DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 through 20 originally filed 2 June 2023. Claims 1 through 20 are addressed by this 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 9, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Hiroyama et al. (Hiroyama, US Pub. 2009/0185594).
Regarding claim 1, Hiroyama discloses, "Providing a semiconductor wafer including a plurality of semiconductor layers forming at least one laser cavity" (p. [0069], [0074], and Figs. 4 and 7, pts. 12a, 17, 18, and 19). "At least one dielectric layer on the semiconductor layers" (p. [0073] and Fig. 4, pt. 14). "At least one metal layer on the dielectric layer" (p. [0073] and Fig. 4, pts. 14 and 15). "Wherein at least one street is formed on the semiconductor wafer without the metal layer and without the dielectric layer" (p. [0075] and Fig. 4, pts. 14, 15, and 19a). "Cleaving the semiconductor wafer along the at least one street to form a plurality of edge-emitting lasers having cleaved facets on each side of the at least one laser cavity" (p. [0102] and Fig. 10, pts. 19, 19a, and 19b). "Wherein at least one of the cleaved facets provides an output facet for emitting light from the at least one laser cavity" (p. [0072] and Fig. 4, pts. 17, 18, and 200). "Depositing a dielectric material on a remaining portion of the streets along ends of the cleaved facets" (p. [0177], [0193], and Fig. 25, pts. 17, 17a, 18, and 18a, where the coatings follow the contours of the facet so as to coat the regions assisting cleavage).
Regarding claim 5, Hiroyama discloses, "Wherein the semiconductor wafer includes a plurality of streets formed without the metal layer and without the dielectric layer" (p. [0100] and Fig. 7, pt. 19).
Regarding claim 9, Hiroyama discloses, "Wherein the edge-emitting lasers include ridge waveguide (RWG) lasers" (p. [0069] and Fig. 4, pt. 12a).
Regarding claim 13, Hiroyama discloses, "A laser cavity formed by a plurality of semiconductor layers" (p. [0069], [0074], and Figs. 4 and 7, pts. 12a, 17, 18, and 19). "[The laser cavity] having cleaved facets at opposite sides of the laser cavity" (p. [0069], [0074], and Figs. 4 and 7, pts. 12a, 17, 18, and 19). "Wherein one of the cleaved facets is an output facet" (p. [0072] and Fig. 4, pts. 17, 18, and 200). "A dielectric layer and a metal layer deposited on a portion of the semiconductor layers" (p. [0073] and Fig. 4, pts. 14 and 15). "Wherein street portions without the dielectric layer and the metal layer are formed along ends of the cleaved facets" (p. [0075] and Fig. 4, pts. 14, 15, and 19a). "Facet coatings deposited on the cleaved facets and on the street portions formed along ends of the cleaved facets" (p. [0177], [0193], and Fig. 25, pts. 17, 17a, 18, and 18a, where the coatings follow the contours of the facet so as to coat the regions assisting cleavage).
Regarding claim 19, Hiroyama discloses, "Wherein the plurality of semiconductor layers are arranged to form a ridge waveguide (RWG) laser" (p. [0069] and Fig. 4, pt. 12a).
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.
Claims 2 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroyama in view of Dohle et al. (Dohle, US Patent 5,920,584).
Regarding claim 2, Hiroyama discloses, "Wherein the at least one street is formed between adjacent laser bar portions" (p. [0100] and Fig. 7, pts. 12a and 19). "Cleaving the semiconductor wafer separates the laser bar portions into a plurality of laser bars" (p. [0102] and Fig. 10, pts. 19, 19a, and 19b). Hiroyama does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein each of the laser bars provides a plurality of edge-emitting lasers." Dohle discloses, "Wherein each of the laser bars provides a plurality of edge-emitting lasers" (col. 4, lines 58-59). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hiroyama with the teachings of Dohle. In view of the teachings of Hiroyama regarding the fabrication of a laser device that has been cleaved, the alternate construction of the final product to include multiple emitters as taught by Dohle would enhance the teachings of Hiroyama by allowing multiple emitters to be present on the final chip and thereby allow for higher output power from a single chip.
Regarding claim 18, Hiroyama does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the laser cavity is formed in a laser bar including a plurality of laser cavities." Dohle discloses, "Wherein the laser cavity is formed in a laser bar including a plurality of laser cavities" (col. 4, lines 58-59). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hiroyama with the teachings of Dohle for the reasons provided above regarding claim 2.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroyama in view of Kinoshita (US Patent 5,780,320).
Regarding claim 3, Hiroyama discloses, "Wherein providing the semiconductor wafer comprises depositing the semiconductor layers, the at least one dielectric layer and the metal layer" (p. [0090], [0095], [0097], and Fig. 4, pts. 12, 14, and 15). Hiroyama does not explicitly disclose, "Forming the at least one street by wet etching the at least one metal layer and the at least one dielectric layer." Kinoshita discloses, "Forming the at least one street by wet etching the at least one metal layer and the at least one dielectric layer" (col. 5, lines 60-67 and Fig. 22, pts. 11, 21, and 34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hiroyama with the teachings of Kinoshita. In view of the teachings of Hiroyama regarding the fabrication of a laser device that has been cleaved, the alternate production of trenches for assisting cleavage by wet etching as taught by Kinoshita would enhance the teachings of Hiroyama by providing a suitably alternate method for producing the required trenches.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroyama in view of Ichihara (US Patent 5,814,532).
Ichihara was initially cited in the IDS received 3 October 2023.
Regarding claim 4, Hiroyama discloses, "Wherein providing the semiconductor wafer comprises depositing the semiconductor layers, the at least one dielectric layer and the metal layer" (p. [0090], [0095], [0097], and Fig. 4, pts. 12, 14, and 15). Hiroyama does not explicitly disclose, "Forming the at least one street by dry etching the at least one metal layer and the at least one dielectric layer." Ichihara discloses, "Forming the at least one street by dry etching the at least one metal layer and the at least one dielectric layer" (col. 2, lines 57-59 and Fig. 2, pt. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hiroyama with the teachings of Ichihara. In view of the teachings of Hiroyama regarding the fabrication of a laser device that has been cleaved, the alternate production of trenches for assisting cleavage by dry etching as taught by Ichihara would enhance the teachings of Hiroyama by providing a suitably alternate method for producing the required trenches.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroyama in view of Hongo et al. (Hongo, US Pub. 2013/0028280).
Regarding claim 6, Hiroyama does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein depositing the dielectric material includes an intentional overspray deposition of facet coatings on the cleaved facets." Hongo discloses, "Wherein depositing the dielectric material includes an intentional overspray deposition of facet coatings on the cleaved facets" (p. [0042] and Fig. 2B, pts. 50F and 50R). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hiroyama with the teachings of Hongo. In view of the teachings of Hiroyama regarding the fabrication of a laser device that has been cleaved, the alternate deposition of the coatings along the laser facets so as to extend beyond the coated surfaces as well as the indication that the rear coating may be highly reflective as taught by Hongo would enhance the teachings of Hiroyama by allowing for improved adhesion between the coating and the coated surface as well as by allowing the coating to provide a defined rear reflector for the laser cavity.
Regarding claim 8, Hiroyama does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the facet coatings include a highly reflective (HR) coating on the cleaved facet opposite the output facet." Hongo discloses, "Wherein the facet coatings include a highly reflective (HR) coating on the cleaved facet opposite the output facet" (p. [0042] and Fig. 2B, pt. 50R). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hiroyama with the teachings of Hongo for the reasons provided above regarding claim 6.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroyama, in view of Hongo, and further in view of Hata (US Pub. 2008/0298411).
Regarding claim 7, The combination of Hiroyama and Hongo does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the facet coatings include an antireflective (AR) coating the output facet." Hata discloses, "Wherein the facet coatings include an antireflective (AR) coating the output facet" (p. [0029] and Fig. 2, pt. 20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Hiroyama and Hongo with the teachings of Hata. In view of the teachings of Hiroyama regarding the fabrication of a laser device that has been cleaved, the alternate use of an antireflective coating for the front facet as taught by Hata would enhance the teachings of Hiroyama and Hongo by indicating the range of acceptable reflectivities for the front facet that are suitable for use with this type of laser.
Claims 10, 14, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroyama in view of Hata.
Regarding claim 10, Hiroyama does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the edge-emitting lasers include buried heterostructure (BH) lasers." Hata discloses, "Wherein the edge-emitting lasers include buried heterostructure (BH) lasers" (p. [0024]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hiroyama with the teachings of Hata. In view of the teachings of Hiroyama regarding the fabrication of a laser device that has been cleaved, the alternate fabrication of the laser device as a buried heterostructure as well as the indication of reflectivities for the front and rear coatings as taught by Hata would enhance the teachings of Hiroyama by providing a suitably alternate configuration for the laser device as well as indicating acceptable reflectivities for the front and rear facets of the laser device.
Regarding claim 14, Hiroyama discloses, "Wherein the AR coating is applied to cover the street portion formed along the end of the output facet" (p. [0177], [0193], and Fig. 25, pts. 17, 17a, 18, and 18a, where the coatings follow the contours of the facet so as to coat the regions assisting cleavage). Hiroyama does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the facet coatings include an antireflective (AR) coating on the output facet." Hata discloses, "Wherein the facet coatings include an antireflective (AR) coating on the output facet" (p. [0029] and Fig. 2, pt. 20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hiroyama with the teachings of Hata for the reasons provided above regarding claim 10.
Regarding claim 15, Hiroyama discloses, "Wherein the HR coating is applied to cover the street portion formed at the end of the cleaved facet opposite the output facet" (p. [0177], [0193], and Fig. 25, pts. 17, 17a, 18, and 18a, where the coatings follow the contours of the facet so as to coat the regions assisting cleavage). Hiroyama does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the facet coatings include a highly reflective (HR) coating on the cleaved facet opposite the output facet." Hata discloses, "Wherein the facet coatings include a highly reflective (HR) coating on the cleaved facet opposite the output facet" (p. [0029] and Fig. 2, pt. 21, where coating 21 is understood as highly reflective due to the clearer description of similar film 60 discussed in p. [0043]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hiroyama with the teachings of Hata for the reasons provided above regarding claim 10.
Regarding claim 20, Hiroyama does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the plurality of semiconductor layers are arranged to form a buried heterostructure (BH) laser." Hata discloses, "Wherein the plurality of semiconductor layers are arranged to form a buried heterostructure (BH) laser" (p. [0024]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hiroyama with the teachings of Hata for the reasons provided above regarding claim 10.
Claims 11, 12, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroyama in view of Raring et al. (Raring, US Patent 9,166,373).
Regarding claim 11, Hiroyama does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the edge-emitting lasers have a cavity length less than 300 μm." Raring discloses, "Wherein the edge-emitting lasers have a cavity length less than 300 μm" (col. 19, lines 10-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hiroyama with the teachings of Raring. In view of the teachings of Hiroyama regarding the fabrication of a laser device that has been cleaved, the alternate construction of the laser device to be 200µm or less as taught by Raring would enhance the teachings of Hiroyama by allowing the laser device to be reduced in size.
Regarding claim 12, Hiroyama does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the edge-emitting lasers have a cavity length less than 200 μm." Raring discloses, "Wherein the edge-emitting lasers have a cavity length less than 200 μm" (col. 19, lines 10-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hiroyama with the teachings of Raring for the reasons provided above regarding claim 11.
Regarding claim 16, Hiroyama does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the laser cavity has a length less than 300 μm." Raring discloses, "Wherein the laser cavity has a length less than 300 μm" (col. 19, lines 10-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hiroyama with the teachings of Raring for the reasons provided above regarding claim 11.
Regarding claim 17, Hiroyama does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the laser cavity has a length less than 200 μm." Raring discloses, "Wherein the laser cavity has a length less than 200 μm" (col. 19, lines 10-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hiroyama with the teachings of Raring for the reasons provided above regarding claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean P Hagan whose telephone number is (571)270-1242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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.
/SEAN P HAGAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2828