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 .
Specification
The substitute specification filed 08/11/2025 has not been entered because it does not conform to 37 CFR 1.125(b) and (c) because: 37 CFR 1.121 (b) (i) states :
“A reference to the section heading along with an instruction, which unambiguously identifies the location, to delete that section of the specification and to replace such deleted section with a replacement section;” which has not been supplied with the replacement sections of the specification filed 08/11/2025.
The amendment filed 08/11/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “27 is the left side lobe suppression ratio (henceforth called SLSRr).” Examiner notes that the label of 27 was added in the replacement drawing of Fig. 5 filed 08/11/2025. Further, the original specification filed 06/17/2022 does not disclose that the element number 27 is to be referred to as the left side lobe suppression ratio (SLSRr). Page 7 of the specification filed 06/17/2022 discloses that the element number [23] is attached to the side lobe suppression ratio (SLSRr). The element number [27] appears to be referring to the (SLSR left) value in Fig. 5 which is not disclosed to be called (SLSRr) either.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 08/11/2025. These drawings are not accepted because of noncompliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d). (See MPEP §714 and note below)
Examiner notes that 37 CFR 1.121(d) states:
“One or more application drawings shall be amended in the following manner: Any changes to an application drawing must be in compliance with § 1.84, or, for a nonprovisional international design application, in compliance with §§ 1.84(c) and 1.1026, and must be submitted on a replacement sheet of drawings which shall be an attachment to the amendment document and, in the top margin, labeled “Replacement Sheet”. Any replacement sheet of drawings shall include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is amended. Any new sheet of drawings containing an additional figure must be labeled in the top margin as “New Sheet.” All changes to the drawings shall be explained, in detail, in either the drawing amendment or remarks section of the amendment paper.” (See MPEP § 714)
The drawings submitted on 08/11/2025 include Figs. 2a, 2b and 5 that have been amended from the original drawings filed on 06/17/2022. The amended drawing sheet does not include the original figures from the drawing set filed 06/17/2022 and further do not include annotations indicating the changes made to the previous versions of Figs. 2a,2b and 5.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
INFORMATION ON HOW TO EFFECT DRAWING CHANGES
Replacement Drawing Sheets
Drawing changes must be made by presenting replacement sheets which incorporate the desired changes and which comply with 37 CFR 1.84. An explanation of the changes made must be presented either in the drawing amendments section, or remarks, section of the amendment paper. 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). A replacement sheet must 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 the amended drawing(s) must not be labeled as “amended.” If the changes to the drawing figure(s) are not accepted by the examiner, applicant will be notified of any required corrective action in the next Office action. No further drawing submission will be required, unless applicant is notified.
Identifying indicia, if provided, should include the title of the invention, inventor’s name, and application number, or docket number (if any) if an application number has not been assigned to the application. If this information is provided, it must be placed on the front of each sheet and within the top margin.
Annotated Drawing Sheets
A marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made, may be submitted or required by the examiner. The annotated drawing sheet(s) must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheet” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings.
Timing of Corrections
Applicant is required to submit acceptable corrected drawings within the time period set in the Office action. See 37 CFR 1.85(a). Failure to take corrective action within the set period will result in ABANDONMENT of the application.
If corrected drawings are required in a Notice of Allowability (PTOL-37), the new drawings MUST be filed within the THREE MONTH shortened statutory period set for reply in the “Notice of Allowability.” Extensions of time may NOT be obtained under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 for filing the corrected drawings after the mailing of a Notice of Allowability.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the cancellation of claims 1-20 and the addition of new claims 21-40.
Examiner notes that the amended claim set filed 10/20/2025 does not follow
proper amendment procedure as outlined by 37 CFR 1.121 (See MPEP § 714).
Specifically, 37 CFR 1.121 (c)(3) which states:
“Any claim added by amendment must be indicated with the status of “new” and presented in clean version, i.e., without any underlining.” (See MPEP § 714)
Examiner requests that the properly formatted amended claim set including the status identifiers following the guidelines of 37 CFR 1.121 be filed with the response to the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-12, filed 08/11/2025, with respect to new claims 21-40 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Examiner notes that the arguments are found persuasive in regard to the limitations of the newly filed claims 21-40 against the previous prior art used in the Non-Final rejection dated 03/30/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections of claims 1,3,4,6-8 and 10 have been withdrawn in light of the cancellation of claims 1-20.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 21, Claim 21 recites the limitation "the ratio of an absolute value of a power reflectivity slope at a minus 3dB point…." in line 4 of claim 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of examination in the instant application, the term “the ratio…” will be understood to read “a ratio…”
Regarding claim 22, Claim 22 recites the limitation "the grating profile" in line 2 of claim 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of examination in the instant application, the term “the grating profile” will be understood to read “a grating profile ”
Regarding claim 26, Claim 26 recites the limitation "the phase" in line 2 of claim 26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of examination in the instant application, the term “the phase of said grating section” will be understood to read “a phase of said grating section”
Regarding claim 28, Claim 28 recites the limitation "the kappa value" in line 1 of claim 28 and “the range” in line 2 of claim 28. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
For the purposes of examination in the instant application, the term “the kappa value” will be understood to read “a kappa value” and “the range” will be understood to read “a range”
Regarding claim 29, Claim 29 recites the limitation "the kappa value" in line 1 of claim 29 and “the range” in line 2 of claim 29. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
For the purposes of examination in the instant application, the term “the kappa value” will be understood to read “a kappa value” and “the range” will be understood to read “a range”
Regarding claim 30, Claim 30 recites the limitation "the side lobe suppression ratio" in line 1 of claim 30. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of examination in the instant application, the term “the side lobe suppression ratio” will be understood to read “a side lobe suppression ratio”
Regarding claim 37, Claim 37 recites the limitation "the selected material system" in line 4 of claim 37. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of examination in the instant application, the term “the selected material system” will be understood to read “the selected material”.
Regarding claim 38, claim 38 reads “wherein said wavelength ranges includes 980 nm, 1064 nm, 1320 nm, 1550 nm, and 1650 nm” Examiner notes that the use of the term “and” implies that all of the listed wavelength values must be included in the wavelength range supported by the respective material limited in claim 37. The term and is therefore limiting that each material listed in claim 37 regarding the gain section is capable of ranging between 980nm and 1650nm. For the purposes of examination in the instant application, the limitation of “wherein said wavelength ranges includes 980 nm, 1064 nm, 1320 nm, 1550 nm, and 1650 nm” will be understood to read “wherein said wavelength ranges includes 980 nm, 1064 nm, 1320 nm, 1550 nm, or 1650 nm”
Regarding claim 39, Claim 39 recites the limitation "the group" in line 3 of claim 39. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of examination in the instant application, the term “the group” will be understood to read “a group”
Regarding claim 40, Claim 40 recites the limitation "the group" in line 2 of claim 40. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of examination in the instant application, the term “the group” will be understood to read “a group”
Regarding claim 33, The term “low differential gain” in claim 33 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low differential gain” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “low” is not directly defined on what differential gain value must be met or be maintained below in order to be classified as “low differential gain” and therefore able to anticipate the claim language.
For the purposes of examination in the instant application, the term “low differential gain” will be understood to be a differential gain magnitude in the order of (10-16 cm2).
Claims 22-40 are rejected at least on their dependency to indefinite claim 21.
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following claim 21 drafted by the examiner and considered to distinguish patentably over the art of record in this application, is presented to applicant for consideration:
“A semiconductor laser device comprising a continuous waveguide formed on a semiconductor substrate, wherein said waveguide includes a gain section configured to produce light in response to a bias current and a grating section that includes a grating, wherein a ratio of an absolute value of a power reflectivity slope at a minus three dB point on a red side of said grating to a maximum value of a power reflectivity of said grating is greater than 2/nm, whereby the device is configured to produce single mode laser light with a Lorentzian linewidth smaller than 50 kHz.”
It is specifically noted that the limitation of “a ratio of an absolute value of a power reflectivity slope at a minus three dB point on a red side of said grating to a maximum value of a power reflectivity of said grating is greater than 2/nm” has been found to be novel over the closest prior art. Examiner particularly notes Matsui (US 20210098969 A1) which discloses a slope of a power reflectivity wavelength plot that does not meet the required claimed ratio value of greater than 2/nm.
Delprat et al. (US 20020067540 A1) discloses in paragraph [0073] a slope of about 0.55dB/nm and a slope of about -0.49dB/nm which does not produce a value of the claimed ratio greater than 2/nm.
Morton (US 20190372307 A1) discloses in paragraph [0013] that the larger the slope of the grating reflectivity versus wavelength at the operating wavelength, and the lower the phase noise/linewidth performance of the laser, but does not directly disclose any slope value nor a relationship between the maximum reflectivity value and the slope of said reflectivity versus wavelength plot.
Alalusi et al. (US 2010030121 A1) discloses the benefits of aligning the wavelength of an ECL to a longer wavelength red steeper slope of a reflectivity spectrum but does not directly disclose any slope values or relationships of slope of the reflectivity spectrum to the maximum reflectivity value.
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 HUNTER J NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5318. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:30am-5:00 ET.
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.
/H.J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2828 /TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828