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 .
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.
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 metal forming the trenches to form first and second electrodes as claimed in independent claim 14 as well as 15-19 due to their dependency must be shown or the features 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 § 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.
Claims 1-8, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN-115377796 (Wang: citations will be made in reference to US 2024/0079855 which is an English equivalent application) in view of US 10,305,254 (Gazula) and CN-13809636 (Xiang).
For claim 1, Wang teaches a high-speed vertical cavity surface emitting laser (fig. 1), comprising:
a substrate layer (fig. 1, 101), a first electrode layer (fig. 1, 102), a first reflector layer (fig. 1, 103), an active layer (fig. 1, 106), an oxide-confined layer (fig. 1, 105), a second reflector layer (fig. 1, 106), and a second electrode layer (fig. 1, 107), wherein the first electrode layer is an N-type metal electrode layer (claim 5), the second electrode layer is a P-type metal electrode layer (claim 5), and
wherein the oxide-confined layer has an oxide aperture shaped with imperfect symmetry (fig. 8), the oxide aperture is obtained by exposing the oxide-confined layer through etching three trenches arranged in a preset manner and partially oxidizing the oxide-confined layer (fig. 7, S102 and fig. 8), there is a notched annular metal around the oxide aperture (fig. 7(a)-7(b)), an aspect ratio of the oxide aperture is changed by adjusting sizes and positions of the trenches to control a distance between the oxide aperture and the notched annular metal and change a flow pattern of current relative to the oxide aperture and distribution of carrier concentration. (The limitation describes a consideration in the manufacture of the device rather than a structural limitation per se; further, the size and position of the trenches is a fixed value once the trench is formed and cannot be “adjusted.” However, the size and position of the trenches does inherently affect the distance between the oxide aperture and the notched annular metal as can be seen in the varying aperture shapes in fig. 8)
While one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would infer the notched annular structure around the aperture in fig. 8 is a notched annular metal structure, Wang does not explicitly state it. However, Gazula teaches a device similar to Wangs (fig. 3A) where the electrode is provided by a notched annular structure around the aperture (fig. 3A, 314; col. 8, l. 17-18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Gazula’s notched metal structure in the device of Wang in order to provide the second electrode.
Neither Wang nor Gazula teach the oxide aperture is tear drop shaped or the trenches have a width of 3 µm to 6 pm, a small spacing of 2 µm to 7 µm, and a large spacing of 15 µm to 25 µm.
However, Xiang teaches a circular aperture is not optimal (3rd paragraph of “background”) and teaches a tear/water drop shape for the aperture (claim 4) in order to improve high speed transmission (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the tear drop shape of Xiang as a simple substitution for the aperture shape of Wang as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art and the substitution would have yielded predictable results. In the present case, the substituted component provides an alternative current confinement aperture which provides improved performance. See MPEP 2143 I.B.
The combination does not teach the trenches have a width of 3 µm to 6 µm, a small spacing of 2 µm to 7 µm, and a large spacing of 15 µm to 25 µm. However, the examiner takes official notice that spacing and widths were known results effective variables before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to determine the workable and optimal values for the trench spacing and widths in order to form a tear drop aperture of the combination, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 2, Wang teaches the first electrode layer, the first reflector layer, the active layer, the oxide-confined layer, the second reflector layer, and the second electrode layer are sequentially stacked above the substrate layer;alternatively, the first electrode layer is located below the substrate layer, while the first reflector layer, the active layer, the oxide-confined layer, the second reflector layer, and the second electrode layer are sequentially stacked above the substrate layer (fig. 1; claim 2 of the instant application recites an alternative; therefore only one configuration is required in the prior art).
For claim 3, Wang teaches the first reflector layer and the second reflector layer comprise at least one of a Bragg reflector layer and a high contrast grating layer ([0047]).
For claim 4, Wang teaches the active layer comprises either a single quantum well layer or a multiple quantum well layer ([0049]).
For claim 5 and 6, Wang teaches the oxide aperture is disposed in a middle position of the oxide-confined layer (fig. 1, 1051 in middle of 105).
For claim 7, Wang teaches the first reflector layer and the second reflector layer comprise at least one of a Bragg reflector layer and a high contrast grating layer ([0047]).
For claim 8, Wang teaches the active layer comprises either a single quantum well layer or a multiple quantum well layer ([0049]).
For claim 13, the combination is applied according to the rejection of claim 1 above. The additional preamble does not structurally distinguish claim 13 from claim 1.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN-115377796 (Wang: citations will be made in reference to US 2024/0079855 which is an English equivalent application) in view of US 10,305,254 (Gazula) and CN-13809636 (Xiang) and further in view of US 2019/0372301 (Onishi).
For claim 9-10, the previous combination does not teach the high-speed vertical cavity surface emitting laser further comprises a passivation layer, and the passivation layer is located in an area on the second reflector layer without the second electrode layer.
However, Onishi teaches a VCSEL comprising a passivation layer, and the passivation layer is located in an area on the second reflector layer without the second electrode layer (fig. 8, PS on side of DBRH). Further, the examiner takes official notice that that passivation layer had the well-known benefit before the filing date of the claimed invention of protecting the sides of a VCSEL and preventing a short between the top and bottom DBRs. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the passivation layer of Onishi with the device of the previous combination in order to protect the sides of the VCSEL and preventing a short between the top and bottom DBR.
For claim 11, Wang teaches the first reflector layer and the second reflector layer comprise at least one of a Bragg reflector layer and a high contrast grating layer ([0047]).
For claim 12, Wang teaches the active layer comprises either a single quantum well layer or a multiple quantum well layer ([0049]).
Claims 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN-115377796 (Wang: citations will be made in reference to US 2024/0079855 which is an English equivalent application) in view of US 10,305,254 (Gazula) and CN-13809636 (Xiang) and further in view of US 10,601,201 (Sirbu).
For claim 14, the combination teaches a manufacturing method for the high-speed vertical cavity surface emitting laser according to claim 1 (according to the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the method comprises:
As taught by Wang:
providing the substrate layer (fig. 1, 101, fig. 7, S101) and forming the first reflector layer (fig. 1, 103, fig. 7, S101), the active layer (fig. 1, 104, fig. 7, S101), the oxide-confined layer (fig. 1, 105, fig. 7, S101), and the second reflector layer sequentially above the substrate layer (fig. 1, 106, fig. 7, S101);
setting three trenches arranged in a preset manner, and exposing the oxide-confined layer through etching, so as to partially oxidize the oxide-confined layer to obtain the oxide aperture (fig. 8 and fig. 7, S102), an aspect ratio of the oxide aperture is changed by adjusting sizes and positions of the trenches to control a distance between the oxide aperture and the notched annular metal and change a flow pattern of current relative to the oxide aperture and distribution of carrier concentration (fig. 8, this is an inherent result of the chosen placement of trenches; see fig. 8(d) and (e)); and
filling the etched trenches with a metal and forming the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer, wherein the first electrode layer is connected to the first reflector layer, and the second electrode layer is connected to the second reflector layer (fig. 7, S103).
Wang does not teach filling the trenches to form the first and second electrode layers. However, Sirbu teaches a VCSEL with trenches wherein a conductor (fig. 1, 104, col. 10, l.4-22) is disposed in the trenches to provide communication to first and second contacts on the same side of the VCSEL (fig. 1, 106A and 106B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the filled trenches of want to form the first and second electrodes so that the contacts are on the same side of the device.
The limitation of wherein there is a notched annular metal around the oxide aperture, the trenches have a width of 3 µm to 6 µm, a small spacing of 2 µm to 7 µm, and a large spacing of 15 µm to 25 µm have been addressed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
For claim 15, Wang teaches the first electrode layer, the first reflector layer, the active layer, the oxide-confined layer, the second reflector layer, and the second electrode layer are sequentially stacked above the substrate layer; alternatively, the first electrode layer is located below the substrate layer, while the first reflector layer, the active layer, the oxide-confined layer, the second reflector layer, and the second electrode layer are sequentially stacked above the substrate layer (fig. 1 of Wang the combination with the electrode configuration of fig. 1 of Sirbu places the second electrode above the substrate; claim 15 of the instant application recites an alternative; therefore only one configuration is required in the prior art).
For claim 16, Wang teaches the first reflector layer and the second reflector layer comprise at least one of a Bragg reflector layer and a high contrast grating layer ([0047]).
For claim 17, Wang teaches the active layer comprises either a single quantum well layer or a multiple quantum well layer ([0049]).
For claim 18, Wang teaches the oxide aperture is disposed in a middle position of the oxide-confined layer (fig. 1, 1051 in middle of 105).
For claim 19, Sirbu the vertical cavity surface emitting laser further comprises a passivation layer, and the passivation layer is located in an area on the second reflector layer without the second electrode layer (fig. 1, 103 left side) in order to provide electrical isolation (col. 11, l. 10-19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the passivation layer of Sirbu with the previous combination in order to provide electrical isolation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael W Carter whose telephone number is (571)270-1872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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.
/Michael Carter/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights