DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 through 10 originally filed 31 March 2023. By amendment received 29 January 2026; claims 1 and 8 are amended. Claims 1 through 10 are addressed by this 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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered; they are addressed below.
Applicant argues that the amendment to the abstract overcomes the previous objection thereto. This argument is persuasive and the corresponding objection is withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the amendment to the disclosure overcomes the previous drawing objections. This argument is persuasive and the corresponding objections are withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the amendment to the disclosure overcomes the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). This argument is persuasive and the corresponding rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the amendment to claim 1 defines this and dependent claims over Akiba et al. (Akiba, US Patent 4,648,096). This argument is persuasive and the corresponding rejections are withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, Yoshida et al. (Yoshida, US Pub. 2003/0064537) has been located which, in combination with the previously cited art, renders obvious the amended features. 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 and 7 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).
Yoshida was initially cited in the Office Action dated 3 November 2025.
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 window structure arranged between both ends of the mesa structure in a longitudinal direction thereof and both facets of the semiconductor laser" (col. 3, lines 57-66 and Fig. 5, pts. 2, 3, 4, lw1, and lw2). "A low-reflection facet coating film formed on the both facets" (col. 3, lines 65-66 and Fig. 5, pt. 17). "Wherein an effective refractive index of the 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 the window structure includes a semi-insulating semiconductor layer." Yoshida discloses, "Wherein the 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.
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 the 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 the 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 the window structure is in contact with the substrate" (col. 2, lines 11-22 and Fig. 5, pts. 1 and 2).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiba, in view of Yoshida, 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 and Yoshida 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 and Yoshida 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 and Yoshida by allowing the laser device to produce a higher power output.
Regarding claim 6, The combination of Akiba and Yoshida 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 and Yoshida 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, and further in view of Horie (US Pub. 2005/0213625).
Regarding claim 8, The combination of Akiba and Yoshida does not explicitly disclose, "A high refractive index layer which is arranged below the mesa structure and the window structure." "[The high refractive index layer] has a higher effective refractive index than the effective refractive index of the window structure." Horie discloses, "A high refractive index layer which is arranged below the mesa structure and the 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 the 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 and Yoshida 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 and Yoshida by allowing for improved stability of the laser output.
Regarding claim 9, The combination of Akiba and Yoshida 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 and Yoshida 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 Horie, and further in view of Yamamoto (US Patent 5,084,894).
Regarding claim 10, The combination of Akiba, Yoshida, and Horie does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the window structure is arranged to avoid the high refractive index layer." Yamamoto discloses, "Wherein the 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, 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, 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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