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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claim 1 and the addition of new claims 23-27. Claims 3,6,12,13 and 20-22 stand as cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1,2,4,5,7-11,14-19 and 23-27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,2,4,5,9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kameyama et al. (hereinafter Kameyama) (US 20100118908 A1) .
Regarding claim 1, Kameyama discloses in Fig. 1,
A semiconductor laser device [1000] (Para. [0041]) that emits a laser beam (Para. [0042]), the semiconductor laser device [1000] comprising:
a semiconductor stack body [20] (Para. [0042]) having a front end surface [1] (Para. [0043]), through which the laser beam emits (Para. [0043]), and a rear end surface [2] (Para. [0043]); and
an end surface protective film [40,51] (Para. [0044]) disposed on the front end surface [1] of the semiconductor stack body [20] (Para. [0044]), wherein the end surface protective film includes a first dielectric layer [41] (Para. [0044]) disposed on the front end surface [1] (Para. [0044]), and a second dielectric layer [42,43,51] (Para. [0044]) stacked outside the first dielectric layer [41] (Para. [0044]),
the second dielectric layer includes a first layer [42] (Para. [0044]) stacked on the first dielectric layer [41], a second layer [43] (Para. [0044]) stacked on the first layer [42], and a third layer [51] (Para. [0044]) stacked on the second layer [43] (Para. [0044]),
for wavelength λ of the laser beam, refractive index n2 of the second layer [43] is higher than each of refractive index n1 of the first layer [42] and refractive index n3 of the third layer [51] (Para. [0045]),
a film thickness of the second layer ranges from λ/(8n2) to 3λ/(4n2) inclusive (Paras. [0042,0045,0046]), and
wherein the second layer [43] includes an AIN film (Para. [0044]).
Using the wavelength λ value of 405nm (Para. [0042]) and a refractive index value of 2.15 (Para. [0045]), the inclusive claimed range equates to approximately 23.55nm – 141.28nm. Therefore, the claimed range overlaps with the thickness values disclosed in Para. [0046])
Regarding claim 2, Kameyama discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Fig. 1,
wherein the first dielectric layer [41] includes at least one layer of a dielectric film including at least one of a nitride film (Para. [0044]) or an oxynitride film.
Examiner notes the interpretation of claim 2 is understood to be “wherein the first dielectric layer includes at least one layer of a dielectric film including at least one of a nitride film”
Regarding claim 4, Kameyama discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Fig. 1,
wherein the first dielectric layer [41] includes at least one of a SiN film, an AIN film (Para. [0044]), a SiON film, an AlON film, an A1203 film, or a SiO2 film.
Examiner notes the interpretation of claim 4 is understood to be “wherein the first dielectric layer includes an AlN film”
Regarding claim 5, Kameyama discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Fig. 1,
wherein each of the first layer [42] and the third layer [51] includes at least one of a SiO2 film or an Al203 film (Para. [0044]).
Examiner notes the interpretation of claim 5 is understood to be “wherein each of the first layer and the third layer includes an Al2O3 film.”
Regarding claim 9, Kameyama discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Fig. 1,
wherein the semiconductor stack body [20] is formed of a gallium nitride-based material (Paras. [0042,0050]).
Regarding claim 14, Kameyama discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Fig. 1,
wherein the film thickness of the second layer [43] (Para. [0046] is thinner than a film thickness of the first layer [42] (Para. [0046]) and a film thickness of the third layer [51] (Para. [0044])
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7,8,16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kameyama in view of Kawaguchi et al. (hereinafter Kawaguchi) (US 20090238229 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Kameyama discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
wherein a reflectivity of the end surface protective film is less than or equal to 1.0% in a wavelength range, more than or equal to 50nm, including the wavelength of the laser beam
Kawaguchi discloses,
a reflectivity of an end surface protective film [26 Fig. 1] (Para. [0044]) less than or equal to 1.0% in a wavelength range, more than or equal to 50nm, including the wavelength of the laser beam (Paras. [0041,0059])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the end surface protective film of Kawaguchi into the device of Kameyama for the purpose of achieving a reflectivity value of 0.5% or less at a wavelength value of 405nm. (Kawaguchi Para. [0059])
Regarding claim 8, Kameyama in view of Kawaguchi as applied to claim 7 above further discloses in Kawaguchi,
a reflectivity of an end surface protective film [26 Fig. 1] (Para. [0044]) less than or equal to 0.5% in a wavelength range, more than or equal to 50nm, including the wavelength of the laser beam (Paras. [0041,0059])
Regarding claim 16, Kameyama in view of Kawaguchi as applied to claim 8 above further discloses in Kawaguchi,
wherein the wavelength range is in a range from 400nm to 500nm (Paras. [0041,0059]).
Regarding claim 17, Kameyama in view of Kawaguchi as applied to claim 7 above further discloses in Kawaguchi,
wherein a reflectivity of the end surface protective film [26 Fig. 1] takes a minimum value where the wavelength is from 400nm to 500nm (Para. [0059])
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kameyama in view of Matsuoka et al. (hereinafter Matsuoka) (US 20040190576 A1)
Regarding claim 10, Kameyama discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
Wherein the semiconductor stack body is formed of a gallium arsenide-based material.
Matsuoka discloses in Fig 1,
a semiconductor stack body [1,2,3] formed of a gallium arsenide-based material (Para. [0046])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the gallium arsenide-based semiconductor stack body of Matsuoka into the device of Kameyama for the purpose of operating at a higher wavelength value than the nitride base.
Regarding claim 15, Kameyama discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 14 above but fails to disclose,
wherein the film thickness of the first layer is equal to the film thickness of the third layer
Matsuoka discloses in Fig. 1,
wherein a film thickness [d2] of a first layer [12] is equal to a film thickness [d4] of a third layer [14] (Para. [0051]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the equal film thicknesses of the first and third layers as shown in Matsuoka with the first and third layers of Kameyama for the purpose of achieving a desired reflectivity. (Matsuoka Para. [0052,0061])
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kameyama in view of Kawaguchi as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Matsuoka et al. (hereinafter Matsuoka) (US 20040190576 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Kameyama in view of Kawaguchi discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 17 above but fails to disclose
wherein the reflectivity of the end surface protective film takes the minimum value where an optical path length in a thickness direction of the second dielectric layer is a multiple of λ/4
Matsuoka discloses in Fig. 1,
a low reflective film [10] with an optical path length in a thickness direction with each layer as a multiple of λ/4 (Para. [0051])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the layer thicknesses in relation to the optical lengths as shown in Matsuoka into second dielectric layer of the modified device of Kameyama for the purpose of optimizing the layer thickness in relation to the refractive indices of the dielectric layers. (Matsuoka Para. [0063])
Regarding claim 19, Kameyama in view of Kawaguchi and Matsuoka as applied to claim 18 above further discloses in Matsuoka
wherein the reflectivity of the end surface protective film [10] takes the minimum value where an optical path length in a thickness direction of the second dielectric layer is a multiple of λ/2 (Para. [0051])
Examiner notes the dielectric stack [10] of Matsuoka in Fig. 1 discloses 4 layers each at an optical length thickness of λ/4. Therefore, having an optical length in a thickness direction of 4λ/4 or 2λ/2.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kameyama view of Inoue et al (hereinafter Inoue) (US 20150055670 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Kameyama discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
the semiconductor laser device comprising a plurality of luminous points, wherein each of the plurality of luminous points emits the laser beam.
Inoue discloses,
a semiconductor laser device [1 Fig. 2] (Para. [0047]) comprising a plurality of luminous points [6 Fig. 4] (Para. [0054]), wherein each of the plurality of luminous points emits the laser beam (Para. [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the semiconductor laser device of Kameyama in a multi-beam structure as shown by Inoue for the purpose of emitting more than one laser beam from the device. (Inoue Para. [0054])
Claims 23 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kameyama et al. (hereinafter Kameyama) (US 20100118908 A1) in view of Kitagawa et al. (hereinafter Kitagawa) (WO 2019159449 A1)
Examiner notes the US 20200373730 A1 publication will be used for the claim mapping of Kitagawa. See PTO-892 form.
Regarding claim 23, Kameyama discloses in Fig. 1,
A semiconductor laser device [1000] (Para. [0041]) that emits a laser beam (Para. [0042]), the semiconductor laser device [1000] comprising:
a semiconductor stack body [20] (Para. [0042]) having a front end surface [1] and a rear end surface [2] (Para. [0043]); and
an end surface protective film [40,51] (Para. [0044]) disposed on the front end surface [1] of the semiconductor stack body [20] (Para. [0044]), wherein:
the end surface protective film [40,51] includes:
a first dielectric layer [41] (Para. [0044]) consisting of a single-layer film directly disposed on and in contact with the front end surface [1] (Para. [0044]); and
a second dielectric layer [42,43,51] (Para. [0044]) directly disposed on and in contact with the first dielectric layer [41] (Para. [0044]),
the second dielectric layer consists of:
a first layer [42] (Para. [0044]) directly disposed on and in contact with the first dielectric layer [41] (Para. [0044]);
a second layer [43] directly disposed on and in contact with the first layer [42] (Para. [0044]); and
a third layer [51] directly disposed on and in contact with the second layer [43] (Para. [0044]),
for wavelength λ, of the laser beam, refractive index n2 of the second layer [43] is higher than each of refractive index n1 of the first layer [42] and refractive index n3 of the third layer [51] (Para. [0045]), and a film thickness of the second layer [43] ranges from λ/(8n2) to 3λ/(4n2) inclusive (Para. [0047]), and
Using the wavelength λ value of 405nm (Para. [0042]) and a refractive index value of 2.15 (Para. [0045]), the inclusive claimed range equates to approximately 23.55nm – 141.28nm. Therefore, the claimed range overlaps with the thickness values disclosed in Para. [0046])
Kameyama fails to disclose,
the second layer includes an AlON film.
Kitagawa discloses in Fig. 1,
a layer [13] (Para. [0143]) of a protective film [110] (Para. [0163]) including AlON (Para. [0161])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the aluminum oxynitride film as the second layer material for Kameyama as disclosed in Kitagawa for the purpose of obtaining a stable protective film structure without causing a change in refractive index from oxidation. (Kitagawa Para. [0161])
Examiner notes that Kameyama discloses AlON to have a refractive index value in the range of 1.68-2.5 in paragraph [0081]. Therefore, when the AlON layer of Kitagawa is implemented into the device of Kameyama, the refractive index value of AlON having a value in the range of n2= 1.69-2.15 will still meet the previously limited refractive index relations disclosed in the limitations of claim 23 regarding the refractive index of the second layer being higher than the refractive index of both the first layer and the third layer.
Further, even at the lowest refractive index value of n2=1.69 with the AlON film material, the thickness of the second layer disclosed in Kameyama still falls within the claimed thickness range. (λ/(8n2), λ=405nm & n2=1.69) equating to approximately 29.95nm
Regarding claim 24, Kameyama discloses in Fig. 1,
A semiconductor laser device [1000] (Para. [0041]) that emits a laser beam (Para. [0042]), the semiconductor laser device [1000] comprising:
a semiconductor stack body [20] (Para. [0042]) having a front end surface [1] and a rear end surface [2] (Para. [0043]); and
an end surface protective film [40,51] (Para. [0044]) disposed on the front end surface [1] of the semiconductor stack body [20] (Para. [0044]), wherein:
the end surface protective film [40,51] includes:
a first dielectric layer [41] (Para. [0044]) consisting of a single-layer film directly disposed on and in contact with the front end surface [1] (Para. [0044]); and
a second dielectric layer [42,43,51] (Para. [0044]) directly disposed on and in contact with the first dielectric layer [41] (Para. [0044]),
the second dielectric layer consists of:
a first layer [42] (Para. [0044]) directly disposed on and in contact with the first dielectric layer [41] (Para. [0044]);
a second layer [43] directly disposed on and in contact with the first layer [42] (Para. [0044]); and
a third layer [51] directly disposed on and in contact with the second layer [43] (Para. [0044]),
for wavelength λ, of the laser beam, refractive index n2 of the second layer [43] is higher than each of refractive index n1 of the first layer [42] and refractive index n3 of the third layer [51] (Para. [0045]), and a film thickness of the second layer [43] ranges from λ/(8n2) to 3λ/(4n2) inclusive (Para. [0047]), and
Using the wavelength λ value of 405nm (Para. [0042]) and a refractive index value of 2.15 (Para. [0045]), the inclusive claimed range equates to approximately 23.55nm – 141.28nm. Therefore, the claimed range overlaps with the thickness values disclosed in Para. [0046])
Kameyama fails to disclose,
the first dielectric layer includes at least one of a SiN film, a SiON film, an AlON film.
Kitagawa discloses in Fig. 1A,
a first dielectric layer [11] (Para. [0141[) that includes SiN or SiON (Para. [0145])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the SiN or SiON material of the first layer of Kitagawa as the first layer material of Kameyama for the purpose of suppressing deterioration of the resonator end face. (Kitagawa Para. [0034])
Regarding claim 25, Kameyama in view of Kitagawa discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 24 above and further discloses in Kitagawa,
wherein the first dielectric layer includes the SiN film. (Para. [0145])
Regarding claim 26, Kameyama in view of Kitagawa discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 24 above and further discloses in Kitagawa,
wherein the first dielectric layer includes the SiON film. (Para. [0145])
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kameyama in view of Kitagawa as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Yoshida et al. (hereinafter Yoshida) (US 20150124847 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Kameyama in view of Kitagawa discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 24 above but fails to disclose,
wherein the first dielectric layer includes the AlON film.
Yoshida discloses in Fig. 2,
a first dielectric layer [33] including an AlON film (Para. [0133])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the AlON material of the first film disclosed in Yoshida as the material for the first film of the modified device of Kameyama for the purpose of choosing a desired refractive index value. (Para. [0140])
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Examiner notes (US 9202988 B2) which discloses a nitride based semiconductor laser with passivation covering on a light emission face. See PTO-892 form.
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
Prosecution Insights