DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 through 13 originally filed 23 December 2021. By amendment received 27 November 2024; claims 1, 6, and 10 are amended. By amendment received 18 November 2025; claims 1 and 10 are amended. Claims 1 through 13 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 drawing objections under 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1) are improper because, according to applicant, Figure 2 is not subject to the requirements of 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1). To support this argument, applicant contends that what is depicted in Figure 2 is not subject to the requirements of 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1) because it is not a "view".
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because all figures are views. Particularly, 37 CFR 1.84(u) governs the numbering of views by requiring that views numbers must be consecutive Arabic numerals, starting with 1, and must be preceded by the abbreviation "FIG.". Further, 37 CFR 1.84(u)(2) states that numbers and letters identifying views must not be used in association with brackets. Applicant identifies the graphs as views by labeling them "FIG. 2(a)" and "FIG. 2(b)" Since applicant labels these argued graphs as views, the numbering of these graphs is governed by the requirements on numbering views set forth in 37 CFR 1.84(u). As such, this argument is not persuasive.
The objections to the drawings is maintained. Applicant's argument that Figure 2 is not subject to the requirements of 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1) is not persuasive because all figures are views.
Applicant argues that the amendments to the claims overcome all previous claim objections. This argument is persuasive and the corresponding claim objections are withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the combination of the teachings of Matsumura (US Pub. 2009/0086779), Strassburg et al. (Strassburg, US Pub. 2010/0207100), Hirata (US Patent 4,888,784), and Brick et al. (Brick, US Pub. 2011/0182317) is improper because, according to applicant, the previous office action does not motivate the combination of these references.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because the motivation for combining the noted references was set forth in the previous action. As stated in the previous action: 1) In view of the teachings of Matsumura regarding a laser device that includes a lower tunnel junction, the alternate configuration of the device to position the tunnel junction beneath the lower cladding layer as taught by Strassburg would enhance the teachings of Matsumura by allowing the interaction between the propagating mode and the tunnel junction to be reduced (page 7 of the previous office action). 2) In view of the teachings of Matsumura regarding a laser device including a tunnel junction, the alternate use of a material system that involves growth atop a GaAs substrate and includes AlGaAs cladding layers as well as the additional inclusion of a DFB grating as taught by Hirata would enhance the teachings of Matsumura and Strassburg by allowing the device to be formed from an alternate material system that produces a different emission wavelength as well as by providing a suitable structure for providing feedback useful for establishing the laser cavity (page 8 of the previous office action). 3) In view of the teachings of Matsumura regarding a laser device including a tunnel junction, the alternate construction of the tunnel junction to include an intrinsic layer between the doped layers as taught by Brick would enhance the teachings of Matsumura, Strassburg, and Hirata by providing a suitably alternate manner of constructing the tunnel junction (page 8 of the previous office action). Since the present argument merely alleges that this motivation is absent without particularly identifying where these motivations are deficient, this argument cannot be persuasive (MPEP §2141IVI). As such, this argument is not persuasive.
The combination of Matsumura, Strassburg, Hirata, and Brick is maintained (see below). Applicant's argument that the previous office action does not motivate the combination of these references is not persuasive because the motivation for combining the noted references was set forth in the previous action.
As such, all claims are addressed as follows:
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1).
Figure 2 includes multiple views that are not separately labeled. Each view must be individually labeled.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura (US Pub. 2009/0086779), in view of Strassburg et al. (Strassburg, US Pub. 2010/0207100), in view of Hirata (US Patent 4,888,784), and further in view of Brick et al. (Brick, US Pub. 2011/0182317).
Regarding claim 1, Matsumura discloses, "An inverted junction disposed above the tunnel junction" (p. [0024], [0025], and Fig. 2B, pts. 6a, 8a, 10a, and 12a, where the junction formed by layers 8a, 10a, and 12a are an inverted junction as defined). "Wherein the inverted junction comprises a p-type waveguiding layer formed on the p-type cladding layer" (p. [0024] and Fig. 3B, pts. 4 and 8a). "An active region disposed on the formed p-type waveguiding layer" (p. [0019] and Fig. 3B, pts. 8a and 10a). "An n-type waveguiding layer formed on the active region" (p. [0025] and Fig. 3B, pts. 10a and 12a). "An n-type cladding layer formed on the n-type waveguiding layer" (p. [0025] and Fig. 3B, pts. 12a and 14a). "A first n-type ohmic contact coupled to the n-type cladding layer" (p. [0015] and Fig. 3H, pts. 14a, 22, and 24). "A second n-type ohmic contact coupled to the bottom major surface of the n-type… substrate" (p. [0022] and Fig. 3H, pts. 2a and 26a). Matsumura does not explicitly disclose, "A tunnel junction formed on the top major of the… substrate." "Wherein a p-type cladding layer is formed on the tunnel junction." Strassburg discloses, "A tunnel junction formed on the top major of the… substrate" (p. [0060] and Fig. 1, pts. 3 and 4, where contact layer 3 of Strassburg corresponds to the substrate 2 of Matsumura when these features are combined). "Wherein a p-type cladding layer is formed on the tunnel junction" (p. [0073] and Fig. 1, pts. 4 and 5). 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 Matsumura with the teachings of Strassburg. In view of the teachings of Matsumura regarding a laser device that includes a lower tunnel junction, the alternate configuration of the device to position the tunnel junction beneath the lower cladding layer as taught by Strassburg would enhance the teachings of Matsumura by allowing the interaction between the propagating mode and the tunnel junction to be reduced.
The combination of Matsumura and Strassburg does not explicitly disclose, "An n-type GaAs substrate having a top major surface and an opposing bottom major surface." Hirata discloses, "An n-type GaAs substrate having a top major surface and an opposing bottom major surface" (col. 4, lines 60-64 and Fig. 1, pt. 10). 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 Matsumura and Strassburg with the teachings of Hirata. In view of the teachings of Matsumura regarding a laser device including a tunnel junction, the alternate use of a material system that involves growth atop a GaAs substrate and includes AlGaAs cladding layers as well as the additional inclusion of a DFB grating as taught by Hirata would enhance the teachings of Matsumura and Strassburg by allowing the device to be formed from an alternate material system that produces a different emission wavelength as well as by providing a suitable structure for providing feedback useful for establishing the laser cavity.
The combination of Matsumura, Strassburg, and Hirata does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the tunnel junction comprises a highly-doped n-type layer, an intrinsic layer, and a highly-doped p-type layer." Brick discloses, "Wherein the tunnel junction comprises a highly-doped n-type layer, an intrinsic layer, and a highly-doped p-type layer" (p. [0042] and Fig. 1, pts. 3, 3a, and 3b). 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 Matsumura, Strassburg, and Hirata with the teachings of Brick. In view of the teachings of Matsumura regarding a laser device including a tunnel junction, the alternate construction of the tunnel junction to include an intrinsic layer between the doped layers as taught by Brick would enhance the teachings of Matsumura, Strassburg, and Hirata by providing a suitably alternate manner of constructing the tunnel junction.
Regarding claim 2, The combination of Matsumura and Strassburg does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the p-type cladding layer is formed of a semiconductor composition including aluminum." Hirata discloses, "Wherein the p-type cladding layer is formed of a semiconductor composition including aluminum" (col. 4, lines 64-68, where this cladding layer is p-type when provided between a tunnel junction and the active region as in Strassburg). 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 Matsumura and Strassburg with the teachings of Hirata for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Matsumura, Strassburg, Hirata, and Brick does not explicitly disclose, "With an aluminum content exceeding 40% of the semiconductor composition." The examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that it was known in the art to vary the concentration ratio of III-V materials in a ternary composition of III-V materials so as to achieve desired electrical, optical, and structural properties. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the aluminum content of the AlGaAs within the claimed range so as to achieve desired electrical, optical, and structural properties from this layer, 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 3, The combination of Matsumura, Strassburg, Hirata, and Brick does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the aluminum content of the p-type cladding layer exceeds 90%." The examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that it was known in the art to vary the concentration ratio of III-V materials in a ternary composition of III-V materials so as to achieve desired electrical, optical, and structural properties. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the aluminum content of the AlGaAs within the claimed range so as to achieve desired electrical, optical, and structural properties from this layer, 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 4, The combination of Matsumura and Strassburg does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the p-type cladding layer comprises AlGaAs." Hirata discloses, "Wherein the p-type cladding layer comprises AlGaAs" (col. 4, lines 64-68, where this cladding layer is p-type when provided between a tunnel junction and the active region as in Strassburg). 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 Matsumura and Strassburg with the teachings of Hirata for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, The combination of Matsumura, Strassburg, Hirata, and Brick does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the p-type cladding layer comprises AlAs." The examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that it was known in the art to vary the concentration ratio of III-V materials in a ternary composition of III-V materials so as to achieve desired electrical, optical, and structural properties. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the aluminum content of the AlGaAs within the claimed range so as to achieve desired electrical, optical, and structural properties from this layer, 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 6, Matsumura discloses, "Wherein the n-type cladding layer is formed to include a ridge structure for confinement of an optical mode field" (p. [0032] and Fig. 3B, pts. 5 and 14a).
Regarding claim 7, Matsumura discloses, "Wherein the tunnel junction is configured as a strip aligned with the ridge structure of the n-type cladding layer" (p. [0032] and Fig. 3B, pts. 5, 6a, and 14a).
Regarding claim 8, The combination of Matsumura and Strassburg does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the edge-emitting GaAs-based laser is formed as a distributed feedback laser." "A Bragg grating formed within the n-type waveguiding layer." "[The Bragg grating] disposed parallel with the active region." Hirata discloses, "Wherein the edge-emitting GaAs-based laser is formed as a distributed feedback laser" (col. 4, lines 60-61 and Fig. 2, pt. 18). "A Bragg grating formed within the n-type waveguiding layer" (col. 5, lines 6-9 and Fig. 2, pts. 16 and 18, where this guiding layer is the n-type guiding layer when doping according to the doping profile of Matsumura). "[The Bragg grating] disposed parallel with the active region" (col. 5, lines 6-9 and Fig. 2, pts. 14 and 18). 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 Matsumura and Strassburg with the teachings of Hirata for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, The combination of Matsumura and Strassburg does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the Bragg grating is positioned at a spaced-apart location from the active region." Hirata discloses, "Wherein the Bragg grating is positioned at a spaced-apart location from the active region" (col. 5, lines 6-9 and Fig. 2, pts. 14 and 18). 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 Matsumura and Strassburg with the teachings of Hirata for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Matsumura, Strassburg, Hirata, and Brick does not explicitly disclose, "[The Bragg grating is positioned] sufficient to minimize interaction between an overgrowth interface of the Bragg grating and the active region." The examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that it was known in the art to adjust the distance between the active layer and a grating to vary the degree of coupling between the active layer and the grating. 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 distance between the active layer and the grating so as to minimize interaction with a portion of the grating, 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 10, Matsumura discloses, "Forming an inverted junction above the tunnel junction" (p. [0024], [0025], and Fig. 2B, pts. 6a, 8a, 10a, and 12a, where the junction formed by layers 8a, 10a, and 12a are an inverted junction as defined). "Wherein the inverted junction comprises a p-type waveguiding layer, an active region, and an n-type waveguiding layer" (p. [0024], [0025], and Fig. 2B, pts. 8a, 10a, and 12a, where the junction formed by layers 8a, 10a, and 12a are an inverted junction as defined). "Forming a the p-type waveguiding layer on the p-type cladding layer" (p. [0024] and Fig. 3B, pts. 4 and 8a). "Disposing the active region on the formed p-type waveguiding layer" (p. [0019] and Fig. 3B, pts. 8a and 10a). "Forming the n-type waveguiding layer on the active region" (p. [0025] and Fig. 3B, pts. 10a and 12a). "Forming an n-type cladding layer over the n-type waveguiding layer" (p. [0025] and Fig. 3B, pts. 12a and 14a). "Depositing a second n-type ohmic p-contact on the bottom major surface of the n-type… substrate" (p. [0022] and Fig. 3H, pts. 2a and 26a). Matsumura does not explicitly disclose, "Forming a tunnel junction on the top major surface of the… substrate." "Wherein forming the inverted junction comprises forming a p-type cladding layer on the tunnel junction." "Depositing a first n-type ohmic n-contact on the n-type cladding layer." Strassburg discloses, "Forming a tunnel junction on the top major surface of the… substrate" (p. [0060] and Fig. 1, pts. 3 and 4, where contact layer 3 of Strassburg corresponds to the substrate 2 of Matsumura when these features are combined). "Wherein forming the inverted junction comprises forming a p-type cladding layer on the tunnel junction" (p. [0073] and Fig. 1, pts. 4 and 5). "Depositing a first n-type ohmic n-contact on the n-type cladding layer" (p. [0085]). 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 Matsumura with the teachings of Strassburg for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Matsumura and Strassburg does not explicitly disclose, "Providing an n-type GaAs substrate having a top major surface and an opposing bottom major surface." Hirata discloses, "Providing an n-type GaAs substrate having a top major surface and an opposing bottom major surface" (col. 4, lines 60-64 and Fig. 1, pt. 10). 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 Matsumura and Strassburg with the teachings of Hirata for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Matsumura, Strassburg, and Hirata does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein forming the tunnel junction comprises forming within the tunnel junction an arrangement comprising a highly-doped n-type layer, an intrinsic layer, and a highly-doped p-type layer." Brick discloses, "Wherein forming the tunnel junction comprises forming within the tunnel junction an arrangement comprising a highly-doped n-type layer, an intrinsic layer, and a highly-doped p-type layer" (p. [0042] and Fig. 1, pts. 3, 3a, and 3b). 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 Matsumura, Strassburg, and Hirata with the teachings of Brick for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Matsumura discloses, "Where an epitaxial growth process is used to form the p-type and n-type layers" (p. [0030]).
Regarding claim 12, Matsumura discloses, "Depositing a layered structure of highly-doped n-type and p-type materials" (p. [0031] and Fig. 3A, pt. 6). "Patterning the layered structure to define a strip in alignment with an optical mode region" (p. [0032] and Fig. 3B, pts. 5 and 6a). "Etching the patterned, layered structure to remove the highly-doped p-type and n-type material from regions outside of the strip location" (p. [0032] and Fig. 3B, pts. 5 and 6a).
Regarding claim 13, The combination of Matsumura and Strassburg does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the step of forming the n-type waveguiding layer includes the step of creating a Bragg grating structure." "[The Bragg grating structure] with a Bragg wavelength corresponding to the output wavelength of the edge-emitting GaAs-based laser." "Forming a distributed feedback laser." Hirata discloses, "Wherein the step of forming the n-type waveguiding layer includes the step of creating a Bragg grating structure" (col. 5, lines 6-9 and Fig. 2, pts. 16 and 18, where this guiding layer is the n-type guiding layer when doping according to the doping profile of Matsumura). "[The Bragg grating structure] with a Bragg wavelength corresponding to the output wavelength of the edge-emitting GaAs-based laser" (col. 5, lines 6-9 and Fig. 2, pt. 18). "Forming a distributed feedback laser" (col. 4, lines 60-61 and Fig. 2, pt. 18). 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 Matsumura and Strassburg with the teachings of Hirata for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
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