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 .
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amending of claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The Examiner notes new art is used to address the newly added limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous 112 rejections are withdrawn due to the current amendments.
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 4 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.
Claim 1 has been amended to limit the second figure to having longitudinal and lateral directions of different lengths. This excludes circles. Claim 4, depending from claim 1, then states the second figure can be a circle. Claim 4 is therefore not properly inheriting the limitations of claim 1.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima et al. (WO 2020/026573A1), hereinafter Nakajima. For purposes of examination, the translation of Nakajima utilized is from U.S. Patent Application No. 2021/0249844) in view of Sirbu et al. (US 10601201).
With respect to claim 1, Nakajima teaches a vertical cavity surface emitting laser device (Abstract), comprising: a first light-reflecting layer (paragraph [0036]; Fig. 1, "17A") that reflects light of a specific wavelength (paragraph [0065]); a second light-reflecting layer (paragraph [0036]; Fig. 1, "17B") that reflects light of the wavelength (paragraph [0065]); and a stacked body (paragraph [0036]) that includes a first semiconductor layer (paragraph [0041]; Fig. 1, "12"), a second semiconductor layer (paragraph [0041]; Fig. 1, "14"), and an active layer (paragraph[0039]; Fig. 1, "13"; Abstract), and is disposed between the first light-reflecting layer and the second light- reflecting layer (Fig. 1, see 6627 between "17A" and "17B"), the first semiconductor layer (paragraph [0041]; Fig. 1, "12") being formed of a semiconductor material (paragraph [0042]) having a first conductivity type (paragraph [0042], Abstract), the second semiconductor layer (paragraph [0041]; Fig. 1, "14") being formed of a semiconductor material (paragraph [0044]) having a second conductivity type (paragraph [0044]; Abstract), the active layer being disposed between the first semiconductor layer and the second semiconductor layer (Abstract) and emitting light by carrier recombination (paragraph [0065]), the stacked body having a current confinement structure (paragraph [0065]; Fig. 1, "15") for confining a current (paragraph [0039]) and forming a current injection region (paragraph [0039]; Fig. 1, "15A") where a current concentrates (paragraph [0065]), the first light-reflecting layer including a concave mirror (paragraph [0039]) having a concave surface on a side of the stacked body (paragraph [0039]; Fig. 1, "17C") and a convex surface on a side opposite to the stacked body (Fig. 1, see bottom layer of "17A"; Fig. 3E, "11C"), the first figure (Fig. 1B, "15A") being a plane figure of the current injection region when viewed from an optical axis direction of emitted light (paragraph [0048]).
Nakajima does not explicitly disclose: the second figure being a plane figure of a contour line when viewed from the optical axis direction, the contour line representing a height of the concave mirror from the active layer. However, the device of Nakajima has a vertical symmetry axis (Annotated Fig. 1a).
Under this rotational symmetry, the concave mirror spans a half hemisphere. Therefore, the second figure as a plane figure of the contour line as defining the height of the concave mirror to the active layer, at the boundary of the concave mirror, when viewed from the optical axis direction is a circle. As the boundary first figure is aligned with the endpoints of the concave mirror as taught by Nakajima in Fig. 1, the first figure is circumscribed by the second figure.
Nakajima does not explicitly disclose: a first figure and a second figure having different shapes. It can be necessarily understood to someone of ordinary skill that the first figure as taught above by Nakajima to be a hexagon, and the second figure as a circle are different shapes, in the sense that a circle and a hexagon are not the same shape.
PNG
media_image1.png
388
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nakajima does not teach the second figure having a longitudinal direction and a lateral direction of different lengths. Sirbu teaches a VCSEL device (fig.1) which includes a reflector with longitudinal and lateral directions of different length (fig.1 #174, col.9 lines 21-22; ellipse). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the circular reflector of Nakajima to be that of an ellipse as taught by Sirbu in order to control the mode shape and the polarization of the light (Sirbu, col.9 lines 13-33).
With respect to Claim 4, Nakajima, as modified, teaches the device of Claim 1.
Nakajima further teaches: the first figure is a closed figure including a circle, an ellipse, a
rectangle, or a combination of at least two of them (Annotated Fig. 1b, combination of one circle and six
rectangles), and the second figure is a closed figure including a circle, an ellipse, a rectangle, or a
combination of at least two of them (see explanation in claim 1, concluding the second figure is an ellipse after modification) and is a figure dissimilar to the first figure (Annotated Fig. lb, combination of one circle and six hexagons is dissimilar to the ellipse).
PNG
media_image2.png
332
500
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to Claim 7, Nakajima, as modified, teaches the device of Claim 1.
Nakajima does not explicitly disclose: a center of gravity of the first figure and a center of gravity of the second figure match. However, as explained in Claim 1 above, the combined view of the first and second figure results in a circumscribed hexagon. It can be necessarily understood to someone of ordinary skill in the art that the center of gravity of a regular polygon is at its center, in the sense that the center of gravity of a regular polygon is at the intersection of all of its axes of symmetry. Since the first figure as disclosed by Nakajima is a normal hexagon, its center of gravity is at its center. Similarly, the second figure as taught is an ellipse, and its center of gravity is at its center. It can be necessarily understood that the polygon of a circumscribed regular polygon and the ellipse of a circumscribed regular polygon line up.
With respect to Claim 19, Nakajima, as modified, teaches the device of Claim 1.
Nakajima further teaches: a substrate (Fig. 1, "11") that has a first surface (Fig 1, top of "11") on
a side of the active layer (Fig. 1, see "11" on bottom side of "13") and a second surface (Fig. 1, bottom
"11") on a side opposite to the active layer (Fig. 1, see bottom of "11" below "13"), a base ()Fig. 11, see
portion of "11" protruding from bottom of "11") that forms a convex curved surface being provided on
the second surface (Fig. 11, SCC convex shape of bottom of "11"), the first light-reflecting layer (Fig. 1,
"17A") being a multilayer light-reflecting film provided on the second surface (Fig. 1, see multiple layers
within "17A", "17A" on bottom of "11"), a portion of the first light-reflecting layer that is a multilayer
light-reflecting film and provided on the base forming the concave mirror (Fig. 11, see "17C"; paragraph
[0039]).
Regarding Claim 19, Nakajima teaches the device of Claim 1.
Nakajima further teaches: a substrate (Fig. 1, "11") that has a first surface (Fig 1, top of "11") on
a side of the active layer (Fig. 1, see "11" on bottom side of "13") and a second surface (Fig. 1, bottom
"11") on a side opposite to the active layer (Fig. 1, see bottom of "11" below "13"), a base ()Fig. 11, see
portion of "11" protruding from bottom of "11") that forms a convex curved surface being provided on
the second surface (Fig. 11, SCC convex shape of bottom of "11"), the first light-reflecting layer (Fig. 1,
"17A") being a multilayer light-reflecting film provided on the second surface (Fig. 1, see multiple layers
within "17A", "17A" on bottom of "11"), a portion of the first light-reflecting layer that is a multilayer
light-reflecting film and provided on the base forming the concave mirror (Fig. 11, see "17C"; paragraph
[0039]).
Claims 8-11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima and Sirbu in view of Tanaka et al. (WO 2020/084942 A1), hereinafter Tanaka. For purposes of examination, the translation of Tanaka utilized is from U.S. Patent Application No. 2021/0384707.
With respect to Claim 8, Nakajima, as modified, teaches the device of Claim 1. Nakajima does not teach: the current confinement structure has a non-ion-implantation region in which ions are not implanted into the stacked body and an ion implantation region that is provided around the non-ion-implantation region, ions being implanted into the stacked body in the ion implantation region, the current injection region being the non- ion-implantation region.
Tanaka teaches: the current confinement structure has a non-ion-implantation region (Fig. 13,
"51", see explanation below) in which ions are not implanted into the stacked body (Fig. 13, "20") and an ion implantation region (Fig. 13, "52", "53") that is provided around the non-ion-implantation region
(Fig. 13, see "52", "53" around "51"), ions being implanted into the stacked body in the ion implantation
region (paragraph [0176]), the current injection region being the non-ion-implantation region (paragraph [0170]). It can be necessarily understood to someone of ordinary skill that the current injection region is the non-ion-implantation region, in the sense that Tanaka does not teach ions are implanted here but rather the current non-injection regions (paragraph [0176]), and the current could not flow through the current injection region if the current injection region was ion implanted. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: have the current confinement structure has a non-ion-implantation region in which ions are not implanted into the stacked body and an ion implantation region that is provided around the non-ion- implantation region, ions being implanted into the stacked body in the ion implantation region, the current injection region being the non-ion-implantation region. as taught by Tanaka in the device of Nakajima, for the benefit of precisely defining the current aperture.
With respect to Claim 9, Nakajima, as modified, and Tanaka teach the device of Claim 8.
Nakajima further teaches: the first semiconductor layer and the second semiconductor layer are
formed of GaN (paragraph [0041]).
With respect to Claim 10, Nakajima, as modified, and Tanaka teach the device of Claim 9.
Nakajima further teaches: the first semiconductor layer includes a C-plane GaN substrate
(paragraph [0040]).
With respect to Claim 11, Nakajima, as modified, and Tanaka teach the device of Claim 8.
Tanaka further teaches: the ions are boron ions (paragraph [0142]). Therefore, it would have been
obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: utilize boron ions in the device of Nakajima and Tanaka, for the benefit of forming a localized and precise current aperture.
With respect to Claim 20, Nakajima, as modified, teaches the device of Claim 1. Nakajima further teaches: the concave mirror (Fig. 1, "17A") has a concave surface (Fig. 1, "17C") on a side of the active layer (Fig. 1, "17C" on upper side of "17A" on a side of "13"). Nakajima does not teach: the concave surface has a radius of curvature of 1000 µm or less.
Tanaka teaches: the concave surface has a radius of curvature of 1000 µm or less (Fig. 24, see
"RDBR (µm)" ranging from 0 to 1000 µm; paragraph [0039]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to
someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that: the
concave surface has a radius of curvature of 1000 µm or less as taught by Tanaka in the device of
Nakajima, for the benefits of optical confinement and maximizing optical power in the device.
Claims 12,13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima and Sirbu in view of Park et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 2020/0274328), hereinafter Park.
With respect to Claim 12, Nakajima, as modified, teaches the device of Claim 1. Nakajima does not teach: the current confinement structure has a tunnel junction region in which a tunnel junction is formed in the stacked body and a non-tunnel-junction region that is provided around the tunnel junction region, no tunnel junction being formed in the non-tunnel-junction region, and the current injection region is the tunnel junction region.
Park teaches: the current confinement structure has a tunnel junction region (paragraph [0041], Fig. 1,
"32") in which a tunnel junction is formed in the stacked body (Fig. 1, see "32" in "20") and a non-
tunnel-junction region (paragraph [0041], Fig. 1, "36") that is provided around the tunnel junction region, no tunnel junction being formed in the non-tunnel-junction region (see explanation below), and the current injection region is the tunnel junction region (see explanation below). It can be necessarily
understood to someone of ordinary skill that: the non-tunnel junction has no tunnel junction formed, in
the sense that it is the tunnel junction region where the tunnel junction is formed; that the tunnel junction region is the current injection region, in the sense that the buried tunnel junction as taught by Park is where current is injected into the active region and then confined. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention: that the current confinement structure has a tunnel junction region in which a tunnel junction is formed in the stacked body and a non-tunnel-junction region that is provided around the tunnel junction region, no tunnel junction being formed in the non-tunnel-junction region, and the current injection region is the tunnel junction region. as taught by Park in the device of Nakajima, for the benefit of lower optical absorption and increased hole yield in the active region.
With respect to Claim 13, Nakajima, as modified, and Park teach the device of Claim 12. As taught above by Park, the tunnel junction is formed by a buried tunnel junction (paragraph [0041]).
With respect to Claim 15, Nakajima, as modified, and Park teach the device of Claim 12.
Park further teaches: the first semiconductor layer (Fig. 1, "28") and the second semiconductor
layer (Fig. 1, "30") are formed of InP (paragraph [0041]). Park also discloses: the active layer can be
made of InGaAs, InAlGaAs, InGaAsP, and/or InGaAsN (paragraph [0041]). Therefore, it would have
been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to: form the first and semiconductor layer and semiconductor layer of InP as taught by Park in
the device of Park and Nakajima, for the benefit of heat sinking the active region (paragraph [0072],
"quantum well"); form the active region of InGaAs, InAlGaAs, InGaAsP, and/or InGaAsN, for the
benefit of allowing light output at alternative wavelengths.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima, Sirbu and Park in view of Tanaka.
With respect to Claim 14, Nakajima, as modified, and Park teach the device of Claim 12. Nakajima and Park do not teach: the tunnel junction region is formed by a tunnel junction layer into which ions are not implanted, and the non-tunnel-junction region is formed by a tunnel junction layer into which ions are implanted.
Tanaka teaches: a region into which ions are not implanted, (Fig. 13, "51", see explanation
below) in which ions are not implanted into the stacked body (Fig. 13, "20") and a region into which ions
are implanted (Fig. 13, "52", "53", paragraph [0170] and [0176]). Therefore, it would have been obvious
to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to:
have the tunnel junction region is formed by a tunnel junction layer into which ions are not implanted,
and the non-tunnel-junction region is formed by a tunnel junction layer into which ions are implanted in
the device of Nakajima and Park, for the benefit of for the benefit of minimizing current spread into the
current non-injection region, and to direct the current into the current injection region by increasing the
resistance in the current non-injection region.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima and Sirbu in view of Mitomo et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 2020/0028325), hereinafter Mitomo.
With respect to Claim 16, Nakajima, as modified, teaches the device of Claim 1. Nakajima does not teach: the current confinement structure has a non-oxidized region in which a semiconductor material is not oxidized in the stacked body and an oxidized region that is provided around the non-oxidized region, a semiconductor material being oxidized in the oxidized region, the current injection region is the non-oxidized region.
Mitomo teaches: the current confinement structure (Fig. 1, "13", "12", "13A") has a non-oxidized region
("13A") in which a semiconductor material is not oxidized in the stacked body (see explanation below)
and an oxidized region that is provided around the non-oxidized region (Fig. 1, see "12" around "13A")
a semiconductor material being oxidized in the oxidized region (paragraph [0050], "12"), the current
injection region (Fig. 1, "13A") is the non-oxidized region (see explanation below). It can be necessarily
understood to someone of ordinary skill that the current injection region is the non-oxidized region, in the sense that current could not flow through the current injection region if the current injection region was oxidized.
It can be recognized by someone of ordinary skill in the art that: the p-n junction for current
confinement as disclosed by Nakajima when reversed biased (paragraphs [0045] and [0046]) and the
oxidized and non-oxidized regions for current confinement as disclosed by Mitomo (paragraph [0050]),
both result in index guiding within their respective current confinement structures (Nakajima, paragraph
[0045]; Mitomo, SCC explanation below). For VCSEL oxidation, the semiconductor material being
oxidized and the oxide material itself have a difference in refractive index. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: substitute a current confinement structure which has a non-oxidized region in which a semiconductor material is not oxidized in the stacked body, and an oxidized region that is provided around the non- oxidized region, a semiconductor material being oxidized in the oxidized region, the current injection region is the non-oxidized region as taught by Mitomo in the device of Nakashima, with a reasonable expectation of success as oxidation is recognized as an equivalent known for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06(II).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima, and Sirjbu and Mitomo in view of Tanaka.
With respect to Claim 17, Nakajima, as modified, and Mitomo teach the device of Claim 16. Nakajima and Mitomo do not teach: the first semiconductor layer and the second semiconductor layer are formed of GaAs.
Tanaka teaches: the first semiconductor layer and the second semiconductor layer are formed of
GaAs (paragraph [0205]). Tanaka further discloses that the active layer can be formed with InGaAn
(paragraph [0095]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: utilize GaAs for the first semiconductor layer
and second semiconductor layer, in order to compensate for diffraction losses in the device (paragraph
[0166]); to form the active layer of InGaAn, for the benefit of allowing light output at alternative
wavelengths.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima and Sirbu in view of Hamaguchi et al. (WO 2020/246280 A1), hereinafter Hamaguchi. For purposes of examination, the
translation of Hamaguchi utilized is from U.S. Patent Application No. 2022/0247149 A1.
With respect to Claim 18, Nakajima, as modified, teaches the device of Claim 1. Nakajima does not teach: the first semiconductor layer has a first surface on a side of the active layer and a second surface on a side opposite to the active layer, a base that forms a convex curved surface being provided on the second surface, and the first light-reflecting layer is a multilayer light-reflecting film provided on the second surface, a portion of the first light-reflecting layer that is a multilayer light-reflecting film forming and provided on the base forming the concave mirror.
Hamaguchi teaches: the first semiconductor layer (Fig. 1, "21"; Abstract) has a first surface (Fig.
1, "21b") on a side of the active layer (Fig. 1, SCC "21b" on lower side of "23") and a second surface on a
side opposite to the active layer (Fig. 1, "21a"), a base that forms a convex curved surface being provided on the second surface (Fig. 1, see protruding part of the bottom of "21"), and the first light-reflecting layer (Fig. 1, "41"; see translated Abstract) is a multilayer light-reflecting film provided on the second surface (see Tables 2-6 and 8 in examiner provided Translation, "SiO₂/Ta₂O₅ (14 pairs)"), a portion of the first light-reflecting layer that is a multilayer light-reflecting film forming and provided on the base forming the concave mirror (paragraph [0240]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that: the first
semiconductor layer has a first surface on a side of the active layer and a second surface on a side
opposite to the active layer, a base that forms a convex curved surface being provided on the second
surface, and the first light-reflecting layer is a multilayer light-reflecting film provided on the second
surface, a portion of the first light-reflecting layer that is a multilayer light-reflecting film forming and
provided on the base forming the concave mirror, in order to form the device without a substrate and
minimize its size.
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 TOD THOMAS VAN ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8447. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8AM-430PM.
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.
/TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights