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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 1 (Fig. 2), claims 1-8 and 13 in the reply filed on July 30, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Species 2 includes all of the features of Species 1 and merely adds additional corresponding structure. The examiner agrees with applicant’s arguments and Species 1 and Species 2 (claims 1-13) are examined together. Species 3-5 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 11 and 12 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.
The claimed limitation “…a second high-doping n type layer and a second high-doping p type layer” in claim 11 is indefinite. Parent claim 8 does not include a first high-doping n type layer and a first high-doping p type layer and the examiner cannot determine if there are two high-doping n type layers and high-doping p type layers or if there is only one high-doping n type layer and one high-doping p type layer. Claim 12 is also rejected because it inherits the limitation of claim 11 from which it depends.
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.
Claim 12 is 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. 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 12 does not further limit parent claim 11 because the limitation “…if the second active layer is included in the VCSEL diode” makes the limitations of claim 12 optional.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padullaparthi (US PG Pub 2015/0078410) in view of Johnson (US PG Pub 2024/0055550) and Choquette et al. (US PG Pub 2001/0050934).
Regarding claim 1, Padullaparthi discloses: an n type substrate (201) (Fig. 2, [0045]) ; a p type reflection (202) part grown on the substrate and comprising a plurality of distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) pairs (Fig. 2, [0046]); an active layer (203) grown on the p-type reflection part and configured to oscillate light by recombining holes and electrons (Fig. 2, [0047]); an n type reflection part (204) grown on the active layer and comprising a plurality of DBR pairs (Fig. 2, [0046]); a first metal layer (206) grown on the n type reflection part and configured to supply power to the n type reflection part; and a second metal layer (207) grown on one surface of the n type substrate and configured to supply power to the p type reflection part (Fig. 2, [0044]-[0048]).
Padullaparthi does not disclose: a high-doping n type layer and a high-doping p type layer sequentially grown on the n type substrate; an oxidation layer grown on the p type reflection part and configured to determine characteristics of a laser to be output and a diameter of an opening.
Johnson discloses: a high-doping n type layer (134) and a high-doping p type layer (132) (tunnel junction) (Fig. 1, [0071]-[0073]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Padullaparthi by forming a high-doping n type layer and a high-doping p type layer sequentially grown on the n type substrate (n type layer is grown first because the substrate is n-type) in order to enable charge carriers to tunnel across the barrier between the n-type substrate and p-type lower reflector thereby reducing resistance and losses.
Padullaparthi as modified do not disclose: an oxidation layer grown on the p type reflection part and configured to determine characteristics of a laser to be output and a diameter of an opening.
Choquette et al. disclose: a lower oxidation layer (20) ([0020]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Padullaparthi as modified by forming an oxidation layer on the p type reflection part in order to provide electrical and optical confinement. The device as modified disclose: configured to determine characteristics of a laser to be output and a diameter of an opening.
PNG
media_image1.png
492
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Padullaparthi
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padullaparthi (US PG Pub 2015/0078410) in view of Choquette et al. (US PG Pub 2001/0050934).
Regarding claim 8, Padullaparthi discloses: a p type substrate (201) (p-type GaAs doped with silicon) (Fig. 2, [0045]); a p type reflection part (202) grown on the p type substrate and comprising a plurality of distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) pairs (Fig. 2, [0046]); an active layer (203) grown on the substrate and configured to oscillate light by recombining holes and electrons (Fig. 2, [0047]); an n type reflection part (204) grown on the active layer and comprising a plurality of DBR pairs (Fig. 2, [0046]); a first metal layer (206) grown on the n type reflection part and configured to supply power to the n type reflection part; and a second metal layer (207) grown on one surface of the p type substrate and configured to supply power to the p type reflection part (Fig. 2, [0044]-[0048]).
Padullaparthi does not disclose: an oxidation layer grown on the p type reflection part and configured to determine characteristics of a laser to be output and a diameter of an opening.
Choquette et al. disclose: a lower oxidation layer (20) ([0020]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Padullaparthi by forming an oxidation layer on the p type reflection part in order to provide electrical and optical confinement. The device as modified disclose: configured to determine characteristics of a laser to be output and a diameter of an opening.
Regarding claim 9, Padullaparthi as modified disclose: wherein the active layer is implemented as a multi-quantum well (Choquette, [0033]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padullaparthi (US PG Pub 2015/0078410) in view of Johnson (US PG Pub 2024/0055550), Choquette et al. (US PG Pub 2001/0050934) and Kupcho (US PG Pub 2020/0153195).
Regarding claim 13, Padullaparthi as modified disclose: the VCSEL diode of claim 1.
Padullaparthi as modified do not disclose: : a plurality of channels in each of which the plurality of VCSEL diodes according to claim 1 has been connected in parallel; and a plurality of driver field effect transistors (FETs) each connected to the second metal layer of the VCSEL diode within each channel and configured to determine whether each channel is to operate, wherein an identical operating voltage is applied to the first metal layers of all the VCSEL diodes within each channel.
Kupcho discloses: a plurality of channels in each of which the plurality of VCSEL diodes has been connected in parallel; and a plurality of driver field effect transistors (FETs) each connected to the VCSEL diode within each channel configured to determine whether each channel is to operate ([0053]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Padullaparthi as modified by using the VCSEL in a plurality of channels in each of which the plurality of VCSEL diodes according to claim 1 has been connected in parallel; and a plurality of driver field effect transistors (FETs) each connected to the second metal layer of the VCSEL diode within each channel and configured to determine whether each channel is to operate, wherein an identical operating voltage is applied to the first metal layers of all the VCSEL diodes within each channel in order to transmit a plurality of optical signals in parallel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 2 is allowable as the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “…further comprising a p type layer grown between the high-doping p type layer and the p type reflection part.”
Claim 3 is allowable as the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “…further comprising a p type layer grown between the oxidation layer and the active layer.”
Claim 4 is allowable as the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “…a second high-doping n type layer and a second high-doping p type layer sequentially grown on the active layer; and a second oxidation layer grown on the second high-doping p type layer and configured to determine characteristics of a laser to be output and a diameter of an opening.”
Claim 10 is allowable as the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “…further comprising a p type layer grown between the oxidation layer and the active layer.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kobayashi et al. (US 5,513,202) disclose: a vertical-cavity surface-emitting semiconductor laser includes: a p-type bottom mirror having an upper face; a p-type spacer layer covering over the entire upper face of the p-type bottom mirror; an active region including an active layer having a bottom face smaller than the upper face of the p-type bottom mirror, the active region being formed on the p-type spacer layer; an n-type spacer layer formed on the active region; and an n-type top mirror formed on the n-type spacer layer, wherein a sum d of optical path lengths of the p-type spacer layer, the active region and the n-type spacer layer in a perpendicular direction satisfies a relationship expressed by d=(1+n)*λ/2 (n: natural number) with respect to a wavelength .lambda. of light oscillated from the active region (Abstract). Graham et al. (US PG Pub 2015/0194789) disclose: a VCSEL can include a graphene intra-cavity absorber having at least one graphene region and at least one dielectric region adjacent to the graphene region. The VCSEL can also include a graphene electrode electronically coupled with at least one graphene region. The VCSEL can also include a contact region adjacent with at least one dielectric region. The VCSEL can also include a contact electrode electronically coupled with the contact region. The VCSEL can also include a base electrode electronically coupled with a base of a semiconductor region of the VCSEL. The graphene intra-cavity absorber can include at least two graphene regions sandwiching at least one dielectric region therebetween (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XINNING(TOM) NIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1437. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-6:00pm.
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.
/XINNING(Tom) NIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights