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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s remarks/amendments of claims 10-15 in the reply filed on May 21st, 2026 are acknowledged. Claims 10, 12, 14-15, 21-22, 28 and 30-32 have been amended. Claims 1-9, 13, 16-20, 26-27, 29 and 33-36 have been cancelled. New Claims 37-45 have been added. Claims 10-12, 14-15, 21-25, 28, 30-32 and 37-45 are pending.
Action on merits of claims 10-12, 14-15, 21-25, 28, 30-32 and 37-45 as follows.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 02/13/2023 are objected.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitations: “the first layer comprises a first material, and wherein the first material comprises aluminum gallium indium arsenic phosphide (AlGaInAsP); and a fourth layer that is a second barrier layer and is positioned adjacent to the first layer to form a dual barrier with the first layer” as recited in claims 10, 21 and 39 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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.
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 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.
Claims 10-11, 21-23 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jerry (Photonics 2020,7, 75, “the Interband Cascade Laser”, hereinafter as Jerry) in view of Kondo (US 2019/0052061, hereinafter as Kond ‘061).
Regarding Claim 10, Jerry teaches an interband cascade laser (ICL) comprising:
a plurality of IC stages, wherein each of the IC stages comprises:
a hole injector (Hole Injector, see Fig. 2);
an electron injector (Electron Injector, see Fig. 2);
an active region (Active; see Fig. 2) coupled to the hole injector and the electron injector and comprising a first side, a second side;
a first layer that is a first barrier layer and is positioned on the first side (see Fig. 3);
a fourth layer that is a second barrier layer, wherein the fourth layer comprises a fourth material, and wherein the fourth material comprises aluminum antimonide (AlSb) (see Fig. 3; pp. 9, the second paragraph);
a conduction band (CB) running through the hole injector, the electron injector, and the active region; and a valence band (VB) running through the hole injector, the electron injector, and the active region (see Fig. 2).
Thus, Jerry is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the first material comprises aluminum gallium indium arsenic phosphide (AlGaInAsP)”.
Kond ‘061 teaches the first material (barrier layer is AlGaInAsP; Fig. 6B, (82); [0531]) comprises aluminum indium arsenic phosphide (AlGaInAsP).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Jerry by having the first material comprises aluminum indium arsenic phosphide (AlGaInAsP) in order to improve the light emission characteristics (see para. [0347]) as suggested by Kond ‘061.
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the fourth layer is positioned adjacent to the first layer to form a dual barrier with the first layer on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the fourth layer is positioned adjacent to the first layer to form a dual barrier with the first layer when this improves the performance of the optoelectronic device.
Regarding Claim 21, Jerry teaches an interband cascade laser (ICL) comprising:
a plurality of IC stages, wherein each of the IC stages comprises:
a hole injector (Hole Injector, see Fig. 2);
an electron injector (Electron Injector, see Fig. 2);
an active region (Active; see Fig. 2) coupled to the hole injector and the electron injector and comprising a first side, a second side;
a first layer that is a first barrier layer and is positioned on the first side (see Fig. 3);
a second layer comprises a second material, and wherein the second material comprises gallium indium antimonide (GaInSb) (see Fig. 3);
a fourth layer that is a second barrier layer, wherein the fourth layer comprises a fourth material, and wherein the fourth material comprises aluminum antimonide (AlSb) (see Fig. 3; pp. 9, the second paragraph);
a conduction band (CB) running through the hole injector, the electron injector, and the active region; and
a valence band (VB) running through the hole injector, the electron injector, and the active region (see Fig. 2).
Thus, Jerry is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the first material comprises aluminum gallium indium arsenic phosphide (AlGaInAsP)”.
Kond ‘061 teaches the first material (barrier layer is AlGaInAsP; Fig. 6B, (82); [0531]) comprises aluminum indium arsenic phosphide (AlGaInAsP).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Jerry by having the first material comprises aluminum indium arsenic phosphide (AlGaInAsP) in order to improve the light emission characteristics (see para. [0347]) as suggested by Kond ‘061.
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the fourth layer is positioned adjacent to the first layer to form a dual barrier with the first layer on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the fourth layer is positioned adjacent to the first layer to form a dual barrier with the first layer when this improves the performance of the optoelectronic device.
Regarding Claim 39, an interband cascade laser (ICL) comprising: a plurality of interband cascade (IC) stages, wherein each of the IC stages comprises:
a hole injector (Hole Injector, see Fig. 2);
an electron injector (Electron Injector, see Fig. 2);
an active region (Active; see Fig. 2) coupled to the hole injector and the electron injector and comprising: a first side; a second side; a first layer that is a first barrier layer and is positioned on the first side, wherein the first layer comprises a first material; a second layer (see Figs. 2-3, pp. 6), wherein the second layer comprises a second material, and wherein the second material comprises gallium indium antimonide (GaInSb) (see Fig. 3); and a fourth layer that is a second barrier layer and is positioned adjacent to the first layer to form a dual barrier with the first layer, wherein the fourth layer comprises a fourth material comprises a material selected from aluminum antimonide (AlSb) (see Fig. 2); and a fifth layer that is a third barrier layer so that the second layer are positioned between the first layer and the fifth layer, wherein the fifth layer comprises a fifth material.
a conduction band (CB) running through the hole injector, the electron injector, and the active region; and
a valence band (VB) running through the hole injector, the electron injector, and the active region (see Fig. 2).
Thus, Jerry is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the first material comprises aluminum gallium indium arsenic phosphide (AlGaInAsP)”.
Kond ‘061 teaches the first material (barrier layer is AlGaInAsP; Fig. 6B, (82); [0531]) comprises aluminum indium arsenic phosphide (AlGaInAsP).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Jerry by having the first material comprises aluminum indium arsenic phosphide (AlGaInAsP) in order to improve the light emission characteristics (see para. [0347]) as suggested by Kond ‘061.
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the fourth layer is positioned adjacent to the first layer to form a dual barrier with the first layer; and a fifth layer that is a third barrier layer so that the second layer are positioned between the first layer and the fifth layer on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the fourth layer is positioned adjacent to the first layer to form a dual barrier with the first layer; and a fifth layer that is a third barrier layer so that the second layer are positioned between the first layer and the fifth layer when this improves the performance of the optoelectronic device.
PNG
media_image2.png
242
336
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 (Jerry)
Regarding Claim 11, Jerry teaches the second layer comprise a second material, and wherein the second material comprises gallium indium antimonide (GaInSb) (see Figs. 2-3, pp. 6).
Regarding Claim 22, Jerry and Kond ‘061 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the first layer is about 7-16 angstroms (A) thick, and wherein the fourth layer is about 6-25 A thick”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the first layer is about 7-16 angstroms (A) thick, and wherein the fourth layer is about 6-25 A thick on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In 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), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the first layer is about 7-16 angstroms (A) thick, and wherein the fourth layer is about 6-25 A thick when this improves the performance of the optoelectronic device.
Regarding Claim 23, Jerry and Kond ‘061 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the second layer is about 21-35 angstroms (A) thick”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the second layer is about 21-35 angstroms (A) thick on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In 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), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the second layer is about 21-35 angstroms (A) thick when this improves the performance of the optoelectronic device.
Claims 12-15, 24-25, 28, 30-32, 37-38, 40-44 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jerry and Kond ‘061 as applied to claims 11 and 21 above, and further in view of Yang (US 2017/0125979, hereinafter as Yang ‘979).
Regarding Claims 12 and 24, Kond ‘061 teaches the active region comprises two third layers coupled to and positioned adjacent to opposite sides of the second layer, wherein one of the two third layers is adjacent to the first layer; wherein the two third layers comprise a third material (AlGaInAs; [0531]),
Thus, Jerry and Kond ‘061 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the third material comprises gallium indium arsenic nitride (GaInAsN)”.
Yang ‘979 teaches the third material comprises gallium indium arsenic nitride (GaInAsN) (see para. [0028]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Jerry and Kawa ‘145 by having the third material comprises gallium indium arsenic nitride (GaInAsN) for the advantage single-mode emission and two-dimensional arrays (see para. [0043]) as suggested by Yang ‘979.
Regarding Claims 30 and 37, Jerry teaches the barrier layer comprises aluminum antimonide (AlSb) (see Fig. 2; pp. 7).
Yang ‘979 teaches a fourth barrier layer positioned adjacent to the third barrier layer (see Fig. 4).
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a fourth barrier layer positioned adjacent to the third barrier layer on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have a fourth barrier layer positioned adjacent to the third barrier layer when this improves the performance of the optoelectronic device.
Regarding Claim 14, Jerry, Kond ‘061 and Yang ‘979 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the first layer is about 7-16 angstroms (A) thick, the second layer is about 21-35 angstroms (A) thick, the two third layer are each about 20-30 angstroms (A) thick, the four layer is about 25 angstroms (A) thick”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the first layer is about 7-16 angstroms (A) thick, the second layer is about 21-35 angstroms (A) thick, the two third layer are each about 20-30 angstroms (A) thick, the four layer is about 25 angstroms (A) thick on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In 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), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the first layer is about 7-16 angstroms (A) thick, the second layer is about 21-35 angstroms (A) thick, the two third layer are each about 20-30 angstroms (A) thick, the four layer is about 25 angstroms (A) thick when this improves the performance of the optoelectronic device.
Regarding Claim 15, Jerry, Kond ‘061 teaches the barrier layer is AlGaInAsP (Fig. 6B, (82); [0531])
Jerry, Kond ‘061 and Yang ‘979 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a fifth layer so that the third layers are positioned between the first layer and the fifth layer; wherein the fifth layer is a third barrier layer comprising a fifth material”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select an fifth layer so that the third layers are positioned between the first layer and the fifth layer; wherein the fifth layer is a third barrier layer comprising a fifth material on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select an fifth layer so that the third layers are positioned between the first layer and the fifth layer; wherein the fifth layer is a third barrier layer comprising a fifth material when this improves the performance of the optoelectronic device.
Regarding Claims 25, Jerry, Kond ‘061 and Yang ‘979 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “each of the third layer is about 20-30 angstroms (A) thick”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select each of the third layer is about 20-30 angstroms (A) thick on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In 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), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have each of the third layer is about 20-30 angstroms (A) thick when this improves the performance of the optoelectronic device.
Regarding Claims 28, Kond ‘061 teaches the first layer (Fig. 1, (19); [0032]).
Jerry, Kond ‘061 and Yang ‘979 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “an additional first layer so that the third layers are positioned between the first layer and the additional first layer”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to have an additional first layer so that the third layers are positioned between the first layer and the additional first layer on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In 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), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have an additional first layer so that the third layers are positioned between the first layer and the additional first layer when this improves the performance of the optoelectronic device.
Regarding Claim 31, Jerry, Kond ‘061 and Yang ‘979 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the fourth barrier layer is about 3-15 angstroms (A) thick”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to have the fourth barrier layer is about 3-15 angstroms (A) thick on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In 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), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the fourth barrier layer is about 3-15 angstroms (A) thick when this improves the performance of the optoelectronic device.
Regarding Claim 32, Jerry, Kond ‘061 and Yang ‘979 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the third barrier layer is about 5-16 angstroms (A) thick”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the third barrier layer is about 5-16 angstroms (A) thick on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In 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), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the third barrier layer is about 5-16 angstroms (A) thick when this improves the performance of the optoelectronic device.
Regarding Claim 33, Jerry, Kond ‘061 and Yang ‘979 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the second layer is about 21-35 angstroms (A) thick”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the second layer is about 21-35 angstroms (A) thick on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In 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), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the second layer is about 21-35 angstroms (A) thick when this improves the performance of the optoelectronic device.
Regarding Claim 38, Jerry, Kond ‘061 and Yang ‘979 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the third barrier layer is about 3-18 angstroms (A) thick; the fourth barrier layer is about 3-15 angstroms (A) thick”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to have the third barrier layer is about 3-18 angstroms (A) thick; the fourth barrier layer is about 3-15 angstroms (A) thick on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In 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), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the third barrier layer is about 3-18 angstroms (A) thick; the fourth barrier layer is about 3-15 angstroms (A) thick this improves the performance of the optoelectronic device.
Regarding Claim 40, Kond ‘061 teaches the active region comprises two third layers coupled to and positioned adjacent to opposite sides of the second layer, wherein one of the two third layers is adjacent to the first layer; wherein the two third layers comprise a third material (InAs; [0531]),
Regarding Claim 41, Jerry, Kond ‘061 and Yang ‘979 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the first layer is about 7-16 angstroms (A) thick, wherein the second layer is about 21-35 A thick, wherein the third layers are each about 18-33 A thick, wherein the fourth layer is about 6-25 A thick, and wherein the fifth layer is about 6-20 A thick”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the first layer is about 7-16 angstroms (A) thick, wherein the second layer is about 21-35 A thick, wherein the third layers are each about 18-33 A thick, wherein the fourth layer is about 6-25 A thick, and wherein the fifth layer is about 6-20 A thick on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In 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), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the first layer is about 7-16 angstroms (A) thick, wherein the second layer is about 21-35 A thick, wherein the third layers are each about 18-33 A thick, wherein the fourth layer is about 6-25 A thick, and wherein the fifth layer is about 6-20 A thick when this improves the performance of the optoelectronic device.
Regarding Claim 42, Kond ‘061 teaches the fifth layer is indium phosphide arsenide (InPAs) (see para. [0531]).
Regarding Claim 43, Jerry teaches the fifth layer (the barrier layer) comprises aluminum antimonide (AlSb) (see Fig. 2; pp. 7).
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select aluminum antimonide (AlSb) for the fifth layer on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the fifth layer comprises aluminum antimonide (AlSb) when this improves the performance of the optoelectronic device.
Regarding Claim 44, Jerry, Kond ‘061 and Yang ‘979 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a fourth barrier layer positioned adjacent to the third barrier layer, and wherein the fourth barrier layer comprises a sixth material”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a fourth barrier layer positioned adjacent to the third barrier layer, and wherein the fourth barrier layer comprises a sixth material on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have a fourth barrier layer positioned adjacent to the third barrier layer, and wherein the fourth barrier layer comprises a sixth material when this improves the performance of the optoelectronic device.
Regarding Claim 45, Jerry teaches the six material (barrier layer) comprises aluminum antimonide (AlSb) (see Fig. 2; pp. 7).
Kond ‘061 teaches the fifth layer is indium phosphide arsenide (InPAs) (see para. [0531]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 10-12, 14-15, 21-25, 28, 30-32 and 37-45, filed on May 21st, 2026, have been considered but are moot (because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection) in view of the new ground of rejection.
Interviews After Final
Applicants note that an interview after a final rejection is permitted in order to place the application in condition for allowance or to resolve issues prior to appeal. However, prior to the interview, the intended purpose and content of the interview should be presented briefly, preferably in writing. Upon review of the agenda, the Examiner may grant the interview if the examiner is convinced that disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration. Interviews merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations will be denied. See MPEP § 714.13
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Dzung Tran whose telephone number is (571) 270-3911. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Supervisor Sue Purvis can be reached on 571-272-1236. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DZUNG TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights