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 .
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 2-5 and 18 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 2 recites the limitation "the other region" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets “the other region” to be “the another region” corresponding to “another region of the laser” previously recited in parent claim 1.
Claims 3-4 are also rejected under 35 USC 112, second paragraph, by virtue of dependency.
Claims 5 and 18 recite “to increase a -3 dB frequency of the parasitic transfer function at a particular wavelength by at least 30%” in lines 2-3 of claim 5 and lines 1-2 of claim 18; however, it’s unclear what the -3 dB frequency is increased by at least 30% from. Therefore, claims 5 and 18 are considered indefinite. The Examiner notes that claim 10 in the last two lines recites similar limitations where it clearly states that “to increase the -3 dB frequency …as compared to a baseline -3dB frequency”. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets claims 5 and 18 to recite “to increase a -3 dB frequency of the parasitic transfer function at a particular wavelength by at least 30% as compared to a baseline -3dB frequency.”
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 1-4, 6-13, 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Mingxin LI (Intrinsic Modulation Response Modeling and Analysis for Lithographic Vertical-Cavity Surface-Emitting Lasers, Dissertation, Univ of Central Florida, Year: 2016, hereafter LI, 03/31/26 IDS).
Regarding claim 1, LI discloses a laser (a VCSEL, Figure 5-2, page 46), comprising:
an active region (see annotated Figure 5-2 below) having an active resistance (Rj, Figure 5-2);
wherein the laser has an active capacitance (Cp, Figure 5-2); and
wherein another region of the laser (DBR mirror regions, Figure 5-2) has an average dopant density (“graded layers have been placed at GaAs/AlAs interfaces in DBR mirrors and selective doping profile has been designed to produce low electrical resistance while keeping a low optical loss,” bottom paragraph, page 46) selected to optimize a parasitic transfer function (Hpara (ω, see equation 5.1, page 45) of the laser (“In order to get high electrical modulation bandwidth, all the four parameters, Cp, Cm or CDHCBR, Rm, and Rj need to be optimized,” under equation 5.1, page 45) by (i) decreasing the active resistance of the active region (“It is shown that with optimized mirror and cavity design, much lower differential resistance can be reached in lithographic VCSELs than in oxide, especially in small sized devices,” paragraph under Figure 5-4, page 47) and (ii) decreasing the active capacitance of the laser (“To minimizing the pad capacitance Cp, metal contacts need to be designed with reduced pad areas, increased spacing between metal pads, and use spacing material with low dielectric constant, such as Benzocyclobutene (BCB),” paragraph under Section 5.3, page 45).
PNG
media_image1.png
472
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, LI discloses the other region comprises: a first mirror region (an upper DBR region, see annotated Figure 5-2 above) comprising a first dopant at a first average dopant density (it’s implicitly taught by the upper DBR region); and a second mirror region (a lower DBR region, see annotated Figure 5-2 above) comprising a second dopant at a second average dopant density (it’s implicitly taught by the upper DBR region); the active region is positioned between the first mirror region and the second mirror region (see annotated Figure 5-2 above); and the first average dopant density and the second average dopant density are selected to optimize the parasitic transfer function of the laser by (i) decreasing the active resistance of the active region and (ii) decreasing the active capacitance of the laser (see rejection to claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 3, LI discloses the first mirror region has a first thickness and a first doping profile of the first dopant through the first thickness of the first mirror region (it’s implicitly taught by the upper DBR region); the second mirror region has a second thickness and a second doping profile of the second dopant through the second thickness of the second mirror region (it’s implicitly taught by the upper DBR region); and the first doping profile and the second doping profile are selected to optimize a bandwidth at which the laser is capable of operating at a particular wavelength (“In order to get high electrical modulation bandwidth, all the four parameters, Cp, Cm or CDHCBR, Rm, and Rj need to be optimized,” paragraph under equation 5.1, page 45).
Regarding claim 4, LI discloses the first average dopant density and the second average dopant density are selected to obtain an active resistance of between about 45 ohms and 75 ohms at an operating bias of the laser (Rj at 51 ohms with Device Size at 2 µm, Table 5-1, page 50).
Regarding claim 6, LI discloses the active resistance is less than about 100 ohms at an operating bias of the laser (Rj at 51 ohms with Device Size at 2 µm, Table 5-1, page 50), and wherein the active capacitance is less than about 60 femtofarads at the operating bias of the laser (Cp at 33 femtofarads with Device Size at 2 µm, Table 5-1, page 50).
Regarding claim 7, LI discloses the active resistance is less than about 90 ohms at an operating bias of the laser (Rj at 51 ohms with Device Size at 2 µm, Table 5-1, page 50), and wherein the active capacitance is less than about 50 femtofarads at the operating bias of the laser (Cp at 33 femtofarads with Device Size at 2 µm, Table 5-1, page 50).
Regarding claim 8, LI discloses the active capacitance comprises a junction capacitance (Cp, Figure 5-2), and wherein the average dopant density is selected to optimize the parasitic transfer function of the laser by decreasing the junction capacitance (“In order to get high electrical modulation bandwidth, all the four parameters, Cp, Cm or CDHCBR, Rm, and Rj need to be optimized,” paragraph under equation 5.1, page 45).
Regarding claim 9, LI discloses the laser is at least one of a light emitting diode, a top-emitting laser (a top-emitting VCSEL, Figure 5-2, page 46), a bottom-emitting laser, an edge-emitting laser, a GaAs-based laser, an InP-based laser, a directly modulated laser, a distributed-feedback laser, a lithographic vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser, a tunnel junction vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser, or an oxide-free vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser.
Regarding claim 10, LI discloses a laser (a VCSEL, Figure 5-2, page 46), comprising: an active region (see annotated Figure 5-2 above) configured to emit light at a wavelength; wherein the laser has an optimized parasitic transfer function (Hpara (ω, see equation 5.1, page 45) having a parasitic−3 dB frequency of at least 30 GHz at the wavelength (f3dB = 39 GHz with Device Size at 2 µm, Table 5-1, page 50).
Regarding claim 11, LI discloses the active region has an active resistance of less than about 100 ohms (Rj at 51 ohms with Device Size at 2 µm, Table 5-1, page 50); and the laser has an active capacitance of less than about 60 femtofarads (Cp at 33 femtofarads with Device Size at 2 µm, Table 5-1, page 50).
Regarding claim 12, LI discloses a first mirror region (an upper DBR region, see annotated Figure 5-2 above) having a first thickness and a first doping profile of a first dopant through the first thickness of the first mirror region (it’s implicitly taught by the upper DBR region); and a second mirror region (a lower DBR region, see annotated Figure 5-2 above) having a second thickness and a second doping profile of a second dopant through the second thickness of the second mirror region (it’s implicitly taught by the upper DBR region); and wherein the first doping profile and the second doping profile are selected to optimize a bandwidth at which the laser is capable of operating at the wavelength (“In order to get high electrical modulation bandwidth, all the four parameters, Cp, Cm or CDHCBR, Rm, and Rj need to be optimized,” paragraph under equation 5.1, page 45).
Regarding claim 13, LI discloses a first mirror region comprising a first distributed Bragg reflector (an upper DBR region, see annotated Figure 5-2 above); and a second mirror region (a lower DBR region, see annotated Figure 5-2 above) comprising a second distributed Bragg reflector; wherein the active region is positioned between the first distributed Bragg reflector and the second distributed Bragg reflector (see annotated Figure 5-2 above).
Regarding claims 15-17 and 19-20, same rejections as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 6 and 9 are maintained since the method claims 15-17 and 19-20 contain substantially the same limitations as the product claims 1, 2, 4, 6 and 9.
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 5, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LI.
Regarding claims 5, 14 and 18, LI has disclosed the laser and the method outlined in the rejections to claims 1, 10 and 15 above and further discloses the first average dopant density and the second average dopant density are selected to increase a −3 dB frequency of the parasitic transfer function at a particular wavelength (“graded layers have been placed at GaAs/AlAs interfaces in DBR mirrors and selective doping profile has been designed to produce low electrical resistance while keeping a low optical loss,” bottom paragraph, page 46) except the increase of at least 30% as compared to a base -3dB frequency. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the parasitic transfer function of LI with optimizing the parameters so to increase the -3dB frequency of at least 30% as compared to a base -3dB frequency in order to obtain a high electrical modulation bandwidth, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chang, Yu-Chia et al. (08/16/23 IDS) discloses a VCSEL having an average doping density selected to optimize a parasitic transfer function similar to the claimed invention (see FIGS. 2 and 5).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUANDA ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1439. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 AM - 6:30 PM.
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.
/YUANDA ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights