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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 16-19, 21 and 24 in the reply filed on July 07, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-9 and 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 07, 2026.
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.
Claims 16-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (US PG Pub 2003/0063643) in view of Behfar et al. (US 9,692,202).
Regarding claim 16, Yoshida et al. disclose: an active waveguide (3, 4), which extends from a reflective facet (14) to an output facet (15); and a grating (13b) which extends part way along the active waveguide (Fig. 7, [0046], [0047]).
Yoshida et al. do not explicitly disclose: wherein the output facet is an etched facet.
Behfar et al. disclose: a semiconductor laser 700 with both front 630 and back 610 facets formed through etching (Fig. 7(a), col. 7, lines 47-55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yoshida by forming etched facets in order to improve device uniformity and yield.
PNG
media_image1.png
402
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7 of Yoshida
Regarding claim 17, Yoshida as modified disclose: wherein the grating is spaced from the output facet (15) (Yoshida, Fig. 7, [0046], [0047]).
Regarding claim 18, Yoshida as modified do not disclose: wherein the grating is spaced from the output facet by a distance of at least 5 μm.
However, In accordance with MPEP 2144.05 II, Optimization of Ranges: Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In the prior art the general conditions are disclosed, a distributed feedback laser comprising a grating spaced from the output facet by a distance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to obtain a workable range of values for the distance by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 19, Yoshida as modified do not disclose: wherein the grating is spaced from the output facet by a distance of no more than 50 μm.
However, In accordance with MPEP 2144.05 II, Optimization of Ranges: Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In the prior art the general conditions are disclosed, a distributed feedback laser comprising a grating spaced from the output facet by a distance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to obtain a workable range of values for the distance by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 21, Yoshida as modified do not disclose: wherein the grating is closer to the output facet than the reflective facet.
However, In accordance with MPEP 2144.05 II, Optimization of Ranges: Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In the prior art the general conditions are disclosed, a distributed feedback laser comprising a grating formed between the output facet and the reflective facet. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to obtain a workable range of values for the distances between the output facet and the grating and the reflective facet and the grating by routine experimentation.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (US PG Pub 2003/0063643) in view of Behfar et al. (US 9,692,202) and Lambert (US PG Pub 2017/0229840).
Regarding claim 24, Yoshida et al. disclose: a distributed feedback laser; the distributed feedback laser comprising: an active waveguide (3, 4), which extends from a reflective facet (14) of the laser to an output facet (15) of the laser (Fig. 7, [0046], [0047]); and a grating (13b) which extends part way along the active waveguide (Fig. 7, [0046], [0047]).
Yoshida et al. do not disclose: an output waveguide, wherein the output facet is an etched facet; and the output waveguide being butt coupled to the active waveguide.
Behfar et al. disclose: a semiconductor laser 700 with both front 630 and back 610 facets formed through etching (Fig. 7(a), col. 7, lines 47-55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yoshida by forming etched facets in order to improve device uniformity and yield.
Yoshida as modified do not disclose: an output waveguide, and the output waveguide being butt coupled to the active waveguide.
Lambert discloses: an output waveguide (130, 138), and the output waveguide being butt coupled to the active waveguide (134) (Fig. 1, [0024]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yoshida as modified by coupling an output waveguide to the active waveguide in order to transmit photons over longer distances.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Leem et al. (US PG Pub 2010/0142579) disclose: provided is a resonator of a hybrid laser diode. The resonator includes: a substrate including a semiconductor layer where a hybrid waveguide, a multi-mode waveguide, and a single mode waveguide are connected in series; a compound semiconductor waveguide, provided on the hybrid waveguide of the semiconductor layer, having a tapered coupling structure at one end of the compound semiconductor waveguide, the tapered coupling structure overlapping the multi-mode waveguide partially; and a reflection part provided on one end of the single mode waveguide. The multi-mode waveguide has a narrower width than the hybrid waveguide and the single mode waveguide has a narrower width than the multi-mode waveguide (Abstract). Zheng et al. (US PG Pub 2014/0268312) disclose: a hybrid optical source that provides an optical signal having a wavelength is described. This hybrid optical source includes an edge-coupled optical amplifier (such as a III-V semiconductor optical amplifier) aligned to a semiconductor reflector (such as an etched silicon mirror). The semiconductor reflector efficiently couples (i.e., with low optical loss) light out of the optical amplifier in a direction approximately perpendicular to a plane of the optical amplifier. A corresponding optical coupler (such as a diffraction grating or a mirror) fabricated on a silicon-on-insulator chip efficiently couples the light into a sub-micron silicon-on-insulator optical waveguide. The silicon-on-insulator optical waveguide couples the light to additional photonic elements (including a reflector) to complete the hybrid optical source (Abstract). Kojima et al. (US PG Pub 2020/0174194) disclose: a grating coupler having first and second ends for coupling a light beam to a waveguide of a chip includes a substrate configured to receive the light beam from the first end and transmit the light beam through the second end, the substrate having a first refractive index n1, a grating structure having curved grating lines arranged on the substrate, the grating structure having a second refractive index n1, wherein the curved grating lines have line width w and height d and are arranged by a pitch Λ, wherein the second refractive index n2 is less than first refractive index n1, and a cladding layer configured to cover the grating structure, wherein the cladding layer has a third refractive index n3 (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XINNING(TOM) NIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1437. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-6:00pm.
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.
/XINNING(Tom) NIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights