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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on 09/17/2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner. Ref. 4 not presented by Applicant but located and considered independently by Examiner.
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 1-2, 6-14, 16 (and 3-5, 15 via dependency) 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 recites the limitations "the laser waveguides", “the resonant cavity”, “the surface of the GaN substrate” in line 11, line 12, line 19, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitations "the vertical mirror", “the top plane” of the subcontact layer, “the quantum well plane”, “the bottom edge” of the oblique deflector plane in line 5, line 6, line 7, line 8, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “high” in claim 6-7, 12-13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. “Reflection coefficient” is rendered indefinite. Examiner interprets “high” to mean “greater than 0”.
Claim 7, 13 recites the limitation "the layer with a high reflection coefficient" in line 2, lines 2-3, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8’s dependence on claim 1 results in multiple duplicate claim elements/limitations, listed below with claim 8 citations:
“a two-dimensional laser diode array” line 1
“a structured gallium nitride bulk substrate” line 3
“a lower cladding layer with n-type electrical conductivity” lines 3-4
“a lower light guide layer with n-type electrical conductivity” lines 4-5
“a light emitting layer” line 5
“an electron blocking layer with p-type electrical conductivity” lines 5-6
“an upper light guide layer” line 6
“an upper cladding layer with p-type electrical conductivity” lines 6-7
“a subcontact layer with p-type electrical conductivity” line 7
“waveguides of the laser diodes” line 8
“etched mirrors forming the resonant cavity” lines 8-9
“a thickness” line 10
“light beam deflectors” line 12
“a parallel deflector plane” line 15
“an oblique deflector plane” line 16
It is unclear if these are additional elements or if they are references to the existing
elements previously introduced in claim 1. Examiner interprets them to be references to the existing elements.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the light generating active region" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitations "the vertical mirror", “the top plane” of the subcontact layer, “the quantum well plane”, “the bottom edge” of the oblique deflector plane in line 4, line 5, line 6, line 7, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10, 11, 12 recites the limitation "the oblique deflector planes" in line 2, line 2, line 3, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for more than one oblique deflector plane in the claim. Only one oblique deflector plane introduced at a point in the claims prior to this recitation.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the parallel deflector planes" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for more than one parallel deflector plane in the claim. Only one parallel deflector plane introduced at a point in the claims prior to this recitation.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the plane intersecting the deflector in the middle of its height" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the vertical mirror", “the waveguide axis” in lines 2-3, lines 3-4, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Claim 2-16 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.
Claim 2-16 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1: The high degree of specificity within claim 1 requires an unreasonable and nonobvious level of modification to any single prior art reference of record to read on the entirety of the claim. Best prior art of record is Akasaka (JP-2002368332-A). See PTO-892. Akasaka still fails to disclose at least:
GaN substrate
Substrate at least 200 um
Beam deflectors formed in substrate
Oblique deflector plane tilted at 40-50 degrees
Parallel deflector plane higher than subcontact layer by at least 0.5 um (no value provided)
Claims 2-16: Depend from claim 1
Conclusion
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