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 made to claims 1 and 20, no new claims have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified the Yoshida reference to omit the SiO2 film 234 disposed between the protective film 265 and the metal oxide film (Al2O3 film) 235. Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the reference of Yoshida in regard to the position of the third film of Yoshida for the purpose of preventing the underlying layers during subsequent manufacturing steps as further disclosed in the rejections of claims 1 and 20 below.
Regarding the argument that Yoshida teaches away from the claimed arrangement, Examiner notes MPEP § 2145 (D)(1) which states that prior arts disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from an alternative because the disclosure “does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….”. The disclosure of Yoshida does not directly criticize the claimed arrangement of an Al2O3 film directly on the emission end face of the nitride semiconductor stack body and therefore does not teach away from the proposed combination.
Further, cited paragraph [0100] of the disclosure of Yoshida discloses the benefits of using an AlN layer as a base for the remaining growth of subsequent layers and does not specifically discredit the use of an Al2O3 film in the device structure.
Regarding the argument that the current record lacks any apparent reason, suggestion or expectation of success for combining the patents to create Applicant’s unique arrangement of the nitride semiconductor laser element, Examiner notes that the benefit of using an Al2O3 film as a first film directly in contact with an emission end face of a resonator is disclosed in paragraph [0023] of Arakida and cited both in the previous Non-Final rejection dated 09/20/2025 and in the rejections of claims 1 and 20 below.
Regarding the argument that the combinations of the specific crystallinity requirements and materials compositions recited in the dependent claims are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
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.
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 1-11 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (hereinafter Yoshida) (US 20150124847 A1) in view of Arakida et al. (hereinafter Arakida) (US 20030210722 A1) and Murayama (US 20120093186 A1) and further in view of Raring et al. (hereinafter Raring) (US 10559939 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshida discloses in Figure 6,
A nitride semiconductor laser element [201] comprising:
a nitride semiconductor stack body [50] (Para. [0067]) including a first nitride semiconductor layer [12] of a first conductivity type (Para. [0068]),
a second nitride semiconductor layer [19] (Para. [0068]) of a second conductivity type different from the first conductivity type (Para. [0068]), and
an active layer [15] (Para. [0068]) disposed between the first nitride semiconductor layer [12] and the second nitride semiconductor layer [19] (Para. [0068]),
the nitride semiconductor stack body [50] defining first end face [28] intersecting a face of the active layer [15] (Para. [0076]), and a second end face [29] intersecting the face of the active layer [15] (Para. [0076]);
a third film [235] containing aluminum and oxygen (Para. [0097]); and
a second film [265] that is a nitride crystalline film (Para. [0098]) disposed between the first film [264] and the third film [235] (Para. [0097]).
Yoshida fails to disclose,
a first film disposed on the first end face of the nitride semiconductor stack body with the first film being directly in contact with the first end face of the nitride semiconductor stack body, and the first film being a crystalline film containing oxygen and aluminum and/or gallium and,
the second film being directly in contact with the third film
Arakida discloses in Fig 1a.
a first film [18a] (Para. [0060]) disposed on a first end face (Para. [0061]) of a semiconductor stack body [16] with the first film [18a] being directly in contact with the first end face of the semiconductor stack body [16] (Para. [0061]), and the first film [18a] being a film containing oxygen and aluminum and/or gallium (Para. [0062]) and,
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 first film of Arakida as the first film directly in contact with the semiconductor stack of Yoshida for the purpose of having a first film with a high adhesive force to the edge of the resonator and high chemical and thermal stability (Arakida Para. [0023]).
Yoshida in view of Arakida fails to disclose,
the first film being a crystalline film and,
the second film being directly in contact with the third film
Murayama discloses in Fig. 1,
a third film [53] comprising Al2O3 (Para. [0058]) directly in contact with a second film [52] comprising a nitride film with aluminum (Para. [0058])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a third film comprising Al2O3 directly in contact with a second film comprising a nitride with aluminum as shown in Murayama with the second and third films of Yoshida for the purpose of increasing the adhesiveness between the layers. (Murayama Para. [0058])
Yoshida in view of Arakida and Murayama fails to disclose,
the first film being a crystalline film
Raring discloses,
A crystalline Al2O3 film directly on a laser facet (Fig. 15A) (Col. 33, lines 45-59)
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 Al2O3 layer of the modified device of Yoshida as a crystalline film as described by Raring for the purpose of having a layer that will have a longer lifetime and will not change structurally over time. (Raring Col. 33, lines 51 and 52)
Regarding claim 2, Yoshida in view of Arakida, Murayama and Raring as applied to claim 1 above further discloses in Arakida Fig. 1A,
wherein the first film [18a] is an oxide film containing aluminum. (Para. [0060])
Regarding claim 3, Yoshida in view of Arakida, Murayama and Raring as applied to claim 1 above further discloses in Yoshida Fig. 6,
wherein the third film [235] is an oxide film containing aluminum. (Para. [0097])
Regarding claim 4, Yoshida in view of Arakida, Murayama and Raring as applied to claim 1 above further discloses in Yoshida Fig. 6,
wherein the second film [265] is an AlN film. (Para. [0098])
Regarding claim 5, Yoshida in view of Arakida, Murayama and Raring as applied to claim 1 above further discloses in Arakida Fig. 1A,
wherein a thickness of the first film [18a] is smaller than 10nm (Para. [0062])
Regarding claim 6, Yoshida in view of Arakida, Murayama and Raring as applied to claim 1 above further discloses,
wherein a thickness of the third film [Yoshida Fig. 6 235] is three times a thickness of the first film [Arakida Fig. 1A 18a] or larger. (Yoshida Para. [0097], Arakida Para. [0062])
Regarding claim 7, Yoshida in view of Arakida, Murayama and Raring as applied to claim 1 above further discloses,
wherein each of the first film [Arakida Fig. 1A 18a] and the second film [Yoshida Fig. 6 265] is thinner than the third film [Yoshida Fig. 6 235]. (Yoshida Para. [0097], Arakida Para. [0062])
Regarding claim 8, Yoshida in view of Arakida, Murayama and Raring as applied to claim 1 above further discloses in Arakida Fig. 1A,
wherein the first film [18a] is an insulating film. (Para. [0023,0061])
Regarding claim 9, Yoshida in view of Arakida, Murayama and Raring as applied to claim 1 above further discloses in Yoshida Fig. 6,
wherein the third film [235 Fig. 6] is a film having an amorphous structure or a film including both amorphous and crystalline structures. (Para [0119])
Yoshida discloses in paragraph [0110] that the Al2O3 film [315] shown in figure
11A corresponds to the metal oxide film [235] seen in figure 6. Yoshida further discloses
that the Al2O3 film [315] shown in figure 11A is formed as an amorphous film in
paragraph [0119].
Regarding claim 10, Yoshida in view of Arakida, Murayama and Raring as applied to claim 1 above further discloses in Yoshida Fig. 6,
wherein an axial orientation [c-axis] (Para. [0098]) of a crystal in a region of the
second film [265] adjacent to the active layer [15] is the same as at least one of an axial
orientation [c-axis] (Para. [0098]) of a crystal in a region of the second film [265]
adjacent to the first nitride semiconductor layer [12] and an axial orientation [c-axis]
(Para. [0098]) of a crystal in a region of the second film [265] adjacent to the second
nitride semiconductor layer [19]. (Para. [0098])
Regarding claim 11, Yoshida in view of Arakida, Murayama and Raring as applied to claim 1 above further discloses in Yoshida Fig. 6,
further comprising: a fourth film [236] (Para. [0097]) disposed on a surface of the third film [235] (Para. [0097]) located opposite to the second film [265] (Para. [0097]), wherein a thickness of the fourth film [236] is larger than a thickness of the third film [235] (Para. [0097]).
Examiner notes the interpretation of “on” used in the instant application is understood to be “a function word to indicate position in close proximity with” as stated in Merriam-Webster Dictionary which is indicating the positional relationship of “supported by” as shown in the reference of Yoshida. (See PTO-892 form)
Regarding claim 17, Yoshida in view of Arakida, Murayama and Raring as applied to claim 1 above further discloses in Arakida Fig. 1A,
wherein the first film [18a] is an Al2O3 film. (Para. [0097])
Regarding claim 18, Yoshida in view of Arakida, Murayama and Raring as applied to claim 1 above further discloses in Yoshida Fig. 6,
wherein the third film [235] is an Al2O3 film. (Para. [0097])
Regarding claim 19, Yoshida in view of Arakida, Murayama and Raring as applied to claim 1 above further discloses in Yoshida Fig. 6,
wherein the second film [265] (Para. [0097]) is disposed on a surface of the first film [Arakida Fig. 1A 18a] (Para. [0060]), and the third film [235] (Para. [0097]) is disposed on a surface of the second film [265] (Para. [0097]).
Examiner notes the interpretation of “on” used in the instant application is understood to be “a function word to indicate position in close proximity with” as stated in Merriam-Webster Dictionary which is indicating the positional relationship of “supported by” as shown in the reference of Yoshida. (See PTO-892 form)
Regarding claim 20, Yoshida discloses in Figure 6,
A nitride semiconductor laser element [201] comprising:
a nitride semiconductor stack body [50] (Para. [0067]) including a first nitride semiconductor layer [12] of a first conductivity type (Para. [0068]),
a second nitride semiconductor layer [19] (Para. [0068]) of a second conductivity type different from the first conductivity type (Para. [0068]), and
an active layer [15] (Para. [0068]) disposed between the first nitride semiconductor layer [12] and the second nitride semiconductor layer [19] (Para. [0068]),
the nitride semiconductor stack body [50] defining first end face [28] intersecting a face of the active layer [15] (Para. [0076]), and a second end face [29] intersecting the face of the active layer [15] (Para. [0076]);
a third film [235] containing aluminum and oxygen (Para. [0097]); and
a second film [265] that is a nitride crystalline film (Para. [0098]) disposed between the first film [264] and the third film [235] (Para. [0097]).
Yoshida fails to disclose,
a first film disposed on the first end face of the nitride semiconductor stack body with a distance between the first film and the first end face of the nitride semiconductor stack body being 3nm or smaller, and the first film being a crystalline film containing oxygen and aluminum and/or gallium and,
the second film being directly in contact with the third film
Arakida discloses in Fig 1a.
a first film [18a] (Para. [0060]) disposed on a first end face (Para. [0061]) of a semiconductor stack body [16] with the first film [18a] being directly in contact with the first end face of the semiconductor stack body [16] (Para. [0061]), and the first film [18a] being a film containing oxygen and aluminum and/or gallium (Para. [0062]) and,
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 first film of Arakida as the first film directly in contact with the semiconductor stack of Yoshida for the purpose of having a first film with a high adhesive force to the edge of the resonator and high chemical and thermal stability (Arakida Para. [0023]).
Yoshida in view of Arakida fails to disclose,
the first film being a crystalline film and,
the second film being directly in contact with the third film
Murayama discloses in Fig. 1,
a third film [53] comprising Al2O3 (Para. [0058]) directly in contact with a second film [52] comprising a nitride film with aluminum (Para. [0058])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a third film comprising Al2O3 directly in contact with a second film comprising a nitride with aluminum as shown in Murayama with the second and third films of Yoshida for the purpose of increasing the adhesiveness between the layers. (Murayama Para. [0058])
Yoshida in view of Arakida and Murayama fails to disclose,
the first film being a crystalline film
Raring discloses,
A crystalline Al2O3 film directly on a laser facet (Fig. 15A) (Col. 33, lines 45-59)
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 Al2O3 layer of the modified device of Yoshida as a crystalline film as described by Raring for the purpose of having a layer that will have a longer lifetime and will not change structurally over time. (Raring Col. 33, lines 51 and 52)
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida in view of Arakida, Murayama and Raring as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kameyama (US 20100127154 A1)
Regarding claim 12, The modified device of Yoshida discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
an additional protective film on the second end face, wherein
the additional protective film has a first portion in contact with second end face and a second portion in contact with the first portion,
the first portion has a multilayer structure including a relatively low refractive
index film and a relatively high refractive index film, the relatively low refractive index
film having a refractive index lower than a refractive index of the relatively high
refractive index film, and
the second portion includes high refractive index films and low refractive index
films that are alternately disposed, the high refractive index films having a refractive
index higher than the low refractive index films.
Kameyama discloses in Fig. 1,
an additional protective film [6] on the second end face [2b], wherein
the additional protective film [6] has a first portion [61,62] in contact with the second end face [2b] and a second portion [63] in contact with the first portion
[62,63],
the first portion [61,62] has a multilayer structure including a relatively low
refractive index film [61b] and a relatively high refractive index film [61c], the relatively
low refractive index film having a refractive index lower than a refractive index of the
relatively high refractive index film, and
the second portion [63] includes high refractive index films [63b] and low
refractive index films [63a] that are alternately disposed (Para. [0063]), the high
refractive index films having a refractive index higher than the low refractive index
films. (Para. [0014])
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 additional protective film of Kameyama onto the light reflection side of the device of the modified device of Yoshida for the purpose of having a coating with high reflectance and to suppress catastrophic optical damage. (Kameyama Paras. [0064,0083])
It is known in that art that the materials used for the layers [61b] (Al2O3) and [61c] (AlN), have different refractive indices at the lasing wavelength (405nm Para. [0054]) of the nitride-based semiconductor laser device of Kameyama with the Al2O3 having a lower refractive index at the given wavelength than the refractive index of AlN at the given wavelength. Specifically, from the website refractiveindex.info, at 405nm the refractive index of Al2O3 is around 1.7857 and the refractive index of AlN at 405nm is around 2.1947. Therefore, satisfying the limitation of a relatively low index film [61b
Al2O3] having a refractive index lower than a refractive index of a relatively high index
film [61c AlN].
Examiner notes the interpretation of “on” used in the instant application is understood to be “a function word to indicate position in close proximity with” as stated in Merriam-Webster Dictionary which is indicating the positional relationship of “supported by” as shown in the reference of Yoshida. (See PTO-892 form)
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Yoshida in view of Arakida, Murayama, Raring and Kameyama as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Yoshida.
Regarding claim 13, Yoshida in view of Arakida, Murayama, Raring and Kameyama discloses in Fig. 1 of Kameyama,
wherein the first portion [61,62] of the additional protective film [6] includes, in the
order from the second end face [2b], a fifth film [61b] that is a film containing
oxygen and aluminum and/or gallium (Kameyama Para. [0063]), a sixth film [61c] that is
a nitride film (Kameyama Para. [0063]), and a seventh film [61d] containing aluminum
and oxygen (Kameyama Para. [0063]).
Kameyama is silent to the crystallinity of the 5th and 6th films,
Yoshida discloses in Fig. 6,
the use of crystalline aluminum oxides [264,235]
(Yoshida Para. [0100]) and a polycrystalline aluminum nitride [265] (Yoshida Para.
[0098]) through ECR sputtering (Yoshida Para. [0082])
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 crystallinity of the films as disclosed
in Yoshida into the additional protective film of Kameyama for the purpose of blocking
oxygen diffusion to suppress deterioration inside the protective film for a result of high
output and a long life (Yoshida Para. [0098]) and to block oxygen transmission and
prevent peeling. (Yoshida Para. [0100])
Regarding claim 14, the modified device of Yoshida in view of Arakida, Raring, Murayama, Kameyama and further in view of Yoshida as applied to claim 13 above discloses in Fig. 1 of Kameyama,
wherein the fifth film [61b] is an oxide film containing aluminum. (Kameyama Para. [0063])
Regarding claim 15, the modified device of Yoshida in view of Arakida, Raring, Murayama, Kameyama and further in view of Yoshida as applied to claim 13 above discloses in Fig. 1 of Kameyama,
wherein the seventh film [61d] is an oxide film containing aluminum. (Kameyama
Para. [0063])
Regarding claim 16, the modified device of Yoshida in view of Arakida, Raring, Murayama, Kameyama and further in view of Yoshida as applied to claim 13 above discloses in Fig. 1 of Kameyama,
wherein the sixth film [61c] is an AlN film. (Kameyama Para. [0063])
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 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