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 of claim 1.
Drawings
The drawings filed 11/17/2025 have labeling which is illegible. The previous drawing objections are therefore maintained:
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: page 6 describes 103b which is not in the figures. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Figures 3 and 4 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant has argued Takayama does not teach the first layer is different from the active layer as g2 was identified as part of the first layer, which Takayama labels in part as active.
The Examiner does not agree. The “active layer” of Takayama is labeled as including g1/g2 therein. This is however simply a label. The prior art contains many instances of the same arrangement of layers (i.e. guide/wells,barriers/guide) being labeled such that the guides are separate from the active:
US 2020/0067267- active #106, with guides 105/107;
US 2002/0071462- active #305, with guides 304/306;
US 2005/0157767- active #106, with guides 105/107;
US 6928097- active #4, with guides 3/5.
This is therefore a matter of labeling which does not differentiate from the structure of Takayama.
The Applicant has argued Takayama does not teach the electric field control layer to skew a distribution of the electric field towards the first layer.
The Examiner does not agree. First, the electric field control layer g2 was identified by the Examiner as being part of the first layer (see non-Final, pg.3). Second, the device of Takayama, were it not to have the layer g2, would have a structure with a first layer of lower refractive index (by lacking the presence of g2) and the lower index of the first layer relative to the refractive index of the active and second layer would necessarily cause the electric to shift towards the top of the device. Because the layer g2 is in fact present, the electric field is shifted not towards the top, but rather towards the bottom (i.e. first layer).
The argument is therefore not persuasive.
The Applicant has argued Takayama does not teach the second layer functions as a clad layer for the active and includes the optical guide layer.
The Examiner does not agree. First, the second layer necessarily functions as a clad for the active as the identified second layer components each have a lower refractive index than the central active and thereby function as cladding. Second, the optical guide layer was already identified by the Examiner as being the upper part of #14, and part of the second layer, such that the second layer functions as a clad and the identified guide is included within that identified layer/clad.
The argument is therefore not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/2 as being anticipated by Takayama (US 2005/0163181).
With respect to claim 1, Takayama discloses a semiconductor laser device (fig.1) comprising: a main body (fig.1) including a first layer having n-type conductivity (fig.1 #11,12, g2; [0050]), a second layer having p-type conductivity (fig.1 lower wide portion of #14, ridge portion of #14, 15, 17), and an active layer (fig.1 #w1-3, b1-2) interposed between the first layer and the second layer, the first layer, the second layer, and the active layer being laminated in a lamination direction (fig.1 up/down); a front-side mirror formed on a front facet of the main body (fig.3a left side, [0041]), the front facet being parallel to the lamination direction; and a rear-side mirror formed on a rear facet of the main body (fig.3a right side, [0041]), the rear facet facing the front facet in an optical waveguide direction that crosses the lamination direction and the front facet (as seen in fig.3a), wherein the first layer is different from the active layer (as outlined in the Response to arguments section, this is a labeling issue and the active layer can be considered just the w1-3 and b1-2 as noted above) includes an electric field control layer (fig.1 g2, having a higher refractive index than #12) having a shorter composition wavelength than an emission wavelength of the active layer ([0050], g2 is (Al0.5Ga0.5)0.51In0.49P which has a larger bandgap which leads to smaller refractive index and lower wavelength as compared to active of Ga0.48In0.52P), the electric field control layer skews a distribution of an electric field of laser light toward the first layer (as outlined in the Response to arguments section above, the presence of the higher index layer g2 within the identified first layer necessarily skews the e-field toward the first layer as compared to a case where layer g2 was not provided), the second layer includes an optical guide layer (fig.1 upper ridge portion of #14) having a shorter composition wavelength than the emission wavelength of the active layer ([0050], #14 is (Al0.7Ga0.3)0.51In0.49P which has a larger bandgap which leads to smaller refractive index and lower wavelength as compared to active of Ga0.48In0.52P), the optical guide layer extending in the optical waveguide direction and having a smaller width than the active layer in a width direction perpendicular to the optical waveguide direction ([0044], as seen in fig.3a the width of the ridge changes while the active remains constant), the second layer functions as a clad for the active layer and includes the optical guide layer within the clad (as outlined in the Response to arguments above, the active region is of a higher index than the identified second layer, the second layer thereby functions as a cladding for the active, while the guide layer was identified as part of the second layer such that it is necessarily within the clad), buried layers (fig.1 #16s on either side) made of a material having a lower refractive index than the optical guide layer ([0040]) are arranged at both sides of the optical guide layer in the width direction, and the optical guide layer includes a width-changed portion in which a width is changed in the optical waveguide direction (as seen in fig.3a).
With respect to claim 2, Takayama discloses the width of the width-changed portion is changed in one of a tapered manner (fig.3a) and a stepped manner.
With respect to claim 3, Takayama discloses the active layer has a quantum well structure including a well layer (fig.1 w1-3) and a barrier layer (fig.1 b1-2), and includes a separate confinement heterostructure (SCH) layer (fig.1 g1), and the electric field control layer, the optical guide layer, the barrier layer, and the SCH layer are made of a semiconductor material with same composition ([0050], each of AlGaInP).
With respect to claim 5, Takayama discloses the active layer is made of a semiconductor material containing aluminum ([0050]).
With respect to claim 6, Takayama discloses each of the first layer portion and the second layer portion includes a cladding layer that is made of a same semiconductor material (fig.1 #12 and lower wide portion of #14, [0050], both of (Al0.7Ga0.3)0.51In0.49P).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayama in view of Yoshida et al. (JP 2005-072402, Applicant submitted prior art).
With respect to claim 4, Takayama teaches the device outlined above, including the rear-side mirror has reflectivity of 90% or more at the emission wavelength of the active layer ([0041], necessarily at active region emission wavelength to form the resonator needed for lasing), and a width of the optical guide layer at the front facet is larger than a width of the optical guide layer at the rear facet (fig.3a), but does not specify the front-side mirror has reflectivity of 1% or less at the emission wavelength of the active layer. Yoshida teaches a related buried heterostructure laser device (fig.1) and that the reflectivity of the output facet should be less than 5% ([0035]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the front facet coating of Takayama to be less than 5%, such as 1%, as taught by Yoshida in order to select a desired amount of output light from the front facet and adjust the optical quality of the cavity (see MPEP 2144.05 II A/B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The examiner directs the applicant’s attention to the include pto892 form for a list of related art.
Art such as US 2005/0157767 and 6928097 are understood to read on at least claim 1, while art such as 10511150 is understood to use a waveguide which is not as wide as the active region based on the sloped nature of the buried mesa.
Labeling of actives with directly adjacent guide layers:
US 2020/0067267- active #106, with guides 105/107;
US 2002/0071462- active #305, with guides 304/306;
US 2005/0157767- active #106, with guides 105/107;
US 6928097- active #4, with guides 3/5
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 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