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 and accepts the amendment filed on 06/1626.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 10, 12 and 19 are amended;
Claims 8, 9, 11, 13 and 14 are canceled; and
Claims 1-7, 10, 12 and 15-20 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
The previous objections to claims 6 and 7 have been withdrawn in view of the amendment filed on 06/16/26.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 12 currently depends on a canceled claim 9 and should be changed to depend on claim 1. Appropriate correction is required. For purposes of examination, claim 12 is examined according to the Examiner’s suggestion.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections to claims 8 and 11 under 35 USC 112, first paragraph, have been withdrawn in view of the amendment filed on 06/16/26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7, 10, 12 and 15-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by ARAKIDA (US PG Pub 2021/0391689 A1).
Regarding claim 1, ARAKIDA discloses a surface emitting laser element (1, FIG. 1, [0023]) comprising:
a substrate (10, FIG. 1, [0023]);
an electrode (24, FIG. 1, [0024]) provided on one surface of the substrate;
a first region (R15, FIG. 1, [0023]) which is provided on a side of the one surface opposite to a side of the electrode and in which a plurality of light emitting units (FIG. 1) having mesas (M1-M3, FIG. 1, [0023]) is arranged; and
a second region (see annotated FIG. 1 below) disposed around the first region on a side of the one surface opposite to the side of the electrode,
wherein a depth dimension (D2, see annotated FIG. 1 below) of a second recess portion (17, FIG. 1, [0024]) defined by a mesa adjacent to the second region among the mesas of the plurality of light emitting units and the second region is larger than a depth dimension (D1, where D2>D1, see annotated FIG. 1 below) of a first recess portion (15, FIG. 1, [0023]) defined by two mesas adjacent to each other among the mesas of the plurality of light emitting units,
the first and second regions (see annotated FIG. 1 below) are provided at different positions in an in-plane direction of a laminated structure (FIG. 1, [0023]) including the substrate,
in the laminated structure, a first multilayer film reflector (12, FIG. 1, [0023]), an active layer (13, FIG. 1, [0023]), and a second multilayer film reflector (14, FIG. 1, [0023]) are laminated in this order on a side of the one surface opposite to the side of the electrode, and
a bottom surface of the first recess portion is located in the first multilayer film reflector (a bottom surface of 15 is located within 12 having the same material as 12, FIG. 1) which has a higher resistance than the substrate (12 comprises AlGaAs having a higher thermal resistance than the substrate 10 comprising GaAs, [0028] and [0031] of ARAKIDA, and see [0025] of supporting reference KUMANO US PG Pub 2021/0036490 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
466
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, ARAKIDA discloses a width of the second recess portion is larger than a width of the first recess portion in a cross section obtained by cutting the two mesas adjacent to each other and the second region together (see annotated FIG. 1 above).
Regarding claim 19, same rejection as applied to claim 1 is maintained since the method claim 19 contains substantially the same limitations as the product claim 1.
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.
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.
Claims 1-7, 10, 12, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HANAOKA (US PG Pub 2017/0271851 A1, 10/31/33 IDS) in view of KUMANO (US PG Pub 2021/0036490 A1).
Regarding claim 1, HANAOKA discloses a surface emitting laser element (a surface-emitting laser array 10, FIG. 1, [0025]) comprising:
a substrate (100, FIG. 1, [0025]);
an electrode (111, FIG. 1, [0029]) provided on one surface of the substrate (111 is provided on a bottom surface of 100, FIG. 1);
a first region (see annotated FIG. 1 below) which is provided on a side of the one surface opposite to a side of the electrode and in which a plurality of light emitting units (1, FIG. 1, [0025]) having mesas (see annotated FIG. 1 below) is arranged; and
a second region (see annotated FIG. 1 below) disposed around the first region on a side of the one surface opposite to the side of the electrode,
wherein a depth dimension (D2, see annotated FIG. 1 below) of a second recess portion (a second separation trench 13, FIG. 1, [0030]) defined by a mesa adjacent to the second region among the mesas of the plurality of light emitting units and the second region (13 is defined by the mesa and the second region, see annotated FIG. 1 below) is larger than a depth dimension (D1, where D2>D1, see annotated FIG. 1 below) of a first recess portion defined by two mesas adjacent to each other among the mesas of the plurality of light emitting units (a first recess defined between the mesas, see annotated FIG. 1 below),
the first and second regions are provided at different positions in an in-plane direction of a laminated structure including the substrate (see annotated FIG. 1 below), and
in the laminated structure, a first multilayer film reflector (102, FIG. 2, [0029]), an active layer (104, FIG. 2, [0029]), and a second multilayer film reflector (106, FIG. 2, [0029]) are laminated in this order on a side of the one surface opposite to the side of the electrode.
PNG
media_image2.png
483
776
media_image2.png
Greyscale
HANAOKA does not disclose a bottom surface of the first recess portion is located in the first multilayer film reflector which has a higher resistance than the substrate.
KUMANO discloses a bottom surface of the first recess portion (13, FIG. 1B, [0029]) is located in the first multilayer film reflector (a bottom surface of 13 is located within a lower DBR 12, FIG. 1B, [0030]) which has a higher resistance than the substrate (12 comprising AlGaAs having a high thermal resistance than 10 comprising GaAs, [0025] and [0031]-[0032]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first recess portion of HANAOKA with extending into the first multilayer film reflector so that a bottom surface of the first recess portion having a higher resistance than the substrate as taught by KUMANO in order to reduce the susceptibility of the surface-emitting laser to thermal degradation ([0026] of KUMANO).
Regarding claim 2, HANAOKA discloses the electrode is a common electrode provided in common for the plurality of light emitting units (111 is a common electrode to both the light emitting units 1, FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 3, HANAOKA discloses the second region includes a dummy mesa (see annotated FIG. 1 above) adjacent to the mesa adjacent to the second region, and the second recess portion is defined by the mesa adjacent to the second region and the dummy mesa (see annotated FIG. 1 above).
Regarding claim 4, HANAOKA discloses a bottom surface of the second recess portion is located at a position closer to the one surface than a bottom surface of the first recess portion in a direction perpendicular to the substrate (see annotated FIG. 1 above).
Regarding claim 5, HANAOKA discloses open ends of the first and second recess portions are substantially flush (see annotated FIG. 1 above).
Regarding claim 6, HANAOKA discloses bottom surfaces of the first and second recess portions are both located on a side of another surface of the substrate opposite to the side of the one surface (see annotated FIG. 1 above).
Regarding claim 7, HANAOKA discloses a bottom surface of the first recess portion is located on a side of another surface of the substrate opposite to the side of the one surface, and a bottom surface of the second recess portion is located in the substrate (see annotated FIG. 1 above).
Regarding claims 10, HANAOKA has disclosed the first and second recess portions outlined in the rejections to claim 1 above except bottom surfaces of the first and second recess portions are both located in the first multilayer film reflector; However, it’s known in the art that a depth of an isolation groove affects electrical isolation of a laser structure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the depths of the first and second recess portion so that bottom surfaces of the first and second recess portions are both located in the first multilayer film reflector in order to obtain desired electrical isolation between adjacent components and minimize crosstalk between adjacent emitters.
Regarding claim 12, HANAOKA discloses a bottom surface of the second recess portion is located in the substrate (see annotated FIG. 1 above).
Regarding claim 16, HANAOKA discloses another electrode (110, FIG. 1, [0025]) provided so as to be in contact with a top portion of at least one of the mesas adjacent to the second region and top portions of at least two of the mesas not adjacent to the second region.
Regarding claim 18, HANAOKA discloses an electronic device (intended use and not given patentable weight since no limiting structure recited, see MPEP 2111.02 II.) comprising the surface emitting laser element according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 19, same rejection as applied to claim 1 is maintained since the method claim 19 contains substantially the same limitations as the product claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, HANAOKA discloses in the forming the electrode, the electrode is formed in a region corresponding to at least the first and second regions on the surface of the substrate on the side opposite to the surface on the side of the first multilayer film reflector (see annotated FIG. 1 above).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HANAOKA and KUMANO as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of TAKIGAWA et al. (US PG Pub 2020/0227895 A1).
Regarding claim 17, the combination has disclosed the two adjacent mesas outlined in the rejection to claim 1 above except an interval between centers of the two mesas adjacent to each other is 10 μm or more and 50 μm or less. TAKIGAWA discloses an interval (dl1, FIG. 2, [0071]) between centers of the two mesas (ridge parts Rl1 and RC0, FIG. 1, [0070]) adjacent to each other is 10 μm or more and 50 μm or less (dl1=40 μm, [0072]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the two adjacent mesas of the combination with an interval between centers of the two mesas adjacent to each other being 10 μm or more and 50 μm or less as taught by TAKIGAWA in order to minimize speckle noise between the emitters.
Conclusion
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 YUANDA ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1439. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 AM - 6:30 PM.
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.
/YUANDA ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights