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 contact layer under the grating layer of claim 7 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0048] of the disclosure appears to be referencing figure 4b but figure 4b is not mentioned therein. If reference is indeed being made to the figure then it is suggested to mention the figure number in the paragraph.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 11-13 and 17 (and all claims dependent therefrom; 2-15) 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 recites the limitation "the surface of the grating layer" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim making the scope unclear.
For purposes of examination, the limitation will be read as “a surface of the grating layer”.
The term “approximately” in claims 11-13 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, the limitation will be understood to read as “within +/- 10%”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the dielectric layer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim making the scope unclear.
For purposes of examination, the limitation will be read as “a dielectric layer”.
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) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2022/0209502) in view of Mathai et al. (US 10305248).
With respect to claim 16, Chen teaches a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL), comprising: a mirror structure (fig.1j #109) over a cavity region (fig.1j #104/106); and a grating layer (fig.1j #120) over the mirror structure, wherein the grating layer comprises a plurality of oxidized regions that define a grating structure (fig.1j #114 where corrugated). Chen does not teach a top surface of the grating layer is substantially planar. Mathai teaches a high contrast grating (HCG) (abstract) which includes planarizing the grating layer (fig.3, col.7 line 42 – col.8 line 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to planarize a top surface of the grating layer of Chen as demonstrated by Mathai in order to protect the grating layer (Mathai, col.7 lines 49-50) and add structural support.
Claim(s) 1-8, 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Mathai in view of Mathai et al. (US 10290996; hereafter ‘996).
With respect to claim 1, Chen teaches a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL) (title, fig.1j), comprising: a first top mirror structure (fig.1j #109) over a cavity region (fig.1j #104,106); and a grating layer (fig.1h, 1j #120) over the first top mirror structure, wherein the grating layer comprises a plurality of oxidized regions (fig.1j corrugated portions of #114, [0042]) that form a grating structure in the grating layer. Chen does not specify the grating structure being associated with polarization of output light emitted by the VCSEL, and wherein the surface of the grating layer is a planar surface. Mathai teaches a high contrast grating (HCG) (abstract) which includes planarizing the grating layer (fig.3, col.7 line 42 – col.8 line 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to planarize the grating layer of Chen as demonstrated by Mathai in order to protect the grating layer (Mathai, col.7 lines 49-50) and add structural support.
‘996 teaches a related VCSEL device using a HCG (fig.1, abstract) and further that the grating is designed to control polarization by increasing reflection of a desired polarization (col.8 lines 19-26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the HCG of Chen to increase reflection of a desired polarization as taught by ‘996 in order to select a desired polarization (‘996, col.8 lines 19-26).
With respect to claim 2, Chen teaches the grating layer comprises aluminum gallium arsenide (AlGaAs) ([0030, 31]).
With respect to claim 3, Chen teaches a dielectric layer (fig.1j #410) over the grating layer.
With respect to claim 4, Chen, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach a second top mirror structure over the dielectric layer. ‘996 further teaches a dielectric over the grating and a metal mirror over the dielectric (col.6 line 49). 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 Chen to make use of a mirror over the dielectric layer as demonstrated by ‘996 in order to control the reflectivity and reduce the needed number of DBR layers (‘996, col.7 lines 47-61).
With respect to claim 5, Chen, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach a cap layer over regions of the grating layer in which the grating structure is not present. ‘996 further teaches a cap layer (fig.1 #148) over regions of the grating layer in which the grating structure is not present (fig.1 as #148 is on the un-corrugated portions). 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 Chen to make use of a cap layer in the outlined position in order to facilitate electrical coupling between the upper layers and the positive terminal (‘996, col.9 lines 35-40).
With respect to claim 6, Chen teaches a contact layer (fig.1j #118, [0032]) over the grating layer (fig.1j #118 at least partially over layers of #120; note that #124 can also be considered a contact and is over #120).
With respect to claim 7, Chen teaches the device outlined above, and appears to allude to a lower contact ([0036]) but does not explicitly state the VCSEL includes a contact layer under the grating layer. ‘996 further teaches a contact (fig.1 #150) under the grating. 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 Chen to make use of a contact under the grating as demonstrated by ‘996 in order to facilitate the current path desired by Chen (Chen, [0036]).
With respect to claim 8, Chen teaches the VCSEL includes a contact layer in an opening in the grating layer (fig.1j #118, in opening of upper dielectric layers of grating).
With respect to claim 17, Chen, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach a second top mirror structure over the dielectric layer. ‘996 further teaches a dielectric over the grating and a metal mirror over the dielectric (col.6 line 49). 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 Chen to make use of a mirror over the dielectric layer as demonstrated by ‘996 in order to control the reflectivity and reduce the needed number of DBR layers (‘996, col.7 lines 47-61).
With respect to claim 19, Chen teaches a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL), comprising: a first top mirror structure (fig.1j #109) over a cavity region (fig.1j #104/106); and a grating layer (fig.1j #120) over the first top mirror structure, wherein the grating layer comprises a plurality of oxidized regions (fig.1j portions of #114 which are corrugated) that form a grating structure within the grating layer. Chen does not specify the grating is planar and wherein the grating structure is associated with increasing reflectivity on a side of the VCSEL that includes the first top mirror structure. Mathai teaches a high contrast grating (HCG) (abstract) which includes planarizing the grating layer (fig.3, col.7 line 42 – col.8 line 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to planarize the grating layer of Chen as demonstrated by Mathai in order to protect the grating layer (Mathai, col.7 lines 49-50) and add structural support.
‘996 teaches a related VCSEL device using a HCG (fig.1, abstract) and further that the grating is designed to control polarization by increasing reflection of a desired polarization (col.8 lines 19-26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the HCG of Chen to increase reflection of a desired polarization as taught by ‘996 in order to select a desired polarization (‘996, col.8 lines 19-26).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Mathai in view of Johnson et al. (US 8000374).
With respect to claim 18, Chen, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach the grating structure has a grating depth and a grating period that are on an order of or lower than a wavelength of the VCSEL. Johnson teaches a related VCSEL device using a grating to control polarization (abstract) which includes a grating depth (col.4 lines 55-58) and a grating period (col.5 lines 14-16) that are on an order of or lower than a wavelength of the VCSEL. 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 Chen to make use of the relative sizing of the grating depth and period being on the order of or lower than the wavelength of the VCSEL as demonstrated by Johnson in order to allow for proper control of the polarization (Johnson, col.4 lines 21-25)
Claim(s) 9-12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, Mathai, ‘996 in view of Johnson.
With respect to claim 9, Chen, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach the grating structure has a grating depth and a grating period that are on an order of or lower than a wavelength of the VCSEL. Johnson teaches a related VCSEL device using a grating to control polarization (abstract) which includes a grating depth (col.4 lines 55-58) and a grating period (col.5 lines 14-16) that are on an order of or lower than a wavelength of the VCSEL. 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 Chen to make use of the relative sizing of the grating depth and period being on the order of or lower than the wavelength of the VCSEL as demonstrated by Johnson in order to allow for control of the polarization in a particular manner (Johnson, col.4 lines 21-25).
With respect to claim 10, Chen, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach a width of an oxidized region of the plurality of oxidized regions is greater than a depth of the oxidized region. Johnson teaches a width of a grating element (corrugation) to be 0.3*lambda (col.5 lines 20-25, when the period is lambda, col.5 lines 14-16) where a depth of a corrugation is 0.25*lambda (col.4 lines 55-57). 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 Chen to make use of the relative sizing of the grating width and depth of a corrugation (and thereby an oxidized region) as demonstrated by Johnson in order to allow for control of the polarization in a particular manner (Johnson, col.4 lines 21-25).
With respect to claim 11, Chen, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach a depth of an oxidized region of the plurality of oxidized regions is in a range from approximately 0.11 × λ to approximately 0.26 × λ, where λ is a wavelength of the VCSEL. Johnson teaches depth to be 0.25*lambda (col.4 lines 55-57). 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 Chen to make use of the relative sizing of the depth of a corrugation (and thereby an oxidized region) as demonstrated by Johnson in order to allow for control of the polarization in a particular manner (Johnson, col.4 lines 21-25).
With respect to claim 12, Chen, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach a width of an oxidized region of the plurality of oxidized regions is in a range from approximately 0.10 × λ to approximately 0.23 × λ, where λ is a wavelength of the VCSEL . Johnson teaches a width of a grating element (corrugation) to be 0.3*lambda (col.5 lines 20-25, when the period is lambda, col.5 lines 14-16). 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 Chen to make use of the relative sizing of the width of a corrugation (and thereby an oxidized region) as demonstrated by Johnson in order to allow for control of the polarization in a particular manner (Johnson, col.4 lines 21-25).
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons outlined in the rejection of claim 9 above.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, Mathai, ‘996 in view of Chang-Hasnain et al. (US 2021/0135429).
With respect to claims 13-14, Chen, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, including the grating layer to be of AlGaAs ([0030-31]), but does not teach an aluminum content of the grating layer is in a range from approximately 50% to approximately 80% OR an aluminum composition within the grating layer is uniform across a thickness of the grating layer. Chang-Hasnain teaches a related VCSEL with a HCG (fig.4e) which makes use of a uniform Al0.8Ga0.2As for the HCG layer ([0025]; note uniformity of SEM image in fig.1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to make use of a unifrom Al0.8Ga0.2As material for the AlGaAs material HCG of Chen as demonstrated by Chang-Hasnain in order to allow for the oxidation of the material (Chang-Hasnain, [0025]) as desired by Chen (Chen, [0041]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, Mathai, ‘996 in view of Gerlach et al. (US 209/0058307).
With respect to claim 15, Chen, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, including oxidation ([0041]) of the AlGaAs ([0030-31]) HCG layer, but does not teach an aluminum composition within the grating layer is graded across a thickness of the grating layer. Gerlach teaches that oxidation of AlGaAs layers within VCSELs can be controlled by grading the Al content ([0015]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the AlGaAs material of Chen to make use of a AlGaAs with Al graded across a thickness as demonstrated by Gerlach in order to exert oxidation extent control over the layer (Gerlach, [0015]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see the included pto892 form for a list of related art.
CN 113258441 is noted as teaching an oxide HCG similar to Chen.
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