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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 1, claims 1-13 in the reply filed on April 13, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that an undue search burden does not exist between species 1 and 2 because the only difference between species 1 and species 2 is whether a hole defining a resonant cavity extension is filled with a polymer or filled with air. The examiner agrees with applicant’s arguments and the restriction requirement between Species 1 and Species 2 is hereby withdrawn. The restriction requirement between Species 1, Species 3 and Species 4 is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 1-14 are elected and Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Coldren et al. (US PG Pub 2002/0150130).
Regarding claim 1, Coldren et al. disclose: a set of one or more substrates (one of the substrate for front subassembly 12 and back subassembly 14) having a first surface (top surface of substrate for back subassembly 14) opposite a second surface (bottom surface of substrate for back subassembly 14) (Fig. 1, [0039], [0040], [0069]), the set of one or more substrates defining a resonant cavity extension (back mirror 140 forms a resonant cavity extension with mirror 36) (Fig. 1, [0046], [0069]-[0076]), the resonant cavity extension extending into the set of one or more substrates from an opening in the first surface (back mirror 140 is formed in an opening in the substrate of the back subassembly 14) (Fig. 1, [0069]-[0076]); a first reflector (back mirror 140) disposed within the resonant cavity extension and configured to reflect at least one wavelength of electromagnetic radiation (Fig. 1, [0069]-[0076]); a laser having an active region (52) configured to generate the at least one wavelength of electromagnetic radiation (Fig. 1, [0039]-[0052]); and a second reflector (mirror 36), the active region disposed in a resonant cavity extending between the first reflector and the second reflector, and the resonant cavity including the resonant cavity extension (Fig. 1, [0039]-[0052]).
PNG
media_image1.png
544
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Coldren
Regarding claim 7, Coldren et al. do not disclose: wherein the set of substrates consists of a single substrate (substrate for back assembly 14, see the rejection of claim 1).
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 2, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coldren et al. (US PG Pub 2002/0150130) and Yamazaki et al. (US PG Pub 2008/0286910).
Regarding claim 2, Coldren et al. do not disclose: the set of one or more substrates include a first substrate and a second substrate; the first reflector is disposed within the first substrate; and the second substrate defines the first surface and the opening.
Yamazaki et al. disclose: bonding SOI technology by which two silicon substrates are bonded to each other with a silicon oxide film interposed therebetween ([0005], [0046]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Colden by forming the back assembly substrate in two pieces using silicon and bonding them using an oxide-to-oxide bond in order to reduce parasitic capacitance in the device. The device as modified disclose: the first reflector is disposed within the first substrate; and the second substrate defines the first surface and the opening.
Regarding claim 4, Coldren as modified disclose: the first substrate comprises a first silicon substrate; and the second substrate comprises a second silicon substrate (see the rejection of claim 2).
Regarding claim 5, Coldren as modified disclose: wherein the first substrate is bonded to the second substrate by an oxide-to-oxide bond (see the rejection of claim 2).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coldren et al. (US PG Pub 2002/0150130).
Regarding claim 3, Coldren et al. do not disclose: wherein the first reflector comprises at least one layer of dielectric or metal.
However, In accordance with MPEP 2144.07, Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose: The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), see also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use known materials such as a dielectric or metal for the first reflector based on its suitability for the device.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coldren et al. (US PG Pub 2002/0150130) and Wright et al. (CN-1329716-A).
Regarding claim 6, Coldren et al. do not disclose: further comprising a polymer filling the resonant cavity extension.
Wright et al. disclose: area around grating filled with air or filled with a polymer (page 7 of translation, first full paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Colden by filling cavity 106 with a polymer because the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. In the instant case, the predictable result is a vertical cavity laser assembly that emits light vertically upward through a lens.
Claims 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coldren et al. (US PG Pub 2002/0150130) in view of Iwai et al. (US PG Pub 2003/0026308).
Regarding claim 8, Coldren et al. disclose: a set of one or more silicon substrates (substrate 90 for back subassembly 14, silicon on insulator) defining a resonant cavity extension; a reflector disposed in the resonant cavity extension (back mirror 140 forms a resonant cavity extension with mirror 36) (Fig. 1, [0046], [0069]-[0076]); a InGaAsP substrate (30) (Fig. 1, [0043]); an epitaxial stack on the InGaAsP substrate, the epitaxial stack including, a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) (DBR front mirror 36); and an active region (52) of a laser, the active region of the laser disposed within a resonant cavity including the resonant cavity extension and extending between the reflector and the DBR (Fig. 1, [0039]-[0052]).
Coldren et al. do not disclose: a gallium arsenide (GaAs) substrate.
Iwai et al. disclose: a gallium arsenide (GaAs) substrate ([0009]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Colden by forming the device on a GaAs substrate because the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. In the instant case, the predictable result is a vertical cavity laser assembly formed on a GaAs substrate.
Regarding claim 14, Coldren as modified disclose: wherein the resonant cavity extension is filled with air (cavity 160 filled with air) (Coldren, [0078]).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coldren et al. (US PG Pub 2002/0150130) in view of Iwai et al. (US PG Pub 2003/0026308) and Moench et al. (US PG Pub 2010/0195690).
Regarding claim 9, Coldren as modified disclose: wherein: the DBR is a first DBR (see the rejection of claim 8).
Coldren as modified do not disclose: the epitaxial stack further comprises a second DBR, positioned between the active region and the reflector; and the second DBR is weaker than the reflector.
Moench et al. disclose: first DBR (5), second DBR (3) and extended mirror (11) (Fig. 2, [0039]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Colden as modified by forming a second DBR between the active region and the reflector in order to form an additional cavity and increase feedback of the lasing wavelength within the cavities.
Regarding claim 10, Coldren as modified disclose: wherein a structure including the GaAs substrate and the epitaxial stack is bonded to the set of one or more silicon substrates (the front subassembly 12 and back subassembly 14 are each fabricated using a separate substrate and then subsequently bonded to one another) (Coldren, [0039]).
Claim 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coldren et al. (US PG Pub 2002/0150130) in view of Iwai et al. (US PG Pub 2003/0026308) and Choquette et al. (US PG Pub 2001/0050934).
Regarding claim 11, Coldren as modified do not disclose: a set of mesas disposed on the GaAs substrate; wherein, at least one mesa of the set of mesas includes the epitaxial stack; and the set of mesas is mechanically attached to a silicon substrate of the set of one or more silicon substrates.
Choquette et al. disclose: VCSEL with mesa formed on a substrate (Fig. 1, [0019]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Colden as modified by forming a mesa, the mesa including the epitaxial stack in order to reduce current spreading in the device. The device as modified disclose: the set of mesas is mechanically attached to a silicon substrate of the set of one or more silicon substrates.
Regarding claim 12, Coldren as modified disclose: further comprising a set of solder bumps mechanically and electrically attaching the set of mesas to the silicon substrate (Coldren, [0064]).
Regarding claim 13, Coldren as modified disclose: further comprising a set of conductors (bump bonds 86) disposed on or in the silicon substrate and electrically connected to an anode and a cathode of the laser (electrodes 80 and 84) (Coldren, [0068]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Martinsen (US PG Pub 2002/0176459) discloses: a method and apparatus are provided for reducing thermal gradients in optical devices. According to an embodiment of the invention, the size of the heat sink interface is adapted to correspond to a region of principal heat generation within the device. Doing so can make the heat generating region within the device have a more laterally uniform temperature gradient. The reduction (or elimination) of such temperature gradients can lead to a marked reduction in thermal lensing and greatly diminish the change in lensing with applied current, thereby improving the performance of the optical device over a wide operating range (Abstract). Mooradian (US PG Pub 2002/0176473) discloses: a wavelength selectable, controlled chirp, semiconductor laser system is provided. By coupling a passive cavity, including an external output mirror with a selected reflectivity, to the active cavity of a laser device, chirp is reduced by approximately the ratio of the length of the active cavity to the length of the passive cavity. In such a device, changing the length of the passive cavity by manipulating the position of the output mirror allows for selecting an output wavelength of the laser device (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XINNING(TOM) NIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1437. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-6:00pm.
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.
/XINNING(Tom) NIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights