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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges amending of claim 15, figure 1, and specification, and cancellation of claim 29. Drawing objection withdrawn. Specification objection withdrawn. Claims 21-28 remain withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Arguments pertaining to new amendments are not addressed here (pgs. 6-7, new effective refractive index difference value). See updated claim rejections.
Applicant argues that the buffer layer in Hiroki cannot be treated as the claimed second waveguide layer. Applicant contends that Hiroki makes an express distinction between its buffer layer above the active region and its guide layer below the active region, and the reference repeatedly uses these two different terms to distinguish between the two layers (Remarks pgs. 7-8).
Examiner disagrees. The fact that Hiroki labels layer 13/613 above the active region a “buffer layer” does not preclude layer 13/613 from being reasonably interpreted as a second waveguide layer. It is well known in the art that a buffer layer can perform functions sufficiently similar to those of a waveguide layer (see evidentiary reference Sakai, fig. 1 buffer layer InGaAsP beneath clad InP layer and analogous to layer 13/613 in Hiroki, active layer InGaAsP beneath buffer layer and analogous to 32/632 in Hiroki, waveguide layer InGaAsP beneath active layer and analogous to 31/631 in Hiroki; the buffer layer in Sakai has a direct influence on the optical confinement and transverse mode properties of an entire waveguide structure, see Sakai Abstract). See second evidentiary reference Akiba US-4653059-A. In fig. 4, Akiba discloses a p-type InGaAsP buffer layer opposite an n-type InGaAsP waveguide layer and directly involved in influencing the optical mode of the laser. Periodic corrugations 10 shown on both waveguide layer and buffer layer (col. 2 line 60 – col. 3 line 10).
For these reasons, buffer layer 13/613 in Hiroki is reasonably interpreted as the claimed second waveguide layer.
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.
Claim(s) 15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroki (US-5841799-A).
Regarding claim 15, H discloses a radiation-emitting laser diode (fig. 18, col. 17 lines 15-60) comprising: a waveguide layer sequence (fig. 18 all layers) comprising: an active region configured to generate electromagnetic radiation with a preferred polarization direction (632, col. 18 lines 15-25); a first waveguide layer of a first doping type (631 n-type); and a second waveguide layer of a second doping type (613 p-type, considered second waveguide layer due to physical position/proximity to active region/within core + thickness + material/refractive index relative to that of cladding + effect on TE/TM modes, sufficiently similar structurally + functionally), wherein the active region is arranged between the first waveguide layer and the second waveguide layer (632 between 631 and 613), wherein refractive indices of the waveguide layer sequence form a first effective refractive index for a transverse electric (TE) mode with a respective electric field oscillating in a first transverse direction and a second effective refractive index for a transverse magnetic (TM) mode with a respective electric field oscillating in a second transverse direction (col. 17 lines 35-65).
H does not explicitly disclose and wherein an effective refractive index difference of the first effective refractive index and the second effective refractive index is at least 7 * 10-4 and at most 5 * 10-3.
H discloses the fig. 18 layer structure designed to obtain refractive index difference of 5 * 10^-4 (col. 17 line 55-60).
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (MPEP 2144.05 I). ("[A] modification of a process parameter may be patentable if it ‘produce[s] a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art." (citing Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs, UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 693, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ("A difference of degree is not as persuasive as a difference in kind – i.e., if the range produces ‘a new property dissimilar to the known property,’ rather than producing a predictable result but to an unexpected extent.") (MPEP 2144.05 III A). Applicant has not demonstrated criticality of claimed range over prior art value, nor have they presented a new and unexpected result as a consequence of the claimed range which is different in kind from the results of the prior art value.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a refractive index difference of at least 7 * 10-4 and at most 5 * 10-3 to achieve a desired oscillation condition corresponding to an index difference within that range (col. 17 lines 60-67).
Regarding claim 17, modified H discloses the radiation-emitting laser diode according to claim 15, wherein a length of the waveguide layer sequence is at least 500 um and at most 6 mm (fig. 18 cavity length 600 um, col. 6 line 65 – col. 7 line 1).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over H in view of Gotz (US-20130287057-A1).
Regarding claim 16, modified H discloses the radiation-emitting laser diode according to claim 15.
Modified H does not disclose wherein refractive indices of the active region, the first waveguide layer and the second waveguide layer differ from one another, and/or wherein thicknesses of the active region, the first waveguide layer and the second waveguide layer differ from one another.
Gotz discloses a diode laser with active region, first + second waveguide layers all having different thicknesses (fig. 2 + 3, active region 10, first waveguide 12, second waveguide 16, 0065-0068).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have thicknesses of the active region, the first waveguide layer and the second waveguide layer differ from one another to allow for increased tunability/control of the modes within the device (i.e. not restrict to single layer size) (Gotz 0008).
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over H in view of Nitta (US-6091745-A).
Regarding claim 18, modified H discloses the radiation-emitting laser diode according to claim 15, further comprising: a second cladding layer of the second doping type arranged on the waveguide layer sequence on a second main surface (fig. 18 second cladding layer 614 p-type on 613+632+631 on second main surface (top surface of 613)).
Modified H does not disclose a first cladding layer of the first doping type arranged on the waveguide layer sequence on a first main surface.
Nitta discloses a polarization switching semiconductor laser with a top p-type cladding layer and a bottom n-type cladding layer, where the bottom cladding layer is between the waveguide/active layers and the substrate (fig. 2 laser has top cladding 4 and bottom cladding 2, 2 on substrate 1, col. 5 lines 10-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace an upper portion of substrate 630 with a bottom n-type cladding layer underneath waveguide layer sequence (on bottom of 631) to improve optical confinement and control over laser function. See modified fig. 18.
PNG
media_image1.png
475
1110
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified fig. 18
Regarding claim 19, modified H discloses the radiation-emitting laser diode according to claim 18, further comprising a metallic contact layer arranged on the second cladding layer in an electrically and thermally conductive manner (fig. 18 metallic contact layer/electrode 619a/b arranged on 614 in thermally + electrically conductive manner, col. 6 lines 50-65, col. 7 lines 40-50).
Regarding claim 20, modified H discloses the radiation-emitting laser diode according to claim 18, further comprising a substrate arranged on the first cladding layer, wherein the first cladding layer comprises a mode spoiler (modified fig. 18 Modified substrate on New cladding/first cladding layer, New cladding comprises mode spoiler/diffraction grating 621, col. 6 lines 50-65, “arranged on” interpreted to mean ‘underneath’, as shown in applicant’s figs. 1 + 2, substrate 11 under/”arranged on” first cladding 6).
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 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 Alex Ehrlich whose telephone number is (703)756-5716. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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.
/A.E./Examiner, Art Unit 2828 /MINSUN O HARVEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights