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
The Examiner acknowledges the amending of claims 18, 19, 21, cancellation of claims 16-17, 20, and the addition of claims 22-36.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 01/21/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
The Examiner agrees that a calculation error occurred which mistakenly lead to Bessho being used to reject the claims. The rejections in view of Bessho are therefore withdrawn.
New art is cited which read on the claims.
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) 18, 19, 22-24, 26-30, 32, 34-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/2 as being anticipated by Nakashima et al. (US 2010/0329295).
With respect to claim 18, Nakashima discloses a semiconductor laser element (fig.1a/b) comprising: a substrate (fig.1b #10) including a first main surface (fig.1b #10 lower) and a second main surface (fig.1b #10 upper) on an opposite side relative to the first main surface; a nitride-based semiconductor laser stacking structure (fig.1b #21-24, [0062]) provided above the first main surface of the substrate and including a plurality of waveguides (fig.1a/b 4 ridge waveguides) extending in a first direction (fig.1a top/bottom) parallel to the first main surface; and a first side (fig.1b left side) surface orthogonal to the first main surface and parallel to the first direction, a second side surface (fig.1b right side) on an opposite side relative to the first side surface, and a third side surface (fig.1a bottom, fig.1b end facing out) orthogonal to the first main surface and orthogonal to the first direction, wherein a second distance is greater than a first distance which is a shortest distance among distances between two adjacent waveguides included in the plurality of waveguides (distance separating each ridge waveguide is equal to gap #31), the second distance being a distance between the first side surface and one waveguide located closest to the first side surface among the plurality of waveguides (second distance is equal to left side gap #31 + left portion #32).
With respect to claim 19, Nakashima teaches a third distance is greater than the first distance, the third distance being a distance between the second side surface and one waveguide located closest to the second side surface among the plurality of waveguides (third distance is equal to right side gap #31 + right portion #32).
With respect to claim 22, Nakashima teaches at least three contiguous waveguides included in the plurality of waveguides are arranged with the first distance (each of 4 ridge waveguides separated by same gap size #31).
With respect to claim 23, Nakashima teaches at least three waveguides are included in the plurality of waveguides (fig.1b 4 ridges), and the second distance is greater than a distance between one of the two adjacent waveguides having the first distance and an adjacent waveguide that is adjacent to the one of the two adjacent waveguides and other than another of the two adjacent waveguides (each of 4 ridge waveguides separated by same gap size #31 which is smaller than the defined second distance).
With respect to claim 24, Nakashima teaches at least three waveguides are included in the plurality of waveguides (fig.1b 4 ridges), and the second distance is greater than a distance which is a largest distance among distances between two adjacent waveguides included in the plurality of waveguides (each of 4 ridge waveguides separated by same gap size #31 which is smaller than the defined second distance).
With respect to claim 26, Nakashima teaches first region in which waveguides included in the plurality of waveguides are formed (fig.1b central); and a second region that is interposed between the first region and the first side surface (fig.1b at least a portion of #32 on left).
With respect to claim 27, Nakashima teaches a third region that is interposed between the first region and the second side surface (fig.1b at least a portion of #32 on right).
With respect to claim 28, Nakashima teaches a third distance is greater than the first distance, the third distance being a distance between the second side surface and one waveguide located closest to the second side surface among the plurality of waveguides (third distance is equal to right side gap #31 + right portion #32, which is more than first distance).
With respect to claim 29, Nakashima discloses a semiconductor laser element (fig.1a/b) comprising: a substrate (fig.1b #10) including a first main surface (fig.1b #10 lower) and a second main surface (fig.1b #10 upper) on an opposite side relative to the first main surface; a nitride-based semiconductor laser stacking structure (fig.1b #21-24, [0062]) provided above the first main surface of the substrate and including a plurality of waveguides (fig.1a/b 4 ridge waveguides) extending in a first direction (fig.1a top/bottom) parallel to the first main surface; and a first side (fig.1b left side) surface orthogonal to the first main surface and parallel to the first direction, a second side surface (fig.1b right side) on an opposite side relative to the first side surface, and a third side surface (fig.1a bottom, fig.1b end facing out) orthogonal to the first main surface and orthogonal to the first direction, wherein a second distance is greater than a first distance which is a largest distance among distances between two adjacent waveguides included in the plurality of waveguides (distance separating each ridge waveguide is equal to gap #31), the second distance being a distance between the first side surface and one waveguide located closest to the first side surface among the plurality of waveguides (second distance is equal to left side gap #31 + left portion #32).
With respect to claim 30, Nakashima teaches a third distance is greater than the first distance, the third distance being a distance between the second side surface and one waveguide located closest to the second side surface among the plurality of waveguides (third distance is equal to right side gap #31 + right portion #32, which is more than first distance).
With respect to claim 32, Nakashima teaches at least three contiguous waveguides included in the plurality of waveguides are arranged with the first distance (fig.1b all 4 ridge waveguides spaced by gap #31).
With respect to claim 34, Nakashima teaches a first region in which waveguides included in the plurality of waveguides are formed (fig.1b central); and a second region that is interposed between the first region and the first side surface (fig.1b at least portion of #32 on left).
With respect to claim 35, Nakashima teaches a third region that is interposed between the first region and the second side surface (fig.1b at least portion of #32 on right).
With respect to claim 36, Nakashima teaches a third distance is greater than the first distance, the third distance being a distance between the second side surface and one waveguide located closest to the second side surface among the plurality of waveguides (third distance is equal to right side gap #31 + right portion #32, which is more than first distance).
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) 25 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakashima in view of Takagi et al. (US 8772064).
With respect to claims 25 and 33, Nakashima teaches the device outlined above, including the third side surface is a cleavage surface for light emission/cavity formation ([0032]), but does not teach a flatness of the third side surface is greater than a flatness of the first side surface and a flatness of the second side surface. Takagi teaches a related laser device including the importance of the flatness of the emission faces (col.7 lines 33-38). 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 Nakashima such that the third surface is flatter than the first/second surfaces as the third surface is an emission surface/cavity end surface and Takagi has taught the flatness to be important for that surface, such that having the third surface be flat improves laser performance and having the first/second surfaces being less flat reduces the manufacturing tolerances.
Claim(s) 21 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakashima in view of Kusunoki (US 2007/0173036).
With respect to claim 21, Nakashima teaches the device outlined above, including use of an electrode (fig.1b #33/35) on the second main surface side, but does not teach the electrode is provided at a more inward position than a region in which debris is deposited, and a thickness of the electrode is greater than a height of the debris. Kusunoki teaches a method of laser scribing ([0052]) nitride based ([0033]) laser chips ([0002]) which includes complete removal of debris during laser production ([0028, 64]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to make use of a process in a similar manner to that taught by Kusunoki in the device of Nakashima such that no debris remains after the manufacturing to reduce device contaminations (Kusunoki, [0007, 28, 29, 64]).
Note that after modification the electrode is provided at a more inward position than a region in which debris is deposited and a thickness of the electrode is greater than a height of the debris as the debris has been removed, thereby having a height of zero and also a remaining deposited extent of 0.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Us 2013/0142209, 8563343, 8619826 and 8772064 are noted as teaching devices similar in nature to that of claims 16 and 18.
Please see the included pto892 form for a list of additional 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