DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 through 19 originally filed 17 May 2023. By preliminary amendment received 17 May 2023; claims 1 through 19 are cancelled and claims 20 through 37 are added. Claims 20 through 37 are subject to restriction requirement.
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 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Futami et al. (Futami, US Pub. 2015/0222091).
Futami was initially cited in the IDS received 16 May 2024.
Regarding claim 20, Futami discloses, "A semiconductor body having a plurality of resonator regions" (p. [0026] and Fig. 1, pts. 1, 20a, 20b, 20c, 20d, and 20e). "Wherein the resonator regions are arranged side by side along a lateral direction" (p. [0026] and Fig. 1, pts. 1, 20a, 20b, 20c, 20d, and 20e). "Each resonator region having an active region configured to generate radiation" (p. [0033] and Fig. 2, pts. 9, 20a, 20b, 20c, 20d, and 20e). "Wherein the semiconductor body extends between two side faces" (p. [0027], [0028], and Fig. 1, pts. 1, 5, 6, and 7, where reflection films 5, 6, and 7 are provided on the two side faces of body 1). "Wherein the resonator regions are configured to emit laser radiation at one of the two side faces" (p. [0027], [0028], and Fig. 1, pts. 2, 3, 5, and 6). "A layer sequence attached to at least one of the side faces" (p. [0030] and Fig. 1, pts. 1, 5, and 6). "Wherein the layer sequence forms at least part of a resonator mirror for at least one resonator region" (p. [0027], [0028], and Fig. 1, pts. 1, 5, 6, and 7).
Regarding claim 21, Futami discloses, "Wherein the layer sequence comprises a plurality of subregions, which are different from one another" (p. [0031] and Fig. 1, pts. 5 and 6). "Wherein a subregion in each case forms, for one of the resonator regions, at least part of the resonator mirror associated with the at least one resonator region" (p. [0031] and Fig. 1, pts. 5, 6, 20b, and 20c).
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 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futami in view of Yoo (US Patent 6,438,150).
Yoo was initially cited in the IDS received 17 May 2023.
Regarding claim 22, Futami does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein resonator mirrors formed by the subregions differ from each other with respect to their wavelength of maximum reflectivity." Yoo discloses, "Wherein resonator mirrors formed by the subregions differ from each other with respect to their wavelength of maximum reflectivity" (col. 8, lines 20-22 and Fig. 10, pts. 110, 116, and 118). 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 Futami with the teachings of Yoo. In view of the teachings of Futami regarding an edge emitting laser array with multilayer reflectors applied to the ends thereof, the alternate construction of the reflectors to have different maximum reflection wavelengths as taught by Yoo would enhance the teachings of Futami by allowing the emission wavelengths of the different laser regions to be more particularly selected.
Regarding claim 23, Futami does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the wavelengths of maximum emission of at least two of the radiations emittable from the resonator regions differ from each other by at least 3 nm and by at most 20 nm." Yoo discloses, "Wherein the wavelengths of maximum emission of at least two of the radiations emittable from the resonator regions differ from each other by at least 3 nm and by at most 20 nm" (col. 2, lines 42-44, col. 8, lines 24-28, and Fig. 10, where the widest difference between wavelengths must be 4nm for the depicted 4 stripes). 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 Futami with the teachings of Yoo for the reasons provided above regarding claim 22.
Claims 24, 25, and 35 through 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futami in view of Carey et al. (Carey, US Patent 6,277,696).
Regarding claim 24, Futami does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the layer sequence is attached by a direct bond connection to a connection surface on the side face of the semiconductor body." Carey discloses, "Wherein the layer sequence is attached by a direct bond connection to a connection surface on the side face of the semiconductor body" (col. 3, lines 50-54 and Fig. 4B, pts. 304, 310, and 314). 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 Futami with the teachings of Carey. In view of the teachings of Futami regarding an edge emitting laser array with multilayer reflectors applied to the ends thereof, the alternate construction of the multilayer reflector as a component that is separately fabricated and attached to the desired location as taught by Carey would enhance the teachings of Futami by allowing the construction of the multilayer to be tailored to the multilayer without constraints imposed by fabrication directly upon the emission facet.
Regarding claim 25, Futami does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the connection surface is one of the side faces of the semiconductor laser." Carey discloses, "Wherein the connection surface is one of the side faces of the semiconductor laser" (col. 3, lines 50-54 and Fig. 4B, pts. 310, where bonding surface 310 corresponds to the front facet of Futami because it is the surface on which the reflector is applied). 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 Futami with the teachings of Carey for the reasons provided above regarding claim 24.
Regarding claim 35, Futami discloses, "Providing a semiconductor body having a plurality of resonator regions" (p. [0026] and Fig. 1, pts. 1, 20a, 20b, 20c, 20d, and 20e). "The resonator regions being arranged side by side along a lateral direction" (p. [0026] and Fig. 1, pts. 1, 20a, 20b, 20c, 20d, and 20e). "Each resonator region having an active region for generating radiation" (p. [0033] and Fig. 2, pts. 9, 20a, 20b, 20c, 20d, and 20e). "[The mirror layer sequence is a dielectric layer sequence]" (p. [0030] and Fig. 1, pt. 6). "Wherein the dielectric layer sequence for at least one resonator region forms at least part of a resonator mirror" (p. [0027], [0028], and Fig. 1, pts. 1, 5, 6, and 7). Futami does not explicitly disclose, "Forming a [mirror] layer sequence on a substrate body." "Attaching the [mirror] layer sequence to a side face of the semiconductor body." Carey discloses, "Forming a [mirror] layer sequence on a substrate body" (col. 7, lines 4-6 and Fig. 4B, pts. 304 and 336). "Attaching the [mirror] layer sequence to a side face of the semiconductor body" (col. 3, lines 50-54 and Fig. 4B, pts. 304, 310, and 314). 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 Futami with the teachings of Carey for the reasons provided above regarding claim 24.
Regarding claim 36, Futami does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the layer sequence is attached to the side face by a direct bond connection." Carey discloses, "Wherein the layer sequence is attached to the side face by a direct bond connection" (col. 3, lines 50-54 and Fig. 4B, pts. 304, 310, and 314). 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 Futami with the teachings of Carey for the reasons provided above regarding claim 24.
Regarding claim 37, Futami does not explicitly disclose, "Removing the substrate body." Carey discloses, "Removing the substrate body" (col. 7, lines 53-55 and Figs. 4B and 4C, pt. 336). 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 Futami with the teachings of Carey for the reasons provided above regarding claim 24.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futami, in view of Carey, and further in view of Kim et al. (Kim, US Pub. 2008/0049802).
Regarding claim 26, The combination of Futami and Carey does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the connection surface is formed by a coating applied to one of the side faces of the semiconductor laser." Kim discloses, "Wherein the connection surface is formed by a coating applied to one of the side faces of the semiconductor laser" (p. [0034] and Fig. 6, pt. 180, where the layer for bonding must be applied to the end face of the laser of Futami). 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 Futami and Carey with the teachings of Kim. In view of the teachings of Futami regarding an edge emitting laser array with multilayer reflectors applied to the ends thereof and Carey regarding application of a multilayer reflector by direct bonding, the additional inclusion of bonding layers between the multilayer reflector and the surface to which the reflector is bonded as taught by Kim would enhance the teachings of Futami and Carey by allowing for improved adhesion between the bonded surfaces.
Claims 27, 30, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futami in view of Yoon (US Pub. 2002/0176466).
Yoon was initially cited in the IDS received 17 May 2023.
Regarding claim 27, Futami does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the layer sequence is attached to one of the side faces of the semiconductor body by an adhesive layer." Yoon discloses, "Wherein the layer sequence is attached to one of the side faces of the semiconductor body by an adhesive layer" (p. [0064] and Fig. 6, pt. 22). 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 Futami with the teachings of Yoon. In view of the teachings of Futami regarding an edge emitting laser array with multilayer reflectors applied to the ends thereof, the alternate construction of the multilayer reflector as a component that is separately fabricated and attached to the desired location as taught by Yoon would enhance the teachings of Futami by allowing the construction of the multilayer to be tailored to the multilayer without constraints imposed by fabrication directly upon the emission facet.
Regarding claim 30, The combination of Futami and Yoon does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein an optical layer thickness of the adhesive layer is smaller than a quarter of the smallest wavelength of maximum emission of the radiation emittable from the resonator regions in a material of the adhesive layer." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dimension the adhesive layer to within the noted range so as to regulate the optical effects of the adhesive layer , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 32, Futami does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the layer sequence is arranged on a substrate body." Yoon discloses, "Wherein the layer sequence is arranged on a substrate body" (p. [0061] and Fig. 6, pts. 14 and 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 Futami with the teachings of Yoon for the reasons provided above regarding claim 27.
Claims 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futami, in view of Yoon, and further in view of Hasegawa et al. (Hasegawa, US Pub. 2010/0014550).
Regarding claim 28, The combination of Futami and Yoon does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the adhesive layer is applied to a coating of a side face of the semiconductor laser." Hasegawa discloses, "Wherein the adhesive layer is applied to a coating of a side face of the semiconductor laser" (p. [0070] and Fig. 2, pt. 40). 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 Futami and Yoon with the teachings of Hasegawa. In view of the teachings of Futami regarding an edge emitting laser array with multilayer reflectors applied to the ends thereof and Yoon regarding application of the multilayer reflector by adhesive, the additional inclusion of a protective layer along the emission facet as taught by Hasegawa would enhance the teachings of Futami and Yoon by allowing damage to the emission facet to be reduced or prevented during fabrication and operation.
Regarding claim 29, The combination of Futami, Yoon, and Hasegawa does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the coating is applied to an output side of the semiconductor body and has a reflectivity of at most 1%." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to regulate the reflectivity of the coating within the noted range so as to adjust the contribution of this layer to the overall reflectivity provided , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futami in view of Suzuki et al. (Suzuki, US Pub. 2006/0050755).
Regarding claim 31, Futami does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the layer sequence is attached to one of the side faces of the semiconductor body via a spacer." Suzuki discloses, "Wherein the layer sequence is attached to one of the side faces of the semiconductor body via a spacer" (p. [0035] and Fig. 1, pts. 15A and 18A). 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 Futami with the teachings of Suzuki. In view of the teachings of Futami regarding an edge emitting laser array with multilayer reflectors applied to the ends thereof, the additional inclusion of a spacer layer between the laser and the reflector as taught by Suzuki would enhance the teachings of Futami by allowing the cavity length to be tuned to the desired emission wavelength.
Claims 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futami, in view of Yoon, and further in view of Hwu et al. (Hwu, US Patent 6,259,713).
Regarding claim 33, The combination of Futami and Yoon does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the substrate body comprises a reflection reducing coating on a radiation exit surface." Hwu discloses, "Wherein the substrate body comprises a reflection reducing coating on a radiation exit surface" (col. 9, lines 42-44 and Fig. 1B, pt. 64, where the substrate of Yoon is shaped to perform a similar function as the prism of Hwu). 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 Futami and Yoon with the teachings of Hwu. In view of the teachings of Futami regarding an edge emitting laser array with multilayer reflectors applied to the ends thereof and Yoon regarding separate formation of the multilayer reflector atop a substrate, the alternate shaping of the substrate to include an angled rear surface with an anti-reflection facet thereon as taught by Hwu would enhance the teachings of Futami and Yoon by allowing the emission light to be emitted at an angle and by allowing undesired reflections at the opposite end of the substrate to be reduced.
Regarding claim 34, The combination of Futami and Yoon does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the substrate body has a deflection surface configured to deflect the radiation emerging from one of the side faces of the semiconductor laser." Hwu discloses, "Wherein the substrate body has a deflection surface configured to deflect the radiation emerging from one of the side faces of the semiconductor laser" (col. 9, lines 47-49 and Fig. 1B, pt. 66). 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 Futami and Yoon with the teachings of Hwu for the reasons provided above regarding claim 33.
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