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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amending of claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the manner in which any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The Examiner agrees that the previous interpretation of the Tsuji reference is overcome by the current amendment.
It is noted that an updated interpretation of Tsuji using differently defined regions is found to read on the current amendments. It is further noted that the term “region” is broad and only limited by the locations/extent positively outlined in the claims. This means the regions can be drawn in any particular size/shape so long as the locations/extents are found to read on the positive limitations found in the claims.
As the Examiner’s previous suggestion is not found to fully differentiate from Tsuji a new second rejection is provided in view of new art in order to further prosecution and enable compact prosecution of the application.
Along these lines, the Examiner notes art such as US 12046875 (fig.1), 2021/0351570 (fig.1), 2023/0130363 (fig.3) are each found to read on at least claim 1. It is believed that statements of common ownership and/or perfecting the priority of the foreign priority document of the instant application would overcome potential rejections in view of these documents.
First rejection in view of Tsuji
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/2 as being anticipated by Tsuji (US 2013/0017638).
With respect to claim 1, Tsuji discloses a quantum-cascade laser element (fig.17-19, [0023]) comprising: a semiconductor substrate (fig.17-19 #1); a semiconductor laminate (fig.17-19 #3-7) formed on the semiconductor substrate to include a ridge portion (fig.17-19 #15) configured to include an active layer (fig.17-19 #3) having a quantum-cascade structure ([0048]); an embedding layer (fig.17-19 #19) including a first portion formed on a side surface of the ridge portion (fig.17-19 #19 near ridge and extending to left), and a second portion (fig.17-19 portion of #19 below the defined first portion and extending up to metal on leftmost side) extending from an edge portion of the first portion on a side of the semiconductor substrate along a width direction (fig.19 left/right) of the semiconductor substrate; and a metal layer (fig.17-19 #25d, [0075]) formed at least on a top surface of the ridge portion and on the first portion (as seen in fig.19), wherein, in a thickness direction (fig.19 up/down) of the semiconductor substrate, a surface of the second portion on a side opposite to the semiconductor substrate is located between a surface of the active layer on a side opposite to the semiconductor substrate and a surface of the active layer on a side of the semiconductor substrate (fig.17-19 surface of defined second portion at a height between upper and lower surfaces of active region #3), when viewed in the width direction of the semiconductor substrate, a part of the metal layer on the first portion overlaps the active layer (fig.17-19, left side of metal overlaps first portion of #19 and active #3; metal on left also overlaps both first portion of #19 and a portion of #3 in alignment due to the curved nature of the mesa), and the metal layer is directly in contact with the first portion at a location closer to the semiconductor substrate than the top surface of the ridge portion (fig.19 as seen on leftmost side).
PNG
media_image1.png
814
1045
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Tsuji discloses a thickness of the first portion is thinner than a thickness of the second portion (fig.17-19, see annotated figure which demonstrates portion 1 thinner than portion 2 in Z direction at leftmost side).
With respect to claim 3, Tsuji discloses the metal layer is formed on the top surface of the ridge portion, on the first portion, and on the second portion (fig.17-19, see annotated figure), and a dielectric layer (fig.17-19 #21d, [0071, 117,118]) is disposed between the second portion and the metal layer.
With respect to claim 4, Tsuji discloses the dielectric layer is formed such that a part of the second portion is exposed from the dielectric layer, and the metal layer is in contact with the second portion at the part (see annotated figure, second portion on left of #21 exposed from #21d such that metal contact is made).
With respect to claim 5, Tsuji discloses an opening (see annotated figure, opening on left side of #21d) that exposes an inner portion of the second portion (see annotated figure, part of second portion to left of #21d) from the dielectric layer is formed in the dielectric layer, the inner portion being continuous with the first portion (as seen in annotated figure), and the metal layer is in contact with the inner portion through the opening (as seen in annotated figure).
With respect to claim 9, Tsuji discloses a quantum-cascade laser device comprising: the quantum-cascade laser element according to claim 1 (see rejection above); and a drive unit that drives the quantum-cascade laser element (necessarily present in order to supply stated voltage/current, [0076]).
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuji in view of Asaka et al. (JP 2003-051643).
With respect to claim 6, Tsuji teaches the device outlined above, including teaching the removal of the dielectric improves heat dissipation ([0123]), but Tsuji does not teach a width of the opening in the width direction of the semiconductor substrate is more than or equal to two times a width of the active layer. Asaka teaches a related laser device (fig.1) and teaches the thermal conductivity of insulating films is poor ([0005]) and that the amount of a dielectric film used should be 50% or less of the lateral area ([0007]) in order to facilitate heat dissipation ([0007]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Tsuji such that a width of the opening in the width direction of the semiconductor substrate is more than or equal to two times a width of the active layer in order to optimize the extent (opening size) of the dielectric film to facilitate a desired amount of heat flow as both Tsuji and Asaka have recognized the extent (opening size) of the dielectric film to be a result effective variable influencing heat flow (see MPEP 2144.05 II A/B).
With respect to claim 7, Tsuji teaches the device outlined above, including teaching the removal of the dielectric improves heat dissipation ([0123]), but Tsuji does not teach a width of the opening in the width direction of the semiconductor substrate is more than or equal to ten times a thickness of the second portion. Asaka teaches a related laser device (fig.1) and teaches the thermal conductivity of insulating films is poor ([0005]) and that the amount of a dielectric film used should be 50% or less of the lateral area ([0007]) in order to facilitate heat dissipation ([0007]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Tsuji such that a width of the opening in the width direction of the semiconductor substrate is more than or equal to ten times a thickness of the second portion in order to optimize the extent (opening size) of the dielectric film to facilitate a desired amount of heat flow as both Tsuji and Asaka have recognized the extent (opening size) of the dielectric film to be a result effective variable influencing heat flow (see MPEP 2144.05 II A/B).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuji in view of Sawaimasaaki (GB 2105100).
With respect to claim 8, Tsuji teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach a wire made of metal, that is electrically connected to the metal layer, and a connection position between the metal layer and the wire overlaps the dielectric layer when viewed in the thickness direction of the semiconductor substrate. Sawaimasaaki teaches a related laser device (fig.3a) which includes a metal wire (fig.3a #26, “Au wire 4”) connected to a metal layer (fig.3a #20) and overlapping a dielectric layer (fig.3a #19) and the importance of disposing the wire connection outside the area of the mesa (“Since the bonded position of the Au wire 26 is kept away from the active layer 13, i.e. since there is no active layer 13 just below the ball of the wire 26, the stress during the bonding process is not applied directly to the active layer 13. As a result, the active layer 13, the optical guide layers 14 and 15, and their interfaces can be prevented from being mechanically damaged by stress during the bonding process so that the deterioration in the life time can be markedly reduced.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Tsuji to make use of a metal wire disposed such the metal wire overlaps the metal layer and dielectric as demonstrated by Sawaimasaaki in order to provide a means of conducting current to the device and to position the wire away from the mesa, thereby necessarily overlapping the metal layer and dielectric in a thickness direction, in order to reduce/eliminate stress on the mesa.
Second rejection in view of new art
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto (US 2018/0166859) in view of Sato et al. (US 2013/0301667).
With respect to claim 1, Hashimoto teaches a quantum-cascade laser element (fig.3, abstract) comprising: a semiconductor substrate (fig.3 #17); a semiconductor laminate (fig.3 #27s) formed on the semiconductor substrate to include a ridge portion (fig.3 #19c) configured to include an active layer (fig.3 #27a) having a quantum-cascade structure ([0048]); an embedding layer (fig.3 #35) including a first portion formed on a side surface of the ridge portion (fig.3 upper portion of #35a), and a second portion (fig.3 remain portion of #35a along with #35b) extending from an edge portion of the first portion on a side of the semiconductor substrate along a width direction (fig.3 left/right) of the semiconductor substrate; and a metal layer (fig.3 #30a, [0056]) formed at least on a top surface of the ridge portion and on the first portion (as seen in fig.3), wherein, in a thickness direction (fig.3 up/down) of the semiconductor substrate, a surface of the second portion on a side opposite to the semiconductor substrate is located between a surface of the active layer on a side opposite to the semiconductor substrate and a surface of the active layer on a side of the semiconductor substrate (fig.3 surface of defined second portion at a height between upper and lower surfaces of active region #27a), when viewed in the width direction of the semiconductor substrate, a part of the metal layer on the first portion overlaps the active layer (fig.3, left side of metal overlaps defined first portion and active #27a). Hashimoto further teaches dielectric layer #37 is not required ([0056]), but Hashimoto does not teach the metal layer is directly in contact with the first portion at a location closer to the semiconductor substrate than the top surface of the ridge portion. Sato teaches a related ridge laser device (fig.9) which includes a dielectric layer (fig.9 #702) formed only on the outermost flat portions of the device on either side of the mesa ([0233]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to remove portions of the dielectric #37 of Hashimoto with the exception of the outermost sides of the flat portions on either side of the mesa as demonstrated by Sato in order to insure leak current is suppressed while improving heat dissipation of the device (Sato, [0236]).
Note that after modification the metal layer of Hashimoto would directly contact both portions 1 and 2 where the layer #37 has been removed thereby reading on: the metal layer is directly in contact with the first portion at a location closer to the semiconductor substrate than the top surface of the ridge portion.
PNG
media_image2.png
502
764
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Example remaining portions of #37 after modification in view of Sato:
PNG
media_image3.png
535
672
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Hashimoto teaches a thickness of the first portion is thinner than a thickness of the second portion (fig.3, see annotated figure which demonstrates portion 1 thinner than portion 2 in Z direction along sides of ridge).
With respect to claim 3, Hashimoto, as modified, teaches the metal layer is formed on the top surface of the ridge portion, on the first portion, and on the second portion (fig.3, see annotated figure), and a dielectric layer (fig.3 #37, [0056]) is disposed between the second portion and the metal layer (on outermost flat portions after modification).
With respect to claim 4, Hashimoto, as modified, teaches the dielectric layer is formed such that a part of the second portion is exposed from the dielectric layer, and the metal layer is in contact with the second portion at the part (see annotated figure, part of second portion exposed at left of remaining #37).
With respect to claim 5, Hashimoto, as modified, teaches an opening (see annotated figure, opening on right side of remaining #37) that exposes an inner portion of the second portion (see annotated figure, part of second portion to left of remaining #37) from the dielectric layer is formed in the dielectric layer, the inner portion being continuous with the first portion (as seen in annotated figure), and the metal layer is in contact with the inner portion through the opening (as seen in annotated figure).
With respect to claim 9, Hashimoto, as modified, teaches a quantum-cascade laser device comprising: the quantum-cascade laser element according to claim 1 (see rejection above); and a drive unit that drives the quantum-cascade laser element (necessarily present in order to supply stated current, [0028]).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto and Sato in view of Asaka et al. (JP 2003-051643).
With respect to claim 6, Hashimoto, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, including teaching the dielectric #37 to be optional and related to heat dissipation ([0056]), but Hashimoto does not teach a width of the opening in the width direction of the semiconductor substrate is more than or equal to two times a width of the active layer. Asaka teaches a related laser device (fig.1) and teaches the thermal conductivity of insulating films is poor ([0005]) and that the amount of a dielectric film used should be 50% or less of the lateral area ([0007]) in order to facilitate heat dissipation ([0007]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Hashimoto such that a width of the opening in the width direction of the semiconductor substrate is more than or equal to two times a width of the active layer in order to optimize the extent (opening size) of the dielectric film to facilitate a desired amount of heat flow as Asaka has recognized the extent (opening size) of the dielectric film to be a result effective variable influencing heat flow (see MPEP 2144.05 II A/B).
With respect to claim 7, Hashimoto, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, including teaching the dielectric #37 to be optional and related to heat dissipation ([0056]), but Hashimoto does not teach a width of the opening in the width direction of the semiconductor substrate is more than or equal to ten times a thickness of the second portion. Asaka teaches a related laser device (fig.1) and teaches the thermal conductivity of insulating films is poor ([0005]) and that the amount of a dielectric film used should be 50% or less of the lateral area ([0007]) in order to facilitate heat dissipation ([0007]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Hashimoto such that a width of the opening in the width direction of the semiconductor substrate is more than or equal to ten times a thickness of the second portion in order to optimize the extent (opening size) of the dielectric film to facilitate a desired amount of heat flow as Asaka has recognized the extent (opening size) of the dielectric film to be a result effective variable influencing heat flow (see MPEP 2144.05 II A/B).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto and Sato in view of Sawaimasaaki (GB 2105100).
With respect to claim 8, Hashimoto, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach a wire made of metal, that is electrically connected to the metal layer, and a connection position between the metal layer and the wire overlaps the dielectric layer when viewed in the thickness direction of the semiconductor substrate. Sawaimasaaki teaches a related laser device (fig.3a) which includes a metal wire (fig.3a #26, “Au wire 4”) connected to a metal layer (fig.3a #20) and overlapping a dielectric layer (fig.3a #19) and the importance of disposing the wire connection outside the area of the mesa (“Since the bonded position of the Au wire 26 is kept away from the active layer 13, i.e. since there is no active layer 13 just below the ball of the wire 26, the stress during the bonding process is not applied directly to the active layer 13. As a result, the active layer 13, the optical guide layers 14 and 15, and their interfaces can be prevented from being mechanically damaged by stress during the bonding process so that the deterioration in the life time can be markedly reduced.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Hashimoto to make use of a metal wire disposed such the metal wire overlaps the metal layer and dielectric as demonstrated by Sawaimasaaki in order to provide a means of conducting current to the device and to position the wire away from the mesa, thereby necessarily overlapping the metal layer and dielectric in a thickness direction, in order to reduce/eliminate stress on the mesa.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see attached PTO892 for a list of related art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOD THOMAS VAN ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8447. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8AM-430PM.
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.
/TOD T VAN ROY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights