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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1, 17, 21-22, 26, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
1) Claim 1 discloses a limitation “wherein the n-waveguide, the quantum well, and the p-waveguide define an active region forming a LOC waveguide”. There is no support for this limitation in the specification, the specification clearly discloses that the active region includes a quantum well, and collectively the n- and p-waveguides and the active region form the LOC waveguide, see paragraph 0038 of the PGPub.
In order to overcome this rejection, the claim should be amended to recite:
“… an active region that includes a quantum well;
… wherein the n-waveguide, the active region, and the p-waveguide define a LOC waveguide of the LOC laser diode, …”
The remainder of the claims are rejected for their dependence on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 17, 21-22, 26, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
2) Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are:
“the n-waveguide is formed by an outer n-waveguide layer and an inner n-waveguide layer, the inner n-waveguide layer is between the outer n-waveguide layer and the quantum well, the outer n-waveguide layer is between the inner n-clad and the inner n-waveguide layer,
the outer n-waveguide layer has a fifth index of refraction, and the inner n-waveguide layer has a sixth index of refraction, the sixth index of refraction is higher than the fifth index of refraction.”
Claim 1 discloses a limitation “an optical gain of the n-waveguide applicable to the first and higher order modes is reduced relative to a fundamental optical gain applied to the fundamental mode.” This is not physically possible for such a LOC laser without the omitted structure of the waveguide layers as described above. Fig 12 of applicant’s specification clearly explains how different gain is applied to the fundamental mode in the inner n-waveguide, compared to the first order mode that is in the outer n-waveguide.
In order to overcome this rejection, the limitation listed above should be added to claim 1.
3) Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “fundamental optical gain” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “optical gain”. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
In order to overcome this rejection, the limitation should be amended to recite: “optical gain”.
4) Claim 17 recites the limitation "a p-waveguide layer forming at least a portion of a double waveguide". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since claim 1 already discloses a p-waveguide, making it unclear if this is the same layer or a different layer. Also, it is not clear what structural limitations are being added by this claim, even assuming that claim 1 will be corrected as suggested above.
In order to overcome this rejection, the claim should be canceled.
5) Claim 22 recites the limitation "a p-cladding adjacent to the p-waveguide". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since claim 1 already discloses “a p-clad”, making it unclear if this is the same layer or a different layer. Also, claim 22 is currently dependent on claim 24, which was canceled.
In order to overcome this rejection, the claim should be amended to recite:
"wherein the p-clad layer has an eighth index of refraction …".
The remainder of the claims are rejected for their dependence on claim 1. For the purpose of examination, the limitations as presented have been searched and considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/05/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments regarding possible allowable subject matter, the examiner points out that the applicant was supposed to correct the 112(b) rejections of claim 25 before incorporating it into claim 1. The rejection of claim 17 was not corrected by the amendment. Therefore, the rejections of claims 17 and 25 are repeated above.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant’s attention is drawn to the references cited on form PTO-892 in the previous office actions, which lists other references with similar features as the invention.
Contact Info
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. A. GOLUB-MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8602. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MinSun Harvey can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/M. A. Golub-Miller/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
