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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-15, 21-33 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/04/2026.
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.
Claim 26 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 26 recites the limitation "the other side surface" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, making the scope unclear.
For purposes of examination, the limitation will be understood to read “another side surface”.
Regarding claim 26, this claim requires “a third dielectric film”. When using ordinal designations, it is necessary to start with an initial ordinal designation such as "first" and introduce further elements in numerical order from that point. Failure to adhere to such an ordering creates the implication of additional elements without strictly indicating the presence thereof. Due to this implication, it is unclear whether or not the claim actually requires the presence of the implied features. As such, this claim is deemed indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. For the remainder of this action, this claim will be interpreted as requiring no elements other than those explicitly stated.
It is noted that no “second” dielectric film is found in the branch of the claim tree containing claim 26.
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) 16-28, 30, 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hata et al. (US 2008/0219309) in view of Morizumi (US 2012/0033698).
With respect to claim 16, Hata teaches a semiconductor laser element (fig.13-15) comprising: a base (fig.15 #31); a nitride semiconductor layer (fig.15 #32-38, [0080-82]) located above the base and comprising an optical resonator ([0077] cavity formed by cleavage/coatings); an electrode (fig.15 #40 or #42) located between the base and the nitride semiconductor layer, and electrically connected with the nitride semiconductor layer; a first light reflecting film (fig.13/14 #48 left side, [0086]; note- can also be same layer but only portion in contact with facet) in contact with one of a pair of resonator end surfaces of the optical resonator (left side); and a first dielectric film (fig.15 #41a/b on left; note-can also be the portion of #48 on left side extending to base #31) made of dielectric material ([0083] SiO2) as the first light reflecting film and being in contact with a side surface of the nitride semiconductor layer along a resonator length direction (fig.15 left lateral side, [0083]), wherein a part of the first dielectric film is located on the base (fig.15 left side #41b on left side of #31; note- can also be the portion of left side #48 extending onto #31). Hata teaches the first reflective film to be dielectric ([0086]) and the first dielectric film to be dielectric of SiO2 ([0083]) but does not teach them to be the same material. Morizumi teaches a related laser device (fig.1-3) which makes use of dielectric coatings to cover the facets (fig.3/4 #74), top/bottom (fig.3/4 #30+#74), and side surfaces (fig.1 #50), wherein each film is dielectric and of SiO2 ([0038] #30, [0079, 103] #50, [0069, 109] #72). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to utilize the same SiO2 material for the facet coatings (#48s) as used for the top/side coatings (#41a/b) in the device of Hata as taught by Morizumi as Morizumi has demonstrated such material is beneficial for creating reflective coatings (Morizumi, [0065-68]) as well as preventing degradation of the cavity plane (Morizumi, [0069]).
With respect to claim 17, Hata teaches the nitride semiconductor layer comprises an n-type semiconductor layer (fig.15 #33, [0080]), an active layer (fig.15 #34, [0081]), and a p-type semiconductor layer (fig.15 #37, [0082]), and the first dielectric film is in contact with a side surface of at least one selected from the group consisting of the n-type semiconductor layer, the active layer, and the p-type semiconductor layer ([0083]).
With respect to claim 18, Hata teaches a bonding layer (fig.15 #44, [0077]) located on the base, wherein the first dielectric film is in contact with a side surface of the bonding layer (fig.15 #41b touching #44).
With respect to claim 19, Hata teaches the electrode is bonded to the bonding layer (fig.15 #42 bonded to #44), and wherein the first dielectric film is in contact with a side surface of the electrode (fig.15 on sides).
With respect to claim 20, Hata teaches the first dielectric film is in contact with a side surface of the base (fig.15 #41b left side in contact with top side of #31).
With respect to claim 21, Hata teaches the first light reflecting film and the first dielectric film are connected to each other (fig.13-15, #41a/b fully covers sides while #48 fully covers facets and the two thereby meet at the endface; note- or both portions of #48, facet and base extension portion).
With respect to claim 22, Hata, as modified, teaches a second light reflecting film (fig.13/14 right side #48) in contact with the other of the pair of resonator end surfaces (fig.13 right side), and a second dielectric film (fig.15 #41a/b right side; note- can also be the portion of same film extending to #31) made of the same material as the second light reflecting film (as modified in claim 16 rejection above) and in contact with a side surface of the nitride semiconductor layer along the resonator length direction (fig.15 #41a/b right side, [0083]; note- can also be the portion of right side #48 extending to #31).
With respect to claim 23, Hata, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach the first dielectric film is thicker than the second dielectric film. Morizumi further teaches the reflection side film is thicker than the emission side film ([0067]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the coatings of Hata such that the first reflective film is thicker than the second reflective film to create a distinct output side of the device.
Note that when the portion of #48 on left extending to #31, and the portion of #48 on right extending to #31, are considered the first/second dielectric films then these films obtain the difference in thickness as they are extensions of the facet coating films (see “notes” in claims 21/22 above).
With respect to claim 24, Hata, as modified, teaches an area of the first dielectric film is greater than an area of the second dielectric film (as the first film is thicker it will have an increased surface area relative to the second, thinner, film).
With respect to claim 25, Hata teaches the first light reflecting film is configured to cover a resonator end surface on a light reflecting side (fig.14 #48, each film is reflective).
With respect to claim 26, Hata, as modified, teaches a third dielectric film (fig.15 #43) made of the same material ([0083], SiO2) as the first light reflecting film and in contact with the other side surface (fig.15 top) of the nitride semiconductor layer along the resonator length direction.
With respect to claim 27, Hata teaches a light-emitting body comprising the nitride semiconductor layer (fig.15), wherein the base has a plurality of surfaces (fig.13-15, left/right sides, bottom side) in addition to a surface on a side on which the light-emitting body is mounted (fig.15 top side), and the plurality of surfaces comprise one or more surfaces having a normal direction parallel to the resonator length direction (fig.14 left/right sides) and having a surface on which a dielectric material of the same material as the first light reflecting film is disposed (fig.14 #48s on left/right sides), and one or more surfaces having a normal direction orthogonal to the resonator length direction (fig.15 bottom side) and having a surface on which a dielectric material is not formed (no dielectric on bottom of #31).
With respect to claim 28, Hata, as modified, teaches a dielectric material of the same material as the first light reflecting film is disposed on a surface on a side on which the light-emitting body is mounted (fig.15 #41b’s on #31 and of SiO2 which was motivated to be the material of the reflecting films #48s in claim 16 above).
With respect to claim 30, Hata, as modified, teaches the electrode (fig.15 #40) is in contact with the nitride semiconductor layer, a conductive pad (fig.15 #42) electrically connected to the electrode is disposed on a surface on a side on which the light-emitting body is mounted, and a dielectric material of the same material as the first light reflecting film is disposed on the conductive pad (fig.15 #41 on side of #42).
With respect to claim 36, Hata teaches the base comprising a side surface (fig.13/14 left side), and wherein the part of the first dielectric film is disposed on an entirety of the side surface of the base (when first dielectric film considered extension of #48, seen to cover entire left side as in fig.13/14).
Claim(s) 29, 34, 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hata and Morizumi in view of Enzmann et al. (US 2018/0090908).
With respect to claim 29, Hata, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, including the dielectric material to cover sides of the base (fig.13-15, #48s cover left/right sides which are in the resonator direction, #41s cover top side), but does not teach a cutout portion is provided in an upper portion of the base, and a dielectric material of the same material as the first light reflecting film is disposed on one or more surfaces formed in the cutout portion. Enzmann teaches a related laser device with a base (fig.5 #11 on #23) wherein the base has cutout portions in the upper portion in the resonator direction. 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 Hata to make use of the cutout portions in the base as suggested by Enzmann in order to utilize less base material while insuring there is no interference of the light by the base (Enzmann, [0009]) and to prevent contamination of the facets when the mounting is done (Enzmann, [0049]).
Note that the overlap of the facet dielectric material of Hata onto the base is not modified, simply the base shape.
With respect to claim 34, Hata, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach cutouts adjacent to each other in the resonator length direction are provided in an upper portion of the base. Enzmann teaches a related laser device with a base (fig.5 #11 on #23) wherein the base has cutout portions adjacent in the upper portion in the resonator direction. 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 Hata to make use of the cutout portions in the base as suggested by Enzmann in order to utilize less base material while insuring there is no interference of the light by the base (Enzmann, [0009]) and to prevent contamination of the facets when the mounting is done (Enzmann, [0049]).
With respect to claim 35, Hata, as modified, teaches the light-emitting body comprising the nitride semiconductor layer, wherein the light-emitting body is mounted on the base such that a light-emitting surface of the light-emitting body protrudes over one of the cutouts (note Hata teaches protruding over the base side in fig.14, while Enzmann teaches the same in fig.5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see the attached pto892 form for a list of related art.
Note US 2008/0198886, 2012/0033698, 11177623 teach similar limitations to at least claim 16.
US 2018/0034243, 5851849 teach coatings that extend from the laser to a base.
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