DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 through 26 originally filed 14 April 2023. By amendment received 2 June 2026; claims 1 through 3, 10, 13, 16, 17, and 24 are amended, claims 4 through 9, 11, 12, 15, 18, 20, and 22 are cancelled, and claims 27 through 33 are added. Claims 1 through 3, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, and 23 through 33 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered; they are addressed below.
Applicant argues that the amendment to the disclosure resolves the previous drawing objection. This argument is persuasive and the corresponding objection is withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Haneda et al. (Haneda, US Pub. 2003/0210721) and Sakuma et al. (Sakuma, US Pub. 2008/0036044) do not teach or render obvious the amended limitations "A protection film on a first pair of projection structures, of the plurality of projection structures" and "The plurality of projection structures comprising a second projection structure that is separated in the second direction" because, according to applicant, this feature is not set forth in these references. This argument is persuasive and the previous rejections are withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, it is determined that Takeuchi et al. (Takeuchi, US Pub. 2004/0252739), in combination with the previously cited art, renders this feature obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, new rejections have been formulated as set forth below.
As such, all claims are addressed as follows:
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 10, 14, 17, 23, 26 through 29, and 32 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), and further in view of Takeuchi et al. (Takeuchi, US Pub. 2004/0252739).
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 plurality 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 a first pair of projection structures, of the plurality of projection structures" (p. [0020] and Fig. 2I, pts. 7, 31, and 32). "[The first pair of projection structures] are closest to the mesa stripe structure" (p. [0020] and Fig. 2I, pts. 30, 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 the first pair of projection structures being aligned at edges toward at least one orientation along the first direction." Sakuma discloses, "The protection film and the first 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.
The combination of Haneda and Sakuma does not explicitly disclose, "The plurality of projection structures comprising a second projection structure that is separated in the second direction." Takeuchi discloses, "The plurality of projection structures comprising a second projection structure that is separated in the second direction" (p. [0155] and Fig. 27, pts. 79, 82b, 83, where the claimed second projection portion encompasses the active ridge portion 83 of second emission portion 82b). 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 additional inclusion of multiple lasers atop the substrate as taught by Takeuchi would enhance the teachings of Haneda and Sakuma by allowing emission of additional wavelengths or higher output power.
Regarding claim 3, Haneda discloses, "Wherein each of the first 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 10, The combination of Haneda and Sakuma does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the plurality of projection structures further includes third projection structures separated in the second direction." Takeuchi discloses, "Wherein the plurality of projection structures further includes third projection structures separated in the second direction" (p. [0155] and Fig. 27, pts. 80b and 82b). 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 1.
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 17, Haneda discloses, "Wherein part of the connection electrode is on one of the first 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).
Regarding claim 27, Haneda discloses, "Wherein the first pair of projection structures are configured with a same shape on one side of the mesa stripe structure and on another side of the mesa stripe structure" (p. [0020] and Fig. 2I, pts. 30, 31, and 32).
Regarding claim 28, The combination of Haneda and Sakuma does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the second projection structure is not in contact with the protective film." Takeuchi discloses, "Wherein the second projection structure is not in contact with the protective film" (p. [0157] and Fig. 27, pts. 79, 82b, 83, where the claimed second projection portion encompasses the active ridge portion 83 of second emission portion 82b and this ridge portion is not covered by the protective film). 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 1.
Regarding claim 29, Haneda discloses, "Wherein the electrode pattern 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 disposed above one projection structure of the first pair of projection structures" (p. [0022] and Fig. 1, pts. 10 and 31).
Regarding claim 32, Haneda discloses, "A mesa stripe structure extending in a first direction" (p. [0019] and Fig. 1, pts. 3, 4, 5, and 30). "An electrode pattern including a ridge electrode on the mesa stripe structure" (p. [0022] and Fig. 1, pts. 10 and 30). "A plurality of projection structures configured 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 a first pair of projection structures, of the plurality of projection structures" (p. [0020] and Fig. 2I, pts. 7, 31, and 32). "[The first pair of projection structures] are closest to the mesa stripe structure" (p. [0020] and Fig. 2I, pts. 30, 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 configured at a location that is higher 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 the first pair of projection structures being aligned at edges toward at least one orientation along the first direction." Sakuma discloses, "The protection film and the first 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 for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Haneda and Sakuma does not explicitly disclose, "The plurality of projection structures comprising a second projection structure that is separated in the second direction." Takeuchi discloses, "The plurality of projection structures comprising a second projection structure that is separated in the second direction" (p. [0155] and Fig. 27, pts. 79, 82b, 83, where the claimed second projection portion encompasses the active ridge portion 83 of second emission portion 82b). 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 1.
Claims 2 and 33 are 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 Witzigmann et al. (Witzigmann, US Pub. 2004/0264529).
Regarding claim 2, The combination of Haneda, Sakuma, and Takeuchi 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 a corresponding one of the first pair of projection structures are aligned at edges toward one orientation along the first direction." "Another of the pair of protection films and another 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 a corresponding one of the first 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 another 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, Sakuma, and Takeuchi 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, Sakuma, and Takeuchi by providing a suitably alternate format for the required additional film.
Regarding claim 33, The combination of Haneda, Sakuma, and Takeuchi 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 a corresponding one of the first pair of projection structures are aligned at edges toward one orientation along the first direction." "Another of the pair of protection films and another corresponding one of the first 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 a corresponding one of the first 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 another corresponding one of the first 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, Sakuma, and Takeuchi with the teachings of Witzigmann for the reasons provided above regarding claim 2.
Claim 13 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 13, The combination of Haneda, Sakuma, and Takeuchi does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the first pair of projection structures 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 pair of projection structures 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, 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 16, 30, and 31 are 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 Inoue et al. (Inoue, US Pub. 2015/0055670).
Regarding claim 16, The combination of Haneda, Sakuma, and Takeuchi does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the pad electrode is on the substrate except on the first pair of projection structures." Inoue discloses, "Wherein the pad electrode is on the substrate except on the first 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, Sakuma, and Takeuchi 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, Sakuma, and Takeuchi by providing a suitably alternate format for the required dummy mesas.
Regarding claim 30, The combination of Haneda, Sakuma, and Takeuchi does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the plurality of projection structures includes one or more third projection structures." "[The third projection structures] are separated in the first direction." Inoue discloses, "Wherein the plurality of projection structures includes one or more third projection structures" (p. [0047], [0049], and Fig. 1, pts. 3, 15, and 16, where the projection ridge of Haneda is split to form two projection structures). "[The third projection structures] are separated in the first direction" (p. [0047], [0049], and Fig. 1, pts. 3, 15, and 16, where the projection ridge of Haneda is split to form two projection structures). 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 Inoue for the reasons provided above regarding claim 16.
Regarding claim 31, Haneda discloses, "Wherein the plurality of projection structures include one or more projection structures that are configured with a same shape on one side of the mesa stripe structure and on another side of the mesa stripe structure" (p. [0020] and Fig. 2I, pts. 30, 31, and 32).
Claims 19 and 21 are 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 Yamada (US Patent 6,360,048).
Regarding claim 19, The combination of Haneda, Sakuma, and Takeuchi 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, Sakuma, and Takeuchi 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, Sakuma, and Takeuchi by allowing the additional films to provide an even mounting surface without an additional protrusion provided by the electrode.
Regarding claim 21, The combination of Haneda, Sakuma, Takeuchi, 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.
Claim 24 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 Mazed et al. (Mazed, US Patent 6,411,642).
Regarding claim 24, The combination of Haneda, Sakuma, and Takeuchi does not explicitly disclose, "A passivation film interposed between the plurality of projection structures and the protection film, except under the ridge electrode." Mazed discloses, "A passivation film interposed between the plurality 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, Sakuma, and Takeuchi 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, Sakuma, and Takeuchi 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 Takeuchi, 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, Takeuchi, 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, Takeuchi, 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, Takeuchi, 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights