DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 through 20 originally filed 2 June 2023. By amendment received 27 April 2026; claims 1 and 13 are amended. 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered; they are addressed below.
Applicant argues that the amendments to claims 1 and 13 overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. This argument is persuasive and the corresponding rejections are withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, Forster et al. (Forster, US Patent 5,284,792) has been located which, in combination with the previously cited art, renders obvious the amended subject matter. As such, new rejections have been formulated as set forth below.
As such, all claims are addressed as follows:
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 5, 9, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroyama et al. (Hiroyama, US Pub. 2009/0185594) in view of Forster et al. (Forster, US Patent 5,284,792).
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). Hiroyama does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the at least one street extends along an entire length of the at least one laser cavity." Forster discloses, "Wherein the at least one street extends along an entire length of the at least one laser cavity" (col. 5, lines 16-22 and Figs. 1D and 2, pt. 15). 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 Forster. In view of the teachings of Hiroyama regarding the fabrication of a laser device that has been cleaved, the alternate construction technique in which the scribe line extends across the entire laser device as taught by Forster would enhance the teachings of Hiroyama by allowing the cleaved facet to be at least partially treated prior to final separation.
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). Hiroyama does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the street portions extend along an entire length of the laser cavity." Forster discloses, "Wherein the street portions extend along an entire length of the laser cavity" (col. 5, lines 16-22 and Figs. 1D and 2, pt. 15). 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 Forster for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
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).
Claims 2 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroyama, in view of Forster, and further 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).
The combination of Hiroyama and Forster 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 the combination of Hiroyama and Forster 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 and Forster 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, The combination of Hiroyama and Forster 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 the combination of Hiroyama and Forster 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 Forster, and further 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).
The combination of Hiroyama and Forster 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 the combination of Hiroyama and Forster 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 and Forster 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 Forster, and further in view of Ichihara (US Patent 5,814,532).
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).
The combination of Hiroyama and Forster 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 the combination of Hiroyama and Forster 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 and Forster 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 Forster, and further in view of Hongo et al. (Hongo, US Pub. 2013/0028280).
Regarding claim 6, The combination of Hiroyama and Forster 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 the combination of Hiroyama and Forster 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 and Forster 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, The combination of Hiroyama and Forster 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 the combination of Hiroyama and Forster 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 Forster, in view of Hongo, and further in view of Hata (US Pub. 2008/0298411).
Regarding claim 7, The combination of Hiroyama, Forster, 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, Forster, 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, Forster, 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 Forster, and further in view of Hata.
Regarding claim 10, The combination of Hiroyama and Forster 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 the combination of Hiroyama and Forster 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 and Forster 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).
The combination of Hiroyama and Forster 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 the combination of Hiroyama and Forster 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).
The combination of Hiroyama and Forster 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 the combination of Hiroyama and Forster with the teachings of Hata for the reasons provided above regarding claim 10.
Regarding claim 20, The combination of Hiroyama and Forster 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 the combination of Hiroyama and Forster 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 Forster, and further in view of Raring et al. (Raring, US Patent 9,166,373).
Regarding claim 11, The combination of Hiroyama and Forster 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 the combination of Hiroyama and Forster 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 and Forster by allowing the laser device to be reduced in size.
Regarding claim 12, The combination of Hiroyama and Forster 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 the combination of Hiroyama and Forster with the teachings of Raring for the reasons provided above regarding claim 11.
Regarding claim 16, The combination of Hiroyama and Forster 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 the combination of Hiroyama and Forster with the teachings of Raring for the reasons provided above regarding claim 11.
Regarding claim 17, The combination of Hiroyama and Forster 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 the combination of Hiroyama and Forster with the teachings of Raring for the reasons provided above regarding claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hooper et al. (Hooper, US Pub. 2008/0014667) is cited for teaching a laser fabrication process in which the die region between laser devices is removed and filled with inactive window material.
Kashiwagi et al. (Kashiwagi, US Pub. 2012/0189029) is cited for teaching a laser fabrication process in which the a pad electrode and dielectric layer are not provided in the vicinity of the emission region and along the line along which the laser die is cleaved.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights