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 .
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaoka (US PG Pub 2011/0261854) in view of Roucka (US PG Pub 2021/0305782).
Regarding claim 1, Sasaoka discloses: a method for producing at least one laser chip, the method comprising: growing a semiconductor layer sequence (layers 103-110) having an active zone (106) on a substrate (101) (Fig. 3A, [0041]-[0043]), removing a part of the substrate, a part of the active zone and a part of the semiconductor layer sequence by dry-chemical etching (the nitride semiconductor layers 103 to 110 and a portion of the Si substrate 101 were etched by chlorine type dry etching using the SiO2 film 123 as a mask to form the laser facet of the resonator. Then, the laser facet and the exposed Si substrate 101 were wet etched by using a 25% aqueous solution of TMAH (tetramethyl ammonium hydroxide) kept at 80.degree. C. A portion of the Si substrate in the region below the laser facet was removed by etching using TMAH to form a recessed region 101a, and a damaged layer at the laser facet introduced by chlorine type dry etching was removed), thereby forming at least one side edge which extends, at least in places, transverse or perpendicular to the main extension plane of the substrate (Fig. 5I, [0047], [0048]), and removing a part of the substrate, a part of the active zone and a part of the semiconductor layer sequence at the side edge by wet-chemical etching, wherein the active zone is designed to emit laser radiation (Fig. 5I, [0047], [0048]).
Sasaoka does not explicitly disclose: wherein the dry-chemical etching comprises a plasma etching process, and the dry-chemical etching comprises a further plasma etching process different from the plasma etching process.
Roucka disclose: The etch process may be a wet chemical etch or it may be a dry etch (such as, for example, an inductance-coupled plasma (ICP) etch employing, for example, a mixture of BCl3 and Cl2 gasses), or it may be a combination of different etching techniques. The etch process 120 may include a single etch step (during which a single etch chemistry is used) or may have more than one step (and, accordingly, may use more than one etch chemical composition) ([0061]). 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 Sasaoka by using more than one plasma etching process in order to etch through multiple layers of the laser device.
PNG
media_image1.png
260
326
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3A of Sasaoka
PNG
media_image2.png
296
502
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5I of Sasaoka
Regarding claim 2, Sasaoka as modified disclose: wherein wet-chemical etching is carried out after dry-chemical etching (Sasaoka, Fig. 5I, [0047], [0048]).
Regarding claim 3, Sasaoka as modified disclose: wherein the semiconductor layer sequence is grown by metal-organic chemical vapor deposition (a metal organic vapor phase epitaxy (MOVPE) apparatus was used) (Sasaoka, [0042]).
Regarding claim 4, Sasaoka as modified do not disclose: wherein the substrate is produced by hydride vapor phase epitaxy.
The examiner takes official notice that hydride vapor phase epitaxy was well known in the art before the time of filing. For example, see D’Evelyn et al. (US PG Pub 2014/0065360) ([0058]). 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 Sasaoka as modified by growing the substrate using hydride vapor phase epitaxy because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 6, Sasaoka as modified disclose: wherein wet-chemical etching is carried out using an alkaline etching solution (tetramethyl ammonium hydroxide) (Sasaoka, [0048]).
Regarding claim 7, Sasaoka as modified disclose: wherein the region of the side edge generated by the further plasma etching process extends at an angle of less than 85° to the main extension plane of the substrate (the sidewall angle is smaller than 90° but greater than 80°) (Roucka, [0061]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaoka (US PG Pub 2011/0261854) in view of Roucka (US PG Pub 2021/0305782) and Lauer et al. (US PG Pub 2011/0243169).
Regarding claim 5, Sasaoka as modified do not disclose: wherein an absorber layer is applied to the substrate at least in places on the side edge.
Lauer et al. disclose: radiation-absorbing material (41) ([0123]). 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 Sasaoka as modified by adding an absorber layer to the side edge of the substrate in order to absorb light in the substrate.
Claims 9 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaoka (US PG Pub 2011/0261854) in view of Roucka (US PG Pub 2021/0305782) and Takahashi (US 5,627,851).
Regarding claim 9, Sasaoka as modified do not disclose: wherein the substrate comprises a first region and a second region which are arranged one above the other along a vertical direction, wherein the vertical direction extends perpendicular to the main extension plane of the substrate and more material of the substrate is ablated, by dry-chemical etching, in the first region along a direction parallel to the main extension plane of the substrate than in the second region along a direction parallel to the main extension plane of the substrate.
Takahashi discloses: a substrate comprises a first region (upper region) and a second region (lower region) which are arranged one above the other along a vertical direction, wherein the vertical direction extends perpendicular to the main extension plane of the substrate and more material of the substrate is ablated, in the first region along a direction parallel to the main extension plane of the substrate than in the second region along a direction parallel to the main extension plane of the substrate (Fig. 3, col. 2, lines 1-9). 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 Sasaoka as modified by forming the substrate in a stepwise manner in order to increase light utilization efficiency.
Regarding claim 14, Sasaoka discloses: a semiconductor layer sequence (layers 103-110) having an active zone (106), a substrate (101) on which the semiconductor layer sequence is arranged (Fig. 3A, [0041]-[0043]), and at least one side edge which extends, at least in places, transverse or perpendicular to the main extension plane of the substrate and which extends, at least in places, along the substrate and, at least in places, along the semiconductor layer sequence (trench 125 extends perpendicular to the main extension plane of the substrate and along the substrate at the bottom) (Fig. 5I, [0047], [0048]), wherein the active zone is designed to emit laser radiation (Fig. 3A, [0041]-[0043]); wherein the side edge is formed by dry-chemical etching (Fig. 5I, [0047], [0048]).
Sasaoka does not disclose: the side edge has at least one step, and the side edge has a greater surface roughness along the substrate than along the semiconductor layer sequence, the dry-chemical etching comprises a plasma etching process, and the dry-chemical etching comprises a further plasma etching process different from the plasma etching process.
Roucka disclose: The etch process may be a wet chemical etch or it may be a dry etch (such as, for example, an inductance-coupled plasma (ICP) etch employing, for example, a mixture of BCl3 and Cl2 gasses), or it may be a combination of different etching techniques. The etch process 120 may include a single etch step (during which a single etch chemistry is used) or may have more than one step (and, accordingly, may use more than one etch chemical composition) ([0061]). 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 Sasaoka by using more than one plasma etching process in order to etch through multiple layers of the laser device.
Sasaoka as modified do not disclose: the side edge has at least one step, and the side edge has a greater surface roughness along the substrate than along the semiconductor layer sequence.
Takahashi discloses: a substrate side edge has at least one step (Fig. 3, col. 2, lines 1-9). 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 Sasaoka as modified by forming the substrate in a stepwise manner in order to increase light utilization efficiency.
Sasaoka as modified do not disclose: the side edge has a greater surface roughness along the substrate than along the semiconductor layer sequence.
However, In accordance with MPEP 2144.05 II, Optimization of Ranges: Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In the prior art the general conditions are disclosed, a laser chip comprising a semiconductor layer sequence with a side edge and substrate with a side edge. Each side edge having a surface roughness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to obtain a workable range of values for the surface roughness of each side edge by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 15, Sasaoka as modified disclose: wherein the laser chip has a greater expansion in a plane which runs parallel to the main extension plane of the substrate and through the substrate than in a plane which runs parallel to the main extension plane of the substrate and through the semiconductor layer sequence (opening 125 at the substrate is greater than opening 125 through the semiconductor layer sequence) (see the rejection of claim 14).
Regarding claim 16, Sasaoka as modified do not disclose: wherein the side edge has a further step.
However, In accordance with MPEP 2144.04 [R-6], Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale: As discussed in MPEP § 2144, if the facts in a prior legal decision are sufficiently similar to those in an application under examination, the examiner may use the rationale used by the court. Examples directed to various common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients are discussed below. If the applicant has demonstrated the criticality of a specific limitation, it would not be appropriate to rely solely on case law as the rationale to support an obviousness rejection.
MPEP 2144.04 [R-6] VI B, Duplication of Parts: In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add further steps since adding further steps does not produce a new and unexpected result.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaoka (US PG Pub 2011/0261854) in view of Roucka (US PG Pub 2021/0305782) and Dubrow (US 2010/0167011).
Regarding claim 10, Sasaoka as modified do not disclose: wherein the substrate is completely cut along at least one direction perpendicular to the main extension plane of the substrate.
Dubrow discloses: separating the hermetically sealed compositions from each other include various methods well known in the art, such as via mechanical dicing (e.g., via knife, wedge, saw, blade, or other cutting device), via a laser ([0077], [0078]). 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 Sasaoka as modified by cutting the substrate along one direction in order to separate the individual laser chips.
Regarding claim 11, Sasaoka as modified disclose: wherein the cutting step comprises sawing using a wedge-shaped saw blade (Dubrow, [0077], [0078]).
Regarding claim 12, Sasaoka as modified disclose: wherein the cutting step comprises laser cutting (Dubrow, [0077], [0078]).
Regarding claim 13, Sasaoka as modified disclose: wherein a plurality of side edges is formed by dry-chemical etching, wherein the side edges each extend, at least in places, transverse or perpendicular to the main extension plane of the substrate (see the rejection of claim 1).
Sasaoka as modified do not disclose: the semiconductor layer sequence with the substrate is singulated along the side edges, forming a plurality of laser chips.
Dubrow discloses: separating the hermetically sealed compositions from each other include various methods well known in the art, such as via mechanical dicing (e.g., via knife, wedge, saw, blade, or other cutting device), via a laser ([0077], [0078]). 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 Sasaoka as modified by cutting the substrate along one direction in order to separate the individual laser chips.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaoka (US PG Pub 2011/0261854) in view of Roucka (US PG Pub 2021/0305782), Takahashi (US 5,627,851) and Lauer et al. (US PG Pub 2011/0243169).
Regarding claim 17, Sasaoka as modified do not disclose: wherein an absorber layer is arranged on the substrate at the side edge.
Lauer et al. disclose: radiation-absorbing material (41) ([0123]). 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 Sasaoka as modified by adding an absorber layer to the side edge of the substrate in order to absorb light in the substrate.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaoka (US PG Pub 2011/0261854) in view of Takahashi (US 5,627,851) and Lauer et al. (US PG Pub 2011/0243169).
Regarding claim 18, Sasaoka discloses: a semiconductor layer sequence (layers 103-110) having an active zone (106), a substrate (101) on which the semiconductor layer sequence is arranged (Fig. 3A, [0041]-[0043]), and at least one side edge which extends, at least in places, transverse or perpendicular to the main extension plane of the substrate and which extends, at least in places, along the substrate and, at least in places, along the semiconductor layer sequence (trench 125 extends perpendicular to the main extension plane of the substrate and along the substrate at the bottom) (Fig. 5I, [0047], [0048]), wherein the active zone is designed to emit laser radiation (Fig. 3A, [0041]-[0043]); wherein the side edge is formed by dry-chemical etching (Fig. 5I, [0047], [0048]).
Sasaoka does not disclose: the side edge has at least one step, and the side edge has a greater surface roughness along the substrate than along the semiconductor layer sequence, wherein an absorber layer is arranged on the substrate at the side edge.
Takahashi discloses: a substrate side edge has at least one step (Fig. 3, col. 2, lines 1-9). 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 Sasaoka as modified by forming the substrate in a stepwise manner in order to increase light utilization efficiency.
Sasaoka as modified do not disclose: and the side edge has a greater surface roughness along the substrate than along the semiconductor layer sequence, wherein an absorber layer is arranged on the substrate at the side edge.
Lauer et al. disclose: radiation-absorbing material (41) ([0123]). 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 Sasaoka as modified by adding an absorber layer to the side edge of the substrate in order to absorb light in the substrate.
Sasaoka as modified do not disclose: and the side edge has a greater surface roughness along the substrate than along the semiconductor layer sequence.
However, In accordance with MPEP 2144.05 II, Optimization of Ranges: Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In the prior art the general conditions are disclosed, a laser chip comprising a semiconductor layer sequence with a side edge and substrate with a side edge. Each side edge having a surface roughness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to obtain a workable range of values for the surface roughness of each side edge by routine experimentation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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 8 is allowable as the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “…wherein a mask remains on the semiconductor layer sequence after dry-chemical etching, and the mask protrudes beyond the semiconductor layer sequence, but not beyond the substrate.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zull et al. (US PG Pub 2014/0080287) disclose: a method relates to separating a component composite into a plurality of component regions, wherein the component composite is provided having a semiconductor layer sequence comprising a region for generating or for receiving electromagnetic radiation. The component composite is mounted on a rigid subcarrier. The component composite is separated into the plurality of component regions, wherein one semiconductor body is produced from the semiconductor layer sequence for each component region. The component regions are removed from the subcarrier (Abstract). Konig et al. (US PG Pub 2019/0348568) disclose: a method relates to separating a component composite into a plurality of component regions, wherein the component composite is provided having a semiconductor layer sequence comprising a region for generating or for receiving electromagnetic radiation. The component composite is mounted on a rigid subcarrier. The component composite is separated into the plurality of component regions, wherein one semiconductor body is produced from the semiconductor layer sequence for each component region. The component regions are removed from the subcarrier (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