DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 through 31 originally filed 17 March 2021. By amendment received 12 March 2024; claims 1 and 16 are amended and claim 32 is added. By amendment received 24 July 2024; claims 1, 16, and 32 are amended. By amendment received 22 November 2024; claims 1 and 16 are amended and claim 33 is added. By amendment received 16 April 2025; claims 1 and 16 are amended and claim 33 is cancelled. By amendment received 12 November 2025 and entered 9 December 2025; claims 1 through 3 and 16 through 18 are amended and claims 6 and 21 are cancelled. By amendment received 9 December 2025; claims 3 and 18 are amended. Claims 1 through 5, 7 through 20, and 22 through 32 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submissions filed on 12 November 2025 and 9 December 2025 have been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered; they are addressed below.
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Sato (US Patent 6,501,777) and Yamamoto et al. (Yamamoto, US Pub. 2010/0327257) do not teach or render obvious the limitation "Wherein a mid-point of the third diffraction grating is positioned along the longitudinal axis of the active region at least 40% of a separation from the first facet end to the overall length of the active region from the first facet end to the second facet end" because, according to applicant, Yamamoto alone does not teach this limitation. To support this argument, applicant contends that the active region of Yamamoto does not extend over the entire length of the laser device.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because it does not address the combined teachings of Sato and Yamamoto (MPEP §2145IV). Specifically, Sato teaches a laser device in which the active layer extends entirely from the front facet to the rear facet (Sato, col. 4, lines 23-31 and col. 8, lines 34-44 describing the active layer 6 depicted in Figure 8 which extends between facets 36 and 46). Within Sato, the laser device thereof includes three different grating regions (Sato, col. 8, lines 34-44 describing the three different grating regions 33, 34, and 35 depicted in Figure 8). Yamamoto similarly teaches a laser device including three different grating regions but with an alternate extent of the gratings contained therein (Yamamoto, ¶92 & 93 describing grating regions 4X and 6X). The present rejection is based on modifying the device of Sato such that the extent of the gratings therein employ the grating extents suggested by Yamamoto. This modification of Sato according to the teachings of Yamamoto does not involve the active layer thereof. Since the active layer of Sato extends entirely between the front and rear facets and since the modification of the device of Sato to employ the noted teachings of Yamamoto does not alter this, the argument that Yamamoto alone does not have an active layer that extends entirely between the front and rear facet does not address the rejection which is based on the combined teachings of Sato and Yamamoto and does not exhibit the argued deficiency (MPEP §2145IV). As such, this argument is not persuasive.
The limitation "Wherein a mid-point of the third diffraction grating is positioned along the longitudinal axis of the active region at least 40% of a separation from the first facet end to the overall length of the active region from the first facet end to the second facet end" is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Sato and Yamamoto (see below). Applicant's argument that Yamamoto alone does not teach this limitation is not persuasive because it does not address the combined teachings of Sato and Yamamoto (MPEP §2145IV).
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 5, 7 through 15, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US Patent 6,501,777) in view of Yamamoto et al. (Yamamoto, US Pub. 2010/0327257).
Regarding claim 1, Sato discloses, "An active region having a longitudinal axis, a first facet end and a second facet end" (col. 4, lines 23-31, col. 8, lines 34-44, and Fig. 8, pt. 6). "The second facet end emitting an output beam of light from the semiconductor laser" (col. 10, lines 1-8 and Fig. 8, pt. 46, where coating 46 corresponds to the forward end surface). "A first low-reflection coating provided on the first facet end of the active region" (col. 8, lines 46-49 and Fig. 8, pt. 36). "A second low-reflection coating provided on the second facet end of the active region" (col. 8, lines 46-49 and Fig. 8, pt. 46, where 37 in the disclosure corresponds to 46 in Figure 8). "A plurality of diffraction gratings positioned along the longitudinal axis of the active region" (col. 8, lines 34-44 and Fig. 8, pts. 33, 34, and 35). "The plurality of diffraction grating including a first diffraction grating in a first grating region positioned proximate the first facet end of the active region" (col. 8, lines 34-44 and Fig. 8, pts. 33). "A second diffraction grating in a second grating region positioned proximate the second facet end of the active region" (col. 8, lines 34-44 and Fig. 8, pts. 35). "A third diffraction grating in a third grating region positioned between the first diffraction grating and the second diffraction grating" (col. 8, lines 34-44 and Fig. 8, pts. 34). Sato does not explicitly disclose, "The first grating region being spaced apart from the third grating region along the longitudinal axis of the active region by a first region having a first distance and the second grating region being spaced apart from the third grating region along the longitudinal axis of the active region by a second region having a second distance." "Each of the first region and the second region being void of a grating pattern of the first, second and third grating regions." "The first grating region and the third grating region are non-contiguous." "The second grating region and the third grating region are non-contiguous." "Wherein the grating pattern of the first, second and third grating regions comprises an array of discrete grating elements." "Wherein a mid-point of the third diffraction grating is positioned along the longitudinal axis of the active region at least 40% of a separation from the first facet end to the overall length of the active region from the first facet end to the second facet end." Yamamoto discloses, "The first grating region being spaced apart from the third grating region along the longitudinal axis of the active region by a first region having a first distance and the second grating region being spaced apart from the third grating region along the longitudinal axis of the active region by a second region having a second distance" (p. [0085] and Fig. 6, pts. 4X, 6X, and 14X, where there is a gap in layer 6X between gratings 4X and 14X). "Each of the first region and the second region being void of a grating pattern of the first, second and third grating regions" (p. [0085] and Fig. 6, pts. 4X and 6X). "The first grating region and the third grating region are non-contiguous" (p. [0085] and Fig. 6, pts. 4X, 6X, and 14X, where there is a gap in layer 6X between gratings 4X and 14X). "The second grating region and the third grating region are non-contiguous" (p. [0085] and Fig. 6, pts. 4X, 6X, and 14X, where there is a gap in layer 6X between gratings 4X and 14X). "Wherein the grating pattern of the first, second and third grating regions comprises an array of discrete grating elements" (p. [0088] and Fig. 6, pts. 4X, 6X, and 14X, where the segments in layer 14X constitute the discrete grating elements). "Wherein a mid-point of the third diffraction grating is positioned along the longitudinal axis of the active region at least 40% of a separation from the first facet end to the overall length of the active region from the first facet end to the second facet end" (p. [0092], [0093], and Fig. 6, pts. 2A, 2B, 3X, and 4X, where the middle of the grating region 4X corresponds to the middle of active layer 3X which is positioned at 65% of the overall device from the first facet end). 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 Sato with the teachings of Yamamoto. In view of the teachings of Sato regarding a laser device having several grating regions with differing coupling values, the alternate design of the gratings to include gaps between the grating regions as well as the alternate positioning of the gratings such that the central region is closer to the emission facet as taught by Yamamoto would enhance the teachings of Sato by allowing for use of a suitably alternate grating construction and by allowing for adjustment of the ratio of light emitted from each end according to the effective reflectivities of the end gratings.
Regarding claim 2, Sato does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the mid-point of the third diffraction grating along the longitudinal axis of the active region is positioned closer to the second facet end of the active region than the first facet end of the active region." Yamamoto discloses, "Wherein the mid-point of the third diffraction grating along the longitudinal axis of the active region is positioned closer to the second facet end of the active region than the first facet end of the active region" (p. [0092], [0093], and Fig. 6, pts. 2A, 2B, and 3X). 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 Sato with the teachings of Yamamoto for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Sato does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the mid-point of the third diffraction grating is positioned along the longitudinal axis of the active region in a range of about 40%to about 70% of a separation from the first facet end to an overall length from the first facet end to the second facet end." Yamamoto discloses, "Wherein the mid-point of the third diffraction grating is positioned along the longitudinal axis of the active region in a range of about 40%to about 70% of a separation from the first facet end to an overall length from the first facet end to the second facet end" (p. [0092], [0093], and Fig. 6, pts. 2A, 2B, and 3X, where the middle of the active layer is positioned at 65% of the overall device from the first facet end). 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 Sato with the teachings of Yamamoto for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, The combination of Sato and Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the mid-point of the third diffraction grating is positioned along the longitudinal axis of the active region at about 60% of a length of the active region from the first facet end." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the relative lengths of the gratings such that the central grating is centered at approximately 60% of the total length from the rear facet so as to adjust the relative emission ratio between the facets, 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 5, Sato discloses, "Wherein the third diffraction grating includes a first end and a second end spaced apart along the longitudinal axis of the active region" (col. 8, lines 34-44 and Fig. 8, pts. 34). Sato does not explicitly disclose, "The second end of the third diffraction grating is positioned along the longitudinal axis of the active region more than two times farther from the second facet end of the active region than the first end of the third diffraction grating from the second facet end of the active region." Yamamoto discloses, "The second end of the third diffraction grating is positioned along the longitudinal axis of the active region more than two times farther from the second facet end of the active region than the first end of the third diffraction grating from the second facet end of the active region" (p. [0092], [0093], and Fig. 6, pts. 2A, 2B, and 3X). 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 Sato with the teachings of Yamamoto for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Sato discloses, "Wherein the third diffraction grating includes a first end and a second end spaced apart along the longitudinal axis of the active region" (col. 8, lines 34-44 and Fig. 8, pts. 34). Sato does not explicitly disclose, "The second end of the third diffraction grating is positioned along the longitudinal axis of the active region more than two times farther from the second facet end of the active region than the first end of the third diffraction grating from the second facet end of the active region." Yamamoto discloses, "The second end of the third diffraction grating is positioned along the longitudinal axis of the active region more than two times farther from the second facet end of the active region than the first end of the third diffraction grating from the second facet end of the active region" (p. [0092], [0093], and Fig. 6, pts. 2A, 2B, and 3X). 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 Sato with the teachings of Yamamoto for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Sato does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a mid-point of the third diffraction grating is positioned along the longitudinal axis of the active region at least 40% of a separation from the first facet end to an overall length from the first facet end to the second facet end." Yamamoto discloses, "Wherein a mid-point of the third diffraction grating is positioned along the longitudinal axis of the active region at least 40% of a separation from the first facet end to an overall length from the first facet end to the second facet end" (p. [0092], [0093], and Fig. 6, pts. 2A, 2B, and 3X, where the middle of the active layer is positioned at 65% of the overall device from the first facet end). 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 Sato with the teachings of Yamamoto for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Sato discloses, "Wherein each of the first diffraction grating has a first constant pitch and the second diffraction grating has a second constant pitch" (col. 8, lines 50-51 and Fig. 9, pts. 33 and 35).
Regarding claim 10, Sato discloses, "Wherein the first constant pitch is equal to the second constant pitch" (col. 8, lines 50-51 and Fig. 9, pts. 33 and 35).
Regarding claim 11, Sato does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a mid-point of the third diffraction grating is positioned along the longitudinal axis of the active region at least 47% of a separation from the first facet end to an overall length from the first facet end to the second facet end." Yamamoto discloses, "Wherein a mid-point of the third diffraction grating is positioned along the longitudinal axis of the active region at least 47% of a separation from the first facet end to an overall length from the first facet end to the second facet end" (p. [0092], [0093], and Fig. 6, pts. 2A, 2B, and 3X, where the middle of the active layer is positioned at 65% of the overall device from the first facet end). 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 Sato with the teachings of Yamamoto for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Sato does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a mid-point of the third diffraction grating is positioned along the longitudinal axis of the active region at least 53% of a separation from the first facet end to an overall length from the first facet end to the second facet end." Yamamoto discloses, "Wherein a mid-point of the third diffraction grating is positioned along the longitudinal axis of the active region at least 53% of a separation from the first facet end to an overall length from the first facet end to the second facet end" (p. [0092], [0093], and Fig. 6, pts. 2A, 2B, and 3X, where the middle of the active layer is positioned at 65% of the overall device from the first facet end). 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 Sato with the teachings of Yamamoto for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Sato does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a mid-point of the third diffraction grating is positioned along the longitudinal axis of the active region at least 60% of a separation from the first facet end to an overall length from the first facet end to the second facet end." Yamamoto discloses, "Wherein a mid-point of the third diffraction grating is positioned along the longitudinal axis of the active region at least 60% of a separation from the first facet end to an overall length from the first facet end to the second facet end" (p. [0092], [0093], and Fig. 6, pts. 2A, 2B, and 3X, where the middle of the active layer is positioned at 65% of the overall device from the first facet end). 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 Sato with the teachings of Yamamoto for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Sato discloses, "Wherein the third diffraction grating is a corrugation-pitch-modulated diffraction grating" (col. 9, lines 31-36 and Fig. 9, pt. 34).
Regarding claim 15, Sato discloses, "Wherein the third diffraction grating is a quarter wave shifting grating structure" (col. 9, lines 15-24 and Fig. 8, pts. 34 and 38).
Regarding claim 32, Sato does not explicitly disclose, "A cladding layer positioned adjacent to the active region and comprising a p-type cladding material." "Wherein each of the first region and the second region comprises the p-type cladding material of the cladding layer." Yamamoto discloses, "A cladding layer positioned adjacent to the active region and comprising a p-type cladding material" (p. [0106] and Fig. 6, pts. 3X and 16). "Wherein each of the first region and the second region comprises the p-type cladding material of the cladding layer" (p. [0106] and Fig. 6, pt. 16). 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 Sato with the teachings of Yamamoto for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Claims 16 through 20 and 22 through 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato, in view of Yamamoto, and further in view of Yoshida et al. (Yoshida, US Pub. 2003/0063643).
Regarding claim 16, Sato discloses, "An active region having a longitudinal axis, a first facet end and a second facet end" (col. 4, lines 23-31, col. 8, lines 34-44, and Fig. 8, pt. 6). "The second facet end emitting an output beam of the semiconductor laser" (col. 10, lines 1-8 and Fig. 8, pt. 46, where coating 46 corresponds to the forward end surface). "A first low-reflection coating provided on the second facet end of the active region" (col. 8, lines 46-49 and Fig. 8, pt. 36). "A plurality of diffraction gratings positioned along the longitudinal axis of the active region" (col. 8, lines 34-44 and Fig. 8, pts. 33, 34, and 35). "The plurality of diffraction grating including a first diffraction grating in a first grating region positioned proximate the first end of the active region" (col. 8, lines 34-44 and Fig. 8, pts. 33). "A second diffraction grating in a second grating region positioned proximate the second end of the active region" (col. 8, lines 34-44 and Fig. 8, pts. 35). "A third diffraction grating in a third grating region positioned between the first diffraction grating and the second diffraction grating" (col. 8, lines 34-44 and Fig. 8, pts. 34). Sato does not explicitly disclose, "The first grating region being spaced apart from the third grating region along the longitudinal axis of the active region by a first region having a first distance and the second grating region being spaced apart from the third grating region along the longitudinal axis of the active region by a second region having a second distance." "Each of the first region and the second region being void of a grating pattern of the first, second and third grating regions." "The first grating region and the third grating region are non-contiguous." "The second grating region and the third grating region are non-contiguous." "Wherein the grating pattern of the first, second and third grating regions comprises an array of discrete grating elements." "Wherein a mid-point of the third diffraction grating is positioned along the longitudinal axis of the active region at least 40% of a separation from the first facet end to the overall length of the active region from the first facet end to the second facet end." Yamamoto discloses, "The first grating region being spaced apart from the third grating region along the longitudinal axis of the active region by a first region having a first distance and the second grating region being spaced apart from the third grating region along the longitudinal axis of the active region by a second region having a second distance" (p. [0085] and Fig. 6, pts. 4X, 6X, and 14X, where there is a gap in layer 6X between gratings 4X and 14X). "Each of the first region and the second region being void of a grating pattern of the first, second and third grating regions" (p. [0085] and Fig. 6, pts. 4X and 6X). "The first grating region and the third grating region are non-contiguous" (p. [0085] and Fig. 6, pts. 4X, 6X, and 14X, where there is a gap in layer 6X between gratings 4X and 14X). "The second grating region and the third grating region are non-contiguous" (p. [0085] and Fig. 6, pts. 4X, 6X, and 14X, where there is a gap in layer 6X between gratings 4X and 14X). "Wherein the grating pattern of the first, second and third grating regions comprises an array of discrete grating elements" (p. [0088] and Fig. 6, pts. 4X, 6X, and 14X, where the segments in layer 14X constitute the discrete grating elements). "Wherein a mid-point of the third diffraction grating is positioned along the longitudinal axis of the active region at least 40% of a separation from the first facet end to the overall length of the active region from the first facet end to the second facet end" (p. [0092], [0093], and Fig. 6, pts. 2A, 2B, 3X, and 4X, where the middle of the grating region 4X corresponds to the middle of active layer 3X which is positioned at 65% of the overall device from the first facet end). 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 Sato with the teachings of Yamamoto for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Sato and Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose, "The first facet end being non-perpendicular to the longitudinal axis." Yoshida discloses, "The first facet end being non-perpendicular to the longitudinal axis" (p. [0047] and Fig. 7, pt. 14a). 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 Sato and Yamamoto with the teachings of Yoshida. In view of the teachings of Sato and Yamamoto regarding a DFB laser with multiple grating regions and low reflectivity coatings on both ends, the alternate construction of the rear end facet to include an angled facet as taught by Yoshida would enhance the teachings of Sato and Yamamoto by allowing further reduction in reflectivity of that facet and thereby reducing undesired effects related to feedback from that facet.
Regarding claim 17, Sato does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the mid-point of the third diffraction grating along the longitudinal axis of the active region is positioned closer to the second facet end of the active region than the first facet end of the active region." Yamamoto discloses, "Wherein the mid-point of the third diffraction grating along the longitudinal axis of the active region is positioned closer to the second facet end of the active region than the first facet end of the active region" (p. [0092], [0093], and Fig. 6, pts. 2A, 2B, and 3X). 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 Sato with the teachings of Yamamoto for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, Sato does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the mid-point of the third diffraction grating is positioned along the longitudinal axis of the active region in a range of about 40%to about 70% of a separation from the first facet end to an overall length from the first facet end to the second facet end." Yamamoto discloses, "Wherein the mid-point of the third diffraction grating is positioned along the longitudinal axis of the active region in a range of about 40%to about 70% of a separation from the first facet end to an overall length from the first facet end to the second facet end" (p. [0092], [0093], and Fig. 6, pts. 2A, 2B, and 3X, where the middle of the active layer is positioned at 65% of the overall device from the first facet end). 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 Sato with the teachings of Yamamoto for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, The combination of Sato, Yamamoto, and Yoshida does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the mid-point of the third diffraction grating is positioned along the longitudinal axis of the active region at about 60% of a length of the active region from the first facet end." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the relative lengths of the gratings such that the central grating is centered at approximately 60% of the total length from the rear facet so as to adjust the relative emission ratio between the facets, 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 20, Sato discloses, "Wherein the third diffraction grating includes a first end and a second end spaced apart along the longitudinal axis of the active region" (col. 8, lines 34-44 and Fig. 8, pts. 34). Sato does not explicitly disclose, "The second end of the third diffraction grating is positioned along the longitudinal axis of the active region more than two times farther from the second facet end of the active region than the first end of the third diffraction grating from the second facet end of the active region." Yamamoto discloses, "The second end of the third diffraction grating is positioned along the longitudinal axis of the active region more than two times farther from the second facet end of the active region than the first end of the third diffraction grating from the second facet end of the active region" (p. [0092], [0093], and Fig. 6, pts. 2A, 2B, and 3X). 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 Sato with the teachings of Yamamoto for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 22, Sato discloses, "Wherein the third diffraction grating includes a first end and a second end spaced apart along the longitudinal axis of the active region" (col. 8, lines 34-44 and Fig. 8, pts. 34). Sato does not explicitly disclose, "The second end of the third diffraction grating is positioned along the longitudinal axis of the active region more than two times farther from the second facet end of the active region than the first end of the third diffraction grating from the second facet end of the active region." Yamamoto discloses, "The second end of the third diffraction grating is positioned along the longitudinal axis of the active region more than two times farther from the second facet end of the active region than the first end of the third diffraction grating from the second facet end of the active region" (p. [0092], [0093], and Fig. 6, pts. 2A, 2B, and 3X). 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 Sato with the teachings of Yamamoto for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 23, Sato does not explicitly disclose, "A mid-point of the third diffraction grating is positioned along the longitudinal axis of the active region at least 40% of a separation from the first facet end to an overall length from the first facet end to the second facet end." Yamamoto discloses, "A mid-point of the third diffraction grating is positioned along the longitudinal axis of the active region at least 40% of a separation from the first facet end to an overall length from the first facet end to the second facet end" (p. [0092], [0093], and Fig. 6, pts. 2A, 2B, and 3X, where the middle of the active layer is positioned at 65% of the overall device from the first facet end). 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 Sato with the teachings of Yamamoto for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 24, Sato discloses, "Wherein each of the first diffraction grating has a first constant pitch and the second diffraction grating has a second constant pitch" (col. 8, lines 50-51 and Fig. 9, pts. 33 and 35).
Regarding claim 25, Sato discloses, "Wherein the first constant pitch is equal to the second constant pitch" (col. 8, lines 50-51 and Fig. 9, pts. 33 and 35).
Regarding claim 26, Sato does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a mid-point of the third diffraction grating is positioned along the longitudinal axis of the active region at least 47% of a separation from the first facet end to an overall length from the first facet end to the second facet end." Yamamoto discloses, "Wherein a mid-point of the third diffraction grating is positioned along the longitudinal axis of the active region at least 47% of a separation from the first facet end to an overall length from the first facet end to the second facet end" (p. [0092], [0093], and Fig. 6, pts. 2A, 2B, and 3X, where the middle of the active layer is positioned at 65% of the overall device from the first facet end). 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 Sato with the teachings of Yamamoto for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 27, Sato does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a mid-point of the third diffraction grating is positioned along the longitudinal axis of the active region at least 53% of a separation from the first facet end to an overall length from the first facet end to the second facet end." Yamamoto discloses, "Wherein a mid-point of the third diffraction grating is positioned along the longitudinal axis of the active region at least 53% of a separation from the first facet end to an overall length from the first facet end to the second facet end" (p. [0092], [0093], and Fig. 6, pts. 2A, 2B, and 3X, where the middle of the active layer is positioned at 65% of the overall device from the first facet end). 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 Sato with the teachings of Yamamoto for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 28, Sato does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a mid-point of the third diffraction grating is positioned along the longitudinal axis of the active region at least 60% of a separation from the first facet end to an overall length from the first facet end to the second facet end." Yamamoto discloses, "Wherein a mid-point of the third diffraction grating is positioned along the longitudinal axis of the active region at least 60% of a separation from the first facet end to an overall length from the first facet end to the second facet end" (p. [0092], [0093], and Fig. 6, pts. 2A, 2B, and 3X, where the middle of the active layer is positioned at 65% of the overall device from the first facet end). 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 Sato with the teachings of Yamamoto for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 29, Sato discloses, "A second low-reflection coating provided on the first facet end of the active region" (col. 8, lines 46-49 and Fig. 8, pt. 46, where 37 in the disclosure corresponds to 46 in Figure 8).
Regarding claim 30, Sato discloses, "Wherein the third diffraction grating is a corrugation-pitch-modulated diffraction grating" (col. 9, lines 31-36 and Fig. 9, pt. 34).
Regarding claim 31, Sato discloses, "Wherein the third diffraction grating is a quarter wave shifting grating structure" (col. 9, lines 15-24 and Fig. 8, pts. 34 and 38).
Conclusion
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