Non-Final Rejection
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This application was filed with 15 claims. By preliminary amendment claims 1, 6, and 10 were amended and claim 16 added. Claims 1-16 are pending.
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.
Claim 7 is 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.
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and requires that “at least two of the aluminum-containing current constriction layers differ from each other in their material composition and/or vertical extent and/or lateral extent of the second regions.” By saying “and/or” any of these limitations would meet the claim, all are not required. But claim 1 already requires that “the current constriction layers differ from each other in their vertical extent and lateral extent of the second regions.” So any device meeting claim 1 would also necessarily meet claim 7 because it would have differing lateral and vertical extent in these layers, the reference to the different material composition is never required because the other alternative limitations would be met. Claim 7 does not further limit claim 1. It is believed this was just a relic from the German application, which did not have this requirement in claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place it in proper form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 3, 5-7, and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5,886,370 to Sun et al. (“Sun”).
Regarding claim 1:
1. An optoelectronic semiconductor component comprising at least one layer stack comprising:
an active zone for generating electromagnetic radiation,
at least two aluminum-containing current constriction layers each comprising a first region and a second region, the second region having a lower electrical conductivity than the first region, and a side surface which laterally delimits the layer stack and at which the second region is arranged in each case, the second region being an oxidized region in each case, and
Sun discloses in Fig. 5 and the discussion thereof a laser comprising a layer stack comprising an active zone 112 for generating electromagnetic radiation and at least two aluminum-containing current constriction layers 106,116 (not labelled in Fig. 5, see Fig. 4) each comprising a first region in the center and a second region 504,502, the second region having a lower electrical conductivity than the first region because it is oxidized, and a side surface (right left sides of Fig.) which laterally delimits the layer stack and at which the second oxidized region is arranged.
PNG
media_image1.png
368
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the current constriction layers differ from each other in their vertical extent and lateral extent of the second regions, the thicker current constriction layer having a greater lateral extent of the second region than the thinner current constriction layer.
Layers 116 and 106 have different Al fractions and thicknesses, so it is clear that they will differ in vertical and lateral extent of the second oxidized regions as shown in Fig. 5. The thicker layer 116 has a greater lateral extent.
Regarding claim 3, the second region is oxidized, it has a higher oxygen content.
Regarding claim 5, layer 106, which becomes layer 504 has a height of 30 nm, within the claimed range. Col. 3 lines 66-67.
Regarding claim 6, at least layer 504 is closer to the active region than to a main surface at the bottom. For example layer 108 and 104 (distance to active layer 112) combine to be 130 nm and layer 102 is 1 micron. Col. 3 lines 55-57, line 62 to col. 4 line 1.
Claim 7 is met for the same reason as claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the current constriction layer 502 is in the p-type upper cladding 116. Col. 4 lines 23-28.
Regarding claim 11, this method claim is merely providing and forming the various layers of claim 1, as well as oxidizing the oxidized regions, therefore this claim is met for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 12, the second region is generated in each case by means of lateral oxidation of the starting layer starting from the side surface. Col. 5 lines 45-64.
Regarding claims 13-15, these claims are merely describing how oxidation of such a layer works. Oxidation is necessarily controlled by the height and aluminum content of the layer and the duration of the process.
Regarding claim 16, the layers 502,504 are on different sides of the active zone 112.
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.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun.
Regarding claim 2, the layer 106 of Sun is AlAs, which meets the claim (x = 1 and y = 0) except that it does not include P. The examiner takes official notice that including phosphorus in various laser layers is well known in the art. Indeed there are entire portions of the CPC classification schedule devoted to such materials. See H01S 5/3436, 34373, 3438. This is similarly but not quite suggested in col. 8 lines 55-57. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use such materials as a person of ordinary skill recognizes that the various output characteristics are caused by the specific materials used, and may therefore select certain materials based on the desired output. See also MPEP 2144.07 (selecting known materials for their intended use generally obvious).
Regarding claim 4, the specific extent of the oxidized regions is not stated. However, this is really only defined by how large the user wants to make the lasers. Sun does explain that it wants the distance between adjacent lasers to be as small as possible. See Fig. 12, spacing D, col. 8 lines 34-47. It would have been obvious to make this spacing minimal so that a compact array may be formed, as taught by Sun. Given the various other dimensions given (i.e. most layers are on the nm to 1 micron scale), Sun’s disclosure is deemed equivalent to the claimed value of 0.1 to 100 microns for the oxidized regions. When the general conditions of the claim are met in the art, it is not invention to discover the optimal range unless there is some indication that range is critical. MPEP 2144.05 II. This range, which is quite large, is not shown to be critical.
Claims 1-7 and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2001/0004114 to Yuri et al. (“Yuri”) in view of US 2006/0078023 to Lim (“Lim”).
Regarding claim 1:
1. An optoelectronic semiconductor component comprising at least one layer stack comprising:
an active zone for generating electromagnetic radiation,
at least two aluminum-containing current constriction layers each comprising a first region and a second region, the second region having a lower electrical conductivity than the first region, and a side surface which laterally delimits the layer stack and at which the second region is arranged in each case, the second region being an oxidized region in each case, and
Yuri Fig. 8 shown here and the discussion thereof at [0093] et seq. shows an optoelectronic semiconductor component comprising at least one layer stack comprising: an active zone 24 for generating electromagnetic radiation, and at least two aluminum-containing current constriction layers 25 each comprising a first region 25b and a second region 25a, the second region having a lower electrical conductivity than the first region (because it is an oxidized region), and a side surface (sides of Fig. 8) which laterally delimits the layer stack and at which the second region 25a is arranged in each case, the second region being an oxidized region. Note [0116] explains there may be two such layers.
PNG
media_image2.png
372
514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the current constriction layers differ from each other in their vertical extent and lateral extent of the second regions, the thicker current constriction layer having a greater lateral extent of the second region than the thinner current constriction layer.
While Yuri shows there may be two layers, it does not explain that these layers differ in vertical and lateral extent. However, it would have been apparent to a person skilled in the art that changing the oxide layers so that they are different from one another would alter the current path for current to be injected into the active region, allowing one to change how electrons and holes recombine in the active layer, controlling the laser output in different ways, so an asymmetric path may be desirable. Lim in Fig. 2 shows a number of different current blocking layers 121, 123, 125 having oxidized regions having different vertical and lateral extent, recognizing that the thickness and materials allows control of the oxidation amount so that the size of the oxidized portion can be changed. [0029]-[0031]. An asymmetric path may be achievable by using oxide layers having different lateral and vertical extent.
Regarding claim 2, the layer 25 is AlAs, which meets the claim (x = 1 and y = 0) except that it does not include P. The examiner takes official notice that ncluding phosphorus in various laser layers is well known in the art. Indeed there are entire portions of the CPC classification schedule devoted to such materials in barrier layers. See H01S 5/3436, 34373, 3438. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use such materials as a person of ordinary skill recognizes that the various output characteristics are caused by the specific materials used, and may therefore select certain materials based on the desired output. See also MPEP 2144.07 (selecting known materials for their intended use generally obvious).
Regarding claim 3, the second region is oxidized, it has a higher oxygen content.
Regarding claim 4, the oxidized part goes in 10 microns, falling within the claimed range. [0097].
Regarding claim 5, layer 25 has a thickness of 2 nm, falling within the claimed range. [0094].
Regarding claim 6. The current constriction layer 25 is next to the quantum well layer 24, i.e. it is closer to the active layer than to the main surfaces which are the top and bottom of the device.
Claim 7 is met for the same reason as claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Yuri is an edge-emitting laser component and the side surface (where the oxidized regions 25 a are located) is provided for coupling out the electromagnetic radiation.
Regarding claim 10, the current constriction layers are arranged in barrier layers which can be considered part of the active zone. They might also be considered p and n waveguides as that is what they will do.
Regarding claim 11, this method claim is merely providing and forming the various layers of claim 1, as well as oxidizing the oxidized regions, therefore this claim is met for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 12, the second region is generated in each case by means of lateral oxidation of the starting layer starting from the side surface. See Yuri discussion of Fig. 9 at [0099] et seq.
Regarding claims 13-15, these claims are merely describing how oxidation of such a layer works. Oxidation is necessarily controlled by the height aluminum content of the layer and the duration of the process.
Regarding claim 16, the oxidized layers may be on either side of the active zone. Yuri [0113].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Muller et al., Monolithically Stacked High-Power…, (“Muller”) (see citation and reference in 3/13/2023 IDS).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuri and Lim as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Muller.
The primary references show what is in parent claim 1, but do not show multiple stacks with a tunnel junction between as claimed. Muller teaches that multiple laser diodes can be stacked vertically with a tunnel junction between. Abstract. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to do so as this configuration shows at the same output power a lower load on the mirrors and required current, as taught by Muller.
Pertinent Art
US 2023/0187901 teaches that insulating layers having different heights and lengths may be used near the emission facets to lessen current there and reduce mirror damage, very similar to the invention, though these are not oxidized regions.
Lim is also very close to claim 1 due to the claim’s breadth.
WO 2020/058082 (see US 2022/0029388 for translation) is also very close to claim 1 due to the claim’s breadth.
CN 111817138 A in Fig. 2 and US 2004/0028102 Fig. 1B show the general invention of the Figs. 1-5 embodiments, with oxidized layer at the end facets of an edge emitting laser, but does not show two such layers as in the claims.
KR 20050094579 A in Fig. 5 shows the general invention of the Figs. 6-9 embodiments, with two current blocking layers 120a-b,127a-b at the end facets of an edge emitting laser on either side of the active region. These layers are not oxidized layers and it does not show such layers having different vertical and lateral extent as in the claims.
US 2005/0232325, US 4,987,096, US 6,373,875 show the general invention of the Figs. 1-5 embodiments, with current blocking layers at the end facets of an edge emitting laser, but does not show two such layers as in the claims and they are not oxidized.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Menefee whose telephone number is (571)272-1944. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 may be obtained from Patent Center. See: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. 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.
/JAMES A MENEFEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828