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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/28/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amending of claim 1.
Drawings
The drawings filed 05/28/2026 are accepted.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner agrees with the majority of the Applicant’s arguments of 05/28/2026 and no longer applies Takayama as a primary reference.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant has argued Takayama does not teach the active region width to remain constant while the guide layer width changes (see Remarks, pg.7).
The Examiner does not agree. Takayama at [0043] states that the ridge width is changed, with the ridge being constituted by the upper portion of #14 in figure 1. The rest of the device structure remains unchanged in width as shown in figures 3a/b.
The Examiner notes that in order to expedite prosecution, 2 rejections are presented below in view of different pieces of prior art.
Rejection 1:
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 Watanabe (US 2005/0157767).
With respect to claim 1, Watanabe discloses a semiconductor laser device (fig.1/3) comprising: a main body (fig.2) including a first layer having n-type conductivity (fig.2 #103-105; [0046]), a second layer having p-type conductivity (fig.2 #108, 109, lower part of #110, upper part of #110), and an active layer (fig.2 #106) 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.2 up/down); a front-side mirror formed on a front facet of the main body (fig.1 bottom side, [0051]), the front facet being parallel to the lamination direction; and a rear-side mirror formed on a rear facet of the main body (fig.1 top side, [0051]), 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.1), wherein the first layer is different from the active layer (as indicated above) includes an electric field control layer (fig.2 #105, having a higher refractive index than #103/104) having a shorter composition wavelength than an emission wavelength of the active layer ([0046, 52], #105 is (Al0.5Ga0.5)0.5In0.5P which has a larger bandgap which leads to smaller refractive index and lower wavelength as compared to active of Ga0.5In0.5P), the electric field control layer skews a distribution of an electric field of laser light toward the first layer (the presence of the higher index layer #105 within the identified first layer necessarily skews the e-field toward the first layer as compared to a case where layer #105 was not provided), the second layer includes an optical guide layer (fig.2 lower portion of #110; acts to guide the light as evidence by fig.8 and [0011-12]) having a shorter composition wavelength than the emission wavelength of the active layer ([0048], #110 is (Al0.7Ga0.3)0.5In0.5P which has a larger bandgap which leads to smaller refractive index and lower wavelength as compared to active of Ga0.5In0.5P), 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 (as seen in fig.1/2 the width of the lower portion of #110 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 (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.2 #115s on either side) made of a material having a lower refractive index than the optical guide layer ([0050] as SiO2, ~1.43, is of lower index than the guide material) 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 of the optical guide layer is changed in the optical waveguide direction without changing a width of the active layer(as seen in fig.1), a first cladding layer (fig.2 #108) is laminated below the optical guide layer and the buried layers in the lamination direction, and a second cladding layer (fig.2 top of #110) is laminated on the optical guide layer and the buried layers (noting upper portion of #110 is both above and touching the layers, thereby “on”) in the lamination direction, the first cladding layer and the second cladding layer having a same composition ([0046, 48]), and a contact layer (fig.2 #112) having a different composition from the first cladding layer and the second cladding layer (#112 is of GaAs, [0050]) is formed on the second cladding layer in the lamination direction.
With respect to claim 2, Watanabe discloses the width of the width-changed portion is changed in one of a tapered manner (fig.1) and a stepped manner.
With respect to claim 3, Watanabe discloses the active layer has a quantum well structure including a well layer ([0052]) and a barrier layer ([0052]), and includes a separate confinement heterostructure (SCH) layer (fig.2 #107), 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 ([0046,48, 52], each of AlGaInP).
With respect to claim 5, Watanabe discloses the active layer is made of a semiconductor material containing aluminum ([0052]).
With respect to claim 6, Watanabe 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.2 #104 and #108, [0046], both of (Al0.7Ga0.3)0.5In0.5P).
Rejection 2:
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) 1-3, 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi et al. (US 2003/0031220) in view of Takayama (US 2005/0163181).
With respect to claim 1, Takeuchi teaches a semiconductor laser device (fig.1) comprising: a main body (fig.1) including a first layer having n-type conductivity (fig.1 #11a-c; [0058-59]), a second layer having p-type conductivity (fig.1 #13-15c), and an active layer (fig.1 #12) 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); an optical waveguide direction (fig.1 in/out), wherein the first layer is different from the active layer (as indicated above) includes an electric field control layer (fig.1 #11c, having a higher refractive index [0068]) having a shorter composition wavelength than an emission wavelength of the active layer ([0059, 63], #11c is Al.3Ga.7As which has a larger bandgap which leads to smaller refractive index and lower wavelength as compared to active of Al.1Ga.9As; see also fig.4a), the electric field control layer skews a distribution of an electric field of laser light toward the first layer (the presence of the higher index layer #11c within the identified first layer necessarily skews the e-field toward the first layer as compared to a case where layer #11c was not provided; see also fig.4a), the second layer includes an optical guide layer (fig.1 #14 or #15c, [0058-59]) having a shorter composition wavelength than the emission wavelength of the active layer ([0058-59], #14 and #15c are Al0.3Ga0.7As which has a larger bandgap which leads to smaller refractive index and lower wavelength as compared to active of Al.1Ga.9As; see also fig.4a), the optical guide layer extending in the optical waveguide direction (fig.1 in/out) and having a smaller width than the active layer in a width direction perpendicular to the optical waveguide direction (as seen in fig.1 the width of #14 and #15c are less than #12) the second layer functions as a clad for the active layer and includes the optical guide layer within the clad (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 ([0061] as Al.5Ga.5As is of lower index than the guide material which has less Al) are arranged at both sides of the optical guide layer in the width direction, a first cladding layer (fig.1 #13) is laminated below the optical guide layer and the buried layers in the lamination direction, and a second cladding layer (fig.1 #15b) is laminated on the optical guide layer and the buried layers (noting #15b is both above and touching the layers, thereby “on”) in the lamination direction, the first cladding layer and the second cladding layer having a same composition ([0058, 59]), and a contact layer (fig.1 #19) having a different composition from the first cladding layer and the second cladding layer (#19 is of GaAs, [0061]) is formed on the second cladding layer in the lamination direction. Takeuchi does not teach a front-side mirror formed on a front facet of the main body, the front facet being parallel to the lamination direction; and a rear-side mirror formed on a rear facet of the main body, the rear facet facing the front facet in an optical waveguide direction that crosses the lamination direction and the front facet; OR the optical guide layer includes a width-changed portion in which a width of the optical guide layer is changed in the optical waveguide direction without changing a width of the active layer. Takayama teaches a front-side mirror formed on a front facet of the main body (fig.3b left side, [0043]), the front facet being parallel to the lamination direction; and a rear-side mirror formed on a rear facet of the main body (fig.3b right side, [0043]), 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.1); OR the optical guide layer includes a width-changed portion in which a width of the optical guide layer is changed in the optical waveguide direction without changing a width of the active layer(as seen in fig.1/3b [0044]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Takeuchi to make use of the front and rear side mirrors as taught by Takayama to set the desired reflectivity and light output amounts of the resonator as well as to adapt the ridge of Takeuchi (fig.1 #14-15c) to taper in the manner outlined in figure 3b of Takayama in order to suppress saturation of light emission efficiency in high power operation and allow for a stable fundamental transverse mode (Takayama, abstract).
With respect to claim 2, Takeuchi, as modified, teaches the width of the width-changed portion is changed in one of a tapered manner (Takayama, fig.3b) and a stepped manner.
With respect to claim 3, Takeuchi teaches the active layer has a quantum well structure including a well layer ([0063]) and a barrier layer ([0063]), and includes a separate confinement heterostructure (SCH) layer ([0063]), 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 ([0058, 59, 63], each of AlGaAs).
With respect to claim 5, Takeuchi teaches the active layer is made of a semiconductor material containing aluminum ([0063]).
With respect to claim 6, Takeuchi teaches 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 #11a and #13, [0058], both of Al0.5Ga0.5As).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi and Takayama in view of Yoshida et al. (JP 2005-072402, Applicant submitted prior art).
With respect to claim 4, Takeuchi, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, including the rear-side mirror has reflectivity of 90% or more at the emission wavelength of the active layer (Takayama, [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 (Takayama, fig.3b), 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 Takeuchi and 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 previously included 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.
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
Prosecution Insights