Non-Final Rejection
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Following a non-final action, applicant filed an amendment on 6/3/2026 in which claims 1, 17, and 18 are amended. Claims 1-25 are pending. Note the examiner of record has changed.
Several new grounds of rejection are presented below that could have been made in the prior action and are not necessitated by amendment, therefore this action is made non-final. The arguments filed with the response are persuasive that the only rejection applied previously, statutory double patenting, has been overcome.
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 5, 6, 8, 13, and 23-25 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.
Claim 5 refers to “the cladding layers.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term.
Claim 6 refers to “the P-type layers.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term.
Claim 8 states “a P-type waveguide layer is equal or less than 1e18cm-3.” The claim is unclear as it is not said in the claim what this is actually referring to. Presumably this is referring to a doping concentration of that layer, similar to claim 10, but the claim should say so.
Claim 13 refers to “the top p-type indium gallium arsenide contact layer.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term.
Claim 23 refers to “the tunnel junction P-type indium gallium arsenide layer.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term.
Claim 24 refers to “the tunnel junction N-type indium gallium arsenide layer.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term.
Claim 25 refers to “the tunnel junction P-type indium gallium arsenide layer…and N-type indium gallium arsenide layer.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these terms.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 16 only requires that light emits in the spectral range of 1250 nm and 1720 nm. Parent claim 1 already requires “laser diodes, emitting in wavelengths (1250nm to 1720nm).” It is not seen what claim 16 requires that is not already found in claim 1.
Claim 19 only requires “the photoluminescence emission difference between one monolithic laser diode to another one is less than 5 nm.” Parent claim 18 already requires “all emission areas have the same emission wavelengths within 5 nm.” It is not seen what claim 19 requires that is not already found in claim 18.
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.
Claims 1-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boucher et al., Ultra high efficiency 1550nm multi-junction pulsed laser diodes, Proc. of SPIE (Sept. 2009) (“Boucher”) in view of US 2007/0002915 (“Bean”).
Regarding claim 1, Boucher discloses in Fig. 3 and discussion, particularly section 3.1, an edge emitting semiconductor laser device containing multiple monolithic laser diodes (a person skilled in the art would understand these are edge emitting, the bar is cleaved and there are clearly not any vertical cavities), emitting in wavelengths (1250nm to 1720nm) (see title, also section 3.1) wherein the monolithic laser diodes are connected one to another by one or more tunnel junctions (seen in Fig. 3); and each monolithic laser diode comprises an active region with barriers and more than one quantum well (see section 3.1).
As to “wherein layers adjacent the active region have low zinc doping to suppress diffusion into the active region” Boucher describes doping 2.5x1017 cm-3 in section 3.1 but does not specify the dopant. Bean describes a similar laser using similar materials, and teaches that the layer 16 adjacent the active region is doped by zinc at levels ranging from 5x1016 to 1x1017 cm-3. It is noted that the specification of the present invention suggests that under 1x1017 cm-3 is sufficient to suppress diffusion. See [0081]-[0082] of the PGPUB. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use such doping in Boucher as a simple substation of one element for another to yield predictable results, or as the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. MPEP 2143 I.B-C. Boucher is a base device that meets the claim and is p doped near the active region, but the specifics are not given. Bean shows a similar device and the p doping is like that claimed. A person of ordinary skill could have used such doping in Boucher and the result would have been predictable, as Zn doping is commonly used for p type doping and its use is predictable, and the way that different concentrations affect the device is also known to a skilled artisan and predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Boucher uses quantum wells but does not give their thickness. Boucher also does not show the confining layers and interface layer having the claimed doping.
Bean is again a similar laser using similar materials, and uses quantum wells having a thickness within the claimed range. [0026]. A person skilled in the art would understand that the well thickness affects the carrier confinement and therefore would have chosen values to optimize the confinement as a result effective variable. MPEP 2144.05 II. It would also have been an obvious simple substitution. MPEP 2143 I.B. Wells were known in Boucher but thickness not given; Bean shows wells of such thickness. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute Bean’s thickness because some thickness must be chosen, Bean shows reasonable values, and the skilled artisan understands how wells work and therefore these thicknesses would have been predictable.
Bean additionally shows in Fig. 1 that in a laser the active region 9 may be between confining layers 8,16, the p type confining layer having a concentration ranging at levels overlapping the claimed range, and an interface layer 18 at a doping level also overlapping the claimed range. Bean also permits a large range for doping, like claim 2. [0031].
Regarding claim 3, Boucher uses an InP substrate and cladding layers and doping concentrations within the claimed range. Section 3.1, 1st and 2nd par. under Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 4, Zn doping in the device is obvious in view of Bean for the same reasons discussed above re: claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Boucher discloses an AlInAs layer between the active region and at least one of the cladding layers. Section 3.1, 2nd par. under Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 6, Bean shows Zn doping at such concentration as discussed above re: claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Boucher uses 2 or 3 lasers. Section 3.1. Bean shows graded index layers are obvious as discussed above re: claim 2.
Regarding claims 8 and 10, Boucher has waveguide layers around the active region. Section 3.1, 2nd par. under Fig. 3. It is not clear that they are doped. Bean shows such a laser having the GRIN layers around the active region, with doping overlapping the claimed range. See rejection of claim 2 above. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include such layers for the same reasons discussed re: claim 2.
Regarding claims 9 and 11, Boucher has a p and n cladding around the active region with doping overlapping the claimed range. See section 3.1, 2nd par. under Fig. 3.
Regarding claims 12-14, Boucher does not show a ridge with the claimed properties. Bean teaches a laser may have a ridge waveguide on top to support multiple spatial modes, formed by a groove etched in a InGaAs contact area, the groove may go through the active area, and the groove may be 2-10 micrometers particularly if going through all these layers. Fig. 2, [0041]-[0044]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include such a ridge as it provide an index guided structure controlling the optical confinement and controlling the optical output, including permitting multimode operation, as taught by Bean. Bean does not show an angled ridge but the examiner takes Official Notice this is well known and common. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the ridge at an angle as this allows different control of the optical confinement and allows the designer to control the output in different ways.
Regarding claim 15, Boucher does not give any aperture width or cavity length. Bean shows a laser having values overlapping the claimed ranges. [0045]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use such values as they optimize the laser as discussed by Bean at [0045].
Regarding claim 16, see Boucher title.
Regarding claim 18, the bulk of the claim is taught and disclosed as in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 18 adds that the substrate is InP, and this is in Boucher. Section 3.1 par. under Fig. 3. Claim 18 additionally requires “wherein the quantum well structures of the multiple active areas are the same or differ from one to another in terms of their layer thicknesses and/or their material compositions such that all emission areas have the same emission wavelengths within 5 nm.” That they “are the same or differ” is not limiting and therefore is in Boucher. As to having the same wavelength within 5 nm, Boucher did several iterations of growth and states that in the first iteration there was more than one peak of wavelength from the lasers, but in later iterations they were able to “fix this problem,” bottom page 8, and Fig. 9 shows a wavelength spectrum where it is apparent the three lasers have substantially the same wavelength.
Regarding claim 19, this is already in claim 18.
Regarding claim 20, Boucher does not give the thickness of the barrier layers. The claimed range of 5-10 nm is a normal and typical value. For example, Bean shows barrier layers with such thickness. [0026]. A person skilled in the art would understand that the barrier layer thickness affects the carrier confinement and therefore would have chosen values to optimize the confinement as a result effective variable. MPEP 2144.05 II. It would also have been an obvious simple substitution. MPEP 2143 I.B. Barriers were known in Boucher but thickness not given; Bean shows barriers of such thickness. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute Bean’s thickness because some thickness must be chosen, Bean shows reasonable values, and the skilled artisan understands how barriers work and therefore these thicknesses would have been predictable.
Claims 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boucher and Bean as applied to parent claim 18, and further in view of US 2010/0238964 (“Matsushita”).
Regarding claims 21-25, the specifics of the tunnel junction are not shown in Boucher as claimed. Matsushita describes a similar laser, with two laser diodes 15,16 separated by tunnel junction 7. Matsushita is generally made of similar materials as Boucher. [0035]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the specifics of the tunnel junction in Matsushita as a simple substitution of a known element for another to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143 I.B. Boucher is similar to the claims but uses a different tunnel junction; the specifics are found in Matsushita as discussed below. These tunnel junctions perform in the same way in the same location in both devices and therefore there use would have been predictable. It also would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Matsushita’s tunnel junction as it provides good crystallinity and low resistance compared to similar prior art lasers. [0003]-[0011].
Regarding claim 21, the tunnel junctions together may have a thickness of 50 nm or less. Matsushita uses 20 nm or more, [0036], falling within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 22, the tunnel junctions may be p and n type InGaAs. Matsushita [0025], [0035].
Regarding claims 23-24, the p type tunnel junction is doped with zinc and the n type may be tellurium. Matsushita [0026], [0031]. The n type dopant may be 2x1017 to 1x1019 cm-3, overlapping with the claimed range. [0033]. The product of the p and n dopants may be greater than 1x1036. [0036]. Given this and the n type, the p type is also overlapping the claimed range. See also Fig. 9.
Regarding claim 25, see rejection of claims 21 and 22 above.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boucher and Bean as applied to parent claim 18, and further in view of Garcia et al., Epitaxially stacked lasers with Esaki junction: A bipolar cascade laser, Applied Physics Letters, vol. 71 no. 26, Dec. 1997 (“Garcia”).
Regarding claim 17, the bulk of the claim is taught and disclosed as in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 17 adds that the substrate is InP, and this is in Boucher. Section 3.1 par. under Fig. 3. Claim 17 additionally requires “wherein the quantum well structures of the multiple active areas differ from one to another in terms of their layer thicknesses and/or their material compositions such that at least two emission areas have different emission wavelengths by at least 5 nm.” This is not in Boucher.
Garcia teaches that it was known in the art to stack multiple laser diodes, separated by tunnel junctions, like in the claimed invention. It also teaches that it was known that the quantum wells of the lasers may be made of different material compositions (p. 3752, right column) and thus emit at different wavelengths that differ by at least 5 nm (abstract, 29 nm difference). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to do this as a skilled artisan will clearly recognize that there may be applications where emission at multiple wavelengths is desirable.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 11,152,767 in view of Bean. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1-25 are generally broader than claims 1-25 of the ‘767 patent, except are narrower in that the independent claims further require that layers adjacent the active region have low zinc doping to suppress diffusion into the active region. This is taught by Bean as in the 103 rejections above, and would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill for the same reasons discussion in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Menefee whose telephone number is (571)272-1944. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 applications may be obtained from Patent Center. See: 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.
/JAMES A MENEFEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
