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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-13 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.
Claims 1 and 2-13, due to their dependency, recite the limitation "the upper waveguide layer" in lines 19-20 fi claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of claim interpretation, “the upper waveguide layer “ is assumed to be “the upper waveguide structure.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-3, 5, 8-9, 12, 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,546,032 (Oeda) in view of US 2010/0020836 (Hoffman) and US 4,346,394 (Figueroa).
For claim 1, Oeda teaches a structure adapted for use in a laser device, comprising:
a lower waveguide layer (fig. 1, 517 alternatively 513, col. 7, l. 48-49);
a middle waveguide layer disposed on said lower waveguide layer in a laminating direction (fig. 1, cladding 518 alternatively 512, col. 7, l. 49-50)
wherein said middle waveguide layer has a refractive index (fig. 2, 518 alternatively 512, AlGaAs) lower than that of said lower waveguide layer (fig. 2, 517 alternatively 513, GaAs),
said lower waveguide layer has a doping type the same as that of said middle waveguide layer (col. 7, l. 48-50, p-type alternatively n-type).
Oeda does not teach the structure is a Bragg grating or that the laser is a distributed feedback laser, further comprising:
an upper waveguide structure disposed on said middle waveguide layer opposite to said lower waveguide layer, and including a plurality of upper waveguide elements that are arranged on a surface of said middle waveguide layer in a direction perpendicular to the laminating direction, and that are spaced apart from one another by cavities; and a buried layer filling said cavity, wherein said middle waveguide layer has a refractive index lower than that of said upper waveguide elements, and each of said upper waveguide elements has a doping type opposite to that of said middle waveguide layer, and
the middle waveguide layer is made of a material that has an etching selectivity greater than that of the plurality of upper waveguide elements so that the cavities penetrate the upper waveguide structure and terminate at the middle waveguide layer.
However, Hoffman teaches a structure is a Bragg grating adapted for use in a distributed feedback laser (fig. 1, [0035]) comprising:
a lower waveguide layer (fig. 1, 103) and a cladding layer on the lower waveguide layer where the cladding layer comprises:
a middle waveguide layer (fig. 1A and 1B, 104 below 105 alternatively 101 above 102),
an upper waveguide structure disposed on said middle waveguide layer opposite to said lower waveguide layer, and including a plurality of upper waveguide elements that are arranged on a surface of said middle waveguide layer in a direction perpendicular to the laminating direction, and that are spaced apart from one another by cavities (fig. 1A, 105 alternatively 102); and
a buried layer filling said cavity (fig. 1A,104 above middle waveguide layer defined above which includes the portion between 105 and may include the portion above 105 alternatively 101 between 102),
wherein said middle waveguide layer has a refractive index lower than that of said upper waveguide elements (table 1, middle layer is AlGaAs and the upper element is GaAs and nAlGaAs < nGaAs as shown in fig. 2 of Oeda), and each of said upper waveguide elements has a doping type opposite to that of said middle waveguide layer (table 1), and
the middle waveguide layer is made of a material that has an etching selectivity greater than that of the plurality of upper waveguide elements (table 1, middle layer is AlGaAs and the upper element is GaAs which inherently have different etching selectivity depending on the etchant being used) so that the cavities penetrate the upper waveguide structure (fig. 8, 808 and [0051]).
Hoffman’s cladding including the upper waveguide structure and buried layer has the advantage of making a more efficient device and select a desired wavelength (abstract, [0035]).
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 upper waveguide structure and buried layer of Hoffman with the device of Oeda, on Oeda’s middle waveguide layer, in order to make a more efficient device and select a desired wavelength.
While the combination of Oeda and Hoffman does not explicitly teach the cavities terminate at the middle waveguide layer, Figueroa teaches using a selective etchant to etch only the desired GaAs layer and not the underlying AlGaAs layer (col. 2, l. 64-68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a selective etchant as taught by Figueroa in the previous combination in order to etch only the desired GaAs current blocking layer of the combination and not the underlying AlGaAs layer.
For claim 2, Hoffman teaches said upper waveguide elements are periodically arranged on said middle waveguide layer (fig. 1A, [0030]).
For claim 3, Hoffman teaches said Bragg grating is to be disposed at a P-side of said distributed feedback laser device (fig. 1A, 104/105), said doping type of each of said lower waveguide layer and said middle waveguide layer is P-type (table 1), and said doping type of each of said upper waveguide elements is N-type (table 1).
For claim 5, Hoffman teaches said buried layer and said middle waveguide layer are made of a same material, and have the same doping type (fig. 1A, 104, table 1, Second cladding layer).
For claim 8, the combination does not teach each of said lower waveguide layer and said upper waveguide elements are made of indium gallium arsenide phosphide, and said middle waveguide layer is made of indium phosphide. However, the examiner previously took official notice that forming waveguide layers and waveguide elements from indium gallium arsenide phosphide and indium phosphide was well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The applicant did not traverse. It is therefore, taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03 C. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form each of said lower waveguide layer and said upper waveguide elements from indium gallium arsenide phosphide, and said middle waveguide layer from indium phosphide, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Using different III-V materials has the additional advantage of allowing for different wavelengths and refractive index.
For claim 9, the combination further teaches a distributed feedback laser device, comprising the Bragg grating as claimed in claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above and Hoffmann, [0035] and claim 22).
For claim 12, Hoffman teaches said Bragg grating is to be disposed at a P-side of said distributed feedback laser device (fig. 1A, 104/105), said doping type of each of said lower waveguide layer and said middle waveguide layer is P-type (table 1), and said doping type of each of said upper waveguide elements is N-type (table 1).
For claim 14, Oeda teaches a method for manufacturing a Bragg grating, comprising the steps of:
forming a lower waveguide layer (fig. 1, 517);
forming a middle waveguide layer on the lower waveguide layer in a laminating direction (fig. 1, cladding 518)
the middle waveguide layer (fig. 2, 518, AlGaAs) having a refractive index lower than that of each of the lower waveguide layer (fig. 2, 517, GaAs),
the lower waveguide layer having a doping type the same as that of the middle waveguide layer (col. 7, l. 48-50, p-type).
Oeda does not teach forming an upper waveguide layer on the middle waveguide layer opposite to the lower waveguide layer in the laminating direction, the middle waveguide layer having a refractive index lower than that of the upper waveguide layer, the upper waveguide layer having a doping type opposite to that of the middle waveguide layer; patterning the upper waveguide layer, so as to form a plurality of upper waveguide elements that are arranged on a surface of the middle waveguide layer in a direction perpendicular to the laminating direction and that are spaced apart from one another by cavities; and forming a buried layer to fill the cavity,
wherein the middle waveguide layer is made of a material that has an etching selectivity greater than that of the plurality of upper waveguide elements so that the cavities penetrate the upper waveguide structure and terminate at the middle waveguide layer.
However, Hoffman teaches a method of forming a Bragg grating adapted for use in a distributed feedback laser (fig. 1, [0035]) comprising:
forming a lower waveguide layer (fig. 1, 103) and a cladding layer (fig. 1A, 104 and 105) on the lower waveguide layer where forming the cladding layer comprises:
forming a middle waveguide layer on the lower waveguide layer in a laminating direction (fig. 1, 104 below 105);
forming an upper waveguide layer on the middle waveguide layer opposite to the lower waveguide layer in the laminating direction (fig. 1A, 105) (table 1, middle layer is AlGaAs and the upper element is GaAs and nAlGaAs < nGaAs as shown in fig. 2 of Oeda), the middle waveguide layer having a refractive index lower than that of the upper waveguide layer, the upper waveguide layer having a doping type opposite to that of the middle waveguide layer (table 1);
patterning the upper waveguide layer (fig. 8, 807 and 808, [0051]), so as to form a plurality of upper waveguide elements (fig. 1A105 and 3A, , 311) that are arranged on a surface of the middle waveguide layer in a direction perpendicular to the laminating direction and that are spaced apart from one another by cavities (fig. 3, gap 312); and
forming a buried layer to fill the cavity (fig. 1A,104 above middle waveguide layer defined above which includes the portion between 105 and may include the portion above 105, fig. 8, 809),
wherein the middle waveguide layer is made of a material that has an etching selectivity greater than that of the plurality of upper waveguide elements (table 1, middle layer is AlGaAs and the upper element is GaAs which inherently have different etching selectivity depending on the etchant being used) so that the cavities penetrate the upper waveguide structure (fig. 8, 808 and [0051]).
Hoffman’s cladding including the upper waveguide structure and buried layer has the advantage of making a more efficient device and select a desired wavelength (abstract, [0035]).
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 method of Hoffman with the method of Oeda, on Oeda’s middle waveguide layer, in order to make a more efficient device and select a desired wavelength.
While the combination of Oeda and Hoffman does not explicitly teach the cavities terminate at the middle waveguide layer, Figueroa teaches using a selective etchant to etch only the desired GaAs layer and not the underlying AlGaAs layer (col. 2, l. 64-68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a selective etchant as taught by Figueroa in the previous combination in order to etch only the desired GaAs current blocking layer of the combination and not the underlying AlGaAs layer.
For claim 15, Hoffman teaches the upper waveguide elements are periodically arranged on the middle waveguide layer (fig. 1A, [0030]).
For claim 16, Hoffman teaches the buried layer and the middle waveguide layer are made of a same material, and have the same doping type (fig. 1A, 104, table 1, Second cladding layer).
For claim 17, Hoffman teaches the buried layer has a same doping type as that of the middle waveguide layer (fig. 1A, 104, table 1, Second cladding layer).
For claim 18, the combination does not teach each of the lower waveguide layer and the upper waveguide elements are made of indium gallium arsenide phosphide, and the middle waveguide layer is made of indium phosphide. However, the examiner previously took official notice that forming waveguide layers and waveguide elements from indium gallium arsenide phosphide and indium phosphide was well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The applicant did not traverse. It is therefore, taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03 C. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form each of said lower waveguide layer and said upper waveguide elements from indium gallium arsenide phosphide, and said middle waveguide layer from indium phosphide, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Using different III-V materials has the additional advantage of allowing for different wavelengths and refractive index.
For claim 19 Hoffman teaches the Bragg grating is adapted for use in a distributed feedback laser device (fig. 1, [0035]). Hoffman teaches the Bragg grating is to be disposed at a P-side of the distributed feedback laser device (fig. 1A, 104/105), the doping type of each of said lower waveguide layer and said middle waveguide layer is P-type (table 1), and said doping type of each of said upper waveguide elements is N-type (table 1).
Claim 4, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,546,032 (Oeda) in view of US 2010/0020836 (Hoffman), US 4,346,394 (Figueroa) and US 4,509,173 (Umeda).
For claim 4 and 13, Hoffman teaches said Bragg grating is to be disposed at a P-side of said distributed feedback laser device (fig. 1A, 104/105), said doping type of each of said lower waveguide layer and said middle waveguide layer is P-type (table 1), and said doping type of each of said upper waveguide elements is N-type (table 1) which are the opposite as those recited by claim 4.
However, Umeda teaches a semiconductor laser may be formed by using the opposite conductivity type in respective layers of the laser (col. 6, l. 30-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the p-type conductivity as a simple substitution for the n-type, and to use n-type conductivity as a simple substitution for the p-type of the previous combination as taught by Umeda as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art and the substitution would have yielded predictable results. In the present case, the substituted component provide an alternative doping configuration for the laser. See MPEP 2143 I.B. The doping type substitution results in the claimed doping configuration.
For claim 20 Hoffman teaches the Bragg grating is adapted for use in a distributed feedback laser device (fig. 1, [0035]). Hoffman teaches the Bragg grating is to be disposed at a P-side of the distributed feedback laser device (fig. 1A, 104/105), the doping type of each of said lower waveguide layer and said middle waveguide layer is P-type (table 1), and said doping type of each of said upper waveguide elements is N-type (table 1).
However, Umeda teaches a semiconductor laser may be formed by using the opposite conductivity type in respective layers of the laser (col. 6, l. 30-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the p-type conductivity as a simple substitution for the n-type, and to use n-type conductivity as a simple substitution for the p-type of the previous combination as taught by Umeda as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art and the substitution would have yielded predictable results. In the present case, the substituted component provide an alternative doping configuration for the laser. See MPEP 2143 I.B. The doping type substitution results in the claimed doping configuration.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,546,032 (Oeda) in view of US 2010/0020836 (Hoffman), US 4,346,394 (Figueroa) and US 5,274,660 (Abe).
For claim 6, the previous combination does not teach a plurality of interposed layers, each of which is disposed between said buried layer and a corresponding one of said upper waveguide elements. However, Abe teaches a plurality of interposed layers (fig. 1c, portions of 6 remaining from fig. 1a, 5a), each of which is disposed between said buried layer (fig. 1(d), 7) and a corresponding one of said upper waveguide elements (fig. 1(d), lower elements of 5 from 5(a)) in order to vary the coupling coefficient (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the interposed layers of Abe in the device of the previous combination in order to vary the coupling coefficient.
For claim 7, Abe further teaches said interposed layers and said buried layer are made of a same material (col. 4, l. 27-43).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7,006,545 (Yoshida) in view of US 2010/0020836 (Hoffman), US 4,346,394 (Figueroa) and US 6,1,181,721 (Geels).
For claim 10, Yoshida teaches a laser device comprising an N-type substrate (fig. 1A, 1, col. 7, l. 43), a lower confinement layer (fig. 1a, 2A), an active layer (fig. 1a, 4), an upper confinement layer (fig. 2, 3B1), an isolating layer (fig. 2, 3B2), a lower waveguide layer (fig. 2, 3Bn), a P-type cladding layer (fig. 1, 2B) and a P-type top covering layer (fig. 1, 5) that are disposed on said substrate in such order (fig. 1 and 2).
Yoshida does not teach an n-type buffer layer, a p-type isolating layer and an etch stop layer.
However, Geels teaches a semiconductor laser (fig. 2) is formed to include an n-type buffer layer (c. 4, l. 66-65) and a cladding layer comprises p-type isolating layer (fig. 2, 17, c. 5, l. 24) and an etch stop layer (fig. 2, 18, c. 5, l. 25) and a p-type (outer) cladding layer (fig. 2, 19, c. 5, l. 25-26). The buffer layer has the known advantage of smoothing irregularities of the substrate while the cladding/etch stop structure the known advantage of providing current and mode confinement. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Geels' n-type buffer layer in the device of Yoshida in order to smooth irregularities.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the Geels’ p-type isolating layer, etch stop layer, and p-type cladding layer as a simple substitution for Yoshida’s cladding and current confinement as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art and the substitution would have yielded predictable results. In the present case, the substituted component provides an alternative cladding and current confinement. See MPEP 2143 I.B. Geels' configuration has the advantage of providing current and mode confinement.
The combination of Yoshida and Geels does not teach the laser is a distributed feedback laser (from claim 9) using a Bragg grating comprising:
an upper waveguide structure disposed on a middle waveguide layer opposite to said lower waveguide layer, and including a plurality of upper waveguide elements that are arranged on a surface of said middle waveguide layer in a direction perpendicular to the laminating direction, and that are spaced apart from one another by cavities; and
a buried layer filling said cavity, wherein
said middle waveguide layer has a refractive index lower than that of each of said lower waveguide layer and said upper waveguide elements,
said lower waveguide layer has a doping type the same as that of said middle waveguide layer, and
each of said upper waveguide elements has a doping type opposite to that of said middle waveguide layer, and
the middle waveguide layer is made of a material that has an etching selectivity greater than that of the plurality of upper waveguide elements so that the cavities penetrate the upper waveguide structure and terminate at the middle waveguide layer.
However, Hoffman teaches a structure is a Bragg grating adapted for use in a distributed feedback laser (fig. 1, [0035]) comprising:
a lower waveguide layer (fig. 1, 103) and a cladding layer on the lower waveguide layer where the cladding layer comprises:
a middle waveguide layer (fig. 1A and 1B, 10104 between 105 and 103),
an upper waveguide structure disposed on said middle waveguide layer opposite to said lower waveguide layer, and including a plurality of upper waveguide elements that are arranged on a surface of said middle waveguide layer in a direction perpendicular to the laminating direction, and that are spaced apart from one another by cavities (fig. 1A, 105);
said doping type of said upper waveguide elements being n-type (table 1); and
a buried layer filling said cavity (fig. 1A,104 portions between 105),
as well as p-type isolating layer/cladding on the bottom of the upper waveguide elements (fig. 1A, 104 above 105),
wherein said middle waveguide layer has a refractive index lower than that of said upper waveguide elements (table 1, middle layer is AlGaAs and the upper element is GaAs and nAlGaAs < nGaAs as shown in fig. 2 of Oeda), and each of said upper waveguide elements has a doping type opposite to that of said middle waveguide layer (table 1).
the middle waveguide layer is made of a material that has an etching selectivity greater than that of the plurality of upper waveguide elements (table 1, middle layer is AlGaAs and the upper element is GaAs which inherently have different etching selectivity depending on the etchant being used) so that the cavities penetrate the upper waveguide structure (fig. 8, 808 and [0051]).
Hoffman’s cladding including the upper waveguide structure and buried layer has the advantage of making a more efficient device and select a desired wavelength (abstract, [0035]).
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 Bragg grating structure of Hoffman with the device of the previous combination, on Yoshida’s lower waveguide layer, in order to make a more efficient device and select a desired wavelength.
The combination as described above disposes Bragg grating between said isolating layer and said p-type isolating layer, said upper waveguide elements being distal from said substrate.
While the combination does not explicitly teach the cavities terminate at the middle waveguide layer, Figueroa teaches using a selective etchant to etch only the desired GaAs layer and not the underlying AlGaAs layer (col. 2, l. 64-68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a selective etchant as taught by Figueroa in the previous combination in order to etch only the desired GaAs current blocking layer of the combination and not the underlying AlGaAs layer.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,546,032 (Oeda) in view of US 2010/0020836 (Hoffman), US 4,346,394 (Figueroa) and US 6,1,181,721 (Geels).
For claim 11, Oeda teaches a laser device comprising an N-type substrate (fig. 1, 511, col. 7, l. 38-40), a lower waveguide layer and a middle waveguide (cladding) layer disposed on said lower waveguide layer in a laminating direction (from claim 1) (fig. 1, 513 and 512), a lower confinement layer (fig. 1, 514), an active layer (fig. 1, 515), an upper confinement layer (fig. 1, 516), an isolating layer (fig. 1, 517), a P-type cladding layer (fig. 1, 518) and a P-type top covering layer (fig. 1, 520) that are disposed on said substrate in such order (fig. 1).
Oeda does not teach an n-type buffer layer, a p-type isolating layer and an etch stop layer.
However, Geels teaches a semiconductor laser (fig. 2) is formed to include an n-type buffer layer (c. 4, l. 66-65) and a cladding layer comprises p-type isolating layer (fig. 2, 17, c. 5, l. 24) and an etch stop layer (fig. 2, 18, c. 5, l. 25) and a p-type (outer) cladding layer (fig. 2, 19, c. 5, l. 25-26). The buffer layer has the known advantage of smoothing irregularities of the substrate while the cladding/etch stop structure the known advantage of providing current and mode confinement. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Geels' n-type buffer layer in the device of Oeda in order to smooth irregularities. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Geels’ p-type isolating layer, etch stop layer, and p-type cladding layer in place of Oeda’s P-type cladding layer in order to providing current and mode confinement.
The combination of Oeda and Geels does not teach the laser is a distributed feedback laser (from claim 9) using a Bragg grating comprising:
an upper waveguide structure disposed on said middle waveguide layer opposite to said lower waveguide layer, and including a plurality of upper waveguide elements that are arranged on a surface of said middle waveguide layer in a direction perpendicular to the laminating direction, and that are spaced apart from one another by cavities; and
a buried layer filling said cavity, wherein
said middle waveguide layer has a refractive index lower than that of each of said lower waveguide layer and said upper waveguide elements,
said lower waveguide layer has a doping type the same as that of said middle waveguide layer, and
each of said upper waveguide elements has a doping type opposite to that of said middle waveguide layer.
However, Hoffman teaches a structure is a Bragg grating adapted for use in a distributed feedback laser (fig. 1, [0035]) comprising:
a lower waveguide layer (fig. 1, 103) and a cladding layer on the lower waveguide layer where the cladding layer comprises:
a middle waveguide layer (fig. 1A and 1B, 101 between 102 and 103),
an upper waveguide structure disposed on said middle waveguide layer opposite to said lower waveguide layer, and including a plurality of upper waveguide elements that are arranged on a surface of said middle waveguide layer in a direction perpendicular to the laminating direction, and that are spaced apart from one another by cavities (fig. 1A, 102);
said doping type of said upper waveguide elements being P-type (table 1); and
a buried layer filling said cavity (fig. 1A,101 portions between 102),
as well as cladding on the bottom of the upper waveguide elements (fig. 1A, 101 below 102),
wherein said middle waveguide layer has a refractive index lower than that of said upper waveguide elements (table 1, middle layer is AlGaAs and the upper element is GaAs and nAlGaAs < nGaAs as shown in fig. 2 of Oeda), and each of said upper waveguide elements has a doping type opposite to that of said middle waveguide layer (table 1).
Hoffman’s cladding including the upper waveguide structure and buried layer has the advantage of making a more efficient device and select a desired wavelength (abstract, [0035]).
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 Bragg grating structure of Hoffman with the device of Oeda, on Oeda’s middle waveguide layer, in order to make a more efficient device and select a desired wavelength.
The combination as described above disposes Bragg grating between said buffer layer and said lower confinement layer, said upper waveguide elements being distal from said substrate (due to cladding on the bottom of the upper waveguide elements).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
For claims 1 and 14, at page 7, final paragraph, applicant argues the neither Oeda nor Hoffman teach the etching selectivity between the middle waveguide layer and the upper waveguide elements. However, they are formed by AlGaAs and GaAs which inherently have etch selectivity as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above and shown in Figueroa. Applicant further argues, at page 8, 2nd full paragraph, that current blocking strips 102/105 and cladding layers 101/104 do not “serve as different refractive index regions.” However, the refractive index is an inherent property of the GaAs and AlGaAs inherently have different refractive indexes and therefore read on the claimed limitation. Further, [0035] of Hoffman states that the blocking strips may act as distributed feedback (DFB) structure” which requires different refractive indexes to generate the DFB.
The remaining dependent claims, at page 9, are only argued based on their dependency. As the independent claims are not deemed allowable, the dependent claims cannot be allowable based solely on their dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 4,194,399 teaches selectively etching AlGaAs and not GaAs. US 4,354,898 teaches selectively etching InP and InGaAsP.
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 Michael W Carter whose telephone number is (571)270-1872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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 contact the examiner at the above number.
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.
/Michael Carter/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828