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 .
Priority
This application claims the benefit of prior-filed application No. 17898305 under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) or under 35 U.S.C. 119(e). If the prior-filed application is an international application designating the United States, it must be entitled to a filing date in accordance with PCT Article 11; if the prior-filed application is an international design application designating the United States, it must be entitled to a filing date in accordance with 37 CFR 1.1023; and if the prior-filed application is a nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), the prior-filed application must be entitled to a filing date as set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(b) or 1.53(d) and include the basic filing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.16. See 37 CFR 1.78(d)(1). If the prior-filed application is a provisional application, the prior-filed application must be entitled to a filing date as set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(c) and the basic filing fee must be paid within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.53(g). See 37 CFR 1.78(a)(2).
This application is not entitled to the benefit of the prior-filed application because the prior-filed application did not include the basic filing fee. Applicant is required to delete the reference to the prior-filed application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Morrison et al. (US 11,152,764) is an eligible reference under 35 USC 102(a)(1) because the instant application is not entitled to the benefit of the prior filed application No. 17898305 under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) or under 35 U.S.C. 119(e).
The applicant has also argued on pages 7-8 of the arguments that “…Fricke does not teach segmented electrodes…Fricke also teaches away from lateral segmentation.” The examiner does not agree. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., segmented electrodes, lateral segmentation) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16, 18-20, 27, 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over J. Fricke et al., “Ridge waveguide lasers with vertically stacked quantum wells and tunnel junctions.” Semicond. Sci. Technol, volume 37(9), August 2022, 095021, 7 pages in view of Morrison et al. (US 11,152,764).
Regarding claim 1, Fricke et al. disclose: a laser comprising: a waveguide layer (waveguide core) configured to support a fundamental vertical optical mode and at least a first higher order vertical optical mode (third vertical mode supported, fundamental mode also inherently supported) (Figs 1 and 2, page 2); a first active region (top QW of the three InGaAs QWs) at a first position with respect to the waveguide layer (Figs 1, 2 and 5, page 2); a second active region (middle QW of the three InGaAs QWs) at a second position with respect to the waveguide layer (Figs 1, 2 and 5, page 2); a tunnel junction (highly doped GaAs TJs) between the first and the second positions (Figs 1, 2 and 5, page 2).
Fricke et al. do not disclose: and a grating at a third position with respect to the waveguide layer; wherein the first and the second positions of the first and the second active regions, and the third position of the grating are configured to make a first lasing threshold for the fundamental vertical optical mode smaller than a second lasing threshold for the first higher order vertical optical mode.
Morrison et al. disclose: the grating can be used to selectively stimulate the one of the several transverse modes (e.g., the fundamental mode) supported by the waveguide layer 103 and can make use of modified grating architectures to further suppress higher order modes… grating layer 102 is modified such that it interacts more (e.g., overlaps better) with the fundamental (or first order) mode 104a than with the other higher order transverse modes 104b,c (col. 12, lines 50-60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fricke by adding a grating at a third position in the waveguide layer in order to overlap better with the fundamental vertical optical mode and to suppress higher order vertical modes.
Regarding claim 3, Fricke as modified disclose: wherein the grating overlaps with a peak of the fundamental vertical optical mode (overlapping the grating with peak of fundamental vertical optical mode would result in the best suppression of higher order vertical modes).
Regarding claim 4, Fricke as modified disclose: wherein the grating overlaps with a null of the first higher order optical mode (peak of fundamental mode is the null of the first higher order mode, overlapping the grating with peak of fundamental vertical optical mode would result in grating overlapping with null of first higher order mode) (see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Fricke as modified disclose: wherein the waveguide layer is configured to support a second higher order optical mode (third vertical mode supported, fundamental mode also inherently supported) (Figs 1, 2 and 5, page 2), and the grating overlaps with a null of the first or the second higher order optical mode (peak of fundamental mode is the null of the first higher order mode, overlapping the grating with peak of fundamental vertical optical mode would result in grating overlapping with null of first higher order mode) (see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, Fricke as modified disclose: wherein a first product of an overlap of the fundamental vertical optical mode with the grating and an overlap of the fundamental vertical optical mode with the first and the second active regions is greater than a second product of an overlap of the first higher order vertical optical mode with the grating and an overlap of the first higher order vertical optical mode with the first and the second active regions (implicitly taught by the device of Fricke as modified, product of an overlap of the fundamental vertical optical mode with the grating and an overlap of the fundamental vertical optical mode with the first and the second active regions is greater than product of an overlap of the first higher order vertical optical mode with the grating and an overlap of the first higher order vertical optical mode with the first and the second active regions in order for the fundamental mode to lase) (see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 8 Fricke as modified disclose: wherein a first product of an overlap of the fundamental vertical optical mode with the grating and an overlap of the fundamental vertical optical mode with the first and the second active regions is greater than a second product of an overlap of the first higher order vertical optical mode with the grating and an overlap of the first higher order vertical optical mode with the first and the second active regions (implicitly taught by the device of Fricke as modified, product of an overlap of the fundamental vertical optical mode with the grating and an overlap of the fundamental vertical optical mode with the first and the second active regions is greater than product of an overlap of the first higher order vertical optical mode with the grating and an overlap of the first higher order vertical optical mode with the first and the second active regions in order for the fundamental mode to lase) (see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, Fricke as modified disclose: wherein the first and the second positions of the first and the second active regions, and the third position of the grating are further configured to make the first lasing threshold for the fundamental vertical optical mode smaller than a third lasing threshold for the second higher order vertical optical mode (implicitly taught by the device of Fricke as modified).
Regarding claim 11, Fricke as modified disclose: wherein the first lasing threshold for the fundamental vertical optical mode comprises a first threshold injection current, the second lasing threshold for the first higher order vertical optical mode comprises a second threshold injection current, the third lasing threshold for the second higher order vertical optical mode comprises a third threshold injection current, wherein the third threshold current is larger than the second threshold injection current and the second threshold current is larger than the first threshold injection current (implicitly taught by the device of Fricke as modified).
Regarding claim 14, Fricke as modified disclose: wherein an optical power of light outputted from the laser is between about 10 mW and about 50 W (Fricke, Fig. 6, page 3).
Regarding claim 16, Fricke as modified disclose: wherein the waveguide layer comprises a first plurality of layers comprising a first material having a first refractive index (InGaAs Qws have a first refractive index) and a second plurality of layers comprising a second material having a second refractive index (GaAs TJs have a second refractive index that is different from the first refractive index) (Fricke, Figs 1 and 2, page 2).
Regarding claim 18, Fricke as modified disclose: wherein at least one of the first and the second active regions is within the waveguide layer (all active regions formed in waveguide core) (Fricke, Fig. 6, page 3).
Regarding claim 19, Fricke as modified disclose: wherein the grating is within the waveguide layer (grating formed in waveguide core, see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 20, Fricke as modified do not explicitly disclose: wherein the waveguide layer is between and vertically confined by a first region and a second region, the first region comprising a first material having a first refractive index, the second region comprising a second material having a second refractive index, the waveguide layer comprising a third material having a third refractive index, the first refractive index less than the third refractive index, and the second refractive index less than the third refractive index.
Morrison et al. disclose: the ridge 101 can comprise a region of lower refractive index cladding material having a refractive index lower than the refractive index of the waveguide layer 103. In some embodiments, the ridge 101 can comprise a material identical to the material of the substrate 100 (col. 7, lines 1-16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fricke as modified by adding a cladding layer above the core layer and a substrate below the core layer in order to further confine the vertical optical modes. The device as modified disclose: the first refractive index less than the third refractive index, and the second refractive index less than the third refractive index.
Regarding claim 27, Fricke as modified disclose: wherein the third position is above the second position and below the first position (grating would be formed between the first and second active regions in order to align with the peak of the fundamental mode).
Regarding claim 41, Fricke et al. disclose: a laser comprising: a waveguide layer (waveguide core) configured to support a first vertical optical mode and at least a second vertical optical mode (third vertical mode supported, fundamental mode also inherently supported) (Figs 1, 2 and 5, page 2); a first active region (top QW of the three InGaAs QWs) at a first position with respect to the waveguide layer; a second active region (middle QW of the three InGaAs QWs) at a second position with respect to the waveguide layer; a third active region (lower QW of the three InGaAs QWs) at a third position with respect to the waveguide layer (Figs 1, 2 and 5, page 2); a first tunnel junction (tunnel junction between first and second active region) below the first position and above the second position; a second tunnel junction (tunnel junction between second and third active region) below the second position and above the third position (Figs 1, 2 and 5, page 2).
Fricke et al. do not disclose: and a grating at a fourth position with respect to the waveguide layer; wherein a first product of an overlap of the first vertical optical mode with the grating and an overlap of the first vertical optical mode with the first, second, and the third active regions is greater than a second product of an overlap of the second vertical optical mode with the grating and an overlap of the second vertical optical mode with the first, second, and the third active regions.
Morrison et al. disclose: the grating can be used to selectively stimulate the one of the several transverse modes (e.g., the fundamental mode) supported by the waveguide layer 103 and can make use of modified grating architectures to further suppress higher order modes… grating layer 102 is modified such that it interacts more (e.g., overlaps better) with the fundamental (or first order) mode 104a than with the other higher order transverse modes 104b,c (col. 12, lines 50-60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fricke by adding a grating at a fourth position in the waveguide layer in order to overlap better with the fundamental vertical optical mode and to suppress higher order vertical modes. The device as modified disclose: a grating at a fourth position with respect to the waveguide layer; wherein a first product of an overlap of the first vertical optical mode with the grating and an overlap of the first vertical optical mode with the first, second, and the third active regions is greater than a second product of an overlap of the second vertical optical mode with the grating and an overlap of the second vertical optical mode with the first, second, and the third active regions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 30, 34 and 35 are allowed.
Claim 30 is allowable as the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “…re-calculating at least the first vertical optical mode and the at least one second vertical optical mode and determining perturbations of at least the first vertical optical mode and the at least one second vertical optical mode resulting from the adjusted positions of the first and the second active regions and the grating; calculating a difference between the first product and the second product; adjusting, if the difference is less than a threshold value, the positions of the first and the second active regions and the grating such that the first product is larger than the second product.”
Claims 9, 12 and 29 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 9 is allowable as the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “…wherein the first lasing threshold for the fundamental vertical optical mode comprises a first threshold injection current and the second lasing threshold for the first higher order vertical optical mode comprises a second threshold injection current larger than the first threshold injection current, wherein an injection current larger than the first threshold current provided to the laser generates an optical output beam, and wherein a contribution of the first higher order vertical optical modes in the output optical beam being suppressed with respect to a contribution of the fundamental vertical optical mode by at least 10 dB.”
Claim 12 is allowable as the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “…wherein an injection current larger than the first threshold current is provided to the laser generates an optical output beam, and wherein contributions of the first and the second higher order vertical optical modes in the output optical beam are suppressed with respect to a contribution of the fundamental vertical optical mode by at least 10 dB.”
Claim 29 is allowable as the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “…wherein the third position overlaps with the tunnel junction.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 XINNING(TOM) NIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1437. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-6:00pm.
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.
/XINNING(Tom) NIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828