Non-Final Rejection
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-22 are pending.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph [0001] needs to be updated with the appropriate application number.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-8, and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2002/0167985 (“Shinagawa”).
Regarding claim 1, Shinagawa discloses in Fig. 3 and discussion thereof a laser comprising an active region 48 configured to emit light, wherein the active region defines an optical axis; and a mirror layer 52 proximate the active region and disposed along the optical axis. The mirror is made of alternating layers of AlGaAs with the Al portion being 0.9 or 0.2 and one of the 0.9 layers near the active layer is instead AlAs and is oxidized. [0049]. From Fig. 3 and [0049] the AlAs is “near” the active layer but is clearly not the bottom most layer of the mirror. Replacing the second high Al layer (rather than the first, bottom layer) is deemed to be within this disclosure, as it is the nearest layer that is not on the bottom. So, we will have three consecutive layers starting from the bottom of Al0.9Ga0.1As, Al0.2Ga0.8As, and AlAs. These are the first, second and third portions as claimed. The first portion proximate the active region has a first Al fraction 0.9, the second portion proximate the first portion has a second Al fraction 0.2 that is less than the first Al fraction; and a third portion proximate the second portion has a third Al fraction 1.0 that is greater than the first Al fraction, wherein the second portion is disposed between the first portion and the third portion, and wherein Al in the third portion layer 56 is oxidized to comprise an oxide aperture.
Regarding claim 5, there is no indication that the first and second portions are oxidized.
Regarding claims 6-7, the first Al fraction may be 0.9. [0049].
Regarding claim 8, the mirror comprises AlGaAs. [0049].
Regarding claim 12, the oxide layer appears to have uniform thickness. Additionally, the applicant explained that the structure of the mirror layers, having a high Al layer that is oxidized, between low Al layers next to it, is what causes the uniform thickness. Shinagawa has the same structure therefore this claimed property is presumed inherent. MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding claim 13, this is quite clearly a VCSEL.
Regarding claim 14, the mirror 52 is not called a DBR, but a person of ordinary skill would understand that is what it is, as it is made of 25 pairs of alternating high and low refractive index materials. [0049]. The AlAs layer is “near” the active layer, therefore having it replace the second 0.9 Al layer falls within the disclosure. In that case the claimed mirror layer may be the first layer of the DBR.
Regarding claim 15, the device is grown epitaxially. [0050].
Regarding claim 16, this is a method of manufacturing a laser that is essentially just forming the layers of claim 1, therefore the claim is met for the same reasons. The layers are grown epitaxially, [0050], and the oxide aperture is formed by oxidation, [0049].
Regarding claim 17, the layers are part of the mirror 52.
Regarding claim 18, the second Al fraction is 0.2, [0049], therefore it is low enough to prevent oxidation as claimed.
Regarding claim 19, the first Al fraction is 0.9, [0049], therefore it is high enough to longitudinally confine an optical field of the light. Applicant states in the specification that this high Al content is what makes the layer configured to longitudinally confine an optical field of the light, therefore Shinagawa is likewise so configured. See MPEP 2112.01 I. (when the claim and prior art have the same structure claimed properties are presumed to be inherent).
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.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinagawa in view of US 7,079,562 (“Sakamoto”).
Regarding claim 2, Shinagawa has the same structure for the first portion as the present invention, including an Al content of 0.9. Applicant states in the specification that this high Al content is what makes the layer configured to longitudinally confine an optical field of the light, therefore Shinagawa is likewise so configured. See MPEP 2112.01 I. (when the claim and prior art have the same structure claimed properties are presumed to be inherent).
Further regarding claim 2, Shinagawa does not disclose that the oxide aperture is configured to reduce a spectral width of the light emitted by the active region. And regarding claim 10, Shinagawa does not disclose the mirror layer reduces a spectral width of the light emitted by the active region to less than 5 modes.
Sakamoto teaches that in a VCSEL if the oxide aperture is made small enough it can achieve single mode oscillation, i.e. it will reduce the spectral width. Col. 13 lines 58-63. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to do this as the skilled artisan would recognize that single mode oscillation is often preferred as it is a higher quality beam.
Claims 3-4 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinagawa in view of Zhou et al., Low Series Resistance High-Efficiency GaAs / AlGaAs Vertical-Cavity Surface-Emitting Lasers with Continuously Graded Mirrors Grown By MOCVD, IEEE Photonics Technology Letters vol. 3 no. 7 pp. 591-593 (Year: 1991) (“Zhou”).
Regarding claims 3-4 and 21-22, it is not disclosed there are graded intermediate layers between the mirror layers as claimed. Zhou teaches that it was known in VCSELs to include a graded interface between the high and low Al layers of a DBR. Fig. 1, p. 591 right col. bottom par. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include such graded interface as it reduces series resistance and threshold voltage, as taught by Zhou, p. 593 first par.
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinagawa in view of US 2004/0081215 (“Johnson”).
Shinagawa does not discuss that the first portion is not aligned at an electric field node as in claim 9, or forming the third epitaxial layers such that the third epitaxial layers are not aligned with an electric field node as in claim 20.
Johnson teaches that in a VCSEL with an oxide aperture the oxide aperture may be located at a null or a node of the electric field, but this is not required and it may be somewhere else depending on the user’s application. [0031],[0042]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to locate the oxide aperture in a way such that the first portion is not aligned with an electric field node, or forming the third epitaxial layers such that the third epitaxial layers are not aligned with an electric field node, as the oxide aperture may be located either at the null of the electric field, the node, or anywhere in between depending on the user’s application, as taught by Johnson.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinagawa. Shinagawa does not describe the claimed layer thicknesses. Where the general conditions of a claim are met in the prior art it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II. A person of ordinary skill would understand that the layer thickness of mirror layers would affect things like reflectivity, wavelength, or phase. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to find the optimal thickness of the various layers through routine optimization.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-8 and 10-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/140,034 (reference application) (See US 2024/0364077) as listed below.
Claim 2 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/140,034 (reference application) in view of Sakamoto.
Claims 9 and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/140,034 (reference application) in view of Johnson.
Claims 21-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/140,034 (reference application) in view of Zhou.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as follows.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
This application
18/140,034
1. A laser, comprising: an active region configured to emit light, wherein the active region defines an optical axis; and a mirror layer proximate the active region and disposed along the optical axis,
.
1. A laser, comprising: an active region configured to emit light, wherein the active region defines an optical axis; … and a mirror layer disposed along the optical axis …, [it is also proximate the active region, because the first portion is proximate]
wherein the mirror layer comprises: a first portion proximate the active region having a first aluminum fraction; a second portion proximate the first portion having a second aluminum fraction that is less than the first aluminum fraction; and a third portion proximate the second portion having a third aluminum fraction that is greater than the first aluminum fraction, wherein the second portion is disposed between the first portion and the third portion, and wherein aluminum in the third portion is oxidized to comprise an oxide aperture.
wherein the mirror layer comprises: a first portion proximate the active region having a first aluminum fraction; a second portion proximate the first portion having a second aluminum fraction that is less than the first aluminum fraction; and a third portion proximate the second portion having a third aluminum fraction that is greater than the first aluminum fraction, wherein the second portion is disposed between the first portion and the third portion, wherein aluminum in the third portion is oxidized to form an oxide aperture….
2. The laser of claim 1, wherein: the oxide aperture is configured to reduce a spectral width of the light emitted by the active region; and the first portion of the mirror layer is configured to longitudinally confine an optical field of the light.
The reduce spectral width part is taught by and obvious over Sakamoto for the same reasons as in the 103 rejection. The first portion configured to part is a claimed property that is presumed inherent given that the structures are the same, as discussed above in the 103 rejections. The Al content is the same as in the rejection of claim 7 below.
3. The laser of claim 1, wherein the mirror layer comprises a first intermediate portion between the first portion and the second portion, wherein the first intermediate portion has a graded aluminum fraction that decreases from the first aluminum fraction adjacent the first portion to the second aluminum fraction adjacent the second portion.
9. The laser of claim 1, wherein the mirror layer comprises a first intermediate portion between the first portion and the second portion, wherein the first intermediate portion has a graded aluminum fraction that decreases from the first aluminum fraction adjacent the first portion to the second aluminum fraction adjacent the second portion.
4. The laser of claim 3, wherein the mirror layer comprises a second intermediate portion between the second portion and the third portion, wherein the second intermediate portion has a graded aluminum fraction that increases from the second aluminum fraction adjacent the second portion to the third aluminum fraction adjacent the third portion.
10. The laser of claim 9, wherein the mirror layer comprises a second intermediate portion between the second portion and the third portion, wherein the second intermediate portion has a graded aluminum fraction that increases from the second aluminum fraction adjacent the second portion to the third aluminum fraction adjacent the third portion.
5. The laser of claim 1, wherein aluminum of the first portion and the second portion is substantially unoxidized.
11. The laser of claim 1, wherein aluminum of the first portion and the second portion is substantially unoxidized.
6. The laser of claim 1, wherein the first aluminum fraction is greater than 0.6.
7. The laser of claim 1, wherein the first aluminum fraction is greater than 0.8.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that DBRs of a VCSEL are generally made of alternating pairs of high and low index materials, and when made of AlGaAs typically have a high Al and a low Al layer. It is generally obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. MPEP 2144.07. AlGaAs in a DBR with Al greater than 0.8 is such a known material.
8. The laser of claim 1, wherein the mirror layer comprises AlGaAs.
12. The laser of claim 1, wherein the mirror layer comprises AlGaAs.
9. The laser of claim 1, wherein the first portion is not aligned with an electric field node.
This is taught by and obvious over Johnson for the same reasons as in the 103 rejection above.
10. The laser of claim 1, wherein the mirror layer reduces a spectral width of the light emitted by the active region to less than 5 modes.
Claim 3 calls the laser single mode.
11. The laser of claim 1, wherein: the first portion has a first thickness along the optical axis of between about 30 nanometers and 80 nanometers; the second portion has a second thickness along the optical axis of between about 5 nanometers and 15 nanometers; and the third portion has a third thickness along the optical axis of between about 20 nanometers and 40 nanometers.
The thicknesses would have been obvious for the same reasons discussed above in the 103 rejection. This claim is therefore not patentably distinct.
12. The laser of claim 1, wherein a thickness along the optical axis of the oxide aperture is substantially uniform in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis.
8. The laser of claim 1, wherein a thickness along the optical axis of the oxide aperture is substantially uniform in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis.
13. The laser of claim 1, wherein the laser is a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser.
13. The laser of claim 1, wherein the laser is a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser.
14. The laser of claim 1, wherein the mirror layer is a first mirror layer of a distributed Bragg reflector.
14. The laser of claim 1, wherein the mirror layer is a first mirror layer of a distributed Bragg reflector.
15. The laser of claim 1, wherein the mirror layer comprises a plurality of epitaxial layers, and wherein each of the first portion, the second portion, and the third portion comprises a subset of the plurality of epitaxial layers.
15. The laser of claim 1, wherein the mirror layer comprises a plurality of epitaxial layers, and wherein each of the first portion, the second portion, and the third portion comprises a subset of the plurality of epitaxial layers.
16. A method of manufacturing a laser, the method comprising: forming first epitaxial layers proximate an active region, wherein the active region defines an optical axis and is configured to emit light parallel to the optical axis,
16. A method of manufacturing a laser, the method comprising: forming first epitaxial layers proximate an active region, wherein the active region defines an optical axis,
[by definition a laser active region emits light along or parallel to the optical axis]
and wherein the first epitaxial layers have a first aluminum fraction;
forming second epitaxial layers proximate the first epitaxial layers, wherein the second epitaxial layers have a second aluminum fraction that is less than the first aluminum fraction; forming third epitaxial layers proximate the second epitaxial layers, wherein the third epitaxial layers have a third aluminum fraction that is greater than the first aluminum fraction, and wherein the second epitaxial layers are between the first epitaxial layers and the third epitaxial layers; and oxidizing the third epitaxial layers to form an oxide aperture.
wherein the first epitaxial layers have a first aluminum fraction …
forming second epitaxial layers proximate the first epitaxial layers, wherein the second epitaxial layers have a second aluminum fraction that is less than the first aluminum fraction; forming third epitaxial layers proximate the second epitaxial layers, wherein the third epitaxial layers have a third aluminum fraction that is greater than the first aluminum fraction, and wherein the second epitaxial layers are between the first epitaxial layers and the third epitaxial layers; oxidizing the third epitaxial layers to form an oxide aperture….
17. The method of claim 16, wherein the first epitaxial layers, the second epitaxial layers, and the third epitaxial layers form at least a portion of a mirror layer of a plurality of mirror layers.
18. The method of claim 16, wherein the first epitaxial layers, the second epitaxial layers, and the third epitaxial layers form at least a portion of a mirror layer of a plurality of mirror layers.
18. The method of claim 16, further comprising, before forming the second epitaxial layers, selecting the second aluminum fraction to be low enough to prevent oxidation of the second epitaxial layers and the first epitaxial layers while oxidizing the third epitaxial layers.
19. The method of claim 16, further comprising, before forming the second epitaxial layers, selecting the second aluminum fraction to be low enough to prevent oxidation of the second epitaxial layers and the first epitaxial layers while oxidizing the third epitaxial layers.
19. The method of claim 16, further comprising, before forming the first epitaxial layers, selecting the first aluminum fraction to be high enough to longitudinally confine an optical field of the light.
20. The method of claim 16, further comprising, before forming the first epitaxial layers, selecting the first aluminum fraction to be high enough to longitudinally confine the optical field of the light.
20. The method of claim 16, wherein forming the third epitaxial layers comprises forming the third epitaxial layers such that the third epitaxial layers are not aligned with an electric field node.
This is taught by and obvious over Johnson for the same reasons as in the 103 rejection above.
21. The method of claim 16, further comprising, before forming the second epitaxial layers, forming first intermediate epitaxial layers, wherein the first intermediate epitaxial layers are disposed between the first epitaxial layers and the second epitaxial layers, and wherein the first intermediate epitaxial layers have a graded aluminum fraction that decreases from the first aluminum fraction adjacent the first epitaxial layers to the second aluminum fraction adjacent the second epitaxial layers.
22. The method of claim 21, comprising, before forming the third epitaxial layers, forming second intermediate epitaxial layers, wherein the second intermediate epitaxial layers are disposed between the second epitaxial layers and the third epitaxial layers, and wherein the second intermediate epitaxial layers have a graded aluminum fraction that increases from the second aluminum fraction adjacent the second epitaxial layers to the third aluminum fraction adjacent the third epitaxial layers.
This is taught by and obvious over Zhou for the same reasons as in the 103 rejection above.
Conclusion
Other pertinent art is cited.
US 2003/0007528, US 2009/0022199, and EP 3 070 790 are similar to Shinagawa and could likely also be used to reject many of the claims.
US 2004/0042517 describes adding a low Al layer to a VCSEL to prevent unintentional oxidation.
US 2007/0153865 layers 15,16,17 could meet at least claim 1. It is arbitrary to say they are part of the mirror, they are adjacent to the mirror.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Menefee whose telephone number is (571)272-1944. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 applications may be obtained from Patent Center. See: 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.
/JAMES A MENEFEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828