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 Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 3 be found allowable, claim 22 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitations of this claim are already disclosed in claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5 - 7 and 20, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murayama et al. (2021/0044088), hereinafter ‘088.
Figs 1 and 2 of ‘088 disclose a laser comprising:
1. “a substrate [11];
a plurality of layers disposed on the substrate to provide a multi quantum well (MQW) [13];
first and second dielectric structures [20a,23 on the right and left sides] disposed on the substrate, wherein the first and second dielectric structures are disposed on opposite lateral sides [on the right and left sides] of the MQW [13],
wherein each of the first and second dielectric structures [20a,23 on the right and left sides] include a base [horizontal part of 23] with a first overall width in the horizontal direction and a vertical section [20a and vertical part of 23] that extends from the base in a vertical direction, the vertical section [20a and vertical part of 23] having a second overall width in the horizontal direction, the first overall width of the base being greater than the second overall width of the vertical section [23 is wider in the horizontal direction than 20a];
one or a plurality of layers [12] disposed on the MQW [13] to provide a mesa structure,
wherein a portion [horizontal parts of 23] of the first and second dielectric structures [20a,23 on the right and left sides] underlies and supports the mesa structure [12]; and
wherein both the MQW [13] and the mesa structure [12] are disposed between the first and second dielectric structures [20a,23 on the right and left sides] to provide dielectric current confinement.”
3,22. “wherein an overall width of the mesa structure [12] in a horizontal direction is greater than an overall width of the MQW [13] in the horizontal direction.”
5. “wherein the substrate [11] comprises Indium Phosphide (InP) [InP].”
6. “wherein the substrate [11] comprises Gallium Arsenide (GaAs) [GaAs], Gallium Antimonide (GaSb), or Indium Arsenide (InAs).”
7. “wherein the plurality of layers forming the MQW [13] is a type III-V semiconductor material.”
20. “wherein each of the first and second dielectric structures [20a,23 on the right and left sides] include first and second vertical sections [vertical parts] extending vertically on opposite lateral sides of the mesa structure [12] to provide the dielectric current confinement.”
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.
Claims 2, 4 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘088 as applied to claim 1 above.
Figs 1 and 2 of ‘088 disclose a laser as described above, but do not disclose:
2. “wherein an overall width of the mesa structure is in a range of 1.2 to 2.5 microns in a horizontal direction.”
4. “wherein the overall width of the mesa structure is 1.8±0.5 microns in the horizontal direction.”
9. “wherein the vertical section of each of the first and second dielectric structures extend from the respective base to an overall height in a range of 1.6 to 2.5 microns in the vertical direction.”
10. “wherein the MQW has an overall width in a range of 0.7 to 1.5 microns in a horizontal direction.”
11. “wherein the MQW has an overall length in a range of 100 - 300 microns in a horizontal direction.”
However, the examiner takes an official notice that the dimensions of the active layer (MQW), the mesa structure and the dielectric structures are result effective variables that determine the operational parameters of the laser (output power, resistance, threshold current, optical confinement, output beam diameter, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the laser with the dimensions specified above, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges or the optimum values for result effective variables involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215(CCPA 1980).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7, 9-11, 20, 22 filed on 01/09/26 have been considered but they are moot because the new grounds of rejection.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the Officially Noticed facts of claims 2, 4, 9-11 (the dimensions of the active layer (MQW), the mesa structure and the dielectric structures are result effective variables that determine the operational parameters of the laser) are not well known on the basis that the applicant disagrees and that these feature do not appear in the cited prior art. The examiner notes that a mere statement or argument that the Office’s reliance on common knowledge is unsupported by documentary evidence is not considered substantively adequate and effective traverse of the rejection under 37 CFR 1.111(b) (MPEP §2141IV).
Proper traversal of Official Notice requires "stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art." (MPEP §2144.03C). The fact that the currently cited art has failed to mention these facts is not, on its own, sufficient to rebut the Officially Noticed facts (MPEP §2141IV). Proper traversal includes noting some counter examples to the Officially Noticed fact or some difficulty in realizing the circumstance of the Officially Noticed fact within the context of the invention.
While an opinion as to a legal conclusion is not entitled to any weight, the underlying basis for the opinion may be persuasive (MPEP §716.01(c) III). However, since no underlying basis has been presented in support of the conclusion that the facts of the Official Notice were not well known in the art, the expressed disagreement on this point cannot be persuasive. As such, traversal of this Officially Noticed fact is considered inadequate.
Pertinent 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 action 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