CTNF 18/279,334 CTNF 78342 Non-Final Rejection 07-03-01-aia AIA 07-03-01-r-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-7, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2008-172002 (“JP ‘002”) in view of US 2019/0067906 (“Yuen”) . 1. A surface emitting laser, comprising: a plurality of light emitting units having a mesa structure, the light emitting units each including a first multilayer film reflector, a second multilayer film reflector, an active layer disposed between the first and second multilayer film reflectors, JP ‘002 discloses in Fig. 9b, [0147]-[0150], also [0062] et seq. for the base parts, a surface emitting laser ([0005]) comprising plural light emitting units 144, 146, each including a first reflector 52, second reflector 58, and active layer 54 disposed in between. at least one oxide confinement layer disposed between a surface of the first multilayer film reflector on a side opposite to a surface on a side of the active layer and the active layer and/or between a surface of the second multilayer film reflector on a side opposite to a surface on a side of the active layer and the active layer, Oxide confinement layer 56 is disposed between a surface of the second multilayer film reflector on a side opposite to a surface on a side of the active layer and the active layer wherein the mesa structures of the plurality of light emitting units include first and second mesa structures having different height dimensions, and Fig. 9b shows the mesas of 144 and 146 are different heights. having different numbers of the oxide confinement layers and/or different numbers of the active layers. This is not disclosed. Yuen teaches that it was known to include different numbers of oxide layers in a VCSEL to provide different beam characteristics. Fig 1, [0011]-[0016], figs. 3A-3B, [0049]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include different numbers of oxide layers in the lasers in a situation where the user desired different beam characteristics from different lasers in the array. Regarding claim 2, in light of Yuen the person skilled in the art would have to choose which mesa to make have the larger number of the oxide confinement layers, and could easily choose the second mesa depending on the particular type of light output desired. Regarding claim 3, oxide layers 56 are in each mesa. Regarding claims 4-5, JP ‘002 shows the active layers are not in the mesas. However Yuen shows that active layers can be in mesas. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have one in the mesa and one not (as in claim 4) or to have both in the mesa (as in claim 5) as this is merely a simple substitution of a known element for another to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143 I.B. JP ‘002 differs from the claim by having the active layers below the mesas, but Yuen shows they may be in mesas. A person skilled in the art could have moved them to a different part of the device, and the result would have been predictable. The lasers will operate in substantially the same way. There may be differences in confinement due to being within or below the mesas, but VCSELs are so well studied at this point that any differences would still be predictable. Regarding claim 6, JP ‘002 shows the active layers are not in the mesas. Regarding claim 7, just like claim 2, in light of Yuen the person skilled in the art would have to choose which mesa to make have the larger number of the oxide confinement layers, and could easily choose the second mesa depending on the particular type of light output desired. So there would be a plurality as claimed, while the other mesa only has at least one as claimed, on the same side. Regarding claim 17, JP ‘002 is an optical transmission module, which can meet the broad term “an electronic device.” 07-21-aia AIA Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘002 and Yuen as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US 5,493,577 (“Choquette”) . Regarding claim 8, the first mesa is met by JP ‘002 as above. As to the second mesa, it is essentially claiming that an oxide layer is above and below the active layer. Choquette shows VCSELs may have oxide apertures above the active layer (Fig. 1) like JP ‘002, or both above and below (Fig. 2) like now claimed. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include an oxide layer both above and below the active layer as this provides tighter carrier confinement, improving efficiency of light generation, as taught by Choquette. Col. 16 lines 6-22 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘002 and Yuen as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Knodl et al., Multistage Bipolar Cascade Vertical-Cavity Surface-Emitting Lasers: Theory and Experiment, IEEE J. Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics, Vol. 9 no. 5, Sept./Oct. 2003 (“Knodl”) . Regarding claim 9, as above Yuen teaches that the mesas may have active layers. For this claim, we will assume that the skilled artisan determined that each laser should have similar beam divergence, so they may keep the same number of oxide layers in each mesa, as JP ‘002 already shows. It is not disclosed that the mesas have different numbers of active layers. Knodl teaches that in a VCSEL mesa one can include various different numbers of active layers. See Fig. 4. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to do so as this can provide various advantages such as more design freedom and higher output power. Introduction. It would have been apparent to a person of ordinary skill that they could alter each laser of the multiple lasers in different ways, depending on the desired output. Regarding claim 10, again JP ‘002 has oxide layers in each of the mesas between the active layer and the opposing layer of the second reflector . 07-21-aia AIA Claims 11-14 and 19 are r ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over J P ‘002 and Yuen as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US 2008/0224167 (“Kuwata”). J P ‘002 does not show the dummy area and other features as in these claims. As in claim 11, Kuwata shows in Figs. 1A-1B, discussion starting at [0026], multiple VCSEL mesas P1 and P2 separated by a dummy region between them. As in claim 12, the interval between the taller mesa and the dummy and between the shorter mesa and the dummy are clearly different, and as in claim 13 the interval to the taller is larger. However, this does not seem to be required, and there is no reason that instead the intervals could be the same or the other interval larger (as in claim 14). In that sense, this claim 14 interval would have been obvious to try. MPEP 2143 I.E. There is a design need in the art, how to provide mounting for electrodes in a device having multiple VCSELs, and one solution is shown in Kuwata with the interval as in claims 12-13. But there are only a finite number of solutions—the interval of claim 14 is the only other possibility. A person skilled in the art could have pursued this other solution and the result would have been predictable, because Kuwata does not place great importance on the interval and the device would still appear to operate in exactly the same manner even if one interval with its associated electrode was made a slightly larger size. Regarding claim 19, this method of making is also clearly taught by the combined device in view of Kuwata. All of the layers as described in claim 1 would of course be “layered” as the layers are laminated. JP ‘002 [0062]. The oxide layer is selectively oxidized, JP ‘002 [0066], and it would be understood this is done from a side surface such that the circular center region remains unoxidized. The mesas are not clearly formed by etching. But Kuwata teaches that VCSEL mesas can be made by etching. Fig. 6-7, [0046]-[0048]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use etching as in Kuwata as it is widely known and used in fabrication to precisely make semiconductor devices . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘002 and Yuen as applied to the parent claims, and further in view of US 2022/0114835 (“Minamiru”) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘002, Yuen, and Knodl as applied to the parent claims, and further in view Minamiru . Regarding claim 15-16, these additional optical elements are not shown. Minamiru teaches that an array of VCSELs, see Fig. 11 or 13, may have a collimating lens 22/23 and a diffusion plate 31 on the top side of the mesas. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use such elements as diffusion is typically required in TOF devices, [0005], but narrowing the spread of the laser light such as from a collimating lens ensures that less light is wasted, [0006], as taught by Minamiru. Regarding claim 18, using the VCSEL for distance measuring is not taught above. Minamiru teaches VCSEL arrays may be used in a TOF device, a distance measuring device. [0005]-[0008]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use VCSELs in such a device because this is a useful application and is a common and desirable use for lasers . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘002 in view of Yuen, further in view of Knodl, and further in view of Kuwata. The method steps are shown similarly to the rejection of claim 19 above, this rejection just also relies on Knodl to show the additional active layers similarly to claim 9 . 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 applications may be obtained from Patent Center. See: 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. /JAMES A MENEFEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828 Application/Control Number: 18/279,334 Page 2 Art Unit: 2828 Application/Control Number: 18/279,334 Page 3 Art Unit: 2828 Application/Control Number: 18/279,334 Page 4 Art Unit: 2828 Application/Control Number: 18/279,334 Page 5 Art Unit: 2828 Application/Control Number: 18/279,334 Page 6 Art Unit: 2828 Application/Control Number: 18/279,334 Page 7 Art Unit: 2828 Application/Control Number: 18/279,334 Page 8 Art Unit: 2828
Prosecution Insights