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 amending of claims 1, 3, 6 and cancellation of claim 9. Claim 3, 6 112b rejections withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pgs. 7-9, filed 7/9/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive (thickness in entire second region…). Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hashimoto (US-20140247851-A1).
Claim Interpretation
Claim 20 interpreted to effectively require the lower surface of the electrode be lower than the upper surface of the cladding layer, and the upper surface of the electrode be higher than the upper surface of the cladding layer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/2 as being anticipated by Hashimoto (US-20140247851-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hashimoto discloses a quantum-cascade laser element (fig. 7, 0087) comprising: a semiconductor substrate (substrate 11); a semiconductor mesa formed on the semiconductor substrate (mesa 13 on 11, 0034) to include an active layer having a quantum-cascade structure and to extend along a light waveguide direction (13 includes QCL active layer and extends along light waveguide direction (into/out of page in fig. 7), see fig. 3a (left to right in 3a), 0034, 0066); an embedding layer formed to interpose the semiconductor mesa along a width direction of the semiconductor substrate (embedding layer 14a+14c formed to interpose 13 along width direction of 11 (left to right in fig. 7), 0041-0042); a cladding layer formed at least on the semiconductor mesa (cladding layer 16 formed at least on 13, 0044); and a metal layer formed at least on the cladding layer (metal layer E1 formed at least on 16, 0047), wherein a thickness of the cladding layer is thinner in an entire second region located outside a first region in the width direction of the semiconductor substrate than in the first region of which at least a part overlaps the semiconductor mesa when viewed in a thickness direction of the semiconductor substrate (see annotated fig. 7, 16 thinner in entire second region (region containing zero thickness 16 (to left and right of non-zero 16)) located outside a first region (region containing non-zero 16) in left to right direction of 11 in fig. 7, 16 overlaps 13 in first region when viewed in thickness direction of 11 (top to bottom in fig. 7)), and the metal layer extends over the first region and the second region (E1 extends over 1st and 2nd regions), and the embedding layer extends along the width direction of the semiconductor substrate in the second region (14a+14c extends along width direction of 11 in 2nd region), and a width of the cladding layer in the first region is more than a width of the semiconductor mesa (width of 16 in 1st region more than width of 13), wherein the thickness of the cladding layer in the entire second region is less than or equal to half the thickness of the cladding layer in the first region (thickness of 16 in entire 2nd region (i.e. 0) less than or equal to half thickness of 16 in 1st region (more than 0)).
Thickness of cladding layer 16 is interpreted to be 0 in 2nd region. Interpretation is reasonable, as evidenced by instant application claim 10.
PNG
media_image1.png
579
770
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 7 (1st and 2nd regions)
Regarding claim 3, Hashimoto discloses the quantum-cascade laser element according to claim 1, wherein the width of the cladding layer in the first region is less than or equal to four times the width of the semiconductor mesa (width of 16 in 1st region less than or equal to 4x width of 13, 0078-0086, width of 16 = W1 = 30 um, less than 4x width of 13 = W2 (10 um)).
Regarding claim 10, Hashimoto discloses the quantum-cascade laser element according to claim 1, wherein the thickness of the cladding layer in the second region is 0 (thickness of 16 in 2nd region is 0), and the metal layer is formed over the cladding layer and the embedding layer (E1 formed over 16 and 14a+14c).
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto in view of Tsuji (US-20120309123-A1).
Regarding claim 11, Hashimoto discloses the quantum-cascade laser element according to claim 1.
Hashimoto does not disclose wherein a surface of the cladding layer on a side opposite to the semiconductor substrate includes an inclined surface formed at a boundary portion between the first region and the second region, and when viewed in the light waveguide direction, the inclined surface is inclined to go outward as approaching the semiconductor substrate.
Tsuji discloses a QCL with a cladding layer with inclined surfaces opposite substrate that go outward as approaching the substrate (fig. 4 cladding layer 31 with inclined surfaces opposite substrate 21 that go outward as approaching 21, 0030-0032).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a surface of the cladding layer on a side opposite to the semiconductor substrate includes an inclined surface formed at a boundary portion between the first region and the second region, and when viewed in the light waveguide direction, the inclined surface is inclined to go outward as approaching the semiconductor substrate to facilitate formation of electrode over the device/cladding surface and reduce thinning/breakage and improve heat dissipation (Tsuji 0006).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto in view of Tsuji and Kakimoto (US-5661741-A).
Regarding claim 12, modified Hashimoto discloses the quantum-cascade laser element according to claim 11.
Modified Hashimoto does not disclose wherein when viewed in the light waveguide direction, the inclined surface is curved to protrude toward the active layer.
Kakimoto discloses a semiconductor light emitting device with current blocking layers with inclined surfaces curved to protrude toward an active layer (fig. 8 43 and 42 inclined and curved to protrude toward 32, same protrusion occurs between 41/42 interface and 42/43 interface, col. 13 lines 25 + 43-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to curve the inclined surface to protrude toward the active layer in Hashimoto.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to help evenly distribute stresses within the device and prevent fracturing due to sharp points or uneven pressure between adjacent layers.
Claim(s) 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto in view of Muraviev et al. (US-20150070698-A1).
Regarding claim 17, Hashimoto discloses a quantum-cascade laser device comprising: the quantum-cascade laser element according to claim 1 (fig. 7)
Hashimoto does not disclose a drive unit that drives the quantum-cascade laser element.
Muraviev discloses a quantum cascade laser with a drive unit that drives the quantum cascade laser with a continuous current (figs. 4 QCL DRIVER drives QCL, 0019 lines 3-6 “continuous current excitation”, 0038 final 3 lines).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a drive unit that drives the quantum-cascade laser element to continuously oscillate laser light.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to facilitate device operation and control of a voltage and continuous current to the quantum cascade laser. Using continuous current instead of pulsed current would also provide more stable operation and fewer opportunities for malfunction during an on/off cycle.
Regarding claim 19, modified Hashimoto discloses the quantum-cascade laser device according to claim 17, wherein the drive unit drives the quantum-cascade laser element to continuously oscillate laser light.
See claim 17 modification. Muraviev 0019 lines 3-6 + 0038 final 3 lines. “continuous current excitation”
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto in view of Muraviev, and Senba (JP-2014022481-A, machine translation “Senba_English” cited and included herewith).
Regarding claim 18, modified Hashimoto discloses the quantum-cascade laser device according to claim 17.
Modified Hashimoto does not disclose further comprising: a support member including an electrode pad and supporting the quantum-cascade laser element; and a joining material that joins the support member and the quantum-cascade laser element, wherein the quantum-cascade laser element includes a plating layer formed on the metal layer, a recessed portion is formed in a surface of the plating layer on a side opposite to the semiconductor substrate, and the joining material joins the electrode pad and the plating layer in a state where the semiconductor mesa is located on a side of the support member with respect to the semiconductor substrate and the joining material enters the recessed portion.
Senba discloses a semiconductor laser device with a support member including an electrode pad and supporting a laser (fig. 2 support member 10+27+28 including electrode pad 27 and supporting rest of device, lines 126-129), and a joining material that joins the support member and the rest of device (joining material 18 joins 10+27+28 and rest of device), and the laser includes a plating layer on a metal layer (plating layer 16+17 on metal layer 15, lines 104-113), and a recessed portion in a surface of the playing layer on a side opposite a substrate (recessed portion (grooves in 16) in top surface of 16+17 on a side opposite substrate 12, lines 104-113), and the joining material joins the electrode pad and the plating layer in a state where a semiconductor mesa is located on a side of the support member with respect to a substrate (18 joins 27 and 16+17 in a state where mesa 20 on side of 10+27+28 with respect to substrate 12). Senba discloses joining/solder material 18 having width greater than plating 17 (lines 147-153).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify in the manner required by claim 18 to allow for external electrical connection and improve heat dissipation (Senba lines 28-31 + 104-113).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4-8, 13-16, 20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 4: Prior art of record does not disclose limitations of claim 4 in combination with the requirements of claim 1. It would not be obvious to modify Hashimoto in the manner required to read on claim 4. No suitable replacement art found.
Claims 5-8: Depend from claim 4
Claim 13: Prior art of record does not disclose positioning and details of groove portions required by claim 13 in combination with the requirements of claim 1. It would not be obvious to modify Hashimoto in the manner required to read on claim 13. No suitable replacement art found.
Claims 14-16: Depend from claim 13
Claim 20: Prior art of record does not disclose required positioning of electrode with respect to cladding layer. It would not be obvious to modify Hashimoto in the manner required to read on claim 20. No suitable replacement art found.
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 Alex Ehrlich whose telephone number is (703)756-5716. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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.
/A.E./ Examiner, Art Unit 2828
/MINSUN O HARVEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights