DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 through 20 originally filed 21 July 2023. By amendment received 26 December 2025; claims 1 through 3, 5 through 11, 13 through 17, 19, and 20 are amended. Claims 1 through 20 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 notes that drawing amendments are being prepared to address the drawing objections. As such, the drawing objections are maintained until the amended drawings are received and approved.
Applicant argues that the claims have been amended to overcome the previous claim objections. The present claim listing has been reviewed and some of the claim objections have been resolved by the present amendment. Those claim objections that have not been resolved are repeated below. Additionally, the present amendments have introduced other informalities that give rise to new claim objections and those new claim objections are also set forth below.
Applicant argues that all rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 are improper because, according to applicant, the subject matter within these claims is set forth in the specification.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because this manner of traversal can only overcome a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) relating to written description and none of the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 are rejected for that reason. Specifically, claims 1 through 3 and claims dependent thereon are rejected as not complying with the enablement portion of 35 U.S.C. 112a, claims 1, 4, 5, 12 through 17, and 19 and claims dependent thereon are rejected as not complying with 35 U.S.C. 112b, and claims 2 through 4, 7, 10, 13, and 14 are rejected as not complying with 35 U.S.C. 112(d). Since none of the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 were rejected on the basis of the written description portion of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and since the present argument would only overcome a rejection on the basis of lacking written description, the present argument does not address the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112. As such, this argument cannot be persuasive.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112, as modified to address the present amendments, are maintained (see below). Applicant's argument that the subject matter within these claims is set forth in the specification is not persuasive because this manner of traversal can only overcome a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) relating to written description and none of the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 are rejected for that reason.
Additionally, in light of the present amendments, the claims now fail to comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Rejections on this basis are set forth below. Since these rejections are newly formulated, the above argument does not address these rejections.
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Chang-Hasnain et al. (Chang-Hasnain, US Pub. 2011/0280269) and Onishi (US Pub. 2008/0253422) do not teach or render obvious the features of the amended claims. This argument is persuasive. However, upon further search and consideration, Deppe et al. (Deppe, US Pub. 2005/0063440) has been located which, in combination with the previously cited art, renders obvious the amended limitations. As such, new rejections have been formulated as set forth below.
As such, all claims are addressed as follows:
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The disclosure filed 27 December 2024 includes amendment instructions immediately prior to the heading labeled "Background". These instructions should be deleted from the clean specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4).
The description uses the reference characters "3", "24", "26", "29", "36", "118", "130", "140", "144", "152", and "154" to refer to more than one part each. The same reference character must never be used to designate different parts.
In the present case, these reference characters or similar numbers appear in the following locations: "3" is mentioned in ¶26, ¶30, ¶65, ¶76, ¶109, ¶115, ¶137, and ¶180, "24" is mentioned in ¶65, ¶81, and ¶116, "26" is mentioned in ¶65, ¶66, ¶69, ¶76, ¶80, ¶81, ¶91, ¶103, ¶106, and ¶109, "29" is mentioned in ¶69, ¶70, ¶77, and ¶107, "36" is mentioned in ¶75 and ¶108, "118" is mentioned in ¶130, ¶157, and ¶158, "130" is mentioned in ¶155, ¶163, ¶164, and ¶165, "140" is mentioned in ¶155, ¶157, ¶159, and ¶161, "144" is mentioned in ¶155 and ¶161, "152" is mentioned in ¶155, ¶162, and ¶165, and "154" is mentioned in ¶157 and ¶166.
The drawings refer to more than one part each with the reference characters "20", "22", "24", "26", "28", "42", "100", "110", "114", "126", "134", "136", "144", "145", "146", "160", and "230". The same part of an invention must be designated with the same reference character throughout the drawings.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5).
The drawings include the reference characters "135", "141", "143", "145", "147", "149", "151", "160", "230", "260", "270", "1304", "1306", "1308", "1313", "1324", and "1368" which do not appear in the description. Reference characters not mentioned in the description must not appear in the drawings.
The description includes the reference characters "2", "3", "16", "19", "29", "30", "32", "102", "116", "120", "124", "132", "148", "150", "M1", and "M2" which do not appear in the drawings. Reference characters mentioned in the description must appear in the drawings.
In the present case, these reference characters or similar numbers appear in the following locations: "2" is mentioned in ¶25, ¶65, ¶83, ¶115, ¶139, and ¶181, "3" is mentioned in ¶26, ¶30, ¶65, ¶76, ¶109, ¶115, ¶137, and ¶180, "16" is mentioned in ¶65, ¶81, and ¶112, "19" is mentioned in ¶112, "29" is mentioned in ¶69, ¶70, ¶77, and ¶107, "30" is mentioned in ¶68, ¶75, ¶81, ¶84, ¶103, ¶109, ¶120, and ¶169, "32" is mentioned in ¶68, ¶70, ¶108, and ¶114, "102" is mentioned in ¶163, "116" is mentioned in ¶130, ¶134, ¶136, and ¶138, "120" is mentioned in ¶130, "124" is mentioned in ¶161, "132" is mentioned in ¶155, "148" is mentioned in ¶155 and ¶161, "150" is mentioned in ¶155, "M1" is mentioned in ¶42, ¶43, ¶44, and ¶45, and "M2" is mentioned in ¶138.
In addition to the above noted deficiencies in reference characters, there appears to be some discrepancy between the drawings and the description that may stem from numerous reference characters being used improperly. As an example, ¶130 of the pre-grant publication states "a regular VCSEL 10 epitaxial structure includes an etched post between an active region 112 and a sacrificial layer 114" whereas Figure 19A, which is the only figure in which all of these elements appear, is explicitly contrary to this characterization when it is assumed that the features are correctly identified by the reference characters. Further regarding this example, the element labeled 110, while appearing to be some kind of "etched post", could not possibly perform the functions described in the disclosure. This is only an example and other discrepancies are likely present. These discrepancies must be corrected. No new matter should be added in making these corrections.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 through 20 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 includes a period within the body of the claim (after the second instance of "etched post") and does not end in a period. These are typographical errors.
Claims 2 through 20 each depend from claim 1 and inherit all features thereof. As such, these claims are also objected to.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 through 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, this claim requires "One or more buried tunnel junctions (BTJ), additional TJ's, planar structures and additional BTJ's are created during a regrowth process that is independent of a first growth process of the first mirror, the active region and the one or more TJs." However, the original disclosure only requires these elements as alternate elements within an individual VCSEL. It is not clear from the original disclosure that each of these elements could simultaneously appear in a single VCSEL. As such, this claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 2 through 20, each of these claims depend properly from claim 1 and inherit all limitations thereof. As such, these claims also contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 through 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 1, this claim requires "The sacrificial layer and the HCG around the etched post providing a fully epitaxial grown tunable VCSEL laser." However, the original disclosure does not locate any element that could be the "HCG layer" relative to any element that could be the "etched post" in a manner that is "around" the "etched post". Further, the function of the "HCG layer" relies on being situated over the etched post rather than around it. Since the HCG layer would not function as described if arranged in the claimed manner, the claimed arrangement cannot be enabled. As such, this claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Further, this claim requires "A first vertical resonator cavity disposed over the electrical confinement aperture." However, the "electrical confinement aperture" must be located within the "first vertical resonator cavity" to meet every requirement of the claimed invention. Since the "electrical confinement aperture" must be within the "vertical resonator cavity", the configuration outlined by this limitation is impossible. As such, this claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, each of these claims include similar language regarding the "HCG" being "around" the "etched post" as noted above regarding claim 1. As such, these claims also contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claims 4 through 20, each of these claims depend properly from claim 1 and inherit all limitations thereof. As such, these claims also contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
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 1 through 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
Regarding claim 1, this claim requires "One or more buried tunnel junctions (BTJ), additional TJ's, planar structures and additional BTJ's are created during a regrowth process that is independent of a first growth process of the first mirror, the active region and the one or more TJs." However, it is unclear if this construction is intended to list a set of alternatives from which at least one element must be selected or a set of different elements that are each required. As such, this claim is 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. For the remainder of this action, this claim will be interpreted as listing a set of alternatives on the basis that it conforms to the disclosed invention.
Further, this claim separately introduces a "first mirror" and a "DBR". The terms appear to refer to the same structural elements of the present invention. However, introduction of multiple terms implies the presence of multiple elements. The implication of multiple elements when only a single element renders the present claim unclear. As such, this claim is 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. For the remainder of this action, this claim will be interpreted such that the "first mirror" and the "DBR" are the same element.
Further, this claim introduces "p-n junctions", a "tunnel junction", and "buried tunnel junctions" before referring to the "junctions". Since the claim uses a term that could refer to multiple different previous terms, it is unclear which previous term is being referred to by the claim. As such, this claim is 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. For the remainder of this action, this claim will be interpreted as meaning that each of the p-n junctions, the tunnel junction, and the buried tunnel junctions are in the location of the "junctions" claimed.
Regarding claim 3, this claim refers to a "very small cavity volume." However, the term "small" is not explained in the specification to such a degree that the metes and bounds of this term may be ascertained. As such, this claim is 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. For the remainder of this action, any cavity volume will be regarded as meeting this requirement.
Regarding claim 4, this claim requires "[The etched post and regrowth provide] small volume and increased efficiency for more demanding applications, such as very high-speed modulation and coherent communication." However, the claimed reference to an "increased efficiency" presupposes an unlimited comparison to devices outside of the scope of the claims or the disclosure. By requiring the claim to meet this comparison, the scope of the claim becomes unclear because it is not clear what the claimed arrangement is being compared to. As such, this claim is 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. For the remainder of this action, this requirement will be interpreted as merely requiring the use of the claimed "etched post".
Further, this claim refers to a "small volume." However, the term "small" is not explained in the specification to such a degree that the metes and bounds of this term may be ascertained. As such, this claim is 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. For the remainder of this action, any cavity volume will be regarded as meeting this requirement.
Regarding claim 13, this claim requires "Wherein the tunable VCSEL laser can deploy multiple tunnel junctions to enhance the output of the tunable VCSEL laser." However, the word "can" is understood as prefacing optional elements. Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims (MPEP 2173.05(d)). Since it is not clear if any of the features following the "can" statement are strictly required by this claim or not, this claim is 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. For the remainder of this action, the elements of this limitation will be interpreted as not being required by the claim. See also MPEP 2117 & 2173.05(h) for an explanation on how to compose alternative limitations.
Regarding claim 14, this claim requires "Wherein the dielectric coating improves a broadening of a tuning range of the tunable VCSEL laser." The characterization by the claim of an "improvement" presupposes an unlimited comparison to devices outside of the scope of the claims or the disclosure. By requiring the claim to meet this comparison, the scope of the claim becomes unclear because it is not clear what the claimed arrangement is being compared to. As such, this claim is 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. For the remainder of this action, this requirement will be interpreted as merely requiring the structure set forth as providing the "improvement".
Regarding claim 15, this claim requires "Wherein buried tunnel junctions improve an energy efficiency of the tunable VCSEL laser." However, the characterization by the claim of an "improvement" presupposes an unlimited comparison to devices outside of the scope of the claims or the disclosure. By requiring the claim to meet this comparison, the scope of the claim becomes unclear because it is not clear what the claimed arrangement is being compared to. As such, this claim is 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. For the remainder of this action, this requirement will be interpreted as merely requiring the structure set forth as providing the "improvement".
Regarding claim 16, this claim requires "Wherein a wavelength of the tunable VCSEL laser output can be swept to provide improved resolution." However, the characterization by the claim of an "improvement" presupposes an unlimited comparison to devices outside of the scope of the claims or the disclosure. By requiring the claim to meet this comparison, the scope of the claim becomes unclear because it is not clear what the claimed arrangement is being compared to. As such, this claim is 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. For the remainder of this action, this requirement will be interpreted as merely requiring the structure set forth as providing the "improvement".
Regarding claim 17, this claim requires "Wherein when the HCG moves closes to its non-extended original position, the output wavelength(s) of the tunable VCSEL laser changes and returns closer to an original output of the tunable VCSEL laser when the HCG is not extended." Use of the term "original" implies an initial state for the device. However, the only change undertaken in this claim is described "returning closer to an original output.” This construction implies that the initial state of the laser device is not the "original" state. This is contradictory. As such, this claim is 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. For the remainder of this action, the phrase "and returns closer to an original output of the VCSEL laser" will be treated as not limiting the claim since the “original output” is undefined.
Regarding claim 19, this claim requires "Wherein multiple tunnel junctions are provided that increase an optical power of the tunable VCSEL laser." However, the claimed reference to an increase in optical power presupposes an unlimited comparison to devices outside of the scope of the claims or the disclosure. By requiring the claim to meet this comparison, the scope of the claim becomes unclear because it is not clear what the claimed arrangement is being compared to. As such, this claim is 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. For the remainder of this action, this requirement will be interpreted as merely requiring the use of multiple tunnel junctions.
Regarding claims 2, 6 through 12, 18, and 20, each of these claims depend properly from claim 1 and inherit all limitations thereof. As such, these claims are also indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. For the remainder of this action, these claims will also be interpreted as noted above regarding claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2 through 4, 7, 10, 13, and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 2, this claim only requires "Wherein a regrowth of the sacrificial layer and the HCG is around the etched post." However, parent claim 1 already requires this feature. As such, this claim is of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 3, this claim only requires "Regrowth of the sacrificial layer and the HCG is around the etched post provides a fully epitaxial grown tunable VCSEL laser with very small cavity volume, lateral electrical current and optical confinement." However, parent claim 1 already requires this feature. As such, this claim is of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 4, this claim only requires "Wherein the etched post and regrowth provides lateral current and optical confinement, small volume and increased efficiency for more demanding applications, such as very high-speed modulation and coherent communication." However, parent claim 1 already requires this feature. As such, this claim is of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 7, this claim requires "Wherein the tunable VCSEL laser includes or is coupled to the DBR or the HCG." However, parent claim 1 already requires the VCSEL to have the DBR and the HCG. Consequentially, the parent claim already selects from the list of alternatives set forth by this claim. As such, this claim is of improper dependent form for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 10, this claim only requires "Wherein the tunable VCSEL laser operates in a single mode or a multi-mode operation." However, this circumstance encompasses the totality of possible emission configurations. Since this limitation encompasses the totality of possible emission configurations, this claim places no limits on the operation of the laser device. As such, this claim is of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 13, this claim is written in dependent form but depends on itself. As such, this claim is of improper dependent form because a claim cannot depend on itself. For the remainder of this action, this claim will be treated as depending on claim 1.
Additionally, this claim only requires "Wherein the tunable VCSEL laser can deploy multiple tunnel junctions to enhance the output of the tunable VCSEL laser." However, the phrase "can deploy" sets forth all features of this claim as optional. As such, this claim is of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 14, this claim depends from claim 10.1. Claim 10.1 does not exist. As such, this claim is of improper dependent form because the claim on which it is purported to depend does not exist. For the remainder of this action, this claim will be treated as depending on claim 9 due to context.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 through 12, 15 through 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang-Hasnain et al. (Chang-Hasnain, US Pub. 2011/0280269), in view of Onishi (US Pub. 2008/0253422), and further in view of Deppe et al. (Deppe, US Pub. 2005/0063440).
Regarding claim 1, Chang-Hasnain discloses, "A tunable VCSEL laser" (p. [0079] and Fig. 7, pt. 70). "A first mirror" (p. [0079] and Fig. 7, pt. 78). "One or more active regions with a first active region adjacent to the first mirror" (p. [0079] and Fig. 7, pts. 74 and 78). "Each of an active region including quantum wells and barriers" (p. [0079] and Fig. 7, pt. 82). "Each of an active region surrounded by one or more p-n junctions" (p. [0079] and Fig. 7, pts. 80, 82, and 84). "One or more apertures provided with the selected shape structure" (p. [0066] and Fig. 1 and 7, pts. 46, 48, and 108). "One or more electrical confinement apertures defined by the one or more BTJ's, additional TJ's, planar structures and additional BTJ" (p. [0064] and Fig. 1 and 7, pts. 28, 46, 48, 86, and 108). "A first vertical resonator cavity disposed over the electrical confinement aperture" (p. [0080] and Fig. 7, pts. 100, 104, and 108). "An (HCG) operating as a second mirror positioned over the first vertical resonator cavity" (p. [0023] and Fig. 7, pt. 100). "The HCG configured to reflect a first portion of light back into the first vertical resonator cavity" (p. [0023] and Fig. 7, pt. 100). "A second portion of the light as an output beam from the tunable VCSEL laser" (p. [0023] and Fig. 7, pt. 100). "The HCG being layered on the selected shape structure" (p. [0079] and Fig. 7, pts. 86 and 100). "Wherein a shape of the output beam of the tunable VCSEL laser is determined by a geometric shape of the one or more BTJ apertures, apertures for additional TJ's, planar structures and additional BTJ's, with a transmission function of the HCG and is designed according to the desired optical transmission function of the application" (p. [0079] and Fig. 7, pts. 82, 86, and 108, where the aperture defines the current injection region which defines the shape of the light emission region). "A DBR on one side of the junctions" (p. [0079] and Fig. 7, pt. 78). "The HCG on the other side of the junctions" (p. [0079] and Fig. 7, pt. 100). "A sacrificial layer with the tunable VCSEL laser" (p. [0079] and Fig. 7, pt. 92). Chang-Hasnain does not explicitly disclose, "The one or more active regions including a selected shape structure each with a tunnel junction (TJ)." "The selected shape structure including a mesa." "One or more buried tunnel junctions (BTJ), additional TJ's, planar structures and additional BTJ's are created during a regrowth process that is independent of a first growth process of the first mirror, the active region and the one or more TJs." "The mesa having a lateral dimension that is less than a lateral dimension of the one or more lower mirror layers or the one or more upper mirror layers." "The tunable VCSEL laser having an optical confinement created with step index and regrowth." "An etched post between [the] active region and [the] sacrificial layer." "The sacrificial layer and the HCG around the etched post providing a fully epitaxial grown tunable VCSEL laser." "Wherein the etched post and the sacrificial layer provide a lateral current and optical confinement of the tunable VCSEL laser for the tunable VCSEL laser." Onishi discloses, "The one or more active regions including a selected shape structure each with a tunnel junction (TJ)" (p. [0049] and Fig. 4, pt. 61). "The selected shape structure including a mesa" (p. [0049] and Fig. 4, pt. 61). "One or more buried tunnel junctions (BTJ), additional TJ's, planar structures and additional BTJ's are created during a regrowth process that is independent of a first growth process of the first mirror, the active region and the one or more TJs" (p. [0053] and Fig. 4, pts. 61 and 63, where regrowth of burying layer 63 produces the buried tunnel junction 61). "The mesa having a lateral dimension that is less than a lateral dimension of the one or more lower mirror layers or the one or more upper mirror layers" (p. [0049] and Fig. 4, pts. 53 and 61). "The tunable VCSEL laser having an optical confinement created with step index and regrowth" (p. [0038] and Fig. 4, pt. 61). "An etched post between [the] active region and [the] sacrificial layer" (p. [0049] and Fig. 5, pts. 57, 61, 63, and 65). "The sacrificial layer and the HCG around the etched post providing a fully epitaxial grown tunable VCSEL laser" (p. [0049] and Fig. 5, pts. 61, 63, and 65, where DBR 65 relates the location of the HCG layer of Chang-Hasnain when this tunnel junction construction is implemented in the device of Chang-Hasnain). "Wherein the etched post and the sacrificial layer provide a lateral current and optical confinement of the tunable VCSEL laser for the tunable VCSEL laser" (p. [0038] and Fig. 4, pt. 61). 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 Chang-Hasnain with the teachings of Onishi. In view of the teachings of Chang-Hasnain regarding a VCSEL having a tunnel junction, the alternate formation of the tunnel junction as taught by Onishi by enhancing would enhance the teachings of Chang-Hasnain by allowing the current confining effect of the tunnel junction.
The combination of Chang-Hasnain and Onishi does not explicitly disclose, "The mesa located within either a lower mirror layers or an upper mirror layers." "The mesa configured such that a first vertical cavity which includes the mesa has a cavity resonance that is different from the cavity resonance for a second vertical cavity which does not include the mesa." "[The second vertical cavity] is adjacent the first vertical cavity." "The optical confinement is defined by the etched post which acts as a waveguide." Deppe discloses, "The mesa located within either a lower mirror layers or an upper mirror layers" (p. [0059] and Fig. 2, pts. 250, 260, and 290). "The mesa configured such that a first vertical cavity which includes the mesa has a cavity resonance that is different from the cavity resonance for a second vertical cavity which does not include the mesa" (p. [0060] and Fig. 2, pts. 250, 260, 270, and 280). "[The second vertical cavity] is adjacent the first vertical cavity" (p. [0060] and Fig. 2, pts. 270 and 280). "The optical confinement is defined by the etched post which acts as a waveguide" (p. [0059] and Fig. 2, pts. 250, 260, 270, and 280). 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 Chang-Hasnain and Onishi with the teachings of Deppe. In view of the teachings of Chang-Hasnain regarding a VCSEL device including a current constricting region, the alternate construction of the current constriction region to include a protrusion as taught by Deppe would enhance the teachings of Chang-Hasnain and Onishi by allowing the optical mode to be laterally confined within the vicinity of the current injection.
Regarding claim 2, Chang-Hasnain does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a regrowth of the sacrificial layer and the HCG is around the etched post." Onishi discloses, "Wherein a regrowth of the sacrificial layer and the HCG is around the etched post" (p. [0049] and Fig. 5, pts. 61, 63, and 65, where DBR 65 relates the location of the HCG layer of Chang-Hasnain when this tunnel junction construction is implemented in the device of Chang-Hasnain). 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 Chang-Hasnain with the teachings of Onishi for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Chang-Hasnain does not explicitly disclose, "Regrowth of the sacrificial layer and the HCG is around the etched post provides a fully epitaxial grown tunable VCSEL laser with very small cavity volume." "[The etched post and regrowth provide] lateral electrical current and optical confinement." Onishi discloses, "Regrowth of the sacrificial layer and the HCG is around the etched post provides a fully epitaxial grown tunable VCSEL laser with very small cavity volume" (p. [0049] and Fig. 5, pts. 61, 63, and 65, where DBR 65 relates the location of the HCG layer of Chang-Hasnain when this tunnel junction construction is implemented in the device of Chang-Hasnain). "[The etched post and regrowth provide] lateral electrical current and optical confinement" (p. [0038] and Fig. 4, pt. 61). 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 Chang-Hasnain with the teachings of Onishi for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Chang-Hasnain does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the etched post and regrowth provides lateral current and optical confinement." "[The etched post and regrowth provide] small volume and increased efficiency for more demanding applications, such as very high-speed modulation and coherent communication." Onishi discloses, "Wherein the etched post and regrowth provides lateral current and optical confinement" (p. [0038] and Fig. 4, pt. 61). "[The etched post and regrowth provide] small volume and increased efficiency for more demanding applications, such as very high-speed modulation and coherent communication" (p. [0038] and Fig. 4, pt. 61). 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 Chang-Hasnain with the teachings of Onishi for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Chang-Hasnain discloses, "Wherein the output of the tunable VCSEL laser is a long wavelength" (p. [0023], where the range of wavelengths exceeds 1.3µm). "At least partially created from indium phosphide structure in the laser structure" (p. [0064] and Fig. 1, pt. 18).
Regarding claim 6, Chang-Hasnain discloses, "Wherein the tunable VCSEL laser includes an indium phosphide substrate" (p. [0064] and Fig. 1, pt. 18).
Regarding claim 7, Chang-Hasnain discloses, "Wherein the tunable VCSEL laser includes or is coupled to the DBR or the HCG" (p. [0079] and Fig. 7, pt. 100).
Regarding claim 8, Chang-Hasnain discloses, "Wherein the bottom DBR is a semiconductor DBR or a combination of a semiconductor DBR with a dielectric coating" (p. [0079] and Fig. 7, pt. 78).
Regarding claim 9, Chang-Hasnain discloses, "Wherein the tunable VCSEL laser includes a dielectric coating" (p. [0079] and Fig. 7, pt. 92).
Regarding claim 10, Chang-Hasnain discloses, "Wherein the tunable VCSEL laser operates in a single mode or a multi-mode operation" (p. [0019]).
Regarding claim 11, Chang-Hasnain discloses, "Wherein the tunable VCSEL laser operates in a single mode" (p. [0019]).
Regarding claim 12, Chang-Hasnain discloses, "[The one or more active regions includes an aperture]" (p. [0079] and Fig. 7, pts. 100 and 108). "Wherein dimensions of the aperture and HCG are contributing factors to a single mode operation" (p. [0019]).
Regarding claim 15, Chang-Hasnain discloses, "[The one or more active regions includes one or more buried tunnel junctions]" (p. [0079] and Fig. 7, pt. 86). "Wherein buried tunnel junctions improve an energy efficiency of the tunable VCSEL laser" (p. [0013], where removing most p-doped materials improves energy efficiency).
Regarding claim 16, Chang-Hasnain discloses, "Wherein a wavelength of the tunable VCSEL laser output can be swept to provide improved resolution" (p. [0081], where this tuning ability allows the laser output to be swept in frequency).
Regarding claim 17, Chang-Hasnain discloses, "Wherein the tunable VCSEL laser output is swept by modulating the HCG up and down" (p. [0081], where this tuning ability allows the laser output to be swept in frequency). "Wherein when the HCG moves closes to its non-extended original position, the output wavelength(s) of the tunable VCSEL laser changes and returns closer to an original output of the tunable VCSEL laser when the HCG is not extended" (p. [0081]).
Regarding claim 18, Chang-Hasnain discloses, "A mem's structure coupled to the HCG grating or top DBR to create a swept source" (p. [0081], where this tuning ability allows the laser output to be swept in frequency).
Regarding claim 20, Chang-Hasnain discloses, "Wherein a plurality of junctions are provided in a body of the tunable VCSEL laser" (p. [0064] and Fig. 1, pts. 22, 24, 26, and 28).
Claims 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang-Hasnain, in view of Onishi, in view of Deppe, and further in view of Kim (US Pub. 2006/0140235).
Regarding claim 13, The combination of Chang-Hasnain, Onishi, and Deppe does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the tunable VCSEL laser can deploy multiple tunnel junctions to enhance the output of the tunable VCSEL laser." Kim discloses, "Wherein the tunable VCSEL laser can deploy multiple tunnel junctions to enhance the output of the tunable VCSEL laser" (p. [0027], [0028], and Fig. 2, pt. 45). 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 Chang-Hasnain, Onishi, and Deppe with the teachings of Kim. In view of the teachings of Chang-Hasnain regarding a VCSEL, the alternate format of the active region to include multiple tunnel junctions with active layers between the tunnel junctions as taught by Kim would enhance the teachings of Chang-Hasnain, Onishi, and Deppe by allowing for the laser device to produce a higher output power.
Regarding claim 19, The combination of Chang-Hasnain, Onishi, and Deppe does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein multiple tunnel junctions are provided that increase an optical power of the tunable VCSEL laser." Kim discloses, "Wherein multiple tunnel junctions are provided that increase an optical power of the tunable VCSEL laser" (p. [0027], [0028], and Fig. 2, pt. 45). 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 Chang-Hasnain, Onishi, and Deppe with the teachings of Kim for the reasons provided above regarding claim 13.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang-Hasnain, in view of Onishi, in view of Deppe, and further in view of Amann et al. (Amann, US Pub. 2004/0179568).
Regarding claim 14, The combination of Chang-Hasnain, Onishi, and Deppe does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the dielectric coating improves a broadening of a tuning range of the tunable VCSEL laser." Amann discloses, "Wherein the dielectric coating improves a broadening of a tuning range of the tunable VCSEL laser" (p. [0038] and Fig. 1, pt. 30). 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 Chang-Hasnain, Onishi, and Deppe with the teachings of Amann. In view of the teachings of Chang-Hasnain regarding a VCSEL, the alternate format of the rear mirror to include dielectric materials as taught by Amann would enhance the teachings of Chang-Hasnain, Onishi, and Deppe by allowing for a greater contrast between reflector layers and thereby improving the operation of the reflector.
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