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 .
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges the amending claims 1, 3, 13 and 16 and canceling claim 15 by the amendment submitted by the applicant(s) filed on June 12, 2026. Claims 1 – 7 and 13, 14 and 16 – 20 are pending in this application.
Priority
The priority has been considered by the examiner. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on May 12, 2026. 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.
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 – 7, 13, 14 and 16 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US 2008/0031295) in view of Noda et al. (US 2023/0275398).
PNG
media_image1.png
378
486
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka disclose a semiconductor device (see Annotation Figure 12, The examiner rejects the claims using Annotation Figure 12 upside down), comprising:
a first contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, characters 3’ (which include contact (3), insulating film (19), film made of silicon oxide (10) and substrate (1), Abstract and paragraph [0052 and 0118]) having a first surface (see Annotation Figure 12, character 3a) and a second surface (see Annotation Figure 12, character 3b) opposite to the first surface (see Annotation Figure 12, character 3a), wherein the second surface (see Annotation Figure 12, character 3’) has a plurality of microstructures (see Annotation Figure 12, character 1 (which include rear face (72), lens part (72a) and other part (72b));
a second contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 8, paragraph [0052 and 0118], the reference called “DBR layer”, The DBR layer could act as a contact layer, since it is electrically connected to the first contact layer) located below the first surface (see Annotation Figure 12, character 3a) of the first contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 3’);
an active layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 6 and paragraph [0052 and 0118]) located between the first contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 3’) and the second contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 8);
a first cladding layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 5 and paragraph [0052]) located between the first contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 3’) and the active layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 6);
a passivation layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 20 and paragraph [0053 and 0097]) located on the second contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 8);
a first electrode (see Annotation Figure 12, character 41 and paragraph [0057 and 0126]) located on the passivation layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 20) and electrically connected to the first surface (see Annotation Figure 12, character 3a) of the first contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 3’), wherein the first contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 3’) contacts the first electrode (see Annotation Figure 12, character 41), the passivation layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 20) and the first cladding layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 5, the first contact layer is electrically contact with the first electrode and electrically contact with the passivation layer and electrically contact with the first cladding layer); and
a second electrode (see Annotation Figure 12, character 41 and paragraph [0057 and 0126]) located on the passivation layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 20) and electrically connected to the second contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 8).
PNG
media_image2.png
340
318
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Tanaka discloses the claimed invention except for a photonic crystal layer located between the active layer and the second contact layer. Noda teaches a photonic crystal layer (see Figure 1A, character 14P). However, it is well known in the art to apply the photonic crystal layer as discloses by Noda in (see Figure 1A, Abstract and paragraphs [0036]). 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 the photonic crystal layer as suggested to the device of Tanaka, to manipulate light by controlling the propagation of light through the crystal structure. This manipulation is achieved through the periodic variation of the refractive index, which affects the wave behavior of light. Additionally, photonic crystals can be used to create resonant cavities, which are structures that trap light modes and can be used to enhance the efficiency of lasers. The ability to change the refractive index of the material allows for the manipulation of light in various ways, making photonic crystals a versatile tool in the field of photonics and laser.
Regarding claim 2, Tanaka and Noda, Tanaka disclose the first contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 3’) is a p-type contact layer (see paragraph [0052]), and the second contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 8) is n-type contact layer (see paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 3, Tanaka and Noda, Tanaka disclose a second cladding layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 7 and paragraph [0052]) located between the second contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 8) and the photonic crystal layer (see claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 4, Tanaka and Noda discloses the claimed invention except for the first contact layer, the first cladding layer, the active layer, the photonic crystal layer, the second cladding layer and the second contact layer are made of homogeneous materials. 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 first contact layer, the first cladding layer, the active layer, the photonic crystal layer, the second cladding layer and the second contact layer are made of homogeneous materials to the device of Tanaka and Noda, in order to provide uniform composition and properties throughout its entire structure. A homogeneous material exhibits uniformity in composition and properties at every point within the material, meaning that any sample taken from it will have the same physical and chemical characteristics, such as density, thermal conductivity, electrical conductivity, and mechanical strength. This uniformity allows for predictable behavior under stress and consistent performance in engineering applications, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 5, Tanaka and Noda, Tanaka disclose the second electrode (see Annotation Figure 12, character 41) is in contact with the second contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 8).
Tanaka and Noda discloses the claimed invention except for a width of the second electrode in contact with the second contact layer is less than a width of the photonic crystal layer. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was to apply and/or modify the a width of the second electrode in contact with the second contact layer is less than a width of the photonic crystal layer as suggested to the device of Tanaka and Noda, in order 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 the width between second electrode and photonic crystal layer, 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 [a width of the second electrode in contact with the second contact layer is less than a width of the photonic crystal layer] or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen [a width of the second electrode in contact with the second contact layer is less than a width of the photonic crystal layer] or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen [a width of the second electrode in contact with the second contact layer is less than a width of the photonic crystal layer] are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 6, Tanaka and Noda, Tanaka disclose each of the microstructures (see Annotation Figure 12, character 1 (which include rear face (72), lens part (72a) and other part (72b)) has a bottom (see Annotation Figure 12, character 72’) and a protruding portion (see Annotation Figure 12, characters 72, 72a and 72b), wherein the protruding portions (see Annotation Figure 12, characters 72, 72a and 72b) are disposed on the bottoms (see Annotation Figure 12, character 72’), and a projected area (see Annotation Figure 12, characters 72a) of the protruding portions (see Annotation Figure 12, characters 72, 72a and 72b).
Tanaka and Noda discloses the claimed invention except for a projected area of the protruding portions on the bottoms is less than a projected area of the bottoms. 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 projected area of the protruding portions on the bottoms is less than a projected area of the bottoms to the device of Tanaka and Noda, to provide a compact device and provide a desired beam size, 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 projected area of the protruding portions on the bottoms is less than a projected area of the bottoms, 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 [projected area of the protruding portions on the bottoms is less than a projected area of the bottoms] or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen [projected area of the protruding portions on the bottoms is less than a projected area of the bottoms] or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen [projected area of the protruding portions on the bottoms is less than a projected area of the bottoms] are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 7, Tanaka and Noda discloses the claimed invention except for the bottoms are square or hexagonal, and the protruding portions are circle, square, rectangular, or a combination thereof. 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 except for the bottoms are square or hexagonal, and the protruding portions are circle, square, rectangular, or a combination thereof to the device of Tanaka and Noda, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular dimensions because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 13, Tanaka disclose a semiconductor device, comprising:
a first contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, characters 3’ (which include contact (3), insulating film (19), film made of silicon oxide (10) and substrate (1), Abstract and paragraph [0052 and 0118]) having a first surface (see Annotation Figure 12, character 3a) and a second surface (see Annotation Figure 12, character 3b) opposite to the first surface (see Annotation Figure 12, character 3a), wherein the second surface (see Annotation Figure 12, character 3’) has a plurality of microstructures (see Annotation Figure 12, character 1 (which include rear face (72), lens part (72a) and other part (72b));
a second contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 8, paragraph [0052 and 0118], the reference called “DBR layer”, The DBR layer could act as a contact layer, since it is electrically connected to the first contact layer) located below the first surface (see Annotation Figure 12, character 3a) of the first contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 3’);
a first cladding layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 5 and paragraph [0052]) located between the first contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 3’) and the first guiding layer (see claim 13 rejection);
a passivation layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 20 and paragraph [0053 and 0097]) located on the second contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 8);
a first electrode (see Annotation Figure 12, character 41 and paragraph [0057 and 0126]) located on the passivation layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 20) and electrically connected to the first surface (see Annotation Figure 12, character 3a) of the first contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 3’); and
a second electrode (see Annotation Figure 12, character 41 and paragraph [0057 and 0126]) located on the passivation layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 20) and electrically connected to the second contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 8), wherein the first contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 3’) contacts the first electrode (see Annotation Figure 12, character 41), the passivation layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 20) and the first cladding layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 5, the first contact layer is electrically contact with the first electrode and electrically contact with the passivation layer and electrically contact with the first cladding layer).
Tanaka discloses the claimed invention except for a first guiding layer located between the first contact layer and the second contact layer, a photonic crystal layer located between the active layer and the second contact layer and a second guiding layer located between the first guiding layer and the second contact layer. Noda teaches a first guide layer (see Figure 1A, character 14), second guiding layer (see Figure 1A, character 16) and a photonic crystal layer (see Figure 1A, character 14P). However, it is well known in the art to apply the first and second guiding layers and photonic crystal layer as discloses by Noda in (see Figure 1A and paragraphs [0031 and 0034 – 0038]). 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 the first and second guiding layers and photonic crystal layer as suggested to the device of Tanaka, the guide layers could be used to confining the light beam within the active region, which is essential for achieving high power density and efficiency. The photonic crystal layer could be used to manipulate light by controlling the propagation of light through the crystal structure. This manipulation is achieved through the periodic variation of the refractive index, which affects the wave behavior of light. Additionally, photonic crystals can be used to create resonant cavities, which are structures that trap light modes and can be used to enhance the efficiency of lasers. The ability to change the refractive index of the material allows for the manipulation of light in various ways, making photonic crystals a versatile tool in the field of photonics and laser.
Regarding claim 14, Tanaka and Noda, Tanaka disclose the first contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 3’) is a p-type contact layer (see paragraph [0052]), and the second contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 8) is n-type contact layer (see paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 16, Tanaka and Noda, Tanaka disclose second cladding layer located (see Annotation Figure 12, character 7 and paragraph [0052]) between the first cladding layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 5) and the second contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 8).
Regarding claim 17, Tanaka and Noda discloses the claimed invention except for the first contact layer, the first cladding layer, the first guiding layer, the second guiding layer, the photonic crystal layer, the second cladding layer and the second contact layer are made of homogeneous materials. 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 first contact layer, the first cladding layer, the first guiding layer, the second guiding layer, the photonic crystal layer, the second cladding layer and the second contact layer are made of homogeneous materials to the device of Tanaka and Noda, in order to provide uniform composition and properties throughout its entire structure. A homogeneous material exhibits uniformity in composition and properties at every point within the material, meaning that any sample taken from it will have the same physical and chemical characteristics, such as density, thermal conductivity, electrical conductivity, and mechanical strength. This uniformity allows for predictable behavior under stress and consistent performance in engineering applications, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 18, Tanaka and Noda, Tanaka disclose the second electrode (see Annotation Figure 12, character 41) is in contact with the second contact layer (see Annotation Figure 12, character 8).
Tanaka and Noda discloses the claimed invention except for a width of the second electrode in contact with the second contact layer is less than a width of the photonic crystal layer. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was to apply and/or modify the a width of the second electrode in contact with the second contact layer is less than a width of the photonic crystal layer as suggested to the device of Tanaka and Noda, in order 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 the width between second electrode and photonic crystal layer, 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 [a width of the second electrode in contact with the second contact layer is less than a width of the photonic crystal layer] or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen [a width of the second electrode in contact with the second contact layer is less than a width of the photonic crystal layer] or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen [a width of the second electrode in contact with the second contact layer is less than a width of the photonic crystal layer] are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 19, Tanaka and Noda, Tanaka disclose each of the microstructures (see Annotation Figure 12, character 1 (which include rear face (72), lens part (72a) and other part (72b)) has a bottom (see Annotation Figure 12, character 72’) and a protruding portion (see Annotation Figure 12, characters 72, 72a and 72b), wherein the protruding portions (see Annotation Figure 12, characters 72, 72a and 72b) are disposed on the bottoms (see Annotation Figure 12, character 72’), and a projected area (see Annotation Figure 12, characters 72a) of the protruding portions (see Annotation Figure 12, characters 72, 72a and 72b).
Tanaka and Noda discloses the claimed invention except for a projected area of the protruding portions on the bottoms is less than a projected area of the bottoms. 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 projected area of the protruding portions on the bottoms is less than a projected area of the bottoms to the device of Tanaka and Noda, to provide a compact device and provide a desired beam size, 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 projected area of the protruding portions on the bottoms is less than a projected area of the bottoms, 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 [projected area of the protruding portions on the bottoms is less than a projected area of the bottoms] or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen [projected area of the protruding portions on the bottoms is less than a projected area of the bottoms] or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen [projected area of the protruding portions on the bottoms is less than a projected area of the bottoms] are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 20, Tanaka and Noda discloses the claimed invention except for the bottoms are square or hexagonal, and the protruding portions are circle, square, rectangular, or a combination thereof. 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 except for the bottoms are square or hexagonal, and the protruding portions are circle, square, rectangular, or a combination thereof to the device of Tanaka and Noda, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular dimensions because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Tanaka is silent regarding "a first cladding layer located between the first contact layer and the active layer... wherein the first contact layer contacts the first electrode, the passivation layer, and the first cladding layer" (claim 1).
The examiner disagrees with the applicant's argument, since the prior art does teach or suggest as claimed as stated in the rejection above. Tanaka in Annotation Figure 12 disclose first cladding layer (5), first contact layer (3’), active layer (6), first electrode (41) and passivation layer (20). Tanaka disclose a first cladding layer is in between the first contact layer and the active layer, also the first contact layer is electrically contact with the first electrode and electrically contact with the passivation layer and electrically contact with the first cladding layer.
Applicant argues that Tanaka is silent regarding "a first cladding layer located between the first contact layer and the first guiding layer... wherein the first contact layer contacts the first electrode, the passivation layer, and the first cladding layer" (claim 13).
The examiner disagrees with the applicant's argument, since the prior art does teach or suggest as claimed as stated in the rejection above. Tanaka in Annotation Figure 12 disclose first cladding layer (5), first contact layer (3’), active layer (6), first electrode (41) and passivation layer (20). Tanaka discloses the claimed invention except for a first guiding layer. Noda teaches a first guide layer (see Figure 1A, character 14). However, it is well known in the art to apply the first guiding layer as discloses by Noda in (see Figure 1A and paragraph [0034]). 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 the first guiding layer as suggested to the device of Tanaka, the guide layers could be used to confining the light beam within the active region, which is essential for achieving high power density and efficiency.
The combination of Tanaka’s first cladding layer, first contact layer, first electrode and passivation layer, and Noda’s first guiding layer achieves a first cladding layer is in between the first contact layer and the first guiding layer, also Tanaka disclose the first contact layer is electrically contact with the first electrode and electrically contact with the passivation layer and electrically contact with the first cladding layer.
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 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