DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
Figure 4 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: [0046] mentions #56 and #58 which are not in the drawings. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: fig.6 #40 is not mentioned. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
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 device of claim 10 containing BOTH the facet/window structure AND the lateral waveguide structures 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.
It is noted that fig.7 shows only a window type structure while fig.12 shows only a dual lateral waveguide structure while claim 10 outlines a combined structure which is not depicted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10 (and all claims dependent therefrom; 2-6, 8, 9), are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 7 and 10 define the regrowth area as “defined areas of the combination of the active region, the first waveguiding layer and the first cladding layer have been removed and defining a regrowth interface along surfaces of the waveguiding layer of the first conductivity type exposed by the removal” which implies the regrowth area is the exposed surface of the first conductivity type waveguide. The regrowth area in the Applicant’s specification includes not only the area of the surface of the first conductivity type waveguide (fig.7 #26-2) but also the area in the center of the device (fig.7 #26-1). The area corresponding to the center of the device (fig.7 #26-1) is that which is referred to in claim 3 when stating the mode intensity at the regrowth interface is close to zero as this is shown in Applicant’s fig.8 occurring in the center of the device (fig.8 #26-1) not the edge which would correspond to the #26-2 region. Therefore, the regrowth interface term used in the claims appears to contradict the manner in which the same term is used in the disclosure which creates confusion and misunderstanding of the scope of the claim (see MPEP 2173.03 below).
For purposes of examination, the interface will be considered the entirety of an area where regrowth occurs and is to include the surface of the waveguide of the first conductivity type.
A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971); In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971); In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970).
Claim 2 refers to “the defined area”. Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends outlines “defined areas” but does not specify a particular area. It is therefore unclear which area “the defined area” is referring to in claim 2 as it lacks antecedent basis.
For purposes of examination the claim will be understood to be referring to “the defined areas”.
The term “close” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For purposes of examination, “close to zero” will be understood to mean a value less than the maximum light intensity based on evanescent decay of the mode.
Claims 5 and 6 state “the composition and thickness of the second waveguiding and cladding layers are selected with respect to the composition and thickness of the first waveguiding and cladding layers such that the refractive index of the second waveguiding layer is greater than that of the first waveguiding layer”. It is not clear how the composition and thickness of the second cladding layer as well as the composition and thickness of the first cladding layer affect the refractive indices of the second waveguiding layer relative to the first waveguiding layer as the first/second cladding layers are independent from the first/second waveguiding layers and thereby do not influence their refractive index.
The Examiner will interpret the claims using either or both of:
The composition and thickness of the second waveguiding layer compared to the composition and thickness of the first waveguiding layer to influence the refractive index relationship between the two;
The lateral sides of the device form a waveguiding region similar to #62/64 in applicant’s fig.12 which are made up of the second waveguide/clad and compare those layers composition and thickness to those of the first waveguide/clad + second waveguide/clad found in the central guiding region similar to #60 of fig.12, as is best understood from the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukunaga (US 2002/0015428).
With respect to claim 1, Fukunaga teaches an edge-emitting semiconductor laser (fig.2, fig.3, [0033]) comprising: a semiconductor substrate (fig.2 #31, fig.3 #51); a cladding layer of a first conductivity type (fig.2 #32 n, fig.3 #52 n) formed on the semiconductor substrate; a waveguiding layer of the first conductivity type (fig.2 #33 n, fig.3 #53 n) formed on the cladding layer; an active region (fig.2 # 34, fig.3 #54) disposed over a defined region of the waveguiding layer (fig.2/3 on top surface); a first waveguiding layer of a second, opposing conductivity type (fig.2 #35 p, fig.3 #55 p) formed over the active region; a first cladding layer (fig.2 #36, fig.3 #56; [0067, 78]; functions as clad based on index of ~3.3, GaAs, compared to index of guides at ~3.6, InGaP) formed over the first waveguiding layer, where defined areas of the combination of the active region, the first waveguiding layer and the first cladding layer (fig.2c/3c end face regions) have been removed and defining a regrowth interface (the Examiner notes “removed” and “regrowth” are product by process terms not found to be limiting the device claim, MPEP 2113; for purposes of examination, “removed” is read as “not present” and “regrowth” is read to indicate the following layers are present) along surfaces of the waveguiding layer of the first conductivity type exposed by the removal (fig.2/3 missing material at end faces exposes fig.2 #33, fig.3 #53, also regrowth at center); a second waveguiding layer of the second conductivity type (fig.2 #38 p, fig.3 #58 p) formed over the regrowth interface; and a second cladding layer of the second conductivity type (fig.2 #39 p, fig.3 #63 p) formed over the second waveguiding layer of the second conductivity type, wherein the composition and thicknesses of the first waveguiding and cladding layers of the second conductivity type are selected to create a defined separation between a propagating longitudinal optical mode and the regrowth interface (fig.2 #35/36, fig.3 #55/56 remain in center but removed from edges thereby forming separation of mode from interface). Fukunaga teaches each of the layers above the active region to be of the second conductivity type (p) with the exception of current blocking layers (fig.3 #60). Fukunaga does not clearly teach the cap layers of fig.2/3 to be of the second conductivity type. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to change the conductivity type of the identified cap layers of fig.2 and fig.3 to be of the second conductivity type as demonstrated in the other non-blocking layers above the active in order to insure proper current flow to the active region to enable light emission.
Note that the Fukunaga taught n type (first conductivity) of the cap layers over the active is understood to create a np junction atop the p type (second conductivity) first upper guide layers at the centers of the devices which would cause an undesirable blocking of current from reaching the active region if the proposed modification outlined above were not done.
With respect to claim 2, Fukunaga teaches the defined area of removal for the active region, the first waveguiding layer and the first cladding layer includes a recessed area along a front facet of the edge-emitting laser (fig.2c/3c), the formed second guiding and cladding layers formed in the recessed area creating a non-absorbing mirror for the edge-emitting laser (as seen in fig.2c/3c, no active in the regions thereby non-absorbing facets).
With respect to claim 3, Fukunaga teaches a composition and thickness of the first waveguiding layer of the second conductivity type and the first cladding layer of the second conductivity type are selected such that an intensity value of a propagating longitudinal mode that coincides with the location of the regrowth interface is close to zero (note that the interface of Fukunaga is akin to that of Applicant’s fig.8 at center of device based on the presence of the first guide and first clad, while the interface is also akin to that of Applicant’s fig.9 at the facets due to the first guide and first clad not being present, such that the mode intensity would be evanescently decaying away at the central interface region as it is spaced apart from the active layer).
With respect to claim 4, Fukunaga teaches the defined area of removal for the active region, the first waveguiding layer, and the first cladding layer includes opposing lateral side areas of the edge-emitting laser in a region proximate to a current injection region (fig.2c left/right sides with current injection in center; fig.3c left/right sides with current injection in center), forming a central injection stripe and guiding area (fig.2c/3c at center), the combination of the second waveguiding layer and the second cladding layer formed along the opposing lateral side areas to provide passive current confinement and lateral mode suppression (fig.2c/3c as they allow for passage of current without blocking and lateral mode suppression based on index step(s)).
With respect to claim 5, Fukunaga teaches the composition and thickness of the second waveguiding and cladding layers are selected with respect to the composition and thickness of the first waveguiding and cladding layers such that the refractive index of the second waveguiding layer is greater than that of the first waveguiding layer, forming an antiguiding laser structure in the presence of thermally-induced waveguides (using 112b interpretation 1: in fig.3a #58 is thicker than #55 thereby forming an area of higher effective refractive index and making an antiguiding structure when comparing those layers at center vs. at edges).
With respect to claim 6, Fukunaga teaches the composition and thickness of the second waveguiding and cladding layers are selected with respect to the composition and thickness of the first waveguiding and cladding layers such that the refractive index of the second waveguiding layer is less than that of the first waveguiding layer to form a controlled guiding of lateral modes in the presence of thermally-induced waveguides (using 112b interpretation 2: in fig.2c the presence of the second clad #39 in center, but not edges, creates lower effective index on lateral sides than center providing the mode guiding).
With respect to claim 7, Fukunaga teaches a method of making a laser structure (fig.2), comprising: providing a semiconductor substrate of a first conductivity type (fig.2 #31, n); forming, in sequence, a cladding layer of the first conductivity type (fig.2 #32 n) and a waveguiding layer of the first conductivity type (fig.2 #33 n) on the semiconductor substrate; forming an active region (fig.2 #34) across a top surface of the first conductivity type waveguiding layer; forming, in sequence, a first waveguiding layer of a second, opposing conductivity type (fig.2 #35 p) and a first cladding layer (fig.2 #36) over the active region, the formed configuration defined as having a front facet (fig.2 #47) and an opposing rear facet (fig.2 #46) wherein upon activation an optical beam is emitted at least through the front facet ([0073]); removing a combination of the active region, the first waveguiding layer and the first cladding layer from a portion of the formed configuration ([0069]), an exposed surface formed by the removal defined as a regrowth interface (fig.2a center, as well as edges where material removed); and forming, in sequence, a second waveguiding layer of the second conductivity type (fig.2 #38 p)and a second cladding layer of the second conductivity type (fig.2 #39 p) over the regrowth interface, selected to create a defined separation between a propagating longitudinal optical mode and the regrowth interface (fig.2 #35/36 remain in center but removed from edges thereby forming separation of mode from interface). Fukunaga teaches each of the layers above the active region to be of the second conductivity type (p). Fukunaga does not clearly teach the cap layer of fig.2 to be of the second conductivity type. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to change the conductivity type of the cap layer of fig.2 to be of the second conductivity type as demonstrated in the other non-blocking layers above the active in order to insure proper current flow to the active region to enable light emission.
Note that the Fukunaga taught n type (first conductivity) of the cap layer over the active is understood to create a np junction atop the p type (second conductivity) first upper guide layer at the center of the device which would cause an undesirable blocking of current from reaching the active region if the proposed modification outlined above were not done.
With respect to claim 8, Fukunaga teaches in performing the removing step, an end portion of the combination of the active region, the first waveguiding layer, and the first cladding layer proximate to a front facet of the laser structure is removed (fig.2a left side), creating a non-absorbing mirror during the step of forming, in sequence, the second waveguiding layer and second cladding layer of the second conductivity type (as seen in fig.2c, no active in the regions thereby non-absorbing facets).
With respect to claim 9, Fukunaga teaches in performing the removing step, side portions of the combination of the active region, the first waveguiding layer, and the first cladding layer (fig.2c left/right sides) proximate to a current injection region (fig.2c center) of the laser structure is removed, creating a current confinement and lateral mode suppression structure (fig.2c as they allow for passage of current without blocking and lateral mode suppression based on index step(s)).
With respect to claim 10, Fukunaga teaches an edge-emitting semiconductor laser comprising: a semiconductor substrate; a cladding layer of a first conductivity type formed on the semiconductor substrate; a waveguiding layer of the first conductivity type formed on the cladding layer; an active region disposed over a defined region of the waveguiding layer; a first waveguiding layer of a second, opposing conductivity type formed over the active region; a first cladding layer of the second conductivity type formed over the first waveguiding layer, where defined areas of the combination of the active region, the first waveguiding layer and the first cladding layer have been removed and defining a regrowth interface along surfaces of the waveguiding layer of the first conductivity type exposed by the removal; a second waveguiding layer of the second conductivity type formed over the regrowth interface; and a second cladding layer of the second conductivity type formed over the second waveguiding layer of the second conductivity type, wherein the composition and thicknesses of the first waveguiding and cladding layers of the second conductivity type are selected to create a defined separation between a propagating longitudinal optical mode and the regrowth interface (see rejection of claim 1 above),
including a first defined area of removal for the active region, the first waveguiding layer and the first cladding layer includes a recessed area along a front facet of the edge-emitting laser, the formed second guiding and cladding layers formed in the recessed area creating a non-absorbing mirror for the edge-emitting laser (see rejection of claim 2 above, where the 1st area can be at the left facet);
and a second defined area of removal for the active region, the first waveguiding layer, and the first cladding layers including opposing lateral side areas of the edge-emitting laser in a region proximate to a current injection region, forming a central injection stripe and guiding area, the combination of the second waveguiding and cladding layers of the second conductivity type formed along the opposing lateral side areas to provide passive current confinement and lateral mode suppression (see the rejection of claim 4 above, where the 2nd area can be at the right facet).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see the included pto892 form for a list of related art.
Note US 2022/0263285, 2002/0051477 and JP 60017980 are found to teach art similar in concept while the Applicant’s admitted prior art (fig.3) appears to read on at least claims 1-3.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOD THOMAS VAN ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8447. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8AM-430PM.
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.
/TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights