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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0074] of the disclosure describes figure 5 using only symbols for gamma while figure 5 instead uses
both gamma and r.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 8 and 14-20 (and all claims dependent therefrom, 2-7, 9-13) 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.
Claim 1 at the last line recites “a laser is output to the side of the second reflection unit of the second optical waveguide”. This is firstly confusing as “a laser” is a physical element, not something to be output from a waveguide. This is secondly confusing as “to the side of the second reflection unit” implies the output approaches the side of the second reflection unit which is not taught by the disclosure. This is thirdly confusing as “of the second optical waveguide” implies the second reflection unit is a part of the second optical waveguide which it is not. The claim language therefore contradicts what is taught in the disclosure, making the scope of the claims confusing (see MPEP 2173.03 paragraph 2).
For purposes of examination, this line will be read as “a laser beam is output from the second optical waveguide alongside the second reflection unit” as is best understood from the instant application.
Claims 8 and 14-20 are indefinite as not all of the terms of the equations have been defined (e.g. c12, c21, c22, rfa, rRa, Lc, etc). As the terms have not been clearly defined the meets and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
For purposes of examination, the terms of the equations are interpreted to be those outlined in [0075-112] of the instant application.
Claims 8 and 14-20 state in the last 2 lines “…satisfies a single mode condition based on equations A and B”. The manner in which this line, or these equations/method in general, is further limiting the structure of the laser in claim 1 is not understood as it is not clearly stated. The Applicant appears to be claiming design parameters for a portion of the laser device but does not clearly express what physical portion or portions of the device are modified/created to with respect to these design parameters.
For purposes of examination, the claimed parameters are understood to bring about a single mode operation of the overall laser device.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 8 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 8 and 14-20 state a number of design equations and additionally in the last 2 lines “…satisfies a single mode condition based on equations A and B”. The manner in which this line, or these equations/method in general, is further limiting the structure of the laser in claim 1 is not understood as it is not clearly stated. The Applicant appears to be claiming design parameters for a portion of the laser device but does not clearly express what physical portion or portions of the device are modified/created to with respect to these design parameters. It is therefore not clear how these claims further limit the claims from which they depend.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/2 as being anticipated by Mahgerefteh et al. (US 2020/0081204).
With respect to claim 1, Mahgerefteh discloses a semiconductor laser (fig.4) comprising: a first optical waveguide (fig.4 #420) including a waveguide-type first ([0041] DBR on right side) and second ([0041], DBR on left) reflection units each having a structure in which a refractive index is periodically modulated ([0041] inherent construction of DBR devices), and a confinement portion sandwiched between the first reflection unit and the second reflection unit ([0041] gain medium between DBRs); a second optical waveguide (fig.4 #426) disposed along the first optical waveguide (fig.4 beneath) to extend from the confinement portion toward the second reflection unit side (fig.4 #426 extends from right side of #420 containing the second DBR to nearly the end of #420 thereby overlapping the confinement region); a third reflection unit (fig.4 #412) formed continuously with the second optical waveguide (fig.4 directly at rear thereof) at a location corresponding to the first reflection unit (fig.4 at an angle down and to the right from right side first DBR); and an active layer formed in the confinement portion ([0041]), wherein a Fabry-Perot optical resonator is configured by the first reflection unit, the confinement portion, and the second reflection unit ([0041] inherent to the DBR laser, the resonator formed between DBR1 and DBR2), and in a coupling region where the confinement portion is disposed (see annotated figure below), the second optical waveguide and the confinement portion are in a state capable of optically coupling with each other (fig.4 as light is coupled from the confinement region to the second waveguide; note the coupling type/direction is not claimed), and a laser is output to the side of the second reflection unit of the second optical waveguide (fig.4 output of beam is at the left of #426 which is beneath the right hand second DBR).
Note #402 is a DBR laser ([0040,61]) which has the first/second DBRs at either end and the gain region in the middle.
PNG
media_image1.png
676
995
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahgerefteh in view of Czornomaz et al. (US 9239424).
With respect to claim 7, Mahgerefteh teaches the device outlined above, including the use of a variety of cavity types ([0040]), but does not specify the first and second reflection units are configured of a waveguide-type one-dimensional photonic crystal. Czornomaz teaches forming lasers (col.12 lines 65-67) using 1d photonic crystals for first and second reflectors (fig.4, col.15 lines 33-36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Mahgerefteh to utilizes 1d photonic crystals in place of the first/second reflectors as demonstrated by Czornomaz in order to reduce the width of the device while maintaining laser operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art was not found to teach or suggest the further details outlined in claim 2 when combined with the structure of claim 1, noting the 112b interpretation above.
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.
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