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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 4-5, 13-14 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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.
Claims 4-5, 13-14 and 17-18 recite the limitation "the device area" in lines 2 of claims 4-5, 13-14; lines 2-3 of claim 17; and lines 1-2 of claim 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner notes that it’s unclear which area of the VCSEL is considered “the device area” and therefore it’s considered indefinite. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets “the device area” to be a central area of the VCSEL where light is emitted.
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, 8-9, 10-12 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by YUEN et al. (US PG Pub 2019/0305522 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, YUEN discloses a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL) device (100, FIGS. 1A-1B, [0016]), comprising:
a device structure (FIG. 1B) comprising a main surface (FIG. 1B), wherein the device structure comprises a stacked structure (FIG. 1B) comprising:
a first distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) minor (124, FIG. 1B, [0027]);
a second DBR minor (118, FIG. 1B, [0031]) arranged on the first DBR minor;
an active layer (122, FIG. 1B, [0028]) comprising one or more quantum wells and configured to generate laser light, wherein the active layer is arranged between the first DBR minor and the second DBR minor (122 is sandwiched between 124/118, FIG. 1B); and
an oxidation layer (120, FIG. 1B, [0030]) arranged between the active layer and the second DBR mirror (120 is formed between 122/118, FIG. 1B), wherein the oxidation layer comprises an oxide aperture (110, FIG. 1B, [0030]) formed through the oxidation layer for limiting a current flow of a current to the active layer, which generates light to form a laser beam (FIG. 1B);
a plurality of segmented oxidation trenches (112, FIG. 1A, [0021]) that extend from the main surface into the device structure to expose the oxidation layer for oxidation that forms the oxide aperture (FIG. 1A), wherein the plurality of segmented oxidation trenches are arranged around a periphery of a device area of the device structure in which the oxide aperture is formed (FIG. 1A); and
a plurality of plating islands (see annotated FIG. 2A below) that are spatially separated from each other (the plating islands are separated from each other, see annotated FIG. 2A below), wherein each plating island of the plurality of plating islands vertically extends into a respective segmented oxidation trench of the plurality of segmented oxidation trenches and seals the respective segmented oxidation trench in order to prevent further oxidation of the oxidation layer (the plating islands vertically extend into and seal the oxidation trenches and it’s implicitly taught to prevent further oxidation of the oxidation layer, FIG. 3B).
PNG
media_image1.png
467
611
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
708
498
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2 and 11, YUEN discloses each plating island of the plurality of plating islands laterally extends from the respective segmented oxidation trench over the main surface to seal the respective segmented oxidation trench (FIG 3B).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, YUEN discloses each plating island of the plurality of plating islands is formed over the main surface around an edge region of the respective segmented oxidation trench to seal the respective segmented oxidation trench (FIG. 3B).
Regarding claim 8, YUEN discloses the current is configured to be injected through the second DBR and through the oxide aperture to the active layer to excite an active material of the active layer to generate the light (via 104, FIG. 1B, [0035]).
Regarding claim 9, YUEN discloses the light is configured to pass through the oxide aperture and exit the main surface as the laser beam ([0034]).
Regarding claim 17, YUEN discloses the plurality of segmented oxidation trenches and the plurality of plating islands are arranged circumferentially around the periphery of the device area (FIG. 2A).
Regarding claim 18, YUEN discloses the light is laterally confined within the device area (FIG. 2A).
Regarding claims 19-20, same rejections as applied to claims 1/10 and 3/12 are maintained since the method claims 19-20 contain substantially the same limitations as the product claims 1/10 and 3/12.
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.
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.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YUEN et al. in view of BARVE et al. (US PG Pub 2022/0200240 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, YUEN has disclosed the VCSEL device outlined in the rejections to claims 1 and 10 above except the plurality of segmented oxidation trenches are arranged in a discontinuous arc around the periphery of the device area. BARVE discloses a similar VCSEL (FIG. 2A) comprising a plurality of segmented oxidation trenches (210, FIG. 2A, [0046]) that are arranged in a discontinuous arc around the periphery of a device area (FIG. 2A). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the plurality of segmented oxidation trenches of YUEN with a discontinuous arc shape as taught by BARVE in order to obtain desired confinement effect.
Claims 6-7 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YUEN et al.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, YUEN has disclosed the VCSEL device outlined in the rejections to claims 1 and 10 above except the plurality of plating islands are dimensioned to reduce a parasitic capacitance of the VCSEL. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the plurality of plating islands with a dimension so to reduce a parasitic capacitance of the VCSEL since the dimension of the plating islands can be designed to maximize mode confinement which in turn minimize a parasitic capacitance of the VCSEL.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, YUEN has disclosed the VCSEL device outlined in the rejections to claims 1 and 10 above except the plurality of plating islands are dimensioned to increase a bandwidth of the VCSEL. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the plurality of plating islands with a dimension so to increase a bandwidth of the VCSEL since the dimension of the plating islands can be designed to maximize mode confinement which in turn increase a bandwidth of the VCSEL.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the cited prior art fails to disclose or suggest the plating islands having a discontinuous arc shape. In particular, YUEN merely discloses the plating island having a polygon shape and BARVE merely discloses the oxidation trenches having a discontinuous arc shape; however, neither disclose the planting islands having a discontinuous arc shape. Therefore, claims 5 and 14 are allowable over the cited prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
BARVE et al. (US PG Pub 2023/0006422 A1) and HEGBLOM et al. (US PG Pub 2020/0321754 A1) both disclose a VCSEL having a plurality of oxidation trenches in a discontinuous arc shape similar to the claimed invention (see FIG. 2A of BARVE and FIG. 3 of HEGBLOM).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUANDA ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1439. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 AM - 6:30 PM.
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.
/YUANDA ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828