DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 through 24 originally filed 16 February 2021. By amendment received 24 January 2024; claims 1, 16, 17, 19 through 21, and 24 are amended and claim 12 is cancelled. By amendment received 26 August 2024; claims 25 and 26 are added. By amendment received 16 April 2025; claims 1 and 24 are amended and claims 25 and 26 are cancelled. By amendment received 10 November 2025; claims 15, 16, 18, 19, and 21 are amended. Claims 1 through 11 and 13 through 24 are addressed by this 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered; they are addressed below.
Applicant argues that the amendments to the claims overcome the previous drawing objection under 37 CFR 1.83(a). This argument is persuasive and the corresponding objections are withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Muroya (US Patent 6,577,660), Murata (US Pub. 2011/0090931), and Nakahara et al. (Nakahara, US Pub. 2014/0211823) do not teach or render obvious the limitation "The plurality of diffraction gratings including a first uniform diffraction grating positioned proximate the rear facet end of the active region" because, according to applicant, Murata does not teach this limitation. To support this argument, applicant contends that 1) grating 72 of Murata is not uniform and 2) grating 72 of Murata is in the center of the device rather than at an end.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because it does not address the combination of the teachings of Muroya and Murata set forth in the present rejection. Specifically, Muroya teaches a laser device having a DFB structure in which the coupling coefficient of the grating varies from one end of the structure to the other end (Muroya, col. 4, lines 1-6 describing the variation in coupling coefficient depicted in Figure 7). Murata teaches a reflecting structure including a grating that includes a region of high coupling coefficient and regions of low coupling coefficient (¶48 describing the reflecting structure shown in Figure 2 including regions of low coupling coefficient 71 and 73 as well as a region of uniformly high coupling coefficient 72). In both Muroya and Murata, the regions of low coupling coefficient provide regions of reduced reflectivity and the regions of high coupling coefficient provide regions of greater reflectivity. The present rejection is based on modifying the DFB structure of Muroya to employ a grating of uniform coupling coefficient in the region of high coupling coefficient in a manner similar to Murata so as to maintain the high coupling coefficient required of this region while also simplifying the construction of this uniform portion of the grating. As argued, Murata includes a constant variation in pitch in the grating thereof. However, Muroya includes no such constant variation in pitch and the modification on which the rejection is based does not involve or require importing this additional aspect of Murata into the device according to the combined teachings. Since Muroya does not include a constant variation in pitch and since the combination set forth in the rejection does not modify Muroya to include a constant variation in pitch, the argument related to the presence of a constant variation in grating pitch within Murata does not address the combination set forth on the basis of Muroya in view of Murata. Also as argued, Murata employs the uniform coupling coefficient region within the center of the grating region. However, Muroya employs the region of high coupling coefficient at the end thereof and modifying the device of Muroya to use a grating region of uniform coupling coefficient for the high coupling coefficient region as in Murata would result in a device in which the uniform coupling coefficient region abuts an end of the laser in the same manner as in Muroya. Since the high coupling coefficient region of Muroya is in the claimed location corresponding to the first uniform diffraction grating and since the present rejection modifies Muroya to employ a uniform coupling coefficient in this region as in Murata, the combination of Muroya and Murata read on the argued limitation. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
The limitation "The plurality of diffraction gratings including a first uniform diffraction grating positioned proximate the rear facet end of the active region" is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Muroya, Murata, and Nakahara (see below). Applicant's argument that Murata does not teach this limitation is not persuasive because it does not address the combination of the teachings of Muroya and Murata set forth in the present rejection.
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Muroya, Murata, and Nakahara do not teach or render obvious the limitation "The plurality of diffraction gratings including a first uniform diffraction grating positioned proximate the rear facet end of the active region" because, according to applicant, Muroya teaches away from the modification set forth on the basis of Murata. To support this argument, applicant contends that Muroya employs a gradually increasing coupling coefficient and there would be no reason to modify the rear portion of Muroya to be uniform.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because the problem addressed by Muroya can be addressed without a constantly increasing coupling coefficient and because an advantage to the modification set forth in the rejection has been presented. Specifically, Muroya identifies a problem in employing a grating that rapidly changes in equivalent refractive index due to an abrupt change in coupling coefficient (Muroya, col. 3, lines 56-59 discussing the arrangement shown in Figure 2). Muroya teaches that this problem is avoided by employing a grating that continuously or gradually changes from a low coupling coefficient to a high coupling coefficient (Muroya, col. 4, lines 1-6 discussing the arrangement shown in Figure 7). Murata provides an alternate manner of providing a coupling coefficient that also avoids rapid changes in coupling coefficient by constantly varying the region of low coupling coefficient and providing a region of uniformly high coupling coefficient (Murata, Fig. 3A showing a profile of coupling coefficient that includes no abrupt changes). The use of a uniform coupling coefficient region in Murata is understood to allow for simplified fabrication of that region. Since Murata teaches that the requirements of Muroya may be met with a region of uniformly high coupling coefficient and since such a modification would allow for simplified construction of the uniform region, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the region of high coupling coefficient in Muroya to employ a uniformly high coupling coefficient as in Murata. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
The limitation "The plurality of diffraction gratings including a first uniform diffraction grating positioned proximate the rear facet end of the active region" is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Muroya, Murata, and Nakahara (see below). Applicant's argument that Muroya teaches away from the modification set forth on the basis of Murata is not persuasive because the problem addressed by Muroya can be addressed without a constantly increasing coupling coefficient and because an advantage to the modification set forth in the rejection has been presented.
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Muroya, Murata, and Nakahara do not teach or render obvious the limitation "Wherein the first uniform diffraction grating is arranged to act as a mirror to reflect light toward the front facet" because, according to applicant, Muroya does not teach this limitation. To support this argument, applicant contends that the region of the diffraction grating near the rear facet can act as a mirror.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because the grating of Muroya and the grating of the present invention provide regions of high reflectivity in the same manner. Specifically, Muroya is a DFB laser device that includes a high coupling coefficient region in the rear of the laser (see col. 4, lines 1-6 describing the variation in coupling coefficient depicted in Figure 7 with the region of high coupling coefficient toward the rear of the laser as in Figure 6). Similarly, the present invention is directed to a DFB laser that includes a high coupling coefficient region in the rear of the laser. The present disclosure identifies that a high coupling coefficient region so provided acts as a mirror (¶55 of the pre-grant publication of the present invention). Since the present disclosure identifies that a structure identical to the structure of Muroya acts as a mirror, Muroya teaches use of the cited grating section as a mirror within the meaning of the present disclosure. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
The limitation "Wherein the first uniform diffraction grating is arranged to act as a mirror to reflect light toward the front facet" is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Muroya, Murata, and Nakahara (see below). Applicant's argument that Muroya does not teach this limitation is not persuasive because the grating of Muroya and the grating of the present invention provide regions of high reflectivity in the same manner.
As such, all claims are addressed as follows:
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 through 11, 13 through 15, 18, and 22 through 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muroya (US Patent 6,577,660), in view of Murata (US Pub. 2011/0090931), and further in view of Nakahara et al. (Nakahara, US Pub. 2014/0211823).
Regarding claim 1, Muroya discloses, "An active region having a longitudinal axis" (col. 2-3, lines 62-10 and Fig. 6, pt. 4). "A rear facet end" (col. 2-3, lines 62-10 and Fig. 6, pt. 9). "A front facet end" (col. 2-3, lines 62-10 and Fig. 6, pt. 8). "The front facet end emitting an output beam of light from the semiconductor laser" (col. 2-3, lines 62-10 and Fig. 6, pt. 8). "A plurality of diffraction gratings positioned along the longitudinal axis of the active region" (col. 4, lines 1-6 and Fig. 6, pt. 2'). "[The plurality of diffraction gratings including] at least one additional diffraction grating positioned longitudinally between the first… diffraction grating and the front facet end" (col. 4, lines 1-6 and Fig. 7, where the second diffraction grating corresponds to the grating in the region of L≤L1). "The first… diffraction grating having a first kappa value" (col. 4, lines 1-6 and Fig. 7). "The at least one additional diffraction grating having at least a second kappa value" (col. 4, lines 1-6 and Fig. 7). "The first kappa value being greater than the second kappa value" (col. 4, lines 1-6 and Fig. 7). "Wherein the first… diffraction grating is arranged to act as a mirror to reflect light toward the front facet" (col. 2-3, lines 62-10 and Fig. 6, pt. 4). Muroya does not explicitly disclose, "The plurality of diffraction gratings including a first uniform diffraction grating positioned proximate the rear facet end of the active region." Murata discloses, "The plurality of diffraction gratings including a first uniform diffraction grating positioned proximate the rear facet end of the active region" (p. [0048] and Fig. 2, pt. 72). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Muroya with the teachings of Murata. In view of the teachings of Muroya regarding a laser device including a grating that has a variable κ value, the alternate variation of the κ value such that the κ value reaches a uniform maximum as taught by Murata would enhance the teachings of Muroya by allowing construction of at least one region to include a simplified grating arrangement.
The combination of Muroya and Murata does not explicitly disclose, "A phase of reflected light from the rear facet is controlled by the first… diffracting grating independent of an alignment of the first… diffraction grating relative to the rear facet." Nakahara discloses, "A phase of reflected light from the rear facet is controlled by the first… diffracting grating independent of an alignment of the first… diffraction grating relative to the rear facet" (p. [0046] and Fig. 2, pts. 14 and 15, where layer 15 operates as the rear facet in the combination with Muroya). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Muroya and Murata with the teachings of Nakahara. In view of the teachings of Muroya regarding a DFB laser with antireflective facets, the additional inclusion of a gap between an end grating and an anti-reflection coated facet as taught by Nakahara would enhance the teachings of Muroya and Murata by allowing the laser device to have a cavity length that is shorter than the chip on which the laser is provided.
Regarding claim 2, Muroya discloses, "Wherein the first kappa value is at least 80/cm" (col. 5, lines 37-41).
Regarding claim 3, Muroya discloses, "Wherein the first kappa value is at least 100/cm" (col. 5, lines 37-41).
Regarding claim 4, Muroya discloses, "Wherein the first kappa value is in a range of 80/cm to 300/cm" (col. 5, lines 37-41). "The second kappa value is in a range of 10/cm to 50/cm" (col. 5, lines 37-41).
Regarding claim 5, Muroya discloses, "Wherein the second kappa value is in a range of 20/cm to 50/cm" (col. 5, lines 37-41, the at least one additional diffraction grating has a κ value in this range due to this region having a gradually changing κ value).
Regarding claim 6, Muroya discloses, "Wherein the second kappa value is in a range of 20/cm to 40/cm" (col. 5, lines 37-41, the at least one additional diffraction grating has a κ value in this range due to this region having a gradually changing κ value).
Regarding claim 7, Muroya discloses, "Wherein the second kappa value is in a range of 10/cm to 40/cm" (col. 5, lines 37-41).
Regarding claim 8, Muroya discloses, "Wherein the first kappa value is at least 80/cm" (col. 5, lines 37-41). "The second kappa value is in a range of 10/cm to 50/cm" (col. 5, lines 37-41).
Regarding claim 9, Muroya discloses, "Wherein a ratio of the first kappa value to the second kappa value is 1.5 to 20" (col. 4, lines 32-38, the stated ratio of Muroya is the reciprocal of the claimed ratio).
Regarding claim 10, Muroya discloses, "Wherein a ratio of the first kappa value to the second kappa value is 1.6 to 20" (col. 4, lines 32-38, the stated ratio of Muroya is the reciprocal of the claimed ratio).
Regarding claim 11, Muroya discloses, "Wherein a ratio of the first kappa value to the second kappa value is 2 to 20" (col. 4, lines 32-38, the stated ratio of Muroya is the reciprocal of the claimed ratio).
Regarding claim 13, Muroya discloses, "Wherein the at least one additional diffraction grating includes a quarter wavelength shift (QWS) grating" (Fig. 6, pt. 2', where the quarter wavelength shift is within additional diffraction grating).
Regarding claim 14, Muroya discloses, "Wherein the at least one additional diffraction grating includes a chirped grating" (col. 6, lines 42-61 and Fig. 6, pt. 2', the arrangement of Fig. 6 is necessarily chirped due to that design not employing the described compensation).
Regarding claim 15, Muroya discloses, "Wherein the at least one additional diffraction grating includes a contiguous grating system" (col. 4, lines 1-6 and Fig. 6, pt. 2').
Regarding claim 18, Muroya discloses, "Wherein the at least one additional diffraction grating includes a non-contiguous grating system" (col. 6, lines 27-27 and Figs. 15 and 16, pt. 2'', where the pitch modulation in the at least one additional diffraction grating is stepwise rather than contiguous).
Regarding claim 22, Muroya discloses, "Wherein the at least one additional diffraction grating provides a continuously variable pitch between the first grating and the front facet" (col. 6, lines 27-27 and Figs. 15 and 16, pt. 2'').
Regarding claim 23, The combination of Muroya and Murata does not explicitly disclose, "A second reflection coating provided on the rear facet end of the active region having a reflectivity of less than 5%." Nakahara discloses, "A second reflection coating provided on the rear facet end of the active region having a reflectivity of less than 5%" (p. [0045] and Fig. 2, pt. 15, where layer 15 operates as the rear facet in the combination with Muroya). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Muroya and Murata with the teachings of Nakahara for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Muroya, Murata, and Nakahara does not explicitly disclose, "A first reflection coating provided on the front facet end of the active region having a reflectivity of less than 5%." The examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that it was known in the art to implement a coating having a reflectivity of 2% or less as an AR coating. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ an AR coating with a reflectivity within the noted range so as to reduce the reflectivity to a desired degree, 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 24, Muroya discloses, "A semiconductor substrate" (col. 2-3, lines 62-10 and Fig. 6, pt. 1). "An active region having a longitudinal axis" (col. 2-3, lines 62-10 and Fig. 6, pt. 4). "A rear facet end" (col. 2-3, lines 62-10 and Fig. 6, pt. 9). "A front facet end" (col. 2-3, lines 62-10 and Fig. 6, pt. 8). "The front facet end emitting an output beam of the semiconductor laser" (col. 2-3, lines 62-10 and Fig. 6, pt. 8). "A plurality of diffraction gratings positioned along the longitudinal axis of the active region" (col. 4, lines 1-6 and Fig. 6, pt. 2'). "[The plurality of diffraction grating including] at least one additional diffraction grating positioned longitudinally between the first… diffraction grating and the front facet end" (col. 4, lines 1-6 and Fig. 7, where the second diffraction grating corresponds to the grating in the region of L≤L1). "The first… diffraction grating having a first kappa value" (col. 4, lines 1-6 and Fig. 7). "The at least one additional diffraction grating having at least a second kappa value" (col. 4, lines 1-6 and Fig. 7). "The first kappa value being greater than the second kappa value" (col. 4, lines 1-6 and Fig. 7). "Wherein the first… diffraction grating is arranged to act as a mirror to reflect light toward the front facet" (col. 2-3, lines 62-10 and Fig. 6, pt. 4). Muroya does not explicitly disclose, "The plurality of diffraction grating including a first uniform diffraction grating positioned proximate the rear facet end of the active region." Murata discloses, "The plurality of diffraction grating including a first uniform diffraction grating positioned proximate the rear facet end of the active region" (p. [0048] and Fig. 2, pt. 72). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Muroya with the teachings of Murata for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Muroya and Murata does not explicitly disclose, "A phase of reflected light from the rear facet is controlled by the first… diffracting grating independent of an alignment of the first… diffraction grating relative to the rear facet." Nakahara discloses, "A phase of reflected light from the rear facet is controlled by the first… diffracting grating independent of an alignment of the first… diffraction grating relative to the rear facet" (p. [0046] and Fig. 2, pts. 14 and 15, where layer 15 operates as the rear facet in the combination with Muroya). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Muroya and Murata with the teachings of Nakahara for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Muroya, Murata, and Nakahara does not explicitly disclose, "A plurality of semiconductor lasers formed on the semiconductor substrate." The examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that it was known in the art to arrange multiple laser emitters on the same substrate so as to provide an integrated device capable of producing multiple simultaneous laser beams. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include multiple laser devices on the same substrate so as to produce an integrated device capable of producing multiple laser beams, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muroya, in view of Murata, in view of Nakahara, and further in view of Sakata et al. (Sakata, US Patent 5,333,216).
Regarding claim 16, Muroya discloses, "At least a third grating positioned longitudinally between the rear uniform grating and the front uniform grating" (col. 4, lines 1-6 and Fig. 7, where the terminal ends of the grating system are connected by a continuous variation in coupling constant). Muroya does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the contiguous grating system includes a rear uniform grating positioned longitudinally proximate the first uniform diffraction grating." Murata discloses, "Wherein the contiguous grating system includes a rear uniform grating positioned longitudinally proximate the first uniform diffraction grating" (p. [0048] and Fig. 2, pt. 72, where designating the grating system in a manner that encompasses a portion uniform grating 72 causes the grating system to include a uniform portion corresponding to this rear uniform portion). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Muroya with the teachings of Murata for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Muroya, Murata, and Nakahara does not explicitly disclose, "[The contiguous grating system includes] a front uniform grating positioned longitudinally proximate the front facet end." "Wherein the rear uniform grating, the third grating, and the front uniform grating are contiguous." Sakata discloses, "[The contiguous grating system includes] a front uniform grating positioned longitudinally proximate the front facet end" (col. 15, lines 11-24 and Fig. 25, where at least a portion of the lowest kappa portion of the grating of Muroya may be made uniform as is the case with the terminal portions of the grating of Sakata). "Wherein the rear uniform grating, the third grating, and the front uniform grating are contiguous" (col. 15, lines 11-24 and Fig. 25, where modifying Muroya to include uniform grating ends as in Murata and Sakata while retaining the continuous variation between these uniform ends of Muroya results in this arrangement). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Muroya, Murata, and Nakahara with the teachings of Sakata. In view of the teachings of Muroya regarding a laser device including a grating that has a variable κ value, the alternate method of using a stepwise variation of the κ value rather than a continuous variation in the κ value to achieve similar effect as taught by Sakata would enhance the teachings of Muroya, Murata, and Nakahara by allowing the grating to include regions of uniform κ in place of the continuously varying κ and thereby simplifying construction.
Regarding claim 17, Muroya discloses, "Wherein the first uniform diffraction grating has a first pitch" (col. 6, lines 27-27 and Figs. 15 and 16, pt. 2'', where the first grating has a first pitch).
The combination of Muroya, Murata, and Nakahara does not explicitly disclose, "The rear uniform grating has a second pitch." "The third grating has a third pitch." "The front uniform grating has a fourth pitch." "The third pitch being different from the first pitch, the second pitch, and the fourth pitch." Sakata discloses, "The rear uniform grating has a second pitch" (col. 15, lines 11-24 and 51-60, and Figs. 25 and 28, where implementing the stepwise coupling constant variation of Sakata in a device according to Muroya results in a device in which the pitch changes within each region in a decreasing manner). "The third grating has a third pitch" (col. 15, lines 11-24 and 51-60, and Figs. 25 and 28, where implementing the stepwise coupling constant variation of Sakata in a device according to Muroya results in a device in which the pitch changes within each region in a decreasing manner). "The front uniform grating has a fourth pitch" (col. 15, lines 11-24 and 51-60, and Figs. 25 and 28, where implementing the stepwise coupling constant variation of Sakata in a device according to Muroya results in a device in which the pitch changes within each region in a decreasing manner). "The third pitch being different from the first pitch, the second pitch, and the fourth pitch" (col. 15, lines 11-24 and 51-60, and Figs. 25 and 28, where implementing the stepwise coupling constant variation of Sakata in a device according to Muroya results in a device in which the pitch changes within each region in a decreasing manner). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Muroya, Murata, and Nakahara with the teachings of Sakata for the reasons provided above regarding claim 16.
Claims 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muroya, in view of Murata, in view of Nakahara, and further in view of Higa et al. (Higa, US Pub. 2016/0064897).
Regarding claim 19, Muroya discloses, "Wherein the non-contiguous grating system includes a rear uniform grating positioned longitudinally proximate the first… diffraction grating" (col. 6, lines 27-27 and Figs. 15 and 16, pt. 2'', where the rear portion of the stepwise grating includes multiple discrete regions of uniform grating). "[The non-contiguous grating system includes] a front uniform grating positioned longitudinally proximate the front facet end" (col. 6, lines 27-27 and Figs. 15 and 16, pt. 2'', where the rear portion of the stepwise grating includes multiple discrete regions of uniform grating). "At least a third grating positioned longitudinally between the rear uniform grating and the front uniform grating" (col. 6, lines 27-27 and Figs. 15 and 16, pt. 2'', where the rear portion of the stepwise grating includes multiple discrete regions of uniform grating).
The combination of Muroya, Murata, and Nakahara does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein at least one of the rear uniform grating and the front uniform grating is longitudinally separated relative to the third grating by a region." Higa discloses, "Wherein at least one of the rear uniform grating and the front uniform grating is longitudinally separated relative to the third grating by a region" (p. [0042] and Fig. 4, pts. 15B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Muroya, Murata, and Nakahara with the teachings of Higa. In view of the teachings of Muroya regarding a laser device including a grating that has a variable κ value, the alternate method of varying the κ value providing regions in which the grating is absent as taught by Higa would enhance the teachings of Muroya, Murata, and Nakahara by allowing the grating to include a reduced kappa region by merely providing a gap in the grating and thereby simplifying construction.
Regarding claim 21, Muroya discloses, "Wherein the non-contiguous grating system includes a rear uniform grating positioned longitudinally proximate the first… diffraction grating" (col. 6, lines 27-27 and Figs. 15 and 16, pt. 2'', where the rear portion of the stepwise grating includes multiple discrete regions of uniform grating). "[The non-contiguous grating system includes] a front uniform grating positioned longitudinally proximate the front facet end" (col. 6, lines 27-27 and Figs. 15 and 16, pt. 2'', where the rear portion of the stepwise grating includes multiple discrete regions of uniform grating). "At least a third grating positioned longitudinally between the rear uniform grating and the front uniform grating" (col. 6, lines 27-27 and Figs. 15 and 16, pt. 2'', where the rear portion of the stepwise grating includes multiple discrete regions of uniform grating).
The combination of Muroya, Murata, and Nakahara does not explicitly disclose, "The rear uniform grating and the third grating are longitudinally separated by a first region." "The front uniform grating and the third grating are longitudinally separated by a second region." Higa discloses, "The rear uniform grating and the third grating are longitudinally separated by a first region" (p. [0042] and Fig. 4, pts. 15B). "The front uniform grating and the third grating are longitudinally separated by a second region" (p. [0042] and Fig. 4, pts. 15B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Muroya, Murata, and Nakahara with the teachings of Higa for the reasons provided above regarding claim 19.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muroya, in view of Murata, in view of Nakahara, in view of Higa, and further in view of Sakata.
Regarding claim 20, Muroya discloses, "Wherein the first… diffraction grating has a first pitch" (col. 6, lines 27-27 and Figs. 15 and 16, pt. 2'', where the first grating has a first pitch).
The combination of Muroya, Murata, Nakahara, and Higa does not explicitly disclose, "The rear uniform grating has a second pitch." "The third grating has a third pitch." "The front uniform grating has a fourth pitch." "The third pitch being different from the first pitch, the second pitch, and the fourth pitch." Sakata discloses, "The rear uniform grating has a second pitch" (col. 15, lines 11-24 and 51-60, and Figs. 25 and 28, where implementing the stepwise coupling constant variation of Sakata in a device according to Muroya results in a device in which the pitch changes within each region in a decreasing manner). "The third grating has a third pitch" (col. 15, lines 11-24 and 51-60, and Figs. 25 and 28, where implementing the stepwise coupling constant variation of Sakata in a device according to Muroya results in a device in which the pitch changes within each region in a decreasing manner). "The front uniform grating has a fourth pitch" (col. 15, lines 11-24 and 51-60, and Figs. 25 and 28, where implementing the stepwise coupling constant variation of Sakata in a device according to Muroya results in a device in which the pitch changes within each region in a decreasing manner). "The third pitch being different from the first pitch, the second pitch, and the fourth pitch" (col. 15, lines 11-24 and 51-60, and Figs. 25 and 28, where implementing the stepwise coupling constant variation of Sakata in a device according to Muroya results in a device in which the pitch changes within each region in a decreasing manner). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Muroya, Murata, Nakahara, and Higa with the teachings of Sakata. In view of the teachings of Muroya regarding a laser device including a grating that has a variable κ value, the alternate method of using a stepwise variation of the κ value rather than a continuous variation in the κ value to achieve similar effect as taught by Sakata would enhance the teachings of Muroya, Murata, Nakahara, and Higa by allowing the grating to include regions of uniform κ in place of the continuously varying κ and thereby simplifying construction.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean P Hagan whose telephone number is (571)270-1242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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.
/SEAN P HAGAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2828