DETAILED ACTION Claims 1 through 10 originally filed 11 August 2023. Claims 1 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. Specification The specification is objected to under 37 C.F.R. 1.74. The specification refers to Figures 2 and 5 which are not used in the drawings. It is improper to use constructions such as "Fig. 1" to refer jointly to drawings that are labeled "Fig. 1A" and "Fig. 1B" (see MPEP 608.01f). Appropriate correction is required. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4). The drawings refer to more than one part each with the reference character "150". The same part of an invention must be designated with the same reference character throughout the drawings. In the present case, this reference character appears in the following locations: "150" appears differently in Figure 1 than in Figures 2A through 6B, 8A, and 8B. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5). The drawings include the reference characters "M1", "910a", "910n", "150aa", "150ba", "150na", "150an", "150bn", and "150mn" which do not appear in the description. Reference characters not mentioned in the description must not appear in the drawings. In the present case, these reference characters appear in the following locations: "M1" appears in Figure 2A, 2B, and 4A through 6B, "150aa", "150na", "150an", and "150mn" appear in Figures 9 and 10, and "150ba" and "150bn" appear in Figure 10. The description includes the reference character "910" which does not appear in the drawings. Reference characters mentioned in the description must appear in the drawings. In the present case, this reference character or similar numbers appear in the following locations: "910" is mentioned in ¶98 and ¶99. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 and 3 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 the micro VCSEL chip is implemented as a cross section of a predetermined shape." However, it is necessarily true that any given cross section of any given VCSEL chip will exhibit some sort of shape determined by the fabrication thereof. Since the VCSEL chip of parent claim 1 must have some sort of shape in cross section determined by the fabrication thereof, the present claim does not impose any other limits beyond that which is necessarily required by the parent claim. 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 "Wherein the predetermined shape is a shape that becomes the same shape even when rotating at a certain angle." However, this claim does not constrain what angles qualify as a "certain" angle. Since the VCSEL chip of parent claim 1 must exhibit repeating cross-sectional profiles when rotated about a central axis by integer multiples of 360°, the present claim does not impose any other limits beyond that which is necessarily required by the parent claim. As such, this claim is of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. 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 following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 1 through 3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsubara et al. (Matsubara, US Pub. 2016/0141839) in view of Tsuji (US Pub. 2019/0067899). Regarding claim 1, Matsubara discloses, "A first reflector including a plurality of distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) pairs" (p. [0078] and Fig. 4, pt. 17). "A second reflector including a plurality of DBR pairs" (p. [0071] and Fig. 4, pt. 13). "A multiple quantum well layers positioned between the first reflector and the second reflector" (p. [0073] and Fig. 4, pts. 13, 15, and 17). "[The multiple quantum well layers] recombining holes generated from one of the first reflector and the second reflector and electrons generated from the other of the first reflector and the second reflector" (p. [0082] and Fig. 4, pts. 13, 15, 17, and 150). "A contact layer formed within one DBR pair of the second reflector or formed to contact the second reflector" (p. [0069] and Fig. 4, pts. 12 and 13). "A passivation layer protecting the first reflector, the second reflector, the multiple quantum well layers, and the contact layer from an outside" (p. [0088] and Fig. 4, pts. 12, 13, 15, 17, and 31). Matsubara does not explicitly disclose, "A first metal layer contacting the first reflector and supplying power to the first reflector." "A second metal layer contacting the contact layer and supplying power to the second reflector." Tsuji discloses, "A first metal layer contacting the first reflector and supplying power to the first reflector" (p. [0071], [0074], and Fig. 1, pts. 6 and 8). "A second metal layer contacting the contact layer and supplying power to the second reflector" (p. [0064], [0075], and Fig. 1, pts. 3 and 9). 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 Matsubara with the teachings of Tsuji. In view of the teachings of Matsubara regarding a VCSEL having ohmic contacts, the particular construction of the contacts of metal as taught by Tsuji would enhance the teachings of Matsubara by indicating suitable materials from which to form the electrodes. Regarding claim 2, Matsubara discloses, "Wherein the micro VCSEL chip is implemented as a cross section of a predetermined shape" (p. [0066] and Fig. 4, pt. 2). Regarding claim 3, Matsubara discloses, "Wherein the predetermined shape is a shape that becomes the same shape even when rotating at a certain angle" (p. [0066] and Fig. 4, pt. 2, where it is necessarily true that the VCSEL chip exhibits the same cross-sectional shape when rotated an angle of 360°). Regarding claim 5, Matsubara discloses, "Wherein an area of the first metal layer is larger than that of an opening" (Fig. 4, pts. 31 and 42). Regarding claim 6, Matsubara discloses, "Wherein an area of the second metal layer is larger than or equal to that of the first metal layer" (Fig. 2, pts. 42 and 52). Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsubara, in view of Tsuji, and further in view of Burroughs et al. (Burroughs, US Pub. 2018/0301875). Regarding claim 4, The combination of Matsubara and Tsuji does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the contact layer has a mesa structure only on one side of the micro VCSEL chip." Burroughs discloses, "Wherein the contact layer has a mesa structure only on one side of the micro VCSEL chip" (Fig. 2B, pts. 200 and 206). 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 Matsubara and Tsuji with the teachings of Burroughs. In view of the teachings of Matsubara regarding a VCSEL having a current spreading layer, the alternate construction of the current spreading layer to extend only to one side of the mesa as taught by Burroughs would enhance the teachings of Matsubara and Tsuji by allowing the footprint of the device to be reduced. Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsubara, in view of Tsuji, and further in view of Kim (US Pub. 2006/0140235). Kim was initially cited in the IDS received 18 January 2024. Regarding claim 7, Matsubara discloses, "A first reflector including a plurality of distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) pairs" (p. [0078] and Fig. 4, pt. 17). "A second reflector including a plurality of DBR pairs" (p. [0071] and Fig. 4, pt. 13). "A plurality of multiple quantum well layers positioned between the first reflector and the second reflector" (p. [0073] and Fig. 4, pts. 13, 15, and 17). "[The plurality of multiple quantum well layers] recombining holes generated from one of the first reflector and the second reflector and electrons generated from the other of the first reflector and the second reflector" (p. [0082] and Fig. 4, pts. 13, 15, 17, and 150). "A contact layer formed within one DBR pair of the second reflector or formed to contact the second reflector" (p. [0069] and Fig. 4, pts. 12 and 13). "A passivation layer protecting the first reflector, the second reflector, the multiple quantum well layers, and the contact layer from an outside" (p. [0088] and Fig. 4, pts. 12, 13, 15, 17, and 31). Matsubara does not explicitly disclose, "A first metal layer contacting the first reflector and supplying power to the first reflector." "A second metal layer contacting the contact layer and supplying power to the second reflector." Tsuji discloses, "A first metal layer contacting the first reflector and supplying power to the first reflector" (p. [0071], [0074], and Fig. 1, pts. 6 and 8). "A second metal layer contacting the contact layer and supplying power to the second reflector" (p. [0064], [0075], and Fig. 1, pts. 3 and 9). 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 Matsubara with the teachings of Tsuji for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1. The combination of Matsubara and Tsuji does not explicitly disclose, "One or more tunnel junctions formed between the respective multiple quantum well layers." Kim discloses, "One or more tunnel junctions formed between the respective multiple quantum well layers" (p. [0027] and Fig. 4, pts. 44 and 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 Matsubara and Tsuji with the teachings of Kim. In view of the teachings of Matsubara regarding a VCSEL having a multiple quantum well active layer, the alternate construction of the active region to include tunnel junctions between quantum well regions as taught by Kim would enhance the teachings of Matsubara and Tsuji by allowing for higher efficiency operation. Regarding claim 9, The combination of Matsubara and Tsuji does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the tunnel junction connects both adjacent multiple quantum well layers in series." Kim discloses, "Wherein the tunnel junction connects both adjacent multiple quantum well layers in series" (p. [0027] and Fig. 4, pts. 44 and 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 Matsubara and Tsuji with the teachings of Kim for the reasons provided above regarding claim 7. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsubara, in view of Tsuji, in view of Kim, and further in view of Burroughs. Regarding claim 8, The combination of Matsubara, Tsuji, and Kim does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the contact layer has a mesa structure only on one side of the micro VCSEL chip." Burroughs discloses, "Wherein the contact layer has a mesa structure only on one side of the micro VCSEL chip" (Fig. 2B, pts. 200 and 206). 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 Matsubara, Tsuji, and Kim with the teachings of Burroughs. In view of the teachings of Matsubara regarding a VCSEL having a current spreading layer, the alternate construction of the current spreading layer to extend only to one side of the mesa as taught by Burroughs would enhance the teachings of Matsubara, Tsuji, and Kim by allowing the footprint of the device to be reduced. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsubara, in view of Tsuji, and further in view of Laflaquiere et al. ( Laflaquiere , US Pub. 2019/0363520). Regarding claim 10, The combination of Matsubara and Tsuji does not explicitly disclose, "A substrate." "First and second power lines formed on the substrate." "An isolator coated on the substrate." "[The micro VCSEL chip] is disposed and fixed on the isolator." "A first inter connector and a second inter connector electrically connecting each power line to the first metal layer and the second metal layer within the micro VCSEL chip." Laflaquiere discloses, "A substrate" (p. [0038], [0041], and Figs. 3A and 3C, pts. 26 and 30). "First and second power lines formed on the substrate" (p. [0045], [0047], and Fig. 6, pts. 30, 68, and 86). "An isolator coated on the substrate" (p. [0048] and Fig. 6, pts. 30 and 92). "[The micro VCSEL chip] is disposed and fixed on the isolator" (p. [0048] and Fig. 6, pts. 32 and 92). "A first inter connector and a second inter connector electrically connecting each power line to the first metal layer and the second metal layer within the micro VCSEL chip" (p. [0047] and Fig. 6, pts. 68, 78, 84, and 86). 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 Matsubara and Tsuji with the teachings of Laflaquiere . In view of the teachings of Matsubara regarding a VCSEL chip, the additional inclusion of a circuit chip to which the laser devices are mounted as taught by Laflaquiere would enhance the teachings of Matsubara and Tsuji by allowing the laser devices to be integrated atop control circuitry. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Sean P Hagan whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1242 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT MinSun Harvey can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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