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.
Priority
The priority has been considered by the examiner. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on December 19, 2023, June 07, 2024 and July 17, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered and accepted by the examiner.
Drawings
Figures 1 and 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Appropriated correction is required.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “41a” has been used to designate both “first via” and “second via” (Applicant disclosure, page 6 line 30 and page 7, line 1). 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. 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.
Appropriated 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.
Claim 9 is 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 9 recites the limitation "a projection of a respective emission window on the substrate" in the 2nd and 3rd lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purpose of examination, the examiner interpreted “a projection of a respective emission window on the substrate” as “the projection of the respective emission window on the substrate”.
Appropriated correction is required.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 3 and 5 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hegblom et al. (US 2020/0321754, Applicant submitted in the IDS, filed on July 10, 2025).
PNG
media_image1.png
314
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
309
588
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
366
452
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
380
450
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Hegblom disclose a vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL), comprising:
a substrate (see Figures 1 – 2 and 10, character 102, Abstract and paragraphs [0027 and 0029]);
emitters (see Figures 1 and 10, character 100 and paragraph [0027]) arranged in an array (see Figure 10, paragraphs [0016, 0026 and 0057]) disposed on a surface of the substrate (see Figures 1 – 2 and 10, character 102);
a first passivation layer (see Figures 1 – 2 and 10, character 124-1, paragraphs [0028 and 0041] and the reference called “a first isolation layer”), wherein the first passivation layer (see Figures 1 – 2 and 10, character 124-1) is disposed on a surface of the emitters (see Figures 1 – 2 and 10, character 100) arranged in the array facing away from the substrate (see Figures 1 – 2 and 10, character 102) and provided with a first via (see Figures 1 – 2 and 18 and paragraphs [0041, 0050 and 0076]);
a second passivation layer (see Figures 1 – 2 and 10, character 124-2, paragraphs [0028 and 0041] and the reference called “a second isolation layer”) provided with a second via (see Figures 1 – 2 and 18 and paragraphs [0041, 0050 and 0076]); and
a first pad (see Figures 1 – 2 and 10, character 122-1 (122-1 over 120), Abstract, paragraphs [0028 and 0040] and the reference called “a first metal layer”), wherein the first pad (see Figures 1 – 2 and 10, character 122-1) comprises a plurality of first sub-pads (see Figures 1 – 2 and 18, character 122-1 and at least one first sub-pad for each emitter (100) in the array (see Figure 10)) and at least one second sub-pad (see Figures 1 – 2, 10 and 18, character 122-2, Abstract, paragraphs [0028 and 0040] and the reference called “a second metal layer”), a number of the plurality of first sub-pads (see Figures 1 – 2 and 18, character 122-1) is equal to a number of the emitters arranged in the array (see Figures 1 – 3 and 10, at least one first sub-pad for each emitter (100) in the array), each of the plurality of first sub-pads (see Figures 1 – 2 and 10, character 122-1) is disposed on a side of the first passivation layer (see Figures 1 – 2 and 10, character 124-1) facing away from the substrate (see Figures 1 – 2 and 10, character 102) and connected to a respective emitter of the emitters through the first via (see paragraphs [0041, 0050 and 0076]), the second passivation layer (see Figures 1 – 2 and 10, character 124-2) covers the plurality of first sub-pads (see Figures 1 – 2 and 10, character 122-1) and the first passivation layer (see Figures 1 – 2 and 10, character 124-1), and each of the at least one second sub-pad (see Figures 1 – 2 and 10, character 122-2) is connected to a respective first sub-pad (see Figures 1 – 2 and 10, character 122-1) of the plurality of first sub-pads (see Figures 1 – 2 and 10, character 122-1) through the second via (see paragraphs [0041, 0050 and 0076]).
Regarding claim 2, Hegblom disclose an epitaxial layer (see Figures 1 – 2, character 106, paragraphs [0028 and 0030 – 0031], reference called “a contact layer”) disposed between the substrate (see Figures 1 – 2, character 102) and the emitters arranged in the array (see Figures 3 and 10);
wherein the VCSEL (see Figures 1 – 2, character 100) is provided with oxide trenches (see Figures 1 – 2, character 128, Abstract and paragraphs [0028, 0036 and 0043 – 0044]) arranged in an array around the emitters, wherein a surface of the epitaxial layer (see Figures 1 – 2 and 10, character 106) facing away from the substrate (see Figures 1 – 2 and 10, character 102) is exposed from the oxide trenches (see Figures 1 – 2, character 128).
Regarding claim 3, Hegblom disclose a projection of a second sub-pad (see Figures 1 – 2, character 122-2) of the at least one second sub-pad on the substrate (see Figures 1 – 2, character 102) overlaps with a projection of a respective first sub-pad (see Figures 1 – 2, character 122-1) of the plurality of first sub-pads on the substrate (see Figures 1 – 2, character 102).
Regarding claim 6, Hegblom disclose an ohmic metal layer (see Figures 1 – 2, character 118, paragraphs [0028 and 0038] and reference called “bottom conductive layer”) on an epitaxial layer (see Figures 1 – 2, character 106 and paragraphs [0030 – 0031]), wherein the ohmic metal layer (see Figures 1 – 2, character 118) on the epitaxial layer (see Figures 1 – 2, character 106) is connected to a respective emitter of the emitters (see Figures 1 – 2, character 100, ohmic metal layer provides the cathode of the VCSEL);
the first passivation layer (see Figures 1 – 2, character 124-1) is further provided with an opening structure (see Figures 1 and 2) for the ohmic metal layer (see Figures 1 – 2, character 118); and
the ohmic metal layer (see Figures 1 – 2, character 118) on the epitaxial layer (see Figures 1 – 2, character 106) is disposed in the opening structure (see Figures 1 – 2) for the ohmic metal layer (see Figures 1 – 2, character 118) and around the respective emitter (see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 7, Hegblom disclose an ohmic metal layer (see Figures 1 – 2, character 118) connecting end insulated from the first pad (see Figures 1 – 2, character 122-1, (122-1 over 120));
wherein the second passivation layer (see Figures 1 – 2, character 124-2) is provided with a third via (see paragraphs [0041, 0050 and 0076], as can see in Figure 10 for accommodating the Cathode pad); and
the ohmic metal layer (see Figures 1 – 2, character 118) connecting end is disposed on a same layer as the at least one second sub-pad (see Figures 1 – 2, character 122-2) and connected to the ohmic metal layer (see Figures 1 – 2, character 118) on the epitaxial layer (see Figures 1 – 2, character 106) through the third via (see paragraphs [0041, 0050 and 0076]).
Regarding claim 8, Hegblom disclose each of the emitters (see Figures 1 – 2 and 28 – 32, character 100) comprises an emission window (see paragraph [0039] In the case of a top-emitting VCSEL, top conductive layer (120) may have a ring shape, a slotted ring shape, a tooth wheel shape, or another type of circular or non-circular shape (e.g., depending on a design of the VCSEL)) and an edge region surrounding the emission window (see paragraph [0039], defined by circular ring shape top conductive layer (see Figures 1 – 2 and 28 – 32, character 120); and
each of the plurality of first sub-pads is provided with a light emission window, wherein a projection of the light emission window on the substrate coincides with a projection of a respective emission window on the substrate (see Figures 28 – 32 and paragraphs [0102 – 0107]).
Regarding claim 9, Hegblom disclose a projection of a second sub-pad of the at least one second sub-pad on the substrate does not overlap with a projection of a respective emission window on the substrate (see Figures 28 – 32 and paragraphs [0102 – 0107]).
Regarding claim 10, Hegblom disclose a first sub-pad of the plurality of first sub-pads is disposed around a respective emitter of the emitters and symmetrically disposed about a center of the respective emitter (see Figures 28 – 32 and paragraphs [0102 – 0107]).
Regarding claim 11, Hegblom disclose a sectional shape of the first sub-pad in a plane where the substrate is located comprises one of a circle, a regular polygon, a rectangle, or a rhombus (see Figures 28 – 32 and paragraphs [0102 – 0107]).
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 4 – 5 and 12 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hegblom et al. (US 2020/0321754, Applicant submitted in the IDS, filed on July 10, 2025).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Hegblom disclose a “honeycomb" structure between VCSELs (see Figure 10), when choosing to adapt such a "honeycomb" structure to a row-column addressable or alternatively called, matrix addressable VCSEL array (see Figures 10 and 24 – 26 and paragraphs [0097 – 0099]).
Hegblom discloses the claimed invention except for a plurality of first pad signal connecting ends; wherein two second sub-pads disposed at two ends of an i-th row of the emitters are connected to two of the plurality of first pad signal connecting ends, respectively, wherein a value of i is greater than or equal to 1; and two of the plurality of first sub-pads disposed at two ends of an (i+1)-th row of the emitters are connected to two of the plurality of first pad signal connecting ends, respectively; wherein the two second sub-pads and the two of the plurality of first pad signal connecting ends, which are connected to each other, are disposed on a same layer and are made of a same material; and the two of the plurality of first sub-pads and the two of the plurality of first pad signal connecting ends, which are connected to each other, are disposed on a same layer and are made of a same material. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the electrical connection to the device of Hegblom to obtain a compact device, the manufacturing cost of the VCSEL can also be reduced, since the same materials can be used and there is no waste of them. Also, especially as the advantages in terms of thus achieved can be readily contemplated in advance: if end second sub pads of a separately addressable row of Figure 10 are connected to pad signal connecting ends disposed on a same layer and made of a same material as the end second sub-pads, the preparation process of the VCSEL is simplified; likewise if end first sub-pads of a different separately addressable row of Figure 10 are connected to pad signal connecting ends disposed on a same layer and made of a same material as the end fist sub-pad, the preparation process of the VCSEL is simplified, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Notwithstanding, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular layers arrangement, electrical connection, dimensions because applicant has not disclosed that the layers arrangement, electrical connection, dimensions, etc. are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another layers arrangement, electrical connection, dimensions. Indeed, it has been held that mere layers arrangement, electrical connection, dimensions limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claims 12 and 14, Hegblom discloses VCSEL array which shown that a smallest straight-line distance between centers of two emitters respectively in two adjacent rows (seven horizontal rows of emitters are shown in Figure 10) is less than a distance between centers of two adjacent emitters in a same row (see Figure 10).
Hegblom discloses the claimed invention except for the distance between centers of two adjacent emitters in a same row is two times of the smallest straight-line distance between centers of two emitters respectively in two adjacent rows, and a distance from a center of an A(i+1)(j+1)-th emitter to a center of an Aij-th emitter is equal to a distance from the center of the A(i+1)(j+1)-th emitter to a center of an A(i)(j+2)-th emitter, and wherein a value of i comprises an integer greater than or equal to 1, and a value of j comprises an integer greater than or equal to 1. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the distance between centers of two emitters as suggested to the device of Hegblom to obtain a compact device, 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.
In addition, the selection of the distance between centers of two adjacent emitters in a same row, it’s obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed [the distance between centers of two adjacent emitters in a same row is two times of the smallest straight-line distance between centers of two emitters respectively in two adjacent rows, and a distance from a center of an A(i+1)(j+1)-th emitter to a center of an Aij-th emitter is equal to a distance from the center of the A(i+1)(j+1)-th emitter to a center of an A(i)(j+2)-th emitter, and wherein a value of i comprises an integer greater than or equal to 1, and a value of j comprises an integer greater than or equal to 1] or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen [the distance between centers of two adjacent emitters in a same row is two times of the smallest straight-line distance between centers of two emitters respectively in two adjacent rows, and a distance from a center of an A(i+1)(j+1)-th emitter to a center of an Aij-th emitter is equal to a distance from the center of the A(i+1)(j+1)-th emitter to a center of an A(i)(j+2)-th emitter, and wherein a value of i comprises an integer greater than or equal to 1, and a value of j comprises an integer greater than or equal to 1] or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen [the distance between centers of two adjacent emitters in a same row is two times of the smallest straight-line distance between centers of two emitters respectively in two adjacent rows, and a distance from a center of an A(i+1)(j+1)-th emitter to a center of an Aij-th emitter is equal to a distance from the center of the A(i+1)(j+1)-th emitter to a center of an A(i)(j+2)-th emitter, and wherein a value of i comprises an integer greater than or equal to 1, and a value of j comprises an integer greater than or equal to 1] are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 13 and 15, Hegblom discloses VCSEL array which shown that a smallest straight-line distance between centers of two emitters respectively in two adjacent columns is less than a distance between centers of two adjacent emitters in a same column (see Figure 10, where of rotated by 900, seven columns are shown).
Hegblom discloses the claimed invention except for the distance between centers of two adjacent emitters in a same column is two times of the smallest straight-line distance between centers of two emitters respectively in two adjacent columns, and a distance from a center of an A(i+1)(j+1)-th emitter to a center of an Aij-th emitter is equal to a distance from the center of the A(i+1)(j+1)-th emitter to a center of an A(i)(j+2)-th emitter, and wherein a value of i comprises an integer greater than or equal to 1, and a value of j comprises an integer greater than or equal to 1. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the distance between centers of two emitters as suggested to the device of Hegblom to obtain a compact device, 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.
In addition, the selection of the distance between centers of two adjacent emitters in a same column, it’s obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed [the distance between centers of two adjacent emitters in a same column is two times of the smallest straight-line distance between centers of two emitters respectively in two adjacent columns, and a distance from a center of an A(i+1)(j+1)-th emitter to a center of an Aij-th emitter is equal to a distance from the center of the A(i+1)(j+1)-th emitter to a center of an A(i)(j+2)-th emitter, and wherein a value of i comprises an integer greater than or equal to 1, and a value of j comprises an integer greater than or equal to 1] or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen [the distance between centers of two adjacent emitters in a same column is two times of the smallest straight-line distance between centers of two emitters respectively in two adjacent columns, and a distance from a center of an A(i+1)(j+1)-th emitter to a center of an Aij-th emitter is equal to a distance from the center of the A(i+1)(j+1)-th emitter to a center of an A(i)(j+2)-th emitter, and wherein a value of i comprises an integer greater than or equal to 1, and a value of j comprises an integer greater than or equal to 1] or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen [the distance between centers of two adjacent emitters in a same column is two times of the smallest straight-line distance between centers of two emitters respectively in two adjacent columns, and a distance from a center of an A(i+1)(j+1)-th emitter to a center of an Aij-th emitter is equal to a distance from the center of the A(i+1)(j+1)-th emitter to a center of an A(i)(j+2)-th emitter, and wherein a value of i comprises an integer greater than or equal to 1, and a value of j comprises an integer greater than or equal to 1] are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Delma R. Forde whose telephone number is (571)272-1940. The examiner can normally be reached M - TH 7:00 AM - 4:00 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 O 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.
/Delma R Forde/Examiner, Art Unit 2828
/TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights