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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species 2 shown in Figs. 8-13B in the reply filed on 03/23/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Examiner notes that the Remarks filed by Applicant on 03/23/2026 states that the election of species 2 includes claims 5-12 and 14-23, therefore stating that claim 13 is understood by Applicant to not be drawn to elected species 2 and is therefore understood to be withdrawn as reading on a non-elected species.
Further, claim 7 includes the limitation of “wherein the SCL includes a DFB grating laterally on each side of the inner ridge”. Examiner notes that Species 2 shown in Figs. 8-13B (specifically Fig. 9), shows the DFB grating [117] to be patterned on the GaAs substrate [112] and not included in the SCL [118]. Non-elected species 3, shown in Fig. 15, includes the DFB grating inside the SCL layer. Therefore, claim 7 is understood to read on a non-elected species and therefore will be treated as withdrawn.
Similarly, claim 11 includes the limitation of “the first n+ contact layer comprises n+ InAsSb”. Examiner notes that this structure is not included in any of the figures of the elected species (Figs. 8-13B). It is noted that Fig. 11 which includes the first contact layer [107] shows the contact layer to comprise an n+ InAs contact, not an n+ InAsSb contact as claimed. Therefore, claim 11 is understood to read on a non-elected species and therefore will be treated as withdrawn.
Claim 24 includes the limitation of “wherein the high-index SCL comprises GaSb”. Examiner notes Examiner notes that this structure is not included in any of the figures of the elected species (Figs. 8-13B). It is noted that Fig. 9 which includes the high-index SCL [118] shows the SCL to comprise a Ge SCL, not an GaSb SCL as claimed. Therefore, claim 24 is understood to read on a non-elected species and therefore will be treated as withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the amendments made to claims 5-10 and 12. New claims 14-24 have been added. Claims 1-4 have been cancelled. Claims 7,11,13 and 24 are withdrawn as reading on non-elected species.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges the claim of an earlier filing date to the filing date (02/11/2022) of the provisional application 63/309.024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/22/2023 and 08/03/2023 were filed after the filing date of the claimed application on 02/08/2023. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 5 and 12, the terms “sufficiently thick” and “a sufficient fraction” and “significant lasing” in claims 5 and 12 are relative terms which renders the claims indefinite. The terms “sufficiently thick” and “a sufficient fraction” and “significant lasing” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “sufficiently thick” is not clearly defined by the limitations of claims or the specification on what thickness value of the high-index SCL must be in order to meet the limitations of the claim. Further, the following limitation of “a sufficient fraction” is not clearly defined by the limitations of the claim or the specification as to what fraction of the fundamental lateral optical mode profile must lie below the active ICL stages in order to meet the limitations of the claims.
For the purposes of examination of the instant application the limitations of “where the high-index SCL sufficiently thick that a sufficient fraction of … to impose weak index guiding” will be understood to be the thickness value of the lower SCL of Meyer and the fraction of the optical mode profiles as shown in the disclosed weak-index guiding of Meyer in the prior art rejections of claims 5 and 12 below
Further, the term “significant lasing” is not clearly defined by the limitations of claims 5 and 12 or the specification and therefore it is unclear on what amount of lasing is permitted until the lasing in higher-order lateral modes is considered “significant”.
For the purposes of examination of the instant application, the limitation of “wherein the inner laser ridge is not so wide that significant lasing occurs in higher-order lateral modes” will be understood to mean that the inner ridge width causes the lasing primarily occur in the TM00 mode as shown in the prior art rejection of claims 5 and 12 below.
The term “sufficient internal feedback” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sufficient internal feedback” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The amount of internal feedback needed in order to be considered “sufficient internal feedback” is not defined by the claim or specification and therefore does not provide clear bounds for what is considered “sufficient” internal feedback.
For the purposes of examination of the instant application the term “sufficient internal feedback” in claim 9 will be understood to mean enough internal feedback to enable the lasing in the direction normal to the cavity as shown in the prior art rejection of claim 9 below.
The term “high-index” in reference to the separate confinement layer (SCL) in claims 5,11-15,17,21 and 23 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-index” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “high-index” is not clearly defined by the claims or the specification on what specific “index” is being referred to as well as what value of said index must be to be considered “high”. Without knowing what index is being limited as the “high-index” as well as what value of said index must be met, the bounds of the limitations of the claim are indefinite.
For the purpose of examination of the instant application, the term “high-index SCL” will be understood to mean, an SCL with a refractive index higher than other layers of the device as shown in the prior art rejections of claims 5,11-15,17,21 and 23
Claims 6-10 are rejected at least on their dependency to indefinite claim 5.
Claims 15-23 are rejected at least on their dependency to indefinite claim 14.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5,12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (hereinafter Liu) (US 20200185885 A1) in view of Meyer et al. (hereinafter Meyer) (US 20170373472 A1) and Hwang (US 6406795 B1).
Regarding claim 5, Liu discloses in Fig. 3A,
A cascade laser [Fig. 3A] (Para. 0068]) comprising:
a substrate [20] (Para. [0068]) and a high-index separate confinement layer (SCL) [18] (Para. [0068]) on the substrate [20] (Para. [0068]);
a III-V gain region [layers 28-26 Fig. 3A] (Para. [0068]) on the high-index SCL [18] (Para. [0068]), the III-V gain region [layers 28-26 Fig. 3A] comprising a plurality of layers including:
a first n+ contact layer [lower 28 Fig. 3A] (Para. [0068]) on the high-index SCL [18];
a plurality of active stages [12] (Para. [0068]) on the first n+ contact layer [lower 28 Fig. 3A] (Para. [0068]);
an n-type cladding layer [22] (Para. [0068]) on the plurality of active stages [12] (Para. [0068]); and
a second n+ contact layer [upper 28 Fig. 3A] (Para. [0068]) on the n-type cladding layer [22];
wherein a portion of the III-V gain region [layers 28-26 Fig. 3A] defines an inner laser ridge [middle ridge portion Fig. 3A], wherein the inner laser ridge [middle ridge portion Fig. 3A] includes at least a portion of the active stages [12] (see Fig. 3A);
wherein the active stages [12] (Para. [0068]) have a refractive index higher than a refractive index of the n-type cladding layer [22] (Para. [0070]) (using a GaAs-based QCL, GaAs has a refractive index higher than InP);
wherein the high-index SCL [18] has a refractive index higher than that of the n-type cladding layer [22] of the III-V gain region [layers 28-26 Fig. 3A] and of at least one underlying layer in the substrate [20] (Ge has higher refractive index than InP and Si);
wherein the inner laser ridge [middle ridge portion Fig. 3A] is not so wide that significant lasing occurs in higher-order lateral modes (see Figs. 15B and 19A) (Paras. [0091,0099]) .
Liu fails to disclose,
The laser being a weakly index-guided interband cascade laser (ICL) and the active stages being ICL active stages and,
the substrate including a GaAs layer and
wherein the high-index SCL is sufficiently thick that a sufficient fraction of the fundamental lateral optical mode profile lies below the active ICL stages to impose weak index guiding on at least one predetermined optical mode in the laser waveguide;
Meyer discloses,
The laser being a weakly index-guided interband cascade laser (ICL) [Fig. 2A] (Para. [0041]) including ICL active stages [205] (Para. [0041])
wherein a high-index SCL [204] (Para. [0053]) is sufficiently thick that a sufficient fraction of a fundamental lateral optical mode profiled lies below the active ICL stages [205] to impose weak index guiding on at least one predetermined optical mode in the laser waveguide (Para. [0053]),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the weakly-index guided ICL active structure with the thickness value of the SCL of Meyer in place of the active structure of Liu for the purpose of having low drive power and high output at high wavelengths. (Meyer Para. [0096])
Liu in view of Meyer fails to disclose,
the substrate including a GaAs layer
Hwang discloses in Figs 3A-3E,
a substrate [100] including a GaAs layer (Col. 4, lines 29-32)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the GaAs substrate material of Hwang as the substrate material of the modified device of Liu for the purpose of using a substrate with high surface smoothness. (Hwang Col. 1, lines 43,44)
Regarding claim 12, Liu discloses in Fig. 3A,
A cascade laser [Fig. 3A] (Para. 0068]) comprising:
a substrate [20] (Para. [0068])
a high-index separate confinement layer (SCL) [18] (Para. [0068]) on the substrate [20] (Para. [0068]);
a III-V gain region [layers 28-26 Fig. 3A] (Para. [0068]) on the high-index SCL [18] (Para. [0068]), the III-V gain region [layers 28-26 Fig. 3A] comprising a plurality of layers including:
a first n+ contact layer [lower 28 Fig. 3A] (Para. [0068]) on the high-index SCL [18];
a plurality of active stages [12] (Para. [0068]) on the first n+ contact layer [lower 28 Fig. 3A] (Para. [0068]);
an n-type cladding layer [22] (Para. [0068]) on the plurality of active stages [12] (Para. [0068]); and
a second n+ contact layer [upper 28 Fig. 3A] (Para. [0068]) on the n-type cladding layer [22];
wherein a portion of the III-V gain region [layers 28-26 Fig. 3A] defines an inner laser ridge [middle ridge portion Fig. 3A], wherein the inner laser ridge [middle ridge portion Fig. 3A] includes at least a portion of the active stages [12] (see Fig. 3A);
wherein the active stages [12] (Para. [0068]) have a refractive index higher than a refractive index of the n-type cladding layer [22] (Para. [0070]) (using a GaAs-based QCL, GaAs has a refractive index higher than InP);
wherein the high-index SCL [18] has a refractive index higher than that of the n-type cladding layer [22] of the III-V gain region [layers 28-26 Fig. 3A] and of at least one underlying layer in the substrate [20] (Ge has higher refractive index than InP and Si);
wherein the inner laser ridge [middle ridge portion Fig. 3A] is not so wide that significant lasing occurs in higher-order lateral modes (see Figs. 15B and 19A) (Paras. [0091,0099]) .
Liu fails to disclose,
The laser being a weakly index-guided interband cascade laser (ICL) and the active stages being ICL active stages and,
the substrate being a GaAs-based substrate
wherein the high-index SCL is sufficiently thick that a sufficient fraction of the fundamental lateral optical mode profile lies below the active ICL stages to impose weak index guiding on at least one predetermined optical mode in the laser waveguide;
Meyer discloses,
The laser being a weakly index-guided interband cascade laser (ICL) [Fig. 2A] (Para. [0041]) including ICL active stages [205] (Para. [0041])
wherein a high-index SCL [204] (Para. [0053]) is sufficiently thick that a sufficient fraction of a fundamental lateral optical mode profiled lies below the active ICL stages [205] to impose weak index guiding on at least one predetermined optical mode in the laser waveguide (Para. [0053]),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the weakly-index guided ICL active structure with the thickness value of the SCL of Meyer in place of the active structure of Liu for the purpose of having low drive power and high output at high wavelengths. (Meyer Para. [0096])
Liu in view of Meyer fails to disclose,
the substrate including a GaAs layer
Hwang discloses in Figs 3A-3E,
a substrate [100] including a GaAs layer (Col. 4, lines 29-32)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the GaAs substrate material of Hwang as the substrate material of the modified device of Liu for the purpose of using a substrate with high surface smoothness. (Hwang Col. 1, lines 43,44)
Regarding claim 14, Liu discloses in Fig. 3A,
A cascade laser [Fig. 3A] (Para. 0068]) comprising:
a substrate [20] (Para. [0068]);
a high-index separate confinement layer (SCL) [18] (Para. [0068]) on the substrate [20] (Para. [0068]), wherein the high-index SCL [18] has a refractive index that is higher than a refractive index of at least a portion of the substrate [20] (Para. [0068]) (Ge has higher refractive index than Si);
a first n+ contact layer [lower 28 Fig. 3A] (Para. [0068]) on the high-index SCL [18] (Para. [0068]), wherein the high-index SCL [18] is between the first n+ contact layer [lower 28 Fig. 3A] and the substrate [20], wherein the first n+ contact layer [lower 28 Fig. 3A] comprises a III-V semiconductor material (Paras. [0068,0077]);
a plurality of active stages [12] (Para. [0068]) on the first n+ contact layer [lower 28 Fig. 3A] (Para. [0068]), wherein the first n+ contact layer [lower 28 Fig. 3A] is between the plurality of active stages [12] and the high-index SCL [18] (Para. [0068]);
an n-type cladding layer [22] (Para. [0068]) on the plurality of active stages [12] (Para. [0068]), wherein the plurality of active stages [12] are between the n-type cladding layer [22] and the first n+ contact layer [lower 28 Fig. 3A] (Para. [0068]), wherein the n-type cladding layer [22] has a refractive index that is less than a refractive index of the plurality of active ICL stages [12] (Para. [0070]) (using a GaAs-based QCL, GaAs has a refractive index higher than InP), and wherein the refractive index of the n-type cladding layer [22] is less than the refractive index of the high-index SCL [18] (Para. [0068]) (Ge has higher refractive index than InP); and
a second n+ contact layer [upper 28 Fig. 3A] (Para. [0068]) on the n-type cladding layer [22] (Para. [0068]), wherein the n-type cladding layer [22] is between the second n+ contact layer [upper 28 Fig. 3A] and the plurality of active stages [12] (Para. [0068]), and wherein the second n+ contact layer [upper 28 Fig. 3A] (para. [0068]), the n-type cladding layer [22], and at least a portion of the plurality of active ICL stages [12] define a III-V semiconductor inner laser ridge [middle ridge portion Fig. 3A] having a width that is less than a width of the first n+ contact layer [lower 28 Fig. 3A].
Liu fails to disclose,
The laser being an interband cascade laser (ICL) and the active stages being ICL active stages and,
the substrate including a GaAs layer
Meyer discloses,
An interband cascade laser (ICL) [Fig. 2A] (Para. [0041]) including ICL active stages [205] (Para. [0041])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the ICL active structure of Meyer in place of the active structure of Liu for the purpose of having low drive power and high output at high wavelengths. (Meyer Para. [0096])
Liu in view of Meyer fails to disclose,
the substrate including a GaAs layer
Hwang discloses in Figs 3A-3E,
a substrate [100] including a GaAs layer (Col. 4, lines 29-32)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the GaAs substrate material of Hwang as the substrate material of the modified device of Liu for the purpose of using a substrate with high surface smoothness. (Hwang Col. 1, lines 43,44)
Regarding claim 15, Liu in view of Meyer and Hwang discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 14 above and further discloses in Liu Fig. 3A,
wherein portions of the first n+ contact layer [lower 28 Fig. 3A] (Para. [0068]) and the high-index SCL [18] extend on the substrate [20] laterally beyond the III-V semiconductor inner laser ridge [middle ridge portion Fig. 3A] (Para. [0068]).
Regarding claim 16, Liu in view of Meyer and Hwang discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 15 above and further discloses in Liu Fig. 3A,
wherein an entirety of the plurality of active ICL stages [12] (Liu Para. [0068], Meyer Para. [0041]) is included in the III-V semiconductor inner laser ridge [middle ridge portion Fig. 3A].
Claims 6,8 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Meyer and Hwang as applied to claims 5 and 14 above, and further in view of Lor et al. (hereinafter Lor) (US 20170317471 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Liu in view of Meyer and Hwang discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 5 above but fails to disclose,
wherein the GaAs-based substrate includes a distributed feedback (DFB) grating, a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) grating, a discrete mode (DM) grating, a photonic crystal grating, or other grating.
Lor discloses in Figs. 5A and 5B,
a substrate [502] including a DFB grating [504]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the grating on the substrate as shown in Lor on the substrate of the modified device of Liu for the purpose of having high output power. (Lor Para. [0091])
Examiner notes the interpretation of claim 6 is understood to be “wherein the GaAs-based substrate includes a distributed feedback (DFB) grating”
Regarding claim 8, Liu in view of Meyer, Hwang discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 14 above but fails to disclose,
wherein the substrate includes a pattern incorporating at least one taper to a narrower passive waveguide, and wherein the at least one taper is on a surface of the substrate adjacent to the first n+ contact layer.
Lor discloses in Figs. 5A and 5B,
a substrate [502] including a pattern incorporating at least one taper [502 taper to side sections Fig. 5B] to a narrower passive waveguide [554], and wherein the at least one taper is on a surface of the substrate [502] adjacent to a first contact layer [522] (see Fig. 6) (Para. [0092])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the tapered structure of the substrate of Lor with the substrate of the modified device of Liu for the purpose of coupling light from the substrate to the ridge. (Lor Para. [0091])
The modified device of Liu includes a GaAs based substrate and therefore the structure of Lor would be implemented on a GaAs based substrate.
Regarding claim 17, Liu in view of Meyer and Hwang discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 14 above but fails to disclose,
wherein at least one of the substrate and/or the high-index SCL includes a grating.
Lor discloses in Figs. 5A and 5B,
a substrate [502] including a DFB grating [504]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the grating on the substrate as shown in Lor on the substrate of the modified device of Liu for the purpose of having high output power. (Lor Para. [0091])
Regarding claim 18, Liu in view of Meyer, Hwang and Lor discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 17 above and further discloses in Lor Fig. 5A,
wherein the grating [504] comprises at least one of a distributed feedback (DFB) grating [504] (Para. [0091]), a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) grating, a discrete mode (DM) grating, and/or a photonic crystal grating.
Examiner notes the interpretation of the limitations of claim 18 is understood to be “wherein the grating comprises a distributed feedback (DFB) grating”
Regarding claim 19, Liu in view of Meyer, Hwang and Lor discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 17 above and further discloses in Lor Fig. 5A,
wherein the grating [504] (Para. [0091]) comprises a distributed feedback (DFB) grating (Para. [0091]) that extends laterally beyond each side of the III-V semiconductor inner laser ridge [Lor 508] (Para. [0091]).
Regarding claim 20, Liu in view of Meyer, Hwang discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 14 above but fails to disclose,
wherein the substrate includes a pattern incorporating at least one taper to a narrower passive waveguide, and wherein the at least one taper is on a surface of the substrate adjacent to the first n+ contact layer.
Lor discloses in Figs. 5A and 5B,
a substrate [502] including a pattern incorporating at least one taper [502 taper to side sections Fig. 5B] to a narrower passive waveguide [554], and wherein the at least one taper is on a surface of the substrate [502] adjacent to a first contact layer [522] (see Fig. 6) (Para. [0092])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the tapered structure of the substrate of Lor with the substrate of the modified device of Liu for the purpose of coupling light from the substrate to the ridge. (Lor Para. [0091])
Regarding claim 21, Liu in view of Meyer, Hwang and Lor discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 17 above and further discloses in Lor Figs. 5A and 5B,
wherein at least one of the substrate [502] and/or the high-index SCL includes a 2nd-order distributed feedback (DFB) grating [504] (Paras. [0085,0091]).
Examiner notes the interpretation of claim 20 is understood to be “wherein the substrate includes a 2nd-order distributed feedback (DFB) grating”
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Meyer and Hwang as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Kinoshita (US 4958357 A).
Regarding claim 9, Liu in view of Meyer and Hwang discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 5 above but fails to disclose,
wherein the GaAs-based substrate includes a grating that provides sufficient internal feedback to enable lasing from the laser ridge without the presence of end facets in the laser cavity.
Kinoshita discloses in Fig. 1(a),
a substrate [1] (Col. 2, lines 25-28) including a 2nd order DFB grating [2] (Col. 2, lines 25-28) providing internal feedback to enable lasing in a normal direction from the semiconductor substrate [1] (Col. 2, lines 11-14) without the presence of end facts in the laser cavity direction (Col. 2, lines 25-28)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the 2nd order gratings on the GaAs substrate of the modified device of Liu for the purpose of emitting narrow output beams in a direction normal to the cavity direction. (Kinoshita Col. 2, lines 11-14)
The modified device of Liu discloses a GaAs substrate in Hwang and therefore the structure of Kinoshita will be implemented on the GaAs substrate of the modified device of Liu.
Regarding claim 10, Liu in view of Meyer, Hwang and Kinoshita discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 9 above and further discloses,
wherein the GaAs-based substrate [Hwang 100] (Hwang Col. 4, lines 29-32) includes a 2nd-order DFB grating [Kinoshita 2 Fig 1(a)] (Kinoshita Col. 2, lines 11-14) that provides surface emission from the laser cavity (Kinoshita Col. 2, lines 11-14).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Meyer and Hwang as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Meyer and Vurgaftman et al. (hereinafter Vurgaftman) (US 20120128018 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Liu in view of Meyer and Hwang discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 14 above but fails to disclose,
wherein the first n+ contact layer comprises n+ InAs, wherein the n-type cladding layer comprises an n-type InAs-AISb superlattice, and wherein the second n+ contact layer comprises n+ InAsSb.
Meyer discloses in Fig. 2A,
an n-type cladding layer comprising an n-type InAs-AlSb superlattice (Para. [0044]), and a second contact layer [207] comprising n+InAsSb (Para. 0044])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the superlattice clad structure and n+ InAsSb material of the contact layer of Meyer as the clad and contact structure of the modified device of Liu for the purpose of providing transitioning with low electrical resistance. (Meyer Para. [0044])
Liu in view of Meyer and Hwang fails to disclose,
wherein the first n+ contact layer comprises n+ InAs
Vurgaftman discloses in Fig. 1,
an n+ contact layer [110] comprising n+ InAs (Para. [0034])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the n+ InAs material as the material for the first contact layer of the modified device of Liu for the purpose of using another suitable contact material. (Vurgaftman Para. [0034])
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Meyer, Hwang and Vurgaftman as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Oda (WO 2016151759 A1).
Examiner notes an attached machine translation will be used for the claim mapping of Oda for the remainder of the instant correspondence.
Regarding claim 23, Liu in view of Meyer, Hwang and Vurgaftman disclose the device outlined in the rejection of claim 22 above and further discloses in Liu Fig., 3A,
wherein the high-index SCL [18] comprises Ge (Para. [0068]).
The modified device of Liu fails to disclose,
wherein the high-index SCL comprises single-crystal Ge.
Oda discloses in Fig. 1,
a single-crystal Ge layer [104] (Para. [25, lines 22-26])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the single-crystal structure of the Ge of Oda in the Ge of the modified device of Liu for the purpose of reducing dark current in the germanium layer. (Oda Para. [48])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNTER J NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5318. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:30am-5:00 ET.
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.
/H.J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2828 /TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828