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 election, without traverse, of Group II, claims 10-15 in the reply filed on December 01st, 2025 is acknowledged. Non-elected invention of Groups I and III, claims 1-9 and 16-20 have been cancelled. Claims 12 and 14 have been amended. New Claims 21-36 have been added. Claims 10-15 and 21-36 are pending.
Action on merits of Group II, claims 10-15 and 21-36 as follows.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 13th, 2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 02/13/2023 are acceptable.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 and 21-23 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 Kawahara (US 2006/0159145, hereinafter as Kawa ‘145).
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 layer ((W); see the last paragraph of pp. 6), wherein the first layer comprises a first material (InAs/GaInSb; pp. 6), 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 indium arsenic phosphide (AlInAsP)”.
Kawa ‘145 teaches the first material (Fig. 1, (19); [0032]) comprises aluminum indium arsenic phosphide (AlInAsP).
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 (AlInAsP) for lower a series resistance along semiconductor stacks (see abstract) as suggested by Kawa ‘145.
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 layer and 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).
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 indium arsenic phosphide (AlInAsP)”.
Kawa ‘145 teaches the first material (Fig. 1, (19); [0032]) comprises aluminum indium arsenic phosphide (AlInAsP).
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 (AlInAsP) for lower a series resistance along semiconductor stacks (see abstract) as suggested by Kawa ‘145.
PNG
media_image1.png
242
336
media_image1.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 Kawa ‘145 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”.
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 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_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the first layer is about 7-16 angstroms (A) thick when this improves the performance of the optoelectronic device.
Regarding Claim 23, Jerry and Kawa ‘145 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_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.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 and 24-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jerry and Kawa ‘145 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, Kawa ‘145 teaches the active region comprises two third layers (17/25) coupled to and positioned adjacent to opposite sides of the second layer (21), wherein one of the two third layers is adjacent to the first layer (19) (see Fig. 1); wherein the third layers comprise a third material (AlGaInAs; [0022]),
Thus, Jerry and Kawa ‘145 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 13, 26 and 30, Jerry teaches the fourth layer comprises a fourth material, and wherein the fourth material comprises aluminum antimonide (AlSb) (see Fig. 2; pp. 7).
Regarding Claim 14, Jerry, Kawa ‘145 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, each third layer is about 20-30 angstroms (A) thick, the four layer is about 6-20 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, each third layer is about 20-30 angstroms (A) thick, the four layer is about 6-20 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_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.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, each third layer is about 20-30 angstroms (A) thick, the four layer is about 6-20 angstroms (A) thick when this improves the performance of the optoelectronic device.
Regarding Claim 15, Jerry, Kawa ‘145 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 select 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. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select 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 Claims 25 and 34, Jerry, Kawa ‘145 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_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.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 27 and 31, Yang ‘979 teaches the active region comprises a fourth layer comprising aluminum antimony arsenide (AlSbAs) (see para. [0028]).
Regarding Claims 28 and 36, Kawa ‘145 teaches the first layer (Fig. 1, (19); [0032]).
Jerry, Kawa ‘145 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_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.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 29, 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 layer and 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 the fourth layer comprises a material selected from aluminum antimonide (AlSb) (see Fig. 2).
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: “a pair of third layers; wherein the first layer comprises aluminum indium arsenic phosphide (AlInAsP); and the third layers comprise gallium indium arsenic nitride (GaInAsN); wherein the third layers are coupled to and positioned adjacent to opposite sides of the second layer, and one of the third layers is adjacent to the first layer”.
Kawa ‘145 teaches a pair of third layers (Fig. 1, (17/25); [0022]); the first material (Fig. 1, (19); [0032]) comprises aluminum indium arsenic phosphide (AlInAsP); wherein the third layers (17/25) are coupled to and positioned adjacent to opposite sides of the second layer (21), and one of the third layers (17) is adjacent to the first layer (19).
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 (AlInAsP); and the third layers are coupled to and positioned adjacent to opposite sides of the second layer, and one of the third layers is adjacent to the first layer for lower a series resistance along semiconductor stacks (see abstract) as suggested by Kawa ‘145.
Jerry and Kawa ‘145 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 Claim 32, Jerry, Kawa ‘145 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”.
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 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_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the first layer is about 7-16 angstroms (A) thick when this improves the performance of the optoelectronic device.
Regarding Claim 33, Jerry, Kawa ‘145 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_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.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 35, Jerry, Kawa ‘145 and Yang ‘979 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the four layer is about 6-20 angstroms (A) thick”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the four layer is about 6-20 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_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the four layer is about 6-20 angstroms (A) thick when this improves the performance of the optoelectronic device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to semiconductor devices:
Bauer et al. (US 2012/0300804 A1)
Vurgaftman et al. (US 2012/0128018 A1)
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DZUNG T 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, 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