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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/17/2026 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 any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The Examiner notes new art is cited to account for the updated claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous 112 rejection is withdrawn due to the current amendments.
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) 1-6, 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama et al. (WO2021-200670; US 2023/0142086 used as a translation thereof for citations) in view of Masui et al. (US 9225146).
With respect to claim 1, Sugiyama teaches a quantum cascade laser element (fig.1-2) comprising: a semiconductor substrate (fig.2 #2); a semiconductor laminate (fig.2 #3) formed on the semiconductor substrate, including an active layer (fig.2 #31) having a quantum cascade structure ([0030]), and having a first end surface (fig.2 #3a) and a second end surface (fig.2 #3b) facing each other in an optical waveguide direction (fig.2 left/right); a first electrode (fig.2 #51+52) formed on a surface on an opposite side of the semiconductor laminate from the semiconductor substrate; a second electrode (fig.2 #6) formed on a surface on an opposite side of the semiconductor substrate from the semiconductor laminate; and an insulating film (fig.2 #7) formed on at least one end surface (fig.2 #3b) of the first end surface and the second end surface, wherein the first electrode includes a first metal layer made of a first metal (fig.2 #52), and a second metal layer (fig.2 #51, at least Ti portion) made of a second metal having a higher ionization tendency than an ionization tendency of the first metal ([0036], M1=#52=Au, M2=#51=Ti/Au, where Ti has a higher ionization tendency than Au), the first metal layer has a first region exposed to an outside (fig.2 top of #52 which is uncoated on left; R1 in annotated figure below), the second metal layer has a second region located on one end surface side (fig.2 right side) with respect to the first region (fig.2 rightmost side of #51; R2 in annotated figure below), the second region is a surface facing opposite to the semiconductor substrate (top of R2) between the first region and the one end surface along the optical waveguide direction (Y direction) and the insulating film overlaps the second region from the one end surface (fig.2 insulating film #7 overlaps R2, see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
594
963
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sugiyama does not teach the insulating film to directly contact the second region. Masui teaches a related ridge laser device (fig.1/2) which includes a first metal (fig.2 #16, including Au, col.6 lines 23-26) and a second metal (fig.2 #15, including Ti, col.6 lines 16-18) wherein the first metal does not fully cover the second metal at the reflecting side (fig.2a #16 not fully covering #15 near bottom). 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 Sugiyama to space the first metal #52 and the second metal #51 in a manner similar to that of Masui’s metals #16 and #15 in order to control heating near the facets as well as COD (Masui, col.2 line 60 – col.3 line 64) thereby exposing R2 from #52.
Note that after the modification, the upper surface of region R2 of Sugiyama would be exposed from metal #51 such that the insulating layer #7 would make contact directly thereto.
With respect to claim 2, Sugiyama, as modified, teaches the first metal layer is disposed on the second metal layer (fig.2 #52 on #51), and an edge portion on the one end surface side of the second metal layer is located on the one end surface side with respect to the first region (rightmost sides of #51 and #52 align near #3b).
With respect to claim 3, Sugiyama, as modified, teaches the insulating film reaches a region of a side surface of the first metal layer, the region being in a relationship of intersection with the second region (fig.2 #7 reaches right side of #52 and #51).
With respect to claim 4, Sugiyama, as modified, teaches the second metal layer is disposed on the first metal layer (fig.2 #51 is “on” #52 as it is in direct contact with it and thereby in close proximity with it), and is located on the one end surface side with respect to the first region (fig.2 right sides of #51 and #52 align).
With respect to claim 5, Sugiyama, as modified, teaches the insulating film reaches the first metal layer via a region of a side surface of the second metal layer (as seen on right sides), the region being in a relationship of intersection with the first region (as seen on right sides).
With respect to claim 6, Sugiyama discloses a metal film formed on the insulating film to overlap at least a part of the active layer when viewed in the optical waveguide direction (fig.2 #8, [0029], overlaps #31).
With respect to claim 9, Sugiyama discloses the first metal is Au, and the second metal is Ti or Cr ([0036]).
With respect to claim 10, Sugiyama discloses the insulating film is an A1203 film or a CeO2 film ([0041]).
With respect to claim 11, Sugiyama discloses a quantum cascade laser device comprising: the quantum cascade laser element according to claim 1; and a drive unit configured to drive the quantum cascade laser element (fig.6 #13).
With respect to claim 12, Sugiyama discloses a support portion (fig.6 #111) supporting the quantum cascade laser element; and a joining member (fig.6 #12) joining an electrode pad (fig.6 #112) included in the support portion, and the first electrode (fig.6 #52) in a state where the semiconductor laminate is located on a support portion side with respect to the semiconductor substrate (fig.6).
With respect to claim 13, Sugiyama discloses the drive unit drives the quantum cascade laser element such that the quantum cascade laser element continuously oscillates laser light ([0017]).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama in view of Masui and Sugiyama et al. (US 9276381, hereafter ‘381).
With respect to claims 7-8, Sugiyama, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, including the semiconductor laminate includes a ridge portion (fig.1 #30), but does not teach a width of the metal film in the optical waveguide direction on the ridge portion is smaller than a width of the metal film in the optical waveguide direction on portions of both sides of the ridge portion OR (claim 8-) the width of the metal film in the optical waveguide direction on the ridge portion is 0. ‘381 teaches a related quantum cascade laser (fig.1, abstract) which includes an optical coating (fig.1 #30) which wraps onto the top of the device from the facet side (fig.1) to cover a portion of the ridge (fig.1 #34) and sides of the ridge (fig.1 #33), and further that the extent of the coating on the ridge (fig.1 #34) and/or on either side of the ridge (fig.1 #33s) are optional (col.15 line 1-12; i.e. they can be present or not present). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the extent of the metal optical coating of Sugiyama such that the extent on the ridge portion is 0, and therefore less width in the waveguide direction than on both sides of the ridge, as ‘381 has demonstrated that use of the wrapped coatings (onto the top surface) are useful for suppressing peeling (col.8 lines 22-34) but that it is not required to use either or both of #33/34, such that wrapping only on the sides of the ridge, but not the top, of Sugiyama would be an obvious optimization of the teachings of ‘381 allowing for selection of a desired amount of peeling prevention means to make use of (see MPEP 2144.05 II A/B) as ‘381 has recognized the extent of #33/34 as result effective variables.
Conclusion
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