DETAILED 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 01, 2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-16 in the reply filed on December 01, 2025 is acknowledged.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 8, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindstrom et al. (US PG Pub 2003/0029836) in view of Yu et al. (US PG Pub 2020/0041721) as evidenced by Fratti et al. (US PG Pub 2007/0065982).
Regarding claim 1, Linstrom et al. disclose: multiple laser devices (laser chips) that each include a first facet at a first end of the laser bar and a second facet at a second end of the laser bar; an anti-reflective (AR) coating applied to the first end of the laser bar; a highly reflective (HR) coating applied to the second end of the laser bar (one of the mirror facets is high reflectivity (HR) coated and the other is anti reflective (AR) coated) (Figs. 1A-1D, [0075]); a bar cleaving line (scribe lines SL) where the laser bar was cleaved from a wafer (Figs. 1A-1D, [0075]).
Linstrom et al. do not disclose: and a set of microrulers patterned on a surface of the laser bar, wherein each microruler included in the set of microrulers is aligned with a bar cleaving line where the laser bar was cleaved from a wafer, and wherein each microruler has multiple graduation markings that each represent a respective distance from the bar cleaving line for quantitatively measuring an overspray of the AR coating or the HR coating relative to the bar cleaving line.
Yu et al. disclose: a set of microrulers patterned on a surface of a semiconductor device (fine alignment marks 101/Vernier scales) (Fig. 1, [0106], [0202]-[0206]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Linstrom by forming a set of microrulers on the surface of the laser bar aligned with a bar cleaving line in order to measure the amount of overspray when applying coatings to the laser bar (as evidenced by Fratti, which discloses coating overspray is undesirable when manufacturing laser diodes, see [0004]).
PNG
media_image1.png
578
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figs. 1A-1D of Lindstrom
Regarding claim 8, Linstrom as modified disclose: wherein the set of microrulers and the bar cleaving line are patterned on a same layer of the wafer (taught by the device of Linstrom as modified by Yu, see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, Linstrom as modified disclose: wherein the set of microrulers includes four microrulers (205) that are each patterned at a respective corner of the laser bar (Yu, Fig. 2A, [0107]).
Regarding claim 11, Linstrom et al. disclose: a laser cavity (one of the mirror facets is high reflectivity (HR) coated and the other is anti reflective (AR) coated, cavity is formed between the two facets) (Figs. 1A-1D, [0075]); a first facet at a first end of the laser cavity; a second facet at a second end of the laser cavity; an anti-reflective (AR) coating applied to the first facet at the first end of the laser cavity; a highly reflective (HR) coating applied to the second facet at the second end of the laser cavity (one of the mirror facets is high reflectivity (HR) coated and the other is anti reflective (AR) coated) (Figs. 1A-1D, [0075]).
Linstrom et al. do not disclose: and a set of microrulers patterned on a surface of the laser device, wherein each microruler included in the set of microrulers is aligned with a location of the first facet or the second facet, and wherein each microruler has multiple graduation markings that each represent a respective distance from the location of the first facet or the second facet for quantitatively measuring an overspray of the AR coating or the HR coating.
Yu et al. disclose: a set of microrulers patterned on a surface of a semiconductor device, each microruler has multiple graduation markings that each represent a respective distance (fine alignment marks 101/Vernier scales) (Fig. 1, [0106], [0202]-[0206]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Linstrom by forming a set of microrulers on the surface of the laser bar aligned with a location of the first facet or the second facet in order to measure the amount of overspray when applying coatings to the laser bar (as evidenced by Fratti, which discloses coating overspray is undesirable when manufacturing laser diodes, see [0004]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7, 10 and 12-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 2 is allowable as the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “…wherein the multiple graduation markings include a set of major graduation markings that are patterned at intervals from the bar cleaving line up to a maximum allowable distance for the overspray of the AR coating or the HR coating.”
Claim 7 is allowable as the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “…wherein each microruler has text markings, adjacent to the multiple graduation markings, to indicate the respective distances from the bar cleaving line.”
Claim 10 is allowable as the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “…wherein the set of microrulers are patterned on a dielectric layer.”
Claim 12 is allowable as the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “…wherein the multiple graduation markings include a set of major graduation markings that are patterned at intervals from the location of the first facet or the second facet up to a maximum allowable distance for the overspray of the AR coating or the HR coating.”
Claim 16 is allowable as the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “…wherein each microruler has text markings, adjacent to the multiple graduation markings, to indicate the respective distance from the location of the first facet or the second facet.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rizzo et al. (US 5,989,637) disclose: a method and apparatus for preventing overspray onto bonding pads of a laser bar during facet coating includes manufacturing inserts with gaskets that are aligned with the laser bar such that the gaskets mask off the bonding pads during the facet coating process so that no overspray onto the bonding pads occurs. The gaskets are preferably made of gold with a thin titanium coating to prevent thermal compression bonding with the bonding pads. The inserts with gaskets are preferably manufactured using standard wafer processing techniques. The gaskets are preferably formed using the compliant layer metalization process described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,559,817 (Abstract). Chen et al. (US PG Pub 2005/0101039) disclose: an apparatus for stacking photonic devices is disclosed. The apparatus can include a base, first and second spaced apart rail portions disposed on the base, and a vacuum guide disposed on the base between the rail portions for forming a vacuum gradient that pulls a plurality of photonic devices and spacer bars together into a stack. Optionally, spaced apart photonic device supports can be placed on the base between the rail portions to lift the photonic devices off of the surface of the base. The apparatus can also include a clamping system to hold the stack in place so that a vapor deposition process can be used to apply coatings to the photonic devices. In one exemplary embodiment, the photonic devices can be laser bars. (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XINNING(TOM) NIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1437. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-6:00pm.
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.
/XINNING(Tom) NIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828