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 Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claim 4 second occurrence has been renumbered claim 5 and claims that follow renumbered serially.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 – 3 and 5 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peake et al. (US 6,122,109) in view of Shatalov et al. (2017/0373224).
PNG
media_image1.png
462
335
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Claim 1) Peake et al. teach a radiation-emitting semiconductor device comprising:
a semiconductor body (1702) having an active region (1708) provided for generating radiation (col. 8 lines 4 – 36); and
an optical element (1704), wherein:
the optical element (1704) is attached to the semiconductor body (1702) with a direct bonding connection (col. 7 lines 26 – 35),
the active region (1708) is arranged between a mirror region (1710) and a further mirror region (1706).
Peake et al. lack a carrier on which the semiconductor body is arranged; and
the semiconductor body is completely free of elements for external electrical contacting on a side facing the optical element.
PNG
media_image2.png
534
507
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Shatalov et al. teach a carrier (Substrate) on which the semiconductor body is arranged; and
the semiconductor body (16 – 22) is completely free of elements for external electrical contacting on a side facing the optical element (40A – 40C) for the benefit of improving the propagation of radiation (paragraph 35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the references for the benefit of improving the propagation of radiation.
(Claim 2) Peake et al. teach wherein the mirror region (1710) is arranged between the active region (1708) and the optical element (1704).
(Claim 3) Peake et al. teach wherein the mirror region (1710) and the further mirror region (1706) are part of the semiconductor body (1702).
(Claim 5) Peake et al. teach wherein the optical element (fig. 4 #1404) has a plurality of optical segments.
(Claim 6) Peake et al. teach wherein the optical element extends continuously over the active region (fig. 16).
(Claim 7) Peake et al. lack wherein the carrier and the optical element terminate flush with a side surface delimiting the radiation-emitting semiconductor device.
However, Shatalov et al. teach wherein the carrier (fig. 1, Substrate) and the optical element terminate (40 – 40C) flush with a side surface delimiting the radiation-emitting semiconductor device (10) for the benefit of improving the propagation of radiation (paragraph 35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the references for the benefit of improving the propagation of radiation.
(Claim 8) Peake et al. teach wherein the mirror region (1710) is arranged between the active region (1708) and the direct bonding connection (interface of 1710/1704).
(Claim 9) Peake et al. lack wherein the radiation-emitting semiconductor device has two contacts for external electrical contacting on a side of the carrier facing away from the optical element.
However, Shatalov et al. teach wherein the radiation-emitting semiconductor device has two contacts (26, 30) for external electrical contacting on a side of the carrier facing away from the optical element for the benefit of improving the propagation of radiation (paragraph 35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the references for the benefit of improving the propagation of radiation.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peake et al. (US 6,122,109) and Shatalov et al. (2017/0373224) in view of Sun et al. (US 6,054,335).
PNG
media_image3.png
543
455
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Claim 4) Peake et al. teach wherein the semiconductor body (1702) comprises a first semiconductor region (1710) and a second semiconductor region (1706).
Peake/Shatalov et al. lack wherein the first semiconductor region and the second semiconductor region are different from one another with respect of the charge type, the mirror region is a part of the second semiconductor region, and the further mirror region is a part of the first semiconductor region.
However, Sun et al. teach wherein the first semiconductor region (66, P-type) and the second semiconductor region (62, N-type) are different from one another with respect of the charge type (col. 3 lines 44 – 56), the mirror region (62) is a part of the second semiconductor region, and the further mirror region (66) is a part of the first semiconductor region for the benefit of realizing laser oscillation and emission within the VCSEL cavity (col. 5 lines 9 – 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the references for the benefit of realizing laser oscillation and emission within the VCSEL cavity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 – 12 are 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 10) wherein an auxiliary bonding layer is arranged between the semiconductor body and the optical element.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are listed in PTO – 892 Form.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IGWE U ANYA whose telephone number is (571)272-1887. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 6:00 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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571) 272- 1731. 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.
/IGWE U ANYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
September 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights