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 .
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.
Priority
The priority has been considered by the examiner. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on June 13, 2023, August 09, 2023, March 07, 2024, September 18, 2025 and February 26, 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered and accepted by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawing submitted on June 13, 2023, has been considered and accepted by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayakawa (US 2001/0017870).
PNG
media_image1.png
286
362
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
296
532
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Hayakawa disclose a laser diode, comprising:
an active layer (see Figure 17, character 507, paragraph [0146] and the reference called “SCH active layer”) formed between an n-doped semiconductor material (see Figure 17, character 506, paragraph [0146] and the reference called “n-A.0.63Ga0.37As clad”) and a p-doped semiconductor material (see Figure 17, character 512, paragraph [0146] and the reference called “p-Al0.63Ga0.37As clad”), wherein the active layer (see Figure 17, character 507) forms an active zone (see Figure 17) with a width w (see Figure 17, character w and Abstract) along a longitudinal axis for generating electromagnetic radiation (see Figure 17);
wherein in the p-doped (see Figure 17, character 512) or n-doped (see Figure 17, character 506) semiconductor material a thermal aperture formed in a layer shape (see Figure 17, character 510, paragraphs [0146] and the reference called “n-In0.48(Ga0.1Al0.9)0.52P current-blocking layer”) with a thermal conductivity coefficient kblock smaller than a thermal conductivity coefficient kbulk of the respective doped semiconductor material (Hayakawa do not explicitly discloses a thermal aperture formed in a layer shape with a thermal conductivity coefficient kblock smaller than a thermal conductivity coefficient kbulk of the respective doped semiconductor material. However, it was shown above that Hayakawa on Figure 17 and paragraphs [00146 – 0148] teach that p-doped (see Figure 17, character 512, p-Al0.63Ga0.37As clad) or n-doped (see Figure 17, character 506, p-Al0.63Ga0.37As clad) semiconductor material a thermal aperture formed in a layer shape (see Figure 17, character 510 “n-In0.48(Ga0.1Al0.9)0.52P current-blocking layer”). Applicant on paragraphs [0017 and 0021] disclose the thermal conductivity coefficient kblock can be lowered by changing the indium and/or phosphorus content (e.g., in the case of an AlInGaAsP composite on a GaAs substrate: GaAs and AlGaAs as p-type semiconductor material, InGaP or InGaAsP as thermal aperture). The AlxGa1-xAs thermal conductivity ≈11 – 91 W/m.K and a thermal aperture of InGaP or InGaAsP (kblock≈5 W/(m.K)). Hara (US 8,995,489) is used as evidence, Hara on Figure 1 and column 4, lines 33 – 39 disclose the thermal conductivity of an AlGaAs material and an AlGaInP material. The AlGaAs material has the lowest thermal conductivity when the Al composition ratio is around 0.5, while the AlGaInP material has lower thermal conductivity with higher Al composition ratio. These features are implicitly taught a thermal aperture formed in a layer shape with a thermal conductivity coefficient kblock smaller than a thermal conductivity coefficient kbulk of the respective doped semiconductor material as is claimed.) is formed for spatially selective heat transport from the active zone to a side of the respective doped semiconductor material opposite to the active layer (see Figure 17, and paragraphs [0146 – 0148], disclose in the thermal screen a p-AlGaAs clad layer (512) for thermal conduction to heat sink and a n-InGaAlP current blocking layer as thermal scree for constricting the thermal flow. Hayakawa disclose heat dissipation via both the p-side and n-side (see Figure 21 and paragraphs [0157 – 0158]).
In reference to the claim language referring to “p-doped or n-doped semiconductor material a thermal aperture formed in a layer shape with a thermal conductivity coefficient kblock smaller than a thermal conductivity coefficient kbulk of the respective doped semiconductor material” is formed for spatially selective heat transport from the active zone to a side of the respective doped semiconductor material opposite to the active layer”, intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable to performing the intended use, and then it meets the claim. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987). In a claim drawn to a process to making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. In Regarding claim Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In Regarding claim Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 4, Hayakawa disclose the thermal aperture (see Figure 17 and claim 1 rejection) forms a slit-shaped passage region (see Figure 17 and paragraph [0147], the slit with width (see Figure 17, character W) is formed by the aperture), arranged parallel to the active layer (see Figure 17, character 507) for a heat flow directed from the active zone towards an outer side of the laser diode (see Figure 21).
Regarding claim 5, Hayakawa disclose the slit-shaped passage region (see Figure 17 and paragraph [0147] and claim 4 rejection) is arranged medially with respect to the active zone (see Figures 17 and 21 and paragraph [0146 and 0156 – 0157], the thermal aperture also as flow-constriction layer, (e.g. the lateral dimensions of the thermal aperture and of the active zone are identical and they are aligned centrally to another)).
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.
Claims 2 and 6 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa (US 2001/0017870).
Regarding claim 2, Hayakawa discloses the claimed invention except for the thermal aperture consists of the same semiconductor material as the respective doped semiconductor material. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the thermal aperture consists of the same semiconductor material as the respective doped semiconductor material to the device of Hayakawa, to make the production device more cheaper, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 6, Hayakawa discloses the claimed invention except for the lateral distance dx between an outer edge of the active zone and a nearest inner edge of the thermal aperture is -w/6 ≤dx≤ +w/6. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the lateral distance dx between an outer edge of the active zone and a nearest inner edge of the thermal aperture is -w/6 ≤dx≤ +w/6 to the device of Hayakawa, to provide a compact device, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In addition, the selection of lateral distance dx between an outer edge of the active zone and a nearest inner edge of the thermal aperture, it’s obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed [the lateral distance dx between an outer edge of the active zone and a nearest inner edge of the thermal aperture is -w/6 ≤dx≤ +w/6] or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen [the lateral distance dx between an outer edge of the active zone and a nearest inner edge of the thermal aperture is -w/6 ≤dx≤ +w/6] or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen [the lateral distance dx between an outer edge of the active zone and a nearest inner edge of the thermal aperture is -w/6 ≤dx≤ +w/6] are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 7, Hayakawa discloses the claimed invention except for the vertical distance dy between the center of the active layer and the top of the thermal aperture is 0 μm ≤dy≤ 1 μm. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the vertical distance dy between the center of the active layer and the top of the thermal aperture is 0 μm ≤dy≤ 1 μm to the device of Hayakawa, to provide a compact device, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In addition, the selection the vertical distance between the center of the active layer and the top of the thermal aperture, it’s obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed [the vertical distance dy between the center of the active layer and the top of the thermal aperture is 0 μm ≤dy≤ 1 μm] or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen [the vertical distance dy between the center of the active layer and the top of the thermal aperture is 0 μm ≤dy≤ 1 μm] or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen [the vertical distance dy between the center of the active layer and the top of the thermal aperture is 0 μm ≤dy≤ 1 μm] are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 8, Hayakawa discloses the claimed invention except for thermal aperture has an aperture thickness dblock between 0.3 μm and 3 μm. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the thermal aperture has an aperture thickness dblock between 0.3 μm and 3 μm to the device of Hayakawa, to provide suppression of lateral heat flow expansion, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In addition, the selection of thermal aperture thickness, it’s obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed [the thermal aperture has an aperture thickness dblock between 0.3 μm and 3 μm] or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen [the thermal aperture has an aperture thickness dblock between 0.3 μm and 3 μm] or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen [the thermal aperture has an aperture thickness dblock between 0.3 μm and 3 μm s] are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 9, Hayakawa discloses the claimed invention except for the thermal conductivity coefficient kblock is at most 30 % of the corresponding thermal conductivity coefficient kbulk. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the thermal conductivity coefficient kblock is at most 30 % of the corresponding thermal conductivity coefficient kbulk to the device of Hayakawa, in order to conduct a small amount of heat from a hotter region to a cooler region without a massive movement of the material itself, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In addition, the selection of thermal conductivity coefficient between thermal conductivity coefficient kblock and thermal conductivity coefficient kbulk, it’s obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed [the thermal conductivity coefficient kblock is at most 30% of the corresponding thermal conductivity coefficient kbulk] or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen [the thermal conductivity coefficient kblock is at most 30 % of the corresponding thermal conductivity coefficient kbulk] or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen [the thermal conductivity coefficient kblock is at most 30 % of the corresponding thermal conductivity coefficient kbulk] are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
PNG
media_image3.png
290
318
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Hayakawa disclose a thermal aperture formed in a layer shape (see Figure 14, character 427, paragraphs [0131 – 0132] and the reference called “n-In0.48(Ga0.7Al0.3)0.52P current-blocking layer”) is formed in the n-doped semiconductor material and a thermal aperture formed in a layer shape (see Figure 14, character 437, paragraphs [0134 – 0135] and the reference called “n-In0.48(Ga0.7Al0.3)0.52P current-blocking layer”) is formed in the doped semiconductor material.
Hayakawa discloses the claimed invention except for a thermal aperture formed in a layer shape is formed in the p-doped semiconductor material. Hayakawa disclose thermal aperture formed in a layer shape (see Figure 14, character 427) is formed in the n-doped semiconductor material, but don’t disclose thermal aperture formed in a layer shape is formed in the n-doped semiconductor material and a thermal aperture formed in a layer shape is formed in the p-doped semiconductor material as a double thermal aperture in the device. The examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that it was known in the art to a thermal aperture formed in a layer shape is formed in the p-doped semiconductor material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the a thermal aperture formed in a layer shape is formed in the p-doped semiconductor material to the device of Hayakawa, the conductivity of a semiconductor layer can be changed by adding impurities known as dopants. These dopants can be either acceptors or donors, which in turn change the type of semiconductor.. The change in conductivity is due to the increase in the number of charge carriers, either electrons or holes, which allows current to flow more efficiently. The process of doping is essential for creating devices like diodes, laser or transistors, and it is crucial for controlling how semiconductors conduct electricity.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa (US 2001/0017870. Applicant submitted in the IDS, filed on June 13, 2023) in view of J. Piprek et al. (“Thermal Conductivity Reduction in GaAs-AlAs Distributed Bragg Reflectors, Applicant submitted in the IDS filed on August 09, 2023).
Regarding claim 3, Hayakawa discloses the claimed invention except for the thermal aperture is formed of periodically alternating materials. Piprek teaches a thermal aperture is formed of periodically alternating materials. However, it is well known in the art to apply and/or modify the thermal aperture is formed of periodically alternating materials as discloses by Piprek in (see Abstract, page 81, 2nd and 3rd full paragraphs, page 82, 3rd full paragraph and page 83, 1st and 2nd full paragraphs). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the thermal aperture is formed of periodically alternating materials Hayakawa to the device of Hayakawa, to achieve particularly low thermal conductivity coefficients (kblock), the thermal aperture is formed by periodically alternating materials, with a high number of regular alternations between the materials, creating many interfaces with large differences in thermal conductivity (klayer). Heat transfer across the interfaces is limited, leading to a further reduction in thermal conductivity (kblock), since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Delma R. Forde whose telephone number is (571)272-1940. The examiner can normally be reached M - TH 7:00 AM - 4:00 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 O 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.
/Delma R Forde/ Examiner, Art Unit 2828
/TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828