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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the:
Top ridge emitting configured CR-VCSEL with an emission aperture in claim 6 (note fig.3 does not show an emission aperture and the specification does not explicitly disclose an emission aperture in fig.3)
Buried index guide configuration of a CR-VCSEL which has a first mirror formed in a closed ring shape in claim 7 (note claim 1, from which 7 depends, requires the first mirror to be formed as part of the closed ring CR-VCSEL stack; fig.7, describing the buried index guide configuration does not form first mirror #404 into a closed ring)
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: fig.5 #528, #530; fig.6 #628, #630; fig.7 #728, #730; fig.8 #828, #830. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0054] refers to #618 while it is understood #818 is more properly referred to.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 5 ends with a “;” following “comprising” and is understood to more correctly be written with a “:” following comprising.
Claim 14 at line 11 refers to the top metal layer being in electrical contact with a BOTTOM surface of the active layer and is understood to more correctly read TOP.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner notes [0017] of the instant application defines what is meant by a closed ring and that definition is made use of in the prosecution of the application.
[0015] is also noted as outlining various meanings for the term “approximately” although no concrete definition is provided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, from which 7 depends, requires the first mirror to be formed as part of the closed ring CR-VCSEL stack. Fig.7, describing the buried index guide configuration does not form first mirror #404 into a closed ring. The specification further is not found to teach the buried index configuration to make use of the first mirror as part of a closed ring as required by claim 1/7. Therefore, it is not clear the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
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 1, 6, 18 (and all claims dependent therefrom; 2-13) 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.
Claim 1 at line 3 refers to “an active layer” and at line 7 again refers to “an active layer”. Use of this term twice calls into question whether a single active layer is being referred to or multiple active layers, making the scope of the claim unclear.
Based on the original specification, the 2nd use of the term will be read as “the active layer”.
The term “approximately” in claims 6 and 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For purposes of examination, “approximately” will be read as within 50%.
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 3 and 4 are 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.
Claims 3 and 4 are written in a manner which effectively reads “if there are corners the corners are shaped as follows…”. In other words, claims 3 and 4 do not require corners (and neither does claim 1 or 2 from which these claims depend). Therefore, if the device, or a reference’s device, has no corners then claims 3 and 4 are not further limiting.
The Examiner suggests the Applicant first states the presence of corners in claims 3 and 4 and then outlines further details of those corners.
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, 7-11, 13-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi et al. (US 2018/0198255) in view of Otoma et al. (US 8023543).
With respect to claim 1, Onishi teaches a Coherent Ring Vertical Cavity Surface Emitting Laser (CR-VCSEL) ([0028]) comprising: a substrate (fig.4/8 #11); a bottom metal layer (fig.4/8 #4; [0050]) in electrical contact with a bottom surface of an active layer (fig.4/8 #15); a CR-VCSEL stack on the substrate, the CR-VCSEL stack being a closed ring (see fig.3-5, 7), the CR-VCSEL stack comprising; a first mirror layer (fig.4/8 #12); an active layer (fig.4/8 #15) on the first mirror layer; an emission aperture (fig.4/8 #181); a second mirror layer (fig.4/8 #13) above the active layer; and a top metal layer (fig.4 #333/353; fig.8 #333) on the second mirror layer, the top metal layer being in electrical contact with the top surface of the active layer ([0044]), wherein the emission aperture is between the bottom metal layer and the top metal layer (as seen in fig.4/8); a first terminal in electrical contact with the bottom metal layer (terminal structure of some type necessarily present to inject current to operate device as outlined); and a second terminal in electrical contact with the top metal layer (terminal structure of some type necessarily present to inject current to operate device as outlined). Onishi does not teach the emission aperture is such that a single optical mode transverse to the closed ring is produced. Otoma teaches a related VCSEL structure (fig.1) that includes operation in a single transverse mode (col.3 lines 24-26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Onishi such that the emission aperture is dimensioned to create a single transverse mode relative to the closed ring as demonstrated by Otoma in order to produce a light output of a desired shape.
With respect to claim 2, Onishi teaches an inner trench (fig.4/8 #21) and an outer trench (fig.4/8 #22), the inner trench and the outer trench being closed rings (fig.4/8 #22 is closed and further note #21 is closed in the figure 10 embodiment which is disclosed as being used with fig.8, [0070]), extend from a top surface of the second mirror layer into the first mirror layer and are on opposite sides of the emission aperture (as seen in fig.4/8).
With respect to claim 3, Onishi teaches any corners of the inner trench and the outer trench at the top surface of the second mirror layer are obtuse angles (no corners present).
With respect to claim 4, Onishi teaches any corners of the inner trench and the outer trench at the top surface of the second mirror layer are curved (ring surfaces curved in fig.4/8).
With respect to claim 7, Onishi teaches the CR-VCSEL stack is a buried index guide configuration (fig.4/8 note the buried index structure is not defined; here the semiconductor layers necessarily index guide the light in at least the vertical direction and are buried by the upper layers #3/17).
With respect to claim 8, Onishi teaches one or more oxidation layers (fig.4/8 #18) are between a bottom surface of the first mirror layer and a top surface of the second mirror layer.
With respect to claim 9, Onishi teaches the top metal layer comprises a first metal ring (fig.4 #333) and a second metal ring (fig.4 #353) on the second mirror layer, the first metal ring and the second metal ring being closed rings on opposite sides of the emission aperture (as seen in fig.4 and 3, 5-6).
With respect to claim 10, Onishi teaches a plurality of CR-VCSEL cells are in an array (fig.9 2 shown), the top metal layer of the plurality of CR-VCSEL cells being in electrical contact with the second terminal (fig.9 note top metals are connected and necessarily to second terminal for current injection for device operation), the bottom metal layer of the plurality of CR-VCSEL cells being in electrical contact with the first terminal ([0062-65] fig.4 only changed based on that shown, such that bottom metal #4 remains uniform and unchanged and necessarily connected to first terminal for current injection for device operation), with adjoining CR-VCSEL cells of the array sharing optical modes ([0065]).
With respect to claim 11, Onishi teaches a plurality of CR-VCSEL cells are in an array (fig.9 2 shown), the top metal layer of the plurality of CR-VCSEL cells being in electrical contact with the second terminal (fig.9 note top metals are connected and necessarily to second terminal for current injection for device operation), the bottom metal layer of the plurality of CR-VCSEL cells being in electrical contact with the first terminal (([0062-65] fig.4 only changed based on that shown, such that bottom metal #4 remains uniform and unchanged and necessarily connected to first terminal for current injection for device operation).
With respect to claim 13, Onishi teaches a plurality of CR-VCSEL cells are in a nested configuration (fig.10 2 nested and separated by #21).
With respect to claim 14, Onishi teaches a method of forming a Coherent Ring Vertical Cavity Surface Emitting Laser (CR-VCSEL) (fig.4/8 [0029-50], “making”, “forming”) comprising: forming a CR-VCSEL stack on a substrate (fig.4/8 #11), the CR-VCSEL stack being a closed ring (see fig.3-5, 7), the CR-VCSEL stack being formed by a method including; forming a first mirror layer (fig.4/8 #12); forming an active layer (fig.4/8 #15) on the first mirror layer; forming an emission aperture (fig.4/8 #181); forming a second mirror layer (fig.4/8 #13) above the active layer; and forming a top metal layer (fig.4 #333/353; fig.8 #333) on the second mirror layer, the top metal layer in electrical contact with a bottom surface of the active layer (via current injection therethrough); forming a bottom metal layer (fig.4/8 #4) in electrical contact with a bottom surface of the active layer; forming a first terminal in electrical contact with the bottom metal layer (terminal structure of some type necessarily present to inject current to operate device as outlined); and forming a second terminal in electrical contact with the top metal layer (terminal structure of some type necessarily present to inject current to operate device as outlined). Onishi does not teach the emission aperture is such that a single optical mode transverse to the closed ring is produced. Otoma teaches a related VCSEL structure (fig.1) that includes operation in a single transverse mode (col.3 lines 24-26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Onishi such that the emission aperture is dimensioned to create a single transverse mode relative to the closed ring as demonstrated by Otoma in order to produce a light output of a desired shape.
With respect to claim 15, Onishi teaches forming the emission aperture includes forming one or more oxidation layer (fig.4/8 #18) above a bottom surface of the first mirror layer and below a top surface of the second mirror layer.
With respect to claim 16, Onishi teaches forming a first trench (fig.4/8 #21) and a second trench (fig.4/8 #22) extending from a top surface of the second mirror layer into the first mirror layer and intersecting an oxidation layer (fig.4/8), the first trench and the second trench being closed rings on opposite sides of the emission aperture (fig.4/8 #22 is closed and further note #21 is closed in the figure 10 embodiment which is disclosed as being used with fig.8, [0070]).
With respect to claim 17, Onishi teaches oxidation of a portion of an oxidation layer between the first trench and the second trench (fig.4/8 #18), forming the emission aperture.
With respect to claim 19, Onishi teaches the top metal layer including a first metal ring (fig.4 #333) and a second metal ring (fig.4 #353) on the second mirror layer, the first metal ring and the second metal ring being closed rings on opposite sides of the emission aperture (as seen in fig.4, 3, 5-7).
Claim(s) 5, 12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi and Otoma in view of Gerlach (US 2020/0350744).
With respect to claims 5, and 20, Onishi, as modified, teaches the device and method above but does not teach the CR-VCSEL stack is in a back emitting configuration, a laser configured to emit from the substrate of the CR-VCSEL, the substrate being free of the bottom metal layer under the emission aperture. Gerlach teaches a related VCSEL device which includes emission from the substrate side (fig.7) wherein a bottom metal layer is not under the emission aperture (fig.7 #105). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Onishi to utilize substrate side emission with bottom metal spaced from the emission aperture as demonstrated by Gerlach to enable emission from an alternate direction while avoiding unwanted reflections from the bottom electrode.
With respect to claim 12, Onishi, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, including a plurality of CR-VCSEL cells are in an array (fig.9, 10), but does not teach each of the plurality of CR-VCSEL cells being individually addressable. Gerlach demonstrates a VCSEL array with individually addressable units ([0060], fig.7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the electrodes and driving of Onishi such that the lasers are individually addressable as taught by Gerlach in order to control the power output from the device based on how many emitters are active.
Claim(s) 6 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi and Otoma in view of Hiiro (US 2023/0034403).
With respect to claims 6 and 18, Onishi, as modified, teaches the device and method above including the CR-VCSEL stack is a top ridge emitting configuration (fig.4/8 mesa can be considered ridge), but does not teach the second mirror layer, the active layer and the emission aperture being of an approximately same width. Hiiro teaches a related VCSEL (fig.1b) wherein a second mirror layer (fig.1b #26 left side), a active layer (fig.1b #24 left side) and a emission aperture (fig.1b area between active and upper mirror top surface on left side) being of an approximately same width (fig.1b less than 50% difference). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Onishi such that the second mirror layer, the active layer and the emission aperture being of an approximately same width as demonstrated by Hiiro in order to control the flow of current and thereby the size of the active region which is stimulated to produce light.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see the include pto892 form for a list of related art.
10811841 fig.5 and 2023/0034403 fig.1b are noted as teaching a close match to at least claim 1.
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