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 with traverse of Species 1, FIG. 1, claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 11 and 12 in the reply filed on 02/04/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “These variations do not substantially alter the scope of the prior art search required, as the relevant prior art for such PCSEL structures would substantially overlap and the claims could be searched together” (page 10, 02/04/26 Remarks). This is not found persuasive because each species contains mutually exclusive features which result in search burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 3-7, 10 and 13-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 02/04/26.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the semi-colon after “comprising” should be changed to a colon in order to improve clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1, 2, 8, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs et al. (US PG Pub 2021/0218229 A1) in view of Konttinen et al. (US PG Pub 2008/0291951 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fuchs discloses a semiconductor laser epitaxial structure (FIG. 2A), comprising:
a horizontal cavity (formed between two reflecting sidewalls 137, see annotated FIG. 2A below, [0051]) configured to generate an optical field distribution (it’s implicitly taught by the horizontal cavity, FIG. 2A);
a reflective layer (see annotated FIG. 2A below) located within the optical field distribution, wherein the grating layer is configured to convert a horizontal light to a vertical light (the reflecting layer converts a horizontal light emitted by an active zone 115 of the horizontal cavity to a vertical light, FIG. 2A);
a first semiconductor optical amplifier (an active zone 115 of 1273, FIG. 2A, where the active zone 115 is considered a SOA since it comprises a single quantum well layer or a multi quantum well structure (MQW) for generating electromagnetic radiation, [0048] and [0050]) disposed between a light-emitting surface of the semiconductor laser epitaxial structure and the horizontal cavity (the active zone 115 of 1273 is disposed between a light-emitting surface 130 and the horizontal cavity, see annotated FIG. 2A below); and
a first tunnel junction layer (1282, FIG. 2A, [0053]) disposed between the horizontal cavity and the first semiconductor optical amplifier (1282 is disposed between the horizontal cavity and the active zone 115 of 1273).
PNG
media_image1.png
450
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fuchs does not disclose the reflective layer is a grating layer.
Konttinen discloses a light emitter (E1, FIG. 2a, [0070]) comprising a horizontal cavity (see annotated FIG. 2a below) formed between a back reflector (60, FIG. 2a, [0071]) and a sub-wavelength grating structure (52, FIG. 2a, [0075]), wherein the sub-wavelength grating structure converts a horizontal light into a vertical light (B1, FIG. 2a) and changes the polarization of the vertical light to match with the optimum orientation for frequency conversion ([0073]).
PNG
media_image2.png
372
480
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reflecting layer of Fuchs with the sub-wavelength grating structure as taught by Konttinen in order to change the polarization direction of the output to match the optimum orientation for amplification or frequency conversion.
Regarding claim 2, Fuchs discloses the light-emitting surface is one of a top surface and a bottom surface of the semiconductor laser epitaxial structure (130 is a top surface of the semiconductor laser epitaxial structure in FIG. 2A), and another one of the top surface and the bottom surface of the semiconductor laser epitaxial structure is a non-light-emitting surface of the semiconductor laser epitaxial structure (a bottom surface of the semiconductor laser epitaxial structure in FIG. 2A is a non-emitting surface).
Regarding claim 8, Fuchs discloses the first semiconductor optical amplifier, the first tunnel junction layer, or a combination thereof is not located within the optical field distribution (see annotated FIG. 2A above).
Regarding claim 9, Fuchs discloses the first semiconductor optical amplifier comprises a quantum well layer or a multiple quantum well layers ([0050]).
Regarding claim 11, Fuchs, as modified, discloses the grating layer is a one-dimension period structure (FIG. 2a of Konttinen), the grating layer comprises a plurality of high-refractivity materials and a plurality of low-refractivity materials, and the low-refractivity materials comprise voids, semiconductor materials, or dielectric materials the first reflection unit, the second reflection unit, or a combination thereof is a distributed Bragg reflector layer (“The sub-wavelength grating structure may comprise an interface between a high refractive index material, e.g. gallium arsenide and a low refractive index medium, e.g. dielectric coating or air,” [0076] of Konttinen).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the cited prior art fails to disclose or suggest “the grating layer is a two dimension period structure, the grating layer comprises a plurality of high-refractivity materials and a plurality of low-refractivity materials, and the low-refractivity materials are photonic crystal”. Therefore, claim 12 is allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JENTZSCH et al. (US PG Pub 2023/0231362 A1) discloses a semiconductor laser comprising a horizontal cavity including a grating layer (see FIG. 2E).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUANDA ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1439. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 AM - 6:30 PM.
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.
/YUANDA ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828