fig. 4, immediately below the upward arrow) integrated above the second reflector layer, wherein a period of a near wavelength grating (p.6, left column, paragraph segment; Fig. 5, top row, first three images from the left, “600nm”, “700nm”, “800nm”) is smaller than a wavelength of light in a propagating medium (Abstract, “850 nm”). The wavelength of light in a semiconductor material in the vertical cavity surface emitting laser is inherently longer than the wavelength of light in a propagating medium. As taught by Liao, the emission wavelength (i.e., wavelength of air in a propagating medium) considered is 850 nm (Abstract), a grating period of 600 nm, 700 nm or 800 nm (p.6, left column, paragraph segment; Fig. 5, top row, first three images from the left), and the semiconductor material of the N-DBR considered is GaAs (p.5, left column, paragraph segment preceding first paragraph). The quotient of the wavelength of light in a propagating medium and the refractive index of the semiconductor material is the wavelength of light in the semiconductor material. For the known refractive index of GaAs of 3.2727, the wavelength of light in the semiconductor material is 260 nm as rounded to the nearest nm. Thus, as taught by Liao, the grating periods of 600 nm, 700 nm, or 800 nm are larger than the wavelength of light in a semiconductor material of the vertical cavity surface emitting laser, in addition to being smaller than a wavelength of light in a propagating medium. Also, it would be understood by someone having ordinary skill in the art that the active layer taught by Liao is necessarily inherently a light-emitting layer, in the sense that the injected current in the active region yields electron-hole pairs that undergo stimulated emission within the active region to produce photons.
The device taught by Liao differs from that of the claimed invention in that there is no buffer layer between the first reflector layer and substrate. Matsushita teaches a buffer layer (paragraph [0052]) between the first reflector layer and substrate, and an electrode layer atop the second reflector (Abstract). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Liao and Matsushita by depositing a buffer layer in the same manner as which the other layers in the stack were deposited. This combination would yield a predictable result of producing an intermediary region between the substrate and the reflector layers and active layer for the benefit of minimizing defects on the growing surface for the active layer.
Regarding Claim 2, Liao as modified by Matsushita teaches the device of Claim 1. Liao further teaches that the near wavelength grating is formed by etching a cap layer (Fig. 4, “p-contact”; p.5, left column, paragraph segment preceding first paragraph, “p+ doped GaAs layer”) in the second reflector layer. As taught by Liao, the cap layer (Fig. 4, p-contact”) thickness of 50 nm (p.5, left column, paragraph segment preceding first paragraph) is less than the 60 nm etch depth (p.5, left column, first paragraph), so the resulting etch of the near wavelength grating is formed by the cap layer.
Regarding Claim 10, Liao as modified by and Matsushita teaches the invention as claimed in Claim 1. Liao further teaches the light emitting layer comprises an active layer and an oxide layer that are stacked (Fig. 4), and the oxide layer comprises an unoxidized region (Fig. 4, lighter coloring in the central mesa of the oxide providing an aperture for current injection) for emitting laser light and an oxidized region surrounding the unoxidized region layer (Fig. 4, darker coloring of the oxide layer).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Liao and Matsushita in view of Qiao et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 2019/0252857), hereinafter Qiao.
Regarding Claim 3, Liao as modified by Matsushita teaches the device of Claim 1. Liao and Matsushita do not teach that the shape of the corresponding region of the near wavelength grating comprises at least one of a polygon and a circle. Qiao further teaches that the shape of the corresponding region of the near wavelength grating comprises at least one of a polygon and a circle (rectangle as polygon in Fig. 2A-H, 3A-D). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to shape the area of the grating to match the layer stack it is atop of for the benefit of being easier to manufacture.
Claims 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao and Matsushita in view of Johnson et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,000,374), hereinafter Johnson.
Regarding Claim 7, Liao as modified by Matsushita teaches the device of Claim 1. Liao and Matsushita do not teach that there is at least one stopping layer is provided below the near wavelength grating. Johnson teaches at least one stopping layer (Fig. 2, “126”; Column 6, first paragraph) is provided below a grating (Fig. 2, “122” and “130”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Liao and Matsushita with the teachings of Johnson achieve a desired etch depth or accuracy of a near wavelength grating.
Regarding Claim 8, Liao and Matsushita as modified by Johnson teaches the device of Claim 7. Johnson further teaches that the bottom of the grating (Fig. 2, “122” and “130”) is located above the stopping layer (Fig. 2, “126”) or the bottom of grating penetrates the stopping layer and reaches the interior of the cap layer in the second reflector layer (Fig. 3, “126”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to etch up to or through an etch stop for the benefit of achieving the desired etch depth.
Regarding Claim 9, Liao and Matsushita as modified by Johnson teaches the device of Claim 7. Matsushita further teaches the stopping layer comprises at least one of a Si layer, a Ge layer, a GaN layer, an AIGaN layer, a GaAs layer, an AIGaAs layer, an InGaP layer, an InGaAs layer, and an AIA s layer (paragraph [0038]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize one or some combination of these materials in order to increase the selectivity of the etch.
Regarding Claim 11, Liao and Matsushita teaches the device of Claim 2. Liao and Matsushita do not teach at least one stopping layer is provided below the near wavelength grating. Johnson teaches at least one stopping layer (Fig. 2, “126”; Column 6, first paragraph) is provided below a grating (Fig. 2, “122” and “130”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Liao and Matsushita with the teachings of Johnson achieve a desired etch depth or accuracy of a near wavelength grating.
Regarding Claim 12, Liao and Matsushita as modified by Johnson teaches the device of Claim 11. Johnson further teaches that the bottom of the grating (Fig. 2, “122” and “130”) is located above the stopping layer (Fig. 2, “126”) or the bottom of grating penetrates the stopping layer and reaches the interior of the cap layer in the second reflector layer (Fig. 3, “126”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to etch up to or through an etch stop for the benefit of achieving the desired etch depth.
Regarding Claim 13, Liao and Matsushita as modified by Johnson teaches the device of Claim 11. Matsushita further teaches the stopping layer comprises at least one of a Si layer, a Ge layer, a GaN layer, an AIGaN layer, a GaAs layer, an AIGaAs layer, an InGaP layer, an InGaAs layer, and an AIA s layer (paragraph [0038]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize one or some combination of these materials in order to increase the selectivity of the etch.
Claims 14, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao, Matsushita, and Qiao in view of Johnson.
Regarding Claim 14, Liao, Qiao, and Matsushita teaches the device of Claim 3. Liao, Qiao, and Matsushita do not teach that there is at least one stopping layer is provided below the near wavelength grating. Johnson teaches at least one stopping layer (Fig. 2, “126”; Column 6, first paragraph) is provided below a grating (Fig. 2, “122” and “130”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Liao, Qiao, and Matsushita with the teachings of Johnson achieve a desired etch depth or accuracy of a near wavelength grating.
Regarding Claim 15, Liao, Qiao, and Matsushita as modified by Johnson teaches the device of Claim 14. Johnson further teaches that the bottom of the grating (Fig. 2, “122” and “130”) is located above the stopping layer (Fig. 2, “126”) or the bottom of grating penetrates the stopping layer and reaches the interior of the cap layer in the second reflector layer (Fig. 3, “126”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to etch up to or through an etch stop for the benefit of achieving the desired etch depth.
Regarding Claim 16, Liao, Qiao, and Matsushita as modified by Johnson teaches the device of Claim 14. Matsushita further teaches the stopping layer comprises at least one of a Si layer, a Ge layer, a GaN layer, an AIGaN layer, a GaAs layer, an AIGaAs layer, an InGaP layer, an InGaAs layer, and an AIA s layer (paragraph [0038]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize one or some combination of these materials in order to increase the selectivity of the etch.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao and Matsushita, in view of Qiao et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 2021/0167580), hereinafter Qiao2.
Regarding Claim 4, Liao as modified by Matsushita teaches the device of Claim 1. Liao and Matsushita do not teach at least one conformal layer provided on an outer surface of the near wavelength grating. Qiao2 teaches a conformal layer provided on an outer surface of a grating (Fig. 4C, grating “216” and low index layer “214”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by Liao and Matsushita by providing the conformal layer taught by Qiao2 on an outer surface of a near wavelength grating. This combination of teachings would benefit the optical properties of the VCSEL device by increasing its reflectivity, as compared to the near wavelength grating alone.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 & 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASMIN KAUR MUNDI whose telephone number is (571) 272-9755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8 a.m. - 6 p.m. ET.
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.
/J.K.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2828 /TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828