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 claims 1, 11, 12, 14-16 and 18-24.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed Remarks (11/24/2025) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant has argued the drawing objections regarding claims 7, 20 and 22-24 are improper as they are not needed to understand the invention, and has provided explanations of how the specification and figures provide the needed explanation.
The Examiner does not entirely agree. The details of claims 12+ cannot be provided by portions of the specification or figures directed to embodiments other than figure 4 as figure 4 (and claims 12+) are directed to the array of VCSELs. Further, the details of the third contact of claim 1, or second contact of claim 12, being formed in a trench and connected to the substrate are not at all depicted in the figures and such details are found to be important to understand the invention as they are useful in distinguishing from the art of record. This same reasoning also applies to the objections in view of claims 7 and 20+.
The Applicant has argued Joseph does not teach the electrical connection to “fill” the trench.
The Examiner first notes the claims do not specify the degree of filling (e.g. completely fill). Second, the Applicant has described the trenches to be formed in the epitaxial material, then to be coated with insulator, and then to be filled with the electrical contact material ([0051-52]). The trench is therefore not completely filled by the electrical contact material of the Applicant as the trench also contains the insulator.
Therefore, it is understood that a partial filling of the trench by the electrical material would read on “the first contact fills a trench” as this is the filling type disclosed by the Applicant and which also corresponds to Joseph’s electrical material partially filling the trench.
The Examiner notes new art is cited for the trench connection to the substrate.
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:
Details of third contact in a trench making direct connection to substrate (claim 1)
Third contact connected at top of structure (claim 7)
Details of second contact in a trench making direct connection to substrate (claim 12)
Each gap within a trench (claim 20)
Details of the second contact’s contact on top (claim 22)
The details of the third contact’s contact layer on top (claim 23)
Locations of each of the set of surface contacts on top (claim 24)
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous 112 rejections are withdrawn due to the current amendments.
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.
Claims 7, 12 and 20 (and claims 14-16 and 18-22 via dependency) are 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 7 depends from claim 1 which states the third contact directly electrically contacts the substrate. Claim 7 then says the third contact also is electrically connected to the top of the epitaxial structure. The specification as originally filed does not describe a third contact which provides electrical connections to both the substrate and the top of the epitaxial structure.
Claim 12 defines a set of 2 or more electrical contacts which are electrically separated from each other on the VCSEL array. Figure 4, depicting the VCSEL array, shows only 2 contacts, #408a and #408b to be electrically separated ([0083]). There are not more than 2 contacts which are electrically separated. The Applicant may be intending to refer to “contact points” as outlined in [0083], but the claim instead refers to “contacts”. This language directed specifically to the “contacts” is therefore considered new matter as it is not clearly supported by the original specification.
Claim 20 refers to first and second contact points being connected via gaps, and those gaps to be within trenches. Figure 4 shows only gaps #410 within trenches and not “each gap”, which would include #412s, as claimed. This limitation is therefore not clearly supported by the original specification and is therefore considered new matter. Note that claim 12, from which claim 20 depends, makes clear that the second contact point(s) corresponds to fig.4 #412.
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, 3-5, 9-11, 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller (WO 2018/234131) in view of Joseph (US 10903622) and Koerner et al. (US 2022/0247152).
With respect to claim 1, Muller teaches a vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL) (fig.4), comprising: an epitaxial structure that includes a first active layer (fig.4 #121), a second active layer (fig.4 #125), a tunnel junction (fig.4 #123) between the first active layer and the second active layer; and a set of contacts that are electrically connected to the epitaxial structure (fig.4 #101/103/105), wherein the set of contacts includes three or more contacts (fig.4 3 shown), wherein the set of contacts are electrically separated from each other on the VCSEL (each electrically separate contacts), wherein a first contact (fig.4 #103), of the set of contacts, is directly electrically connected to the epitaxial structure at a depth between the first active layer and the second active layer (as seen in fig.4), the first contact is below the first active layer (as seen in fig.4), wherein a second contact (fig.4 #101), of the set of contacts, is directly electrically connected to the epitaxial structure at a depth above the first active layer and the second active layer (as seen in fig.4), and wherein at least a portion of a third contact (fig.4 #105), of the set of contacts, is located at a depth below the first contact and the second contact (as seen in fig.4) and provides a direct electrical connection to a substrate (fig.4 #110) of the VCSEL. Muller does not a portion of the first contact extend from above the first active layer to below the first active layer and which fills a trench. Joseph teaches a related VCSEL device (fig.10/11) which includes connecting an electrical contact (fig.13 #1302) via a gap in a lateral section of an electrical isolation layer (fig.11 #1101, break in #1101 in trench = gap) with the lateral section being found in a trench (fig.10b), and the contact to extend on top/bottom sides of the active layer (fig.8 #86) within the trench, thereby the contact fills the trench (e.g. takes up space within the trench). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to utilize the via type contact which fills a trench for at least the first contact of Muller with the trench and isolation layer with gap as demonstrated by Joseph in order to use the trench(es) to form protective structure(s) for the contact(s) and control the path of the current by use of the isolation layer with gaps.
Muller, as modified, does not teach at least a portion of the third contact to be included in another trench which extends to, and provides a direct electrical connection to, the substrate. Koerner teaches a related VCSEL device (fig.4, abstract) which includes an additional trench (fig.4e #444) formed to extend to a substrate (fig.4a #416), and an electrical contact filling the trench and providing a direct electrical connection to the substrate (fig.4f #450). 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 Muller to make use of an additional trench with a direct electrical connection to the substrate to replace the third contact of Muller as demonstrated by Koerner in order to provide all electrical connections on a single side of the device and to protect the third connection using the trench.
With respect to claim 3, Muller, as modified, teaches a number of contacts included in the set of contacts is one more than a number of active layers (3 contacts, 2 active layers).
With respect to claim 4, Muller, as modified, teaches a first pair of contacts (Muller, fig.4 #103/105), of the set of contacts, is configured to provide electrical current to only the first active layer and not the second active layer, a second pair of contacts (Muller, fig.4 #101/105), of the set of contacts, is configured to provide electrical current to both the first active layer and the second active layer.
Note that each contact is “configured” as it is shown in the location needed to complete the given function. Also note that Muller teaches all active regions emitting together or in subsets (Muller, pg.10 line 33 – pg.11 line 2; independent arrangement allows for current to only #125 or #121 and #125 together).
With respect to claim 5, Muller, as modified, teaches the first pair of contacts is addressable to provide a first power level for the VCSEL, and the second pair of contacts is addressable to provide a second power level for the VCSEL that is greater than the first power level, and the third pair of contacts is addressable to provide a third power level for the VCSEL that is greater than the second power level.
Note that each contact is “addressable” as it is shown in the location needed to complete the given function. Also note that Muller teaches all active regions emitting together or in subsets (Muller, pg.10 line 33 – pg.11 line 2; independent arrangement allows for current to only #125 or #121 and #125 together).
With respect to claim 9, Muller, as modified, teaches the first contact is electrically connected via a gap in an electrical isolation layer (see claim 1 above), but does not teach the second contact is connected by a gap in an electrical isolation layer. Joseph teaches a related VCSEL device (fig.10/11) which includes connecting an electrical contact (fig.13 #1302) via a gap in a lateral section of an electrical isolation layer (fig.11 #1101, break in #1101 in trench = gap). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to utilize the isolation layer with gap as demonstrated by Joseph for the second contact of Muller in order control the path of the current by use of the isolation layer with gaps.
With respect to claim 10, Muller, as modified, teaches each respective gap, of the respective gaps, is in a lateral section of the electrical isolation layer (as modified in claims 1 and 9 above, wherein the section can be defined as ‘lateral’ in the figure).
With respect to claim 11, Muller, as modified, teaches trenches at either side of the central mesa (fig.4 left/right sides where material has been removed), but does not teach each lateral section the electrical isolation layer is within a trench. Joseph further teaches the electrical isolation to extend across/over all the trenches with gaps for electrical connections (fig.11). 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 Muller to make use of a continuous electrical isolation layer with gaps for the electrical connections as demonstrated by Joseph (thereby being in lateral trenches at either side of the mesa) in order to passivate the semiconductor surfaces.
With respect to claim 23, Muller, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach the third contact includes a contact layer at a top side of the VCSEL (see Koerner fig.4 top of contact).
With respect to claim 24, Muller, as modified, teaches each of the set of contacts includes a surface contact at a top surface of the VCSEL (Muller fig.4 #101 providing contact 2; Joseph fig.10 providing contact 1; Koerner fig.4 providing contact 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20150214696, 7620087 are noted as teaching similar multi-active region structures separated by TJ(s) and controlled via 3 or more contacts.
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