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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, shown in Figs. 1-4 in the reply filed on 10/13/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 3,6-10,14 and 16 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/13/2025.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C.
119 (a)-(d) to the foreign application JP2022-028541. The foreign application is not in English. The certified copy of the foreign priority application JP2022-028541has been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/18/2025 was filed after the filing date of the claimed application on 01/24/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-14 and 15 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 1 recites the limitation "its emission end face" in line 11 of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of examination in the instant application, the term “its emission end face” is understood to read “an emission end face”
Similarly, claim 15 recites the limitation " its emission end face " in line 10 of claim 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of examination in the instant application, the term “its emission end face” is understood to read “an emission end face”
Claims 2-14 are rejected at least on their dependency to indefinite claim 1.
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.
Claims 1,11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Ohkubo et al. (hereinafter Ohkubo) (US 20020024984 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ohkubo discloses in Fig. 4,
A semiconductor laser device [Fig. 4] (Paras. [0042,0078]) is an edge-emitting semiconductor laser device [See Fig. 2] (Paras. [0018,0033], the semiconductor laser device comprising:
a laser resonator [40] (Para. [0078]) including a layered structure in which a lower cladding layer [16] (Para. [0079]), an active layer [18,20,22,24,26,28 and 30] (Paras. [0048,0079]), and an upper cladding layer [32] (Para. [0079]) are formed over a semiconductor substrate [12] (Para. [0078]), and a ridge [36] (Para. [0045]) that is formed on the upper cladding layer [32] (Para. [0079]), the laser resonator emitting laser light having a beam profile [Fig. 8] (Paras. [0067,0071]),
wherein when viewed in plan from a direction orthogonal to the semiconductor substrate [12] (See Fig. 2), the laser resonator includes an emission area [Fig. 2 (2)] and [Fig. 3 (1)] on its emission end face [face shown in Fig. 3] (Para. [0034]),
wherein when the emission end face of the laser resonator is viewed in front [Fig. 3] (Para. [0034]), a virtual line defined by an intensity being 1/e2 of a peak intensity of the beam profile of the laser light [area 1 shown with WH and WV Fig. 3] (Paras. [0034,0038,0071]) fits inside the upper cladding layer [32] in the emission area.
Examiner notes that the interpretation of “fits inside the upper cladding layer” is understood to not be limited to being inside only the upper cladding layer, as shown in Fig. 3B of the claimed invention.
Examiner notes the interpretation of “on” the upper cladding layer is understood to mean indicating a source of support, as defined in Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (See PTO-892 form)
Regarding claim 11, Ohkubo as applied to claim 1 further discloses in Fig. 4,
wherein the active layer [18,20,22,24,26,28 and 30] (Paras. [0048,0079]) includes at least one material selected from a group consisting of In, Ga, Al, As, P, and N. (Para. [0079])
Regarding claim 12, Ohkubo as applied to claim 1 further discloses
wherein when the semiconductor laser device is viewed in plan from a direction orthogonal to the semiconductor substrate (See Fig. 2) [12], the laser resonator includes a gain area [ridge waveguide away from emission facet Figs 2 and 3] adjacent to the emission area [emission facet Fig. 3], and the ridge in the gain area of the laser resonator is designed such that the laser light has a transverse single mode (Paras. [0034,0061,0086]).
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.
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 2,4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohkubo in view of Yokouchi et al. (hereinafter Yokouchi) (US 6430203 B1).
Regarding claim 2, Ohkubo discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
wherein when the semiconductor laser device is viewed in plan from a direction orthogonal to the semiconductor substrate, a width of the ridge widens at a boundary of the emission area.
Yokouchi discloses in Fig. 3,
a semiconductor laser device [B1] (Col. 3, line 35) with a ridge [A] (Col. 3, line 35) that includes a portion [A1 on side of S] that widens at a boundary between an emission area [A1 on side of S] and a smaller middle portion [S2] when viewed in plan [Fig.3] (Col. 3, lines 35-41)
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 ridge structure of Yokouchi in place of the ridge structure of Ohkubo for the purpose of providing a laser device having no cracks formed on the emission face and preventing threshold current from rising. (Yokouchi Col. 3, lines 1-20)
Regarding claim 4, Ohkubo discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
wherein when the emission end face is viewed in front, a cross-sectional shape of the ridge in the emission area is rectangular, and the width of the ridge is larger than a 1/e2 width of the beam profile in a lateral direction.
Yokouchi discloses in Fig. 3,
a semiconductor laser device [B1] (Col. 3, line 35) with a ridge [A] (Col. 3, line 35) with a rectangular shape of the ridge [A] (Fig. 3) that includes a portion [A1 on side of S] that widens at a boundary between an emission area [A1 on side of S] and a smaller middle portion [S2] when viewed in plan [Fig.3] (Col. 3, lines 35-41)
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 ridge structure of Yokouchi in place of the ridge structure of Ohkubo for the purpose of providing a laser device having no cracks formed on the emission face and preventing threshold current from rising. (Yokouchi Col. 3, lines 1-20)
Examiner notes the wide portion [A1] of the ridge of Yokouchi spans the entire width of the device (Col.3, lines 35-41). Ohkubo discloses the width of the side portions [R] in Fig. 4 to be 2 times the 1/e--2 width [WH] (Paras. [0034,0045]). Therefore, the entire width of the modified ridge spanning the entire width of the device is at least 4 times the 1/e2 width [WH].
Regarding claim 5, Ohkubo in view of Yokouchi as applied to claim 4 above further discloses,
wherein the width of the ridge [36 Ohkubo Fig. 4] is three times or more as large as the 1/e2 width [WH Ohkubo Fig. 3] of the beam profile in the lateral direction.
Examiner notes the wide portion [A1] of the ridge of Yokouchi spans the entire width of the device (Col.3, lines 35-41). Ohkubo discloses the width of the side portions [R] in Fig. 4 to be 2 times the 1/e--2 width [WH] (Paras. [0034,0045]). Therefore, the entire width of the modified ridge spanning the entire width of the device is at least 4 times the 1/e2 width [WH].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohkubo in view of Kawanaka et al. (hereinafter Kawanaka) (US 20080181276 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Ohkubo discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
wherein a light-shielding groove is formed at a location adjacent to the emission area, the light-shielding groove extending in a direction orthogonal to the laser resonator.
Kawanaka discloses in Fig. 1,
a light-shielding groove [22] (Paras. [0137,1038]) is formed at a location adjacent to an emission area [emission face 20] (Para. [0132]), the light-shielding groove [22] extending in a direction orthogonal to the laser resonator [orthogonal to ridge 7] (Paras. [0132,0140]).
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 grooves of Kawanaka adjacent to the emission face of Ohkubo for the purpose of preventing an exchange of light and to block light from returning towards the rear facet of the device. (Kawanaka Paras. [0139,0140])
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohkubo in view of Yokouchi and further in view of Buchmann et al. (hereinafter Buchmann) (US 5032219 A).
Regarding claim 15,
A semiconductor laser device [Fig. 4] (Paras. [0042,0078]) is an edge-emitting semiconductor laser device [See Fig. 2] (Paras. [0018,0033], the semiconductor laser device comprising:
a laser resonator [40] (Para. [0078]) including a layered structure in which a lower cladding layer [16] (Para. [0079]), an active layer [18,20,22,24,26,28 and 30] (Paras. [0048,0079]), and an upper cladding layer [32] (Para. [0079]) are formed over a semiconductor substrate [12] (Para. [0078]), and a ridge [36] (Para. [0045]) that is formed on the upper cladding layer [32] (Para. [0079]), the laser resonator emitting laser light having a beam profile [Fig. 8] (Paras. [0067,0071]),
wherein when viewed in plan from a direction orthogonal to the semiconductor substrate [12] (See Fig. 2), the laser resonator includes an emission area [Fig. 2 (2)] and [Fig. 3 (1)] on its emission end face [face shown in Fig. 3] (Para. [0034]), and a gain area [ridge waveguide away from emission facet Figs 2 and 3] adjacent to the emission area,
Ohkubo fails to disclose,
a width of the ridge widens stepwise at a boundary between the gain area and the emission area, and
a width of the ridge in the emission area is three times or more as large as a maximum width of the ridge in the gain area.
Yokouchi discloses in Fig. 3,
a semiconductor laser device [B1] (Col. 3, line 35) with a ridge [A] (Col. 3, line 35) that includes a portion [A1 on side of S] that widens at a boundary between an emission area [A1 on side of S] and a smaller middle portion [S2] when viewed in plan [Fig.3] (Col. 3, lines 35-41)
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 ridge structure of Yokouchi in place of the ridge structure of Ohkubo for the purpose of providing a laser device having no cracks formed on the emission face and preventing threshold current from rising. (Yokouchi Col. 3, lines 1-20)
Examiner notes the wide portion [A1] of the ridge of Yokouchi spans the entire width of the device (Col.3, lines 35-41). Ohkubo discloses the width of the side portions [R] in Fig. 4 to be 2 times the 1/e--2 width [WH] (Paras. [0034,0045]). Therefore, the entire width of the modified ridge spanning the entire width of the device is at least 4 times the 1/e2 width [WH].
Ohkubo in view of Yokouchi fails to disclose,
a width of the ridge widens in a stepwise manner
Buchmann discloses in Fig. 2
A width of a ridge [17] (Col. 4, lines 18-20) widening from a narrow region to a wide region [23] (Col. 4, lines 18-20) in a stepwise manner (See Fig. 2)
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 stepwise widening of the ridge portion as shown in Buchmann with the widened ridge portion of Ohkubo in view of Yokouchi for the purpose of having the entire widened region at a specific shortened length to minimize coupling loss. (Buchmann Col. 4, lines 32-39).
Examiner notes the interpretation of “on” the upper cladding layer is understood to mean indicating a source of support, as defined in Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (See PTO-892 form)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Examiner particularly notes JP H01321676 A, which discloses a device including a ridge with two widened portions connected by a narrow portion. (See PTO-892 form)
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
Prosecution Insights