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 .
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 1-15 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over A. Lyakh et al. ("Substrate-emitting, distributed feedback quantum cascade lasers." Applied Physics Letters 91, pages 181116-1 to 181116-3, 2007) in view of Brick et al. (US PG Pub 2009/0097519 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lyakh discloses a laser (a DFB QCL, FIG. 1a, see abstract) comprising:
a laser substrate (a low-doped InP substrate, FIG. 1a, see underlined portion, left column, page 181116-1);
an active layer (a 1.5 µm active region comprising 30-stage AlInAs-InGaAs QC strain-balanced structure, FIG. 1a, see underlined portion, right column, page 181116-1) disposed on the laser substrate and comprising a hetero-structure to emit mid-infrared light (“single-longitudinal-mode operation near 5.1 µm is demonstrated,” see abstract); and
a cladding layer (a 1.5 µm InP cladding layer, FIG. 1a, see underlined portion, right column, page 181116-1), disposed on the active layer, to confine the mid-infrared light within the active layer.
PNG
media_image1.png
322
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lyakh does not disclose an angled facet, formed at the active layer and inclined with respect to a plane of the active layer, to reflect the mid-infrared light out of the plane of the active layer.
Brick discloses a semiconductor laser (FIG. 7) comprising an angled facet (mirror area 26 or 28, FIG. 7, [0057]), formed at an active layer (10, FIG. 7, [0054]) and inclined with respect to a plane of the active layer (the mirror areas 26/28 have an inclined angle of 35 to 55 degrees, preferably 45 degrees, [0011] and [0057]), to reflect light out of the plane of the active layer (radiation 20 generated in the active layer 10 is reflected toward output lenses integrated on a surface of a functional layer 6, FIG. 7, [0071]-[0072]).
PNG
media_image2.png
427
561
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 DFB QCL of Lyakh with the angled facet as taught by Brick in order to obtain high intensity and high efficiency output ([0009] of Brick).
Regarding claim 2, Lyakh discloses the laser is a distributed feedback laser (the laser is a DFB QCL laser, see abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Lyakh discloses the laser is a quantum cascade laser (the laser is a DFB QCL laser, see abstract).
Regarding claim 4, the combination has disclosed the laser substrate outlined in the rejection to claim 1 above except the laser substrate has a thickness of about 50 µm to about 500 µm. 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 laser substrate of the combination with a thickness of about 50 µm to about 500 µm in order to minimize light absorption by the laser substrate, 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 MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)
Regarding claim 5, Lyakh, as modified, discloses the angled facet is angled to reflect the mid-infrared light towards the laser substrate (the radiation 20 is reflected by the inclined mirror area 26 or 28 towards the functional layer 6, FIG. 7 of Brick).
Regarding claim 6, Lyakh, as modified, discloses an optical element (40, FIG. 7, [0071] of Brick) integrated at the bottom of the laser substrate.
Regarding claim 7, Lyakh, as modified, discloses the optical element is a micro-optical element ([0071]).
Regarding claim 8, Lyakh, as modified, discloses the optical element is a lens etched into the laser substrate ([0072]).
Regarding claims 9-10, the combination has disclosed the optical element outlined in the rejection to claim 6 above and further discloses the optical element is etched into the laser substrate ([0072] of Brick) except the optical element is a flat lens. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical element of the combination with a flat lens or a flat lens etched into a material deposited on the bottom of the laser substrate in order to obtain desired focusing effect since a flat lens is well known optical element for focusing light.
Regarding claim 11, Lyakh, as modified, discloses the angled facet is angled to reflect the mid-infrared light away from the laser substrate (FIG. 7 of Brick).
Regarding claim 12, Lyakh, as modified, discloses the angled facet extends across the active layer and at least a portion of the cladding layer (FIG. 7 of Brick).
Regarding claim 13, Lyakh, as modified, discloses the angled facet extends across the active layer, the cladding layer, and at least a portion of the laser substrate (FIG. 7 of Brick).
Regarding claim 14, Lyakh, as modified, discloses the angled facet is inclined at an angle of approximately 45 degrees with respect to the plane of the active layer ([0011] of Brick).
Regarding claim 15, Lyakh discloses the hetero-structure is a buried hetero-structure (see underlined portions on page 181116-1).
Regarding claim 24, Lyakh discloses metallization (contact, FIG. 1a) on at least one of the laser substrate or the cladding layer, the metallization defining an opening to allow the mid-infrared light to escape the laser (FIG. 1a).
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyakh et al. and Brick et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Belkin et al. (US PG Pub 2016/0156153 A1).
Regarding claim 16, the combination has disclosed the laser substrate outlined in the rejection to claim 1 above except the laser substrate is a semi-insulating substrate. Belkin discloses a QCL laser (FIGS. 1a-1b) comprising a semi-insulating substrate (101, FIG. 1b, [0039]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laser substrate with a semi-insulating material in order to obtain high electrical resistance, 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 17, the combination, as modified, discloses the semi-insulating substrate is a low-doped InP substrate ([0039] of Belkin).
Regarding claim 18, the combination has disclosed the semi-insulating substrate outlined in the rejection to claim 16 above except the semi-insulating substrate is an iron-doped InP substrate. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the semi-insulating substrate with an iron-doped InP substrate in order to optimize electrical resistance, 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 19, the combination has disclosed the semi-insulating substrate outlined in the rejection to claim 16 above except a conductive layer between the cladding layer and the semi-insulating substrate. Belkin discloses a conductive layer (102, FIG. 1a, [0040]) between the cladding layer (103, FIG. 1a, [0040]) and the semi-insulating substrate (101, FIG. 1a, [0039]). 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 DFB QCL of the combination with the conductive layer between the cladding layer and the semi-insulating substrate as taught by Belkin in order to improve lateral current extraction from active region ([0040] of Belkin).
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyakh et al. and Brick et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jiang et al. (US Patent 6,556,610 B1).
Regarding claim 22, the combination has disclosed the laser outlined in the rejection to claim 1 above except an etched reflective structure before the angled facet. Jiang discloses an etched reflective structure (305, FIG. 3A) before the angled facet (111A, FIG. 3A). 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 DFB QCL of the combination with the etched reflective structure as taught by Jiang in order obtain desired reflectivity.
Regarding claim 23, the combination, as modified, discloses the etched reflective structure is a notch (FIG. 3A of Jiang).
Claims 25-26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyakh et al. and Brick et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of NICOLETTI et al. (US PG Pub 2011/0088453 A1, 10/17/23 IDS).
Regarding claim 25, the combination has disclosed the laser outlined in the rejection to claim 1 above except a spectroscopic system comprising: the laser of claim 1 to illuminate a sample with the mid-infrared light; and a detector to detect radiation reflected and/or scattered by the sample in response to the mid-infrared light. NICOLETTI discloses a spectroscopic system (FIG. 1) comprising: a laser (70, FIG. 1, [0003]) to illuminate a sample (gas sample, [0003]) with the mid-infrared light; and a detector (30, FIG. 1, [0003]) to detect radiation reflected and/or scattered by the sample in response to the mid-infrared light. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the laser with the spectroscopic system as taught by NICOLETTI in order to obtain photoacoustic detection device (see abstract of NICOLETTI).
Regarding claim 26, the combination, as modified, discloses a lens (71, FIG. 1, [0003] of NICOLETTI), formed in and/or on the laser substrate, to focus the mid-infrared light to a point proximate to the detector.
Regarding claim 28, the combination, as modified, discloses the detector comprises a tuning fork ([0003] of NICOLETTI).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyakh et al., Brick et al. and NICOLETTI et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Belkin et al.
Regarding claim 27, the combination has disclosed the laser outlined in the rejection to claim 25 above except a reflector, formed in and/or on the laser substrate, to reflect the mid-infrared light toward to the detector. Belkin discloses a reflector (42, FIGS. 11-12, [0074]-[0075]), formed in and/or on the laser substrate, to reflect the mid-infrared light toward to the detector ([0078]). 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 laser substrate with the reflector as taught by Belkin in order to maximize reflectivity of the mid-infrared light out of the laser.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20-21 are 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 “the conductive layer is a high mobility 2D electron gas” as recited in claim 20 and “a submount supporting the laser substrate; a conductive via connecting the conductive layer to a first terminal between the submount and the laser substrate; and a second terminal between the submount and the laser substrate” as recited in claim 21. Therefore, claims 20-21 are 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.
Kitatani et al. (US PG Pub 2009/0129421 A1) discloses a semiconductor laser diode comprising an angled facet similar to the claimed invention (see FIG. 2).
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