DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 through 19 originally filed 22 March 2023. By amendment received 26 February 2026; claims 1, 3, 4, and 7 are amended and claims 2 and 11 through 19 are cancelled. Claims 1 and 3 through 10 are addressed by this 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 have been fully considered; they are addressed below.
Applicant argues that the cancellation of claim 16 resolves the rejection of that claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). This argument is persuasive and the corresponding rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the amendments to the disclosure resolve the objections to the drawings. This argument is persuasive and the corresponding objections are withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Tandon et al. (Tandon, US Pub. 2004/0218655) and Weichmann et al. (Weichmann, US Pub. 2020/0403376) do not teach or render obvious the limitation "A current spreading layer disposed in the first epitaxial region" because, according to applicant, Tandon does not teach this feature. To support this argument, applicant contends that 1) layer 104 of Tandon is structurally different from the claimed current spreading layer in that layer 104 of Tandon is paired with layer 106 while the claimed current spreading layer is standalone and 2) the layer is functionally different because layer 104 of Tandon provides current confinement whereas the claimed current spreading layer allows current to laterally spread to the layers below it.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because the argued layer of Tandon is structurally similar to the current spreading layer set forth in the original disclosure and because the argument refers to functions of an embodiment of Tandon other than the one cited in the rejection. First, Tandon includes a highly doped n-type layer that is provided in the path of current flow through the laser and is not structured to confine current (Tandon, ¶47 describing layer 104 of Figure 3B). The original disclosure similarly includes a doped n-type layer that is provided in the path of current flow through the laser and is not structured to confine current (¶30 of the pre-grant publication of the original disclosure describing the doping of this layer). In both Tandon and the original disclosure, an n-type layer is provided in the current path, is composed of similar materials, and includes no structure that would interfere with the spreading of current therein. While the argued layer of Tandon is not standalone, this pairing does not alter the standalone function of the layer as providing current spreading due to the doped nature of the layer. Accordingly, the n-type layer 104 of Tandon is structurally similar to the claimed current spreading layer. Second, the statement cited by the present argument states "In another alternative, tunnel junction structure 102 is structured to provide current confinement" (Tandon, ¶50). This statement of Tandon is distinguishes the embodiment referred to therein from the embodiment cited in the rejection. Particularly the embodiment cited in the rejection employs a current confinement structure in a different location than the tunnel junction to provide confinement (Tandon, ¶49 describing the arrangement of Figure 3B in which a current confinement structure is formed by layer 146 and conductive region 148 and is in a different location than the layers of 102). Accordingly, the n-type layer 104 of Tandon does not have a current confinement function in the cited embodiment. Since the n-type layer of Tandon is structurally and functionally similar to the claimed current spreading layer, this element of Tandon corresponds to the claimed element. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
The limitation "A current spreading layer disposed in the first epitaxial region" is taught by the combined teachings of Tandon and Weichmann (see below). Applicant's argument that Tandon does not teach this feature is not persuasive because the argued layer of Tandon is structurally similar to the current spreading layer set forth in the original disclosure and because the argument refers to functions of an embodiment of Tandon other than the one cited in the rejection.
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Tandon and Weichmann do not teach or render obvious the limitation "[The current spreading layer] being inserted in the N-type portion" because, according to applicant, the combination of these teachings would not result in the claimed configuration. To support this argument, applicant contends that the combination would have two-layer PN junction rather than a single, standalone, n-type current spreading layer into the N-type portion.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because the claims do not require the structure implied by this argument (MPEP §2145VI). Specifically, Weichmann teaches a DBR in which a tunnel junction is present (Weichmann, ¶72 describing Figure 3 in which the DBR formed of parts 115-1 and 115-2 includes a tunnel junction 130 within the DBR). Employing the tunnel junction arrangement of Weichmann in the laser of Tandon and with the doping arrangement of Tandon results in a lower DBR having a lower n-doped portion and an upper p-doped portion with a tunnel junction provided between the two portions. In this arrangement, the n-type layer of the tunnel junction is in the n-type portion of the DBR and the p-type layer is in the p-type portion of the DBR. Since the n-type layer of the tunnel junction is inserted in the n-type portion of the DBR in the combination, the combined teachings of Tandon and Weichmann result in a configuration that is encompassed by the claim language. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
The limitation "[The current spreading layer] being inserted in the N-type portion" is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Tandon and Weichmann (see below). Applicant's argument that the combination of these teachings would not result in the claimed configuration is not persuasive because the claims do not require the structure implied by this argument (MPEP §2145VI).
Applicant argues that the combination of Tandon and Weichmann is improper because, the motivation set forth for combining these references is misplaced. To support this argument, applicant contends that the disclosed invention already experiences reduced absorption relative to the configuration of Weichmann.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because it is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant (MPEP §2144IV). Specifically, the motivation set forth for combining Tandon and Weichmann is set forth as a benefit that Weichmann would provide relative to Tandon, not the present invention. Since the modification set forth in Weichmann would benefit the arrangement of Tandon, the combination of Tandon and Weichmann is properly motivated. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
The combination of Tandon and Weichmann is maintained. Applicant's argument that the motivation set forth for combining these references is misplaced is not persuasive because the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem (MPEP §2144IV).
As such, all claims are addressed as follows:
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3 through 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tandon et al. (Tandon, US Pub. 2004/0218655) in view of Weichmann et al. (Weichmann, US Pub. 2020/0403376).
Regarding claim 1, Tandon discloses, "A substrate" (p. [0038] and Fig. 3B, pt. 120). "A first epitaxial region on the substrate" (p. [0053] and Fig. 3B, pts. 102, 112, 120, and 130). "An active region on the first epitaxial region" (p. [0053] and Fig. 3B, pts. 102 and 112). "A bottom distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) layer" (p. [0053] and Fig. 3B, pt. 130). "Wherein the bottom DBR layer does not directly contact the active region" (p. [0053] and Fig. 3B, pts. 112 and 130). "At least of a portion of the bottom DBR layer is an N-type portion" (p. [0046] and Fig. 3B, pt. 130). "A current spreading layer disposed in the first epitaxial region" (p. [0053] and Fig. 3B, pts. 104 and 150). "The current spreading layer comprising an N-type dopant" (p. [0053] and Fig. 3B, pt. 104). "The N-type dopant being selected from a group consisting of Si, Se, and the combination thereof" (p. [0058], [0062], and Figs. 3B and 4A, pts. 102, 104, 202, and 204). "Wherein the current spreading layer is configured to laterally spread current in a plurality of layers of the bottom DBR layer disposed below the current spreading layer" (p. [0053] and Fig. 3B, pts. 104 and 112). Tandon does not explicitly disclose, "[The current spreading layer] being inserted in the N-type portion." Weichmann discloses, "[The current spreading layer] being inserted in the N-type portion" (p. [0072] and Fig. 3, pts. 115-2 and 130, where the lower DBR layer is n-doped so as to be consistent with Tandon and as a functional characteristic of Weichmann). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tandon with the teachings of Weichmann. In view of the teachings of Tandon regarding a VCSEL including a tunnel junction below the active region, the alternate arrangement of the tunnel junction and the lower DBR such that the tunnel junction is within the lower DBR as taught by Weichmann would enhance the teachings of Tandon by allowing optical absorption by the tunnel junction to be reduced (Weichmann, ¶22).
Regarding claim 3, Tandon does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the bottom DBR layer comprises a p-type portion and a tunnel junction layer." "The tunnel junction layer adjacent the N-type portion and the P-type portion." "The N-type portion is disposed in the bottom DBR layer and is located near the active region." Weichmann discloses, "Wherein the bottom DBR layer comprises a p-type portion and a tunnel junction layer" (p. [0072] and Fig. 3, pt. 115-1). "The tunnel junction layer adjacent the N-type portion and the P-type portion" (p. [0072] and Fig. 3, pts. 115-1, 115-2, and 130). "The N-type portion is disposed in the bottom DBR layer and is located near the active region" (p. [0072] and Fig. 3, pts. 120 and 130). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tandon with the teachings of Weichmann for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Tandon discloses, "Wherein the first epitaxial region comprises a tunnel junction layer disposed between the active region and the current spreading layer or the active region and the bottom DBR layer" (p. [0058] and Figs. 3B and 4A, pts. 104, 112, 204, and 220, where the tunnel junction 220 is between highly doped layer 104 such that it is between doped layer 104 and active region 112).
Regarding claim 5, Tandon discloses, "Wherein the first epitaxial region comprises a spacer layer disposed between the active region and the current spreading layer" (p. [0044] and Fig. 3B, pts. 114 and 116, where spacer 116 is passive and may be regarded as part of the epitaxial layer rather than the active region in which active layer 114 is present).
Regarding claim 6, Tandon discloses, "Wherein the substrate is made of GaAs" (p. [0038] and Fig. 3B, pt. 120). "The current spreading layer comprises a material selected from a group consisting of GaAs, GaAsP, InGaP, InGaPN, InGaPSb, InGaPBi, InGaAsP, InAlGaP, InAlGaPN, InAlGaPBi, InAlGaPSb, AlGaAs, AlGaAsP, and AlGaAsSb" (p. [0056] and Fig. 3B, pt. 104).
Regarding claim 9, Tandon discloses, "Wherein a doping concentration of the N-type dopant is equal to or greater than 4×1018/cm³" (p. [0058], [0062], and Figs. 3B and 4A, pts. 102, 104, 202, and 204).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tandon, in view of Weichmann, and further in view of Muller (US Pub. 2007/0153867).
Regarding claim 7, The combination of Tandon and Weichmann does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the material is selected from the group consisting of AlGaAs, AlGaAsP, or AlGaAsSb." "The Al percentage of the AlGaAs, AlGaAsP, or AlGaAsSb is less than or equal to 30%." Muller discloses, "Wherein the material is selected from the group consisting of AlGaAs, AlGaAsP, or AlGaAsSb" (p. [0085] and Fig. 1, pt. 52). "The Al percentage of the AlGaAs, AlGaAsP, or AlGaAsSb is less than or equal to 30%" (p. [0085] and Fig. 1, pt. 52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Tandon and Weichmann with the teachings of Muller. In view of the teachings of Tandon regarding a VCSEL including a tunnel junction below the active region, the alternate construction of the tunnel junction to include aluminum as taught by Muller would enhance the teachings of Tandon and Weichmann by allowing the tunnel junction layer to provide an alternate bandgap and crystal lattice structure for connecting to alternately constructed adjacent layers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tandon, in view of Weichmann, and further in view of Shimizu et al. (Shimizu, US Pub. 2008/0212633).
Regarding claim 8, The combination of Tandon and Weichmann does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the substrate is made of InP." "The current spreading layer comprises a material selected from a group consisting of InGaAs, InGaAsSb, GaAsSb, InP, InGaAsP, InAlAs, InAlGaAs, InAlAsSb, InAlGaAsSb, and AlAsSb." Shimizu discloses, "Wherein the substrate is made of InP" (p. [0063] and Fig. 7, pt. 2). "The current spreading layer comprises a material selected from a group consisting of InGaAs, InGaAsSb, GaAsSb, InP, InGaAsP, InAlAs, InAlGaAs, InAlAsSb, InAlGaAsSb, and AlAsSb" (p. [0052] and Fig. 7, pt. 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Tandon and Weichmann with the teachings of Shimizu. In view of the teachings of Tandon regarding a VCSEL including a tunnel junction below the active region, the alternate construction of the VCSEL device atop an InP substrate with constituent layers thereof constructed of materials conforming to that system as taught by Shimizu would enhance the teachings of Tandon and Weichmann by allowing the laser to produce a different range of wavelengths.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tandon, in view of Weichmann, and further in view of Bour et al. (Bour, US Pub. 2004/0161013).
Regarding claim 10, The combination of Tandon and Weichmann does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a doping concentration of Se is equal to or greater than 6×1018/cm³." Bour discloses, "Wherein a doping concentration of Se is equal to or greater than 6×1018/cm³" (p. [0014] and Fig. 2, pt. 51). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Tandon and Weichmann with the teachings of Bour. In view of the teachings of Tandon regarding a VCSEL including a tunnel junction below the active region, the alternate material and concentration for providing the n-type doping as taught by Bour would enhance the teachings of Tandon and Weichmann by allowing a high doping concentration within the n-type doped layer.
Conclusion
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 Sean P Hagan whose telephone number is (571)270-1242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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.
/SEAN P HAGAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights