DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 through 10 originally filed 31 March 2023. By amendment received 29 January 2026; claims 1 and 8 are amended. By amendment received 12 May 2026 and entered 29 May 2026; claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 10 are amended and claims 11 through 15 are added. Claims 1 through 15 are addressed by this action.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12 May 2026 has been entered.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered; they are addressed below.
Applicant argues that the amendments to the claims define the claims over the previously cited art. This argument is persuasive and the corresponding rejections are withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, additional art has been located which, in combination with the previously cited art, renders obvious that which is now claimed. As such, new rejections have been formulated as set forth below.
As such, all claims are addressed as follows:
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 through 4, 7, and 11 through 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiba et al. (Akiba, US Patent 4,648,096), in view of Yoshida et al. (Yoshida, US Pub. 2003/0064537), and further in view of Hayakawa et al. (Hayakawa, US Pub. 2014/0036948).
Regarding claim 1, Akiba discloses, "A substrate" (col. 2, lines 11-22 and Fig. 5, pt. 1). "A mesa structure formed on the substrate" (col. 2, lines 11-22 and Fig. 1, pts. 1, 2, 3, and 4). "[The mesa] to include a diffraction grating layer and an active layer" (col. 2, lines 11-27 and Fig. 5, pts. 4 and 7). "The diffraction grating layer including a phase shift portion" (col. 3, lines 57-66 and Fig. 5, pts. 7 and 8). "A pair of facets" (col. 3, lines 65-66 and Fig. 5, pt. 17). "Wherein each facet comprises a respective surface of the semiconductor laser" (col. 3, lines 65-66 and Fig. 5, pt. 17). "A pair of window structures arranged between a pair of ends of the mesa structure in a longitudinal direction thereof" (col. 3, lines 57-66 and Fig. 5, pts. 2, 3, 4, lw1, and lw2). "Wherein each window structure is arranged between a respective end of the mesa structure and a respective facet of the semiconductor laser" (col. 3, lines 57-66 and Fig. 5, pts. 2, 3, 4, 17, lw1, and lw2). "A respective low-reflection facet coating film formed on each facet of the pair of facets" (col. 3, lines 65-66 and Fig. 5, pt. 17). "Wherein an effective refractive index of each window structure is lower than an effective refractive index of the active layer" (col. 3, lines 57-66 and Fig. 5, pts. 4, lw1, and lw2). Akiba does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein each window structure includes a semi-insulating semiconductor layer." Yoshida discloses, "Wherein each window structure includes a semi-insulating semiconductor layer" (p. [0054] and Fig. 10, pt. 25a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Akiba with the teachings of Yoshida. In view of the teachings of Akiba regarding a DFB laser having a window region, the alternate construction of the window from a semi-insulating material as taught by Yoshida would enhance the teachings of Akiba by allowing possible current flow through the window region to be further suppressed.
The combination of Akiba and Yoshida does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein each low-reflection facet coating film comprises a respective multilayer insulating film." Hayakawa discloses, "Wherein each low-reflection facet coating film comprises a respective multilayer insulating film" (p. [0053] and Fig. 2, pt. 131, where each of the anti-reflection layers of Akiba may be formed as multi-layer films in this manner). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Akiba and Yoshida with the teachings of Hayakawa. In view of the teachings of Akiba regarding a DFB laser having a window region covered by an anti-reflective coating, the alternate construction of the anti-reflective coating as a multi-layer as well as the inclusion of a buffer layer as taught by Hayakawa would enhance the teachings of Akiba and Yoshida by allowing the anti-reflection effect to be adjusted enhanced for the desired range of operation as well as by providing improved growth of the epitaxial layers atop the substrate.
Regarding claim 2, Akiba discloses, "A buried layer formed on both sides of the mesa structure in a transverse direction thereof" (col. 2, lines 11-22 and Fig. 1, pts. 5 and 13).
Regarding claim 3, Akiba discloses, "Wherein each window structure is formed of the same material as a material of the buried layer" (col. 2, lines 11-22 and Figs. 1 and 5, pts. 5 and 13).
Regarding claim 4, Akiba discloses, "Wherein each window structure and the buried layer have the same depth" (col. 2, lines 11-22 and Figs. 1 and 5, pts. 5 and 13).
Regarding claim 7, Akiba discloses, "Wherein a lowermost portion of the mesa structure is formed of a part of the substrate" (col. 2, lines 11-22 and Fig. 5, pts. 1 and 2). "Wherein a bottom portion of each window structure is in contact with the substrate" (col. 2, lines 11-22 and Fig. 5, pts. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 11, Akiba discloses, "Wherein the substrate has a first polarity" (col. 2, lines 11-22 and Fig. 5, pt. 1). Akiba does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein each window structure has a second polarity different from the first polarity." Yoshida discloses, "Wherein each window structure has a second polarity different from the first polarity" (p. [0054] and Fig. 10, pt. 25a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Akiba with the teachings of Yoshida for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Akiba discloses, "Wherein the substrate has a conductivity type" (col. 2, lines 11-22 and Fig. 5, pt. 1). Akiba does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein each window structure has a semi-insulating property." Yoshida discloses, "Wherein each window structure has a semi-insulating property" (p. [0054] and Fig. 10, pt. 25a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Akiba with the teachings of Yoshida for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Akiba does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein each window structure is in contact with: a first optical confinement layer of a first conductivity type, the active layer, a second optical confinement layer of a second conductivity type, a cladding layer of the second conductivity type, and a contact layer of the second conductivity type." Yoshida discloses, "Wherein each window structure is in contact with: a first optical confinement layer of a first conductivity type, the active layer, a second optical confinement layer of a second conductivity type, a cladding layer of the second conductivity type, and a contact layer of the second conductivity type" (p. [0043], [0054], and Fig. 10, pts. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 25a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Akiba with the teachings of Yoshida for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, The combination of Akiba and Yoshida does not explicitly disclose, "A buffer layer between the first optical confinement layer of the first conductivity type and the substrate." Hayakawa discloses, "A buffer layer between the first optical confinement layer of the first conductivity type and the substrate" (p. [0044] and Fig. 2, pts. 110, 111, and 112). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Akiba and Yoshida with the teachings of Hayakawa for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Akiba discloses, "A second insulating film" (col. 2, lines 22-24 and Fig. 6, pt. 16). "Wherein the second insulating film is directly disposed on a respective upper surface of each window structure" (col. 2, lines 22-24 and Fig. 5, pts.16, lw1, and lw2).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiba, in view of Yoshida, in view of Hayakawa, and further in view of Capasso et al. (Capasso, US Pub. 2003/0219054).
Regarding claim 5, Akiba discloses, "A laser portion including the diffraction grating layer" (col. 2, lines 11-27 and Fig. 5, pt. 7).
The combination of Akiba, Yoshida, and Hayakawa does not explicitly disclose, "An optical amplifier portion arranged on one side of the laser portion in the longitudinal direction." Capasso discloses, "An optical amplifier portion arranged on one side of the laser portion in the longitudinal direction" (p. [0019] and Fig. 1A, pts. 102 and 104). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Akiba, Yoshida, and Hayakawa with the teachings of Capasso. In view of the teachings of Akiba regarding a DFB laser, the additional inclusion of an integrated amplifying region as taught by Capasso would enhance the teachings of Akiba, Yoshida, and Hayakawa by allowing the laser device to produce a higher power output.
Regarding claim 6, The combination of Akiba, Yoshida, and Hayakawa does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a width of the mesa structure in the optical amplifier portion is larger than a width of the mesa structure in the laser portion." Capasso discloses, "Wherein a width of the mesa structure in the optical amplifier portion is larger than a width of the mesa structure in the laser portion" (p. [0022] and Fig. 1A, pts. 102 and 104). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Akiba, Yoshida, and Hayakawa with the teachings of Capasso for the reasons provided above regarding claim 5.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiba, in view of Yoshida, in view of Hayakawa, and further in view of Horie (US Pub. 2005/0213625).
Regarding claim 8, The combination of Akiba, Yoshida, and Hayakawa does not explicitly disclose, "A high refractive index layer which is arranged below the mesa structure and each window structure." "[The high refractive index layer] has a higher effective refractive index than the effective refractive index of each window structure." Horie discloses, "A high refractive index layer which is arranged below the mesa structure and each window structure" (p. [0036] and Fig. 1, pts. 1, 3, and 5, where including guide layer 3 in a device such as Akiba involves arranging the layer in the claimed location). "[The high refractive index layer] has a higher effective refractive index than the effective refractive index of each window structure" (p. [0036] and Fig. 1, pts. 3 and 6, where upper clad layer 6 corresponds in function to upper clad layer 5 of Akiba such that the refractive index relation between layers 3 and 6 must be preserved when a layer such as 3 is implemented in a device such as Akiba). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Akiba, Yoshida, and Hayakawa with the teachings of Horie. In view of the teachings of Akiba regarding a DFB laser, the additional inclusion of a subwaveguide layer as taught by Horie would enhance the teachings of Akiba, Yoshida, and Hayakawa by allowing for improved stability of the laser output.
Regarding claim 9, The combination of Akiba, Yoshida, and Hayakawa does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a width of the high refractive index layer is larger than a width of the mesa structure." Horie discloses, "Wherein a width of the high refractive index layer is larger than a width of the mesa structure" (p. [0036] and Fig. 1, pt. 3 and 4, where cladding layer 4 corresponds in function to an upper portion of substrate 1 of Akiba and the mesa of Akiba tapers upwards such any layer corresponding to layer 3 below any upper portion of substrate 1 of Akiba must be wider than the mesa provided thereon). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Akiba, Yoshida, and Hayakawa with the teachings of Horie for the reasons provided above regarding claim 8.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiba, in view of Yoshida, in view of Hayakawa, in view of Horie, and further in view of Yamamoto (US Patent 5,084,894).
Regarding claim 10, The combination of Akiba, Yoshida, Hayakawa, and Horie does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein each window structure is arranged to avoid the high refractive index layer." Yamamoto discloses, "Wherein each window structure is arranged to avoid the high refractive index layer" (col. 6-7, lines 63-5, col. 9, lines 15-22, and Fig. 15, pts. 3 and 120, where the guide layer 3 is separated from burying layer 120 and the window layer of Akiba is commensurate in depth with the burying layer thereof such that implementing a guide layer in this manner in the device of Akiba results in this arrangement). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Akiba, Yoshida, Hayakawa, and Horie with the teachings of Yamamoto. In view of the teachings of Akiba regarding a DFB laser having a buried mesa and the teachings of Horie regarding provision of a subwaveguide layer below a laser gain region, the additional indication that a waveguide layer provided below a laser gain region may be provided entirely below a buried mesa structure that includes the laser gain region as taught by Yamamoto would enhance the teachings of Akiba, Yoshida, Hayakawa, and Horie by indicating a suitable manner of arranging both the mesa of a buried stripe laser and a subwaveguide layer within the same structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean P Hagan whose telephone number is (571)270-1242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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.
/SEAN P HAGAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights