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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/24/2024, 2/10/2025, and 6/4/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US Publication No. 2024/0072202) in view of Endo et al. (US Publication No. 2008/0203402), and further in view of Hotta (US Publication No. 2022/0165619).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a method for forming a wet oxidation aperture shape of a vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL) device, comprising the following steps:
placing a VCSEL wafer into a wet oxidation furnace, the VCSEL wafer having a circular VCSEL mesa with a diameter of 25um-30um (paragraph 87)
ramping up a temperature of the wet oxidation furnace to 250-350°C and maintaining for a first period, and introducing N2 gas and H2O gas into the wet oxidation furnace during the first period (paragraph 110)
maintaining the wet oxidation furnace at 400-450°C to initiate oxidation of the VCSEL wafer (paragraph 110)
Li does not disclose continuously introducing the N2 gas and the H2O gas into the wet oxidation furnace, while ramping up the temperature of the wet oxidation furnace to 350-450°C and maintaining for a second period continuously introducing the N2 gas and the H2O gas into the wet oxidation furnace, while ramping up the temperature of the wet oxidation furnace to 400-450°C and maintaining for a third period, after the oxidation of the VCSEL wafer is completed, introducing the N2 gas into the wet oxidation furnace to cool the wet oxidation furnace down to 150°C, and after cooling to 150°C, taking the VCSEL wafer out of the wet oxidation furnace (paragraph 247). However, Endo discloses multiple temperature increases at a rate of 10 degrees C/minute (paragraph 145). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective to have modified the method of Li to include the temping up steps, as taught by Endo, since it can improve carrier mobility, thereby increasing light extraction efficiency of the device (paragraph 249).
Li does not teach vacuumizing the wet oxidation furnace. However, Hotta discloses vacuumizing a wet oxidation furnace (paragraphs 414-415). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Li to include a vacuumizing step as taught by Hotta since it can improve bonding of the layers prior to subsequent wet oxidation processing steps (paragraph 87).
Regarding claim 2, Endo discloses before placing the VCSEL wafer into the wet oxidation furnace, the method further comprises the following steps: when a wet oxidation process machine is in a standby state, introducing the N2 gas and the H2O gas into the wet oxidation furnace to confirm whether a flow rate of the N2 gas and a flow rate of the H2O gas are normal; and after confirming that the flow rate of the N2 gas and the flow rate of the H2O gas are normal, placing the VCSEL wafer into the wet oxidation furnace (paragraph 145). As discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Li in view of Endo, and further in view of Hotta.
Regarding claim 3, Li/Endo discloses the limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Li/Endo is silent regarding the N2 gas is introduced into the wet oxidation furnace at 10 liters/minute (L/min). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the N2 gas flow to be 10 liters/minute, to optimize the depth and diameter parameters of the oxidation, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 4, Li/Endo discloses the limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Li/Endo is silent regarding the H2O gas is introduced into the wet oxidation furnace at 2 grams/hour. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the H2O gas flow to be 2 grams/hour, to optimize the depth and diameter parameters of the oxidation, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 5, Li/Endo discloses the limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Li/Endo does not disclose the temperature of the wet oxidation furnace is ramped up to 250-350°C at a rate of 10-40°C/min. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the wet oxidation to be ramped up to a temperature within this range at a rate within this range to optimize the depth and diameter parameters of the oxidation, 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.
Regarding claim 6, Li/Endo discloses the limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Li/Endo does not disclose the first period is 6-8 minutes. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the wet oxidation first period to be within this time range to optimize the depth and diameter parameters of the oxidation, 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.
Regarding claim 7, Li/Endo discloses the limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Li/Endo does not disclose the temperature of the wet oxidation furnace is ramped up to 350-450°C at a rate of 10-30°C/min. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the wet oxidation to be ramped up to a temperature within this range at a rate within this range to optimize the depth and diameter parameters of the oxidation, 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.
Regarding claim 8, Li/Endo discloses the limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Li/Endo does not disclose the second period is 1-2 minutes. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the wet oxidation first period to be within this time range to optimize the depth and diameter parameters of the oxidation, 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.
Regarding claim 9, Li/Endo discloses the limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Li/Endo does not disclose the temperature of the wet oxidation furnace is ramped up to 400-450°C at a rate of 10-25°C/min. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the wet oxidation to be ramped up to a temperature within this range at a rate within this range to optimize the depth and diameter parameters of the oxidation, 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.
Regarding claim 10, Li/Endo discloses the limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Li/Endo does not disclose the third period is 1-2 minutes. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the wet oxidation first period to be within this time range to optimize the depth and diameter parameters of the oxidation, 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.
Regarding claim 11, Endo discloses taking the VCSEL wafer out of the wet oxidation furnace and allowing the VCSEL wafer to cool naturally at room temperature (paragraph 247). As discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Li in view of Endo, and further in view of Hotta.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee et al. (US Publication No. 2021/0143608) discloses a wet oxidation in a nitrogen atmosphere for a VCSEL with multiple anneals at different temperature ranges (paragraphs 190-191).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEIL R PRASAD whose telephone number is (571) 270-3129. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Jacob Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9060. 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.
/N.R.P/ 7/31/2026 Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JACOB Y CHOI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights