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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species II, corresponding claims 1 – 2, 5 and 7 – 12 in the reply filed on January 14, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 3 – 4 and 6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 January 14, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on February 28, 2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered and accepted by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawing submitted on January 14, 2026, has been considered and accepted by the examiner.
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 – 2 and 7 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant admitted prior art, therein referred as to AAPA, (the examiner use the US 2024/0291239, which is equivalent of the application 18/144,244, see Figure 1 and paragraphs [0020 – 0029]) in view of Rossin (US 7,830,938).
PNG
media_image1.png
322
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, AAPA disclose a device (see Figure 1) comprising:
an active structure (see Figure 1, character 101 and paragraphs [0020 – 0026], the active structure (101) include sublayer (101b) comprises active region (101b-1), sublayer (101a) comprise a second cladding layer and/or first contact layer and sublayer (101c) comprises a second contact layer) in an element (see Figure 1) attached to a substrate (see Figure 1, character 105 and paragraph [0028]), the active structure (see Figure 1, character 101) comprising an active region (see Figure 1, character 101b-1) comprising a quantum well region (see Figure 1, character 101 and paragraph [0024]);
wherein all layers (see Figure 1, characters 104, 102, 108 and 107) that underlie the active structure (see Figure 1, character 101) and overlie the substrate (see Figure 1, character 105); and
an optical mode (see Figure 1, character 140 or 150 and paragraph [0024]) supported by the device in a region (see Figure 1) including the active structure (see Figure 1, character 101).
AAPA discloses the claimed invention except for all material layers that underlie the active structure and overlie the substrate are dielectric layers. AAPA in Figure 1 and paragraphs [0020 and 0027] teaches the passive waveguide (102) and cladding (107) are made of a dielectric material(s). APPA does not mention the material(s) of layer (102) and/or planarization layer (108). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the all material layers that underlie the active structure and overlie the substrate are dielectric layers to the device of AAPA, to provide insulation. The dielectric layer(s) acts as a barrier that prevents direct current flow between conductive elements.
PNG
media_image2.png
324
486
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
337
446
media_image3.png
Greyscale
AAPA discloses the claimed invention except for an optical mode supported by the device in a region including the active structure is characterized by an amplitude having a peak value offset, in a direction towards the substrate, from the quantum well region. Rossin teaches the active structure (see Figures 5 and 6, character 560) is characterized by an amplitude having a peak value offset (see Figure 6, character
Ι
), in a direction towards the substrate (see Figure 5, character 520). However, it is well known in the art to apply and/or modify the active structure is characterized by an amplitude having a peak value offset, in a direction towards the substrate as discloses by Rossin in (see Figures 5 – 6, Abstract, column 4, lines 55 – 66, column 5, lines 15 –20, column 6, lines 12 – 15 and 65 – 67 and column 7, lines 1 – 15 and 37 – 44). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the active structure is characterized by an amplitude having a peak value offset, in a direction towards the substrate as suggested to the device of AAPA, to decrease optical loss and improving the reliability and performance of the resultant integrated photonic structure and/or device. Also, providing a laser diode having both a small vertical far-field beam divergence and a large vertical optical confinement factor.
Regarding claim 2, AAPA and Rossin, AAPA disclose a dielectric layer (see Figure 1, character 102 and paragraph [0020], the reference called “passive waveguide”) between the active structure (see Figure 1, character 101) and the substrate (see Figure 1, character 105) is one of silicon nitride, silicon oxynitride, tantalum pentoxide, titanium dioxide, lithium niobate and aluminum nitride (see paragraph [0020]).
Regarding claim 7, AAPA and Rossin discloses the claimed invention except for the optical mode is characterized by an optical power of at least 30 mW. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to modify the optical mode is characterized by an optical power of at least 30 mW to the device of AAPA and Rossin, to improve device performance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In addition, the selection of optical power of the optical mode, it’s obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed [the optical mode is characterized by an optical power of at least 30 mW] or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen [the optical mode is characterized by an optical power of at least 30 mW] or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen [the optical mode is characterized by an optical power of at least 30 mW] are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 8, AAPA and Rossin, AAPA disclose a passive structure (see Figure 1, character 102 and paragraph [0020], the reference called “passive waveguide”) attached to the substrate (see Figure 1, character 105);
wherein the passive structure (see Figure 1, character 102) is configured to couple optically to the active structure (see Figure 1, character 101).
Regarding claim 9, AAPA and Rossin, AAPA disclose a contact metal (see Figure 1, characters 109a and/or 109b and/or 110, and paragraphs [0023, 0026 and 0027], the reference called “Contact metals and pad metal”) overlying the active structure (see Figure 1, character 101);
wherein a portion of the optical coupling (see Figure 1) occurs at a lateral facet (see Figure 1) of the active structure (see Figure 1, character 101); and
wherein the contact metal (see Figure 1, character 109b and/or 110) is offset axially from the lateral facet (see Figure 1) by a predetermined distance (see Figure 1 and paragraphs [0023, 0026 and 0027]).
Regarding claim 10, AAPA and Rossin discloses the claimed invention except for the predetermined distance is at least 1 um. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to modify the predetermined distance is at least 1 um to the device of AAPA and Rossin, to provide a compact device, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In addition, the selection of distance between contact metal to the lateral facet, it’s obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed [the predetermined distance is at least 1 um] or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen [the predetermined distance is at least 1 um] or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen [the predetermined distance is at least 1 um] are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 5, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant admitted prior art, therein referred as to AAPA, (the examiner use the US2024/0291239, see Figure 1 and paragraphs [0020 – 0029]) in view of Rossin (US 7,830,938), further in view of Park et al. (US 2021/0088727).
PNG
media_image4.png
284
570
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, AAPA and Rossin discloses the claimed invention except for the peak value of amplitude of the optical mode supported by the device in a region including the active structure is present in a waveguide sublayer of the active structure. Park teaches an active structure (see Figure 1, character 101), which include a waveguide sublayer (see Figure 1, character 101a and/or 101b) However, it is well known in the art to apply and/or modify the waveguide sublayer as discloses by Park in (see Figure 1 and paragraphs [0079 and 0080]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the waveguide sublayer as suggested to the device of AAPA and Rossin, it could be used to guide electromagnetic waves from one point to another, minimizing signal loss and enabling the efficient transmission of high-frequency signals.
PNG
media_image5.png
360
326
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, AAPA and Rossin disclose the optical coupling occurs (see Figure 1) at a lateral facet of the active structure (see Figure 1, character 101);
AAPA and Rossin discloses the claimed invention except for the lateral facet is angled at a value optimized to minimize reflections. Park teaches the lateral facet is angled at a value optimized to minimize reflections (see Figure 5). However, it is well known in the art to apply and/or modify the lateral facet is angled at a value optimized to minimize reflections as discloses by Park in (see Figure 5 and paragraph [0073]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the lateral facet is angled at a value optimized to minimize reflections as suggested to the device of AAPA and Rossin, in order to deliberately providing such an angle can serve to reduce reflection or otherwise improve the performance of the transition.
Regarding claim 12, AAPA and Rossin discloses the claimed invention except for a passive region between the active structure and the substrate comprises a frequency selective structure configured to provide grating functionality. Park teaches a grating. However, it is well known in the art to apply and/or modify the grating as discloses by Park in (see paragraph [0077]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the grating as suggested to the device of AAPA and Rossin, in order to separate light into its constituent wavelengths by diffracting it at specific angles determined by the grating spacing and wavelength.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references US 20220013985 disclose integrated-optics systems are presented in which an optically active device is optically coupled with a silicon waveguide via a passive compound-semiconductor waveguide. In a first region, the passive waveguide and the optically active device collectively define a composite waveguide structure, where the optically active device functions as the central ridge portion of a rib-waveguide structure. The optically active device is configured to control the vertical position of an optical mode in the composite waveguide along its length such that the optical mode is optically coupled into the passive waveguide with low loss. The passive waveguide and the silicon waveguide collectively define a vertical coupler in a second region, where the passive and silicon waveguides are configured to control the distribution of the optical mode along the length of the coupler, thereby enabling the entire mode to transition between the passive and silicon waveguides with low loss.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Delma R. Forde whose telephone number is (571)272-1940. The examiner can normally be reached M - TH 7:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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 O 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.
/Delma R Forde/Examiner, Art Unit 2828
/TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights