DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 through 26 originally filed 14 April 2023. Claims 1 through 26 are addressed by this 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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5).
The description includes the reference characters "640" which do not appear in the drawings. Reference characters mentioned in the description must appear in the drawings.
In the present case, these reference characters or similar numbers appear in the following locations: "640" is mentioned in ¶77.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1, 3 through 8, 14, 15, 17, 23, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haneda et al. (Haneda, US Pub. 2003/0210721) in view of Sakuma et al. (Sakuma, US Pub. 2008/0036044).
Regarding claim 1, Haneda discloses, "A substrate" (p. [0018] and Fig. 1, pt. 1). "A mesa stripe structure on the substrate" (p. [0018] and Fig. 1, pts. 1, 3, 4, and 5). "The mesa stripe structure extending in a first direction" (p. [0019] and Fig. 1, pts. 3, 4, 5, and 30). "The mesa stripe structure comprising a brittle material" (p. [0018] and Fig. 1, pts. 3, 4, and 5, where these layers are brittle because they are semiconductor layers). "An electrode pattern including a ridge electrode on the mesa stripe structure" (p. [0022] and Fig. 1, pts. 10 and 30). "A pair of projection structures on the substrate and on both sides of the mesa stripe structure in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction" (p. [0020] and Fig. 2I, pts. 30, 31, and 32). "A protection film on each of the pair of projection structures" (p. [0020] and Fig. 2I, pts. 7, 31, and 32). "The protection film being separated from the electrode pattern" (p. [0022] and Fig. 2I, pts. 7, 8, and 10, where the protection film is separated from the electrode by insulating layer 8). "The protection film comprising a ductile material" (p. [0020] and Fig. 2I, pt. 7, where polyimide is a ductile material). "The protection film having a top higher from the substrate than a top of the ridge electrode" (p. [0025] and Fig. 2I, pts. 30, 31, and 32). Haneda does not explicitly disclose, "The protection film and a corresponding one of the pair of projection structures being aligned at edges toward at least one orientation along the first direction." Sakuma discloses, "The protection film and a corresponding one of the pair of projection structures being aligned at edges toward at least one orientation along the first direction" (p. [0027] and Fig. 6, pts. 7, 10, and 300). 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 Haneda with the teachings of Sakuma. In view of the teachings of Haneda regarding a stripe laser including lateral support members including dummy mesas and an additional film atop the dummy mesas so as to avoid damage to the ridge, the alternate positioning of at least one edge of the film atop the dummy mesas adjacent to the device edge as taught by Sakuma would enhance the teachings of Haneda by allowing the edge of the film to be formed without a precise mask along that edge.
Regarding claim 3, Haneda discloses, "Wherein each of the pair of projection structures and the mesa stripe structure are separated by a groove" (p. [0019] and Fig. 1, pts. 6, 30, 31, and 32). Haneda does not explicitly disclose, "The protection film has an edge aligned with an upper end of an inner surface of the groove." Sakuma discloses, "The protection film has an edge aligned with an upper end of an inner surface of the groove" (p. [0027] and Fig. 6, pts. 7, 10, 100, and 300). 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 Haneda with the teachings of Sakuma for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Haneda discloses, "Wherein each of the pair of projection structures and the mesa stripe structure are separated by a groove" (p. [0019] and Fig. 1, pts. 6, 30, 31, and 32). "There is a spacing, in the second direction, between an edge, facing the groove, of the protection film and an edge, facing the groove, of the corresponding one of the pair of projection structures" (Fig. 2I, pts. 5, 7, 31, and 32).
Regarding claim 5, Haneda discloses, "Wherein the spacing is narrower than a width of the groove in the second direction" (Fig. 2I, pts. 5, 6, 7, 31, and 32).
Regarding claim 6, Haneda discloses, "Wherein each of the pair of projection structures and the mesa stripe structure are separated by a groove" (p. [0019] and Fig. 1, pts. 6, 30, 31, and 32). Haneda does not explicitly disclose, "The protection film reaches at least one of a side facing the groove and an opposite side, of the corresponding one of the pair of projection structures." Sakuma discloses, "The protection film reaches at least one of a side facing the groove and an opposite side, of the corresponding one of the pair of projection structures" (p. [0027] and Fig. 6, pts. 7, 10, 100, and 300). 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 Haneda with the teachings of Sakuma for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Haneda discloses, "Wherein the protection film avoids an end, away from the mesa stripe structure in the second direction, of each of the pair of projection structures" (Fig. 2I, pts. 5, 6, 7, 31, and 32).
Regarding claim 8, Haneda discloses, "Wherein the substrate and each of the pair of projection structures are aligned at edges in a direction away from the mesa stripe structure" (Fig. 2I, pts. 1, 5, 31, and 32).
Regarding claim 14, Haneda discloses, "Wherein the electrode pattern further includes a pad electrode and a connection electrode connecting the ridge electrode and the pad electrode" (p. [0022] and Fig. 1, pt. 10). "The connection electrode extends from the ridge electrode along the second direction" (p. [0022] and Fig. 1, pt. 10). "The pad electrode is wider in the first direction than the connection electrode" (p. [0022] and Fig. 1, pt. 10).
Regarding claim 15, Haneda discloses, "Wherein the pad electrode is on one of the pair of projection structures" (p. [0022] and Fig. 1, pts. 10 and 31).
Regarding claim 17, Haneda discloses, "Wherein part of the connection electrode is on one of the pair of projection structures" (p. [0022] and Fig. 1, pts. 10 and 31).
Regarding claim 23, Haneda discloses, "Wherein the protection film is on each of both sides sandwiching the connection electrode in the first direction" (p. [0022] and Figs. 1 and 2I, pts. 7 and 10).
Regarding claim 26, Haneda discloses, "A buried layer covering a bottom portion, except a top portion, of the mesa stripe structure" (p. [0018] and Fig. 1, pts. 2 and 4).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haneda, in view of Sakuma, and further in view of Witzigmann et al. (Witzigmann, US Pub. 2004/0264529).
Regarding claim 2, The combination of Haneda and Sakuma does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the protection film includes a pair of protection films separated in the first direction." "One of the pair of protection films and the corresponding one of the pair of projection structures are aligned at edges toward one orientation along the first direction." "Another of the pair of protection films and the corresponding one of the pair of projection structures are aligned at edges toward another orientation along the first direction." Witzigmann discloses, "Wherein the protection film includes a pair of protection films separated in the first direction" (p. [0016] and Fig. 4, pts. 406). "One of the pair of protection films and the corresponding one of the pair of projection structures are aligned at edges toward one orientation along the first direction" (p. [0016] and Fig. 4, pts. 406, where formation of the protection film layers with the alignment of Sakuma produces this arrangement). "Another of the pair of protection films and the corresponding one of the pair of projection structures are aligned at edges toward another orientation along the first direction" (p. [0016] and Fig. 4, pts. 406, where formation of the protection film layers with the alignment of Sakuma produces this arrangement). 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 Haneda and Sakuma with the teachings of Witzigmann. In view of the teachings of Haneda regarding a stripe laser including lateral support members including dummy mesas and an additional film atop the dummy mesas so as to avoid damage to the ridge, the alternate formation of the additional film in multiple separated regions as taught by Witzigmann would enhance the teachings of Haneda and Sakuma by providing a suitably alternate format for the required additional film.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haneda, in view of Sakuma, and further in view of Takeuchi et al. (Takeuchi, US Pub. 2004/0252739).
Regarding claim 9, The combination of Haneda and Sakuma does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the pair of projection structures avoid an end, in the second direction, of the substrate." Takeuchi discloses, "Wherein the pair of projection structures avoid an end, in the second direction, of the substrate" (p. [0105] and Fig. 9, pts. 1 and 13a). 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 Haneda and Sakuma with the teachings of Takeuchi. In view of the teachings of Haneda regarding a stripe laser including lateral support members including dummy mesas and an additional film atop the dummy mesas so as to avoid damage to the ridge, the alternate construction of the dummy mesas terminate before the side edges of the device as taught by Takeuchi would enhance the teachings of Haneda and Sakuma by allowing the sides of the dummy mesas to be protected from inadvertent electrical connection.
Regarding claim 10, Haneda discloses, "The protection film is at least on one of the projection structures closest to the mesa stripe structure" (p. [0020] and Fig. 2I, pts. 7, 31, and 32).
The combination of Haneda and Sakuma does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein each of the pair of projection structures includes some projection structures separated in the second direction." Takeuchi discloses, "Wherein each of the pair of projection structures includes some projection structures separated in the second direction" (p. [0141] and Fig. 21, pts. 63a and 63b). 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 Haneda and Sakuma with the teachings of Takeuchi for the reasons provided above regarding claim 9.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haneda, in view of Sakuma, in view of Takeuchi, and further in view of Kim et al. (Kim, US Pub. 2013/0243020).
Regarding claim 11, The combination of Haneda, Sakuma, and Takeuchi does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein at least one of the projection structures is separated in the first direction." Kim discloses, "Wherein at least one of the projection structures is separated in the first direction" (p. [0036] and Fig. 2A, pt. 205). 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 Haneda, Sakuma, and Takeuchi with the teachings of Kim. In view of the teachings of Haneda regarding a stripe laser including lateral support members including dummy mesas and an additional film atop the dummy mesas so as to avoid damage to the ridge, the alternate formation of the additional film in multiple separated regions as taught by Kim would enhance the teachings of Haneda, Sakuma, and Takeuchi by providing a suitably alternate format for the required additional film.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haneda, in view of Sakuma, and further in view of Kim.
Regarding claim 12, The combination of Haneda and Sakuma does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein at least one of the pair of projection structures includes a first projection structure and a second projection structure separated in the first direction." Kim discloses, "Wherein at least one of the pair of projection structures includes a first projection structure and a second projection structure separated in the first direction" (p. [0036] and Fig. 2A, pt. 205). 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 Haneda and Sakuma with the teachings of Kim. In view of the teachings of Haneda regarding a stripe laser including lateral support members including dummy mesas and an additional film atop the dummy mesas so as to avoid damage to the ridge, the alternate formation of the additional film in multiple separated regions as taught by Kim would enhance the teachings of Haneda and Sakuma by providing a suitably alternate format for the required additional film.
Regarding claim 13, The combination of Haneda and Sakuma does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the first projection structure and the substrate are aligned at edges toward one orientation along the first direction." "The second projection structure and the substrate are aligned at edges toward another orientation along the first direction." Kim discloses, "Wherein the first projection structure and the substrate are aligned at edges toward one orientation along the first direction" (p. [0036] and Fig. 2A, pt. 205, where formation of these plural projections with the alignment of Haneda produces this arrangement). "The second projection structure and the substrate are aligned at edges toward another orientation along the first direction" (p. [0036] and Fig. 2A, pt. 205, where formation of these plural projections with the alignment of Haneda produces this arrangement). 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 Haneda and Sakuma with the teachings of Kim for the reasons provided above regarding claim 12.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haneda, in view of Sakuma, and further in view of Inoue et al. (Inoue, US Pub. 2015/0055670).
Regarding claim 16, The combination of Haneda and Sakuma does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the pad electrode is on the substrate except on the pair of projection structures." Inoue discloses, "Wherein the pad electrode is on the substrate except on the pair of projection structures" (p. [0047], [0049], and Fig. 1, pts. 3 and 19). 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 Haneda and Sakuma with the teachings of Inoue. In view of the teachings of Haneda regarding a stripe laser including lateral support members including dummy mesas and an additional film atop the dummy mesas so as to avoid damage to the ridge, the alternate formation of the dummy mesas in multiple separated regions as taught by Inoue would enhance the teachings of Haneda and Sakuma by providing a suitably alternate format for the required dummy mesas.
Regarding claim 18, The combination of Haneda and Sakuma does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the connection electrode is on the substrate except on the pair of projection structures." Inoue discloses, "Wherein the connection electrode is on the substrate except on the pair of projection structures" (p. [0047], [0049], and Fig. 1, pts. 3 and 19). 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 Haneda and Sakuma with the teachings of Inoue for the reasons provided above regarding claim 16.
Claims 19 through 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haneda, in view of Sakuma, and further in view of Yamada (US Patent 6,360,048).
Regarding claim 19, The combination of Haneda and Sakuma does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein an area of the protection film is in a position that overlaps, in the first direction, with at least part of the connection electrode." Yamada discloses, "Wherein an area of the protection film is in a position that overlaps, in the first direction, with at least part of the connection electrode" (col. 4, lines 5-12 and Figs. 1 and 10, pts. 14, 112, 124, and 124a, where a portion of the electrode between 124 and 124a corresponds to the connection electrode). 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 Haneda and Sakuma with the teachings of Yamada. In view of the teachings of Haneda regarding a stripe laser including lateral support members including dummy mesas and an additional film atop the dummy mesas so as to avoid damage to the ridge, the alternate formation of the upper electrode to be formed in a location other than where the additional film is located as taught by Yamada would enhance the teachings of Haneda and Sakuma by allowing the additional films to provide an even mounting surface without an additional protrusion provided by the electrode.
Regarding claim 20, The combination of Haneda and Sakuma does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the area of the protection film is in a position that overlaps, in the first direction, with the pad electrode as well." Yamada discloses, "Wherein the area of the protection film is in a position that overlaps, in the first direction, with the pad electrode as well" (col. 4, lines 5-12 and Figs. 1 and 10, pts. 14, 112, 124, and 124a). 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 Haneda and Sakuma with the teachings of Yamada for the reasons provided above regarding claim 19.
Regarding claim 21, The combination of Haneda, Sakuma, and Yamada does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the area of the protection film is in a position that avoids overlap, in the first direction, with the pad electrode." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the relative locations of the support members and the electrode pad within the noted configuration so as to adjust the balance and location of current application, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 22, The combination of Haneda, Sakuma, and Yamada does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the area of the protection film is in a position that overlaps, in the second direction, with the pad electrode." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the relative locations of the support members and the electrode pad within the noted configuration so as to adjust the balance and location of current application, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haneda, in view of Sakuma, and further in view of Mazed et al. (Mazed, US Patent 6,411,642).
Regarding claim 24, The combination of Haneda and Sakuma does not explicitly disclose, "A passivation film interposed between each of the pair of projection structures and the protection film, except under the ridge electrode." Mazed discloses, "A passivation film interposed between each of the pair of projection structures and the protection film, except under the ridge electrode" (col. 5, lines 12-21, col. 13, lines 1-5, and Figs. 1C and 6F, pts. 27a, 27b, 257, and 270). 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 Haneda and Sakuma with the teachings of Mazed. In view of the teachings of Haneda regarding a stripe laser including lateral support members including dummy mesas and an additional film atop the dummy mesas so as to avoid damage to the ridge, the alternate construction of the additional film atop the insulating film rather than beneath it as taught by Mazed would enhance the teachings of Haneda and Sakuma by providing a suitably alternate construction sequence for the additional film.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haneda, in view of Sakuma, in view of Mazed, and further in view of Kadowaki et al. (Kadowaki, US Patent 7,675,954).
Regarding claim 25, The combination of Haneda, Sakuma, and Mazed does not explicitly disclose, "An insulating film interposed between the passivation film and the protection film." Kadowaki discloses, "An insulating film interposed between the passivation film and the protection film" (col. 5, lines 12-23 and Fig. 1, pts. 33, 34, and 35). 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 Haneda, Sakuma, and Mazed with the teachings of Kadowaki. In view of the teachings of Haneda regarding a stripe laser including lateral support members including dummy mesas and an additional film atop the dummy mesas so as to avoid damage to the ridge and the teachings of Mazed regarding construction of the additional film atop the insulating film rather than beneath it, the additional inclusion of an additional insulating layer provided directly beneath the additional film as taught by Kadowaki would enhance the teachings of Haneda, Sakuma, and Mazed by allowing the height of the overall structure to be increased as well as by providing additional separation between the additional film and the semiconductor body.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen et al. (Chen, US Patent 7,272,161) is cited for teaching an arrangement in which the electrode of an edge emitting laser avoids the support sidewalls.
Ishida (US Pub. 2009/0200571) is cited for teaching the use of gold support members.
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