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 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. 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 . Claim s 1 , 2, 3, 5, 8-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto et al. (US PG Pub 2021/0013701) in view of Kawaguchi et al. (US PG Pub 2010/0316082) . Regarding claim 1, Hashimoto et al. disclose : a substrate (17) (Fig. 2A-2C, [0077]) ; and a semiconductor layer portion disposed on the substrate and comprising a waveguide (21) that comprises an active layer (27a) (Figs. 1A and 1B, [0058]) ; wherein: the waveguide includes a wide portion (region 13 b in Fig. 1A) comprising a first diffraction grating (27g) , and a narrow portion (13a) through which light generated in the active layer propagates in a transverse mode (Fig. 1A, [0054] , [0061] , [0063] ) , wherein a waveguide width of the narrow portion is narrower than a waveguide width of the wide portion (Fig. 1A, [0054], [0061], [0063]) ; the waveguide includes a first end surface (12a) including an end surface of the narrow portion, and a second end surface (12b) located on a side opposite to the first end surface; and the wide portion is continuously connected to the narrow portion (wide portion connected to narrow portion by section 13c) , and comprises a first region (13c) having a waveguide width increasing from a side of the first end surface toward a side of the second end surface (Fig. 1A, [0054], [0061], [0063]) . Hashimoto et al. do not disclose: a narrow portion through which light generated in the active layer propagates in a transverse multimode . Kawaguchi et al. disclose: The width of the ridge portion …i n a case where multi-mode laser light will do, as in use in a display, to increase the maximum light output, the width of the ridge portion 55 is about 2.0 µ m to 20.0 µ m ([0081]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hashimoto by designing the narrow portion to have a width that supports a transverse multimode in order to increase the maximum light output power. Figs. 1A and 1B of Hashimoto Figs. 2A-2C of Hashimoto Regarding claim 2, Hashimoto as modified disclose: the waveguide further comprises a second region (region 13b in Fig. 1A) (Hashimoto, Figs. 1A and 1B, [0056]-[0058]) ; the second region is continuously connected to the first region; a waveguide width in the second region is a constant; and the second region comprises the first diffraction grating (27g) (Hashimoto, Figs. 1A and 1B, [0056]-[0058], [0061]) . Regarding claim 3, Hashimoto as modified disclose: the semiconductor layer portion includes a first semiconductor layer (core layer 27a) having a first refractive index, and a second semiconductor (27b) layer having a second refractive index different from the first refractive index; and in the first diffraction grating, one or more first protruding portions provided on a surface of the first semiconductor layer (27a) and one or more second protruding portions provided on a surface of the second semiconductor layer (27b) are periodically disposed in a light propagation direction in the first diffraction grating (Hashimoto, Figs. 1A and 1B, [0056]-[0061]) . Regarding claim 5, Hashimoto as modified disclose: each of the first protruding portions and each of the second protruding portions are disposed parallel to the second end surface (grating protrusions are formed parallel to the end faces) (see Figs 1A and 1B of Hashimoto). Regarding claim 8, Hashimoto as modified do not disclose: wherein: 90% or more of a total output of light emitted from the second end surface has a wavelength width in a range of 0.01 nm to 0.5 nm. However, In accordance with MPEP 2144.05 II, Optimization of Ranges: Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In the prior art the general conditions are disclosed, a semiconductor laser device outputting light from a second end surface, the output light having a wavelength width. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to obtain a workable range of values for the percentage of light emitt ed from the second end surface and the wavelength width of the output light by routine experimentation. Regarding claim 9, Hashimoto as modified do not disclose: a waveguide width of a portion provided with the first diffraction grating is in a range from twice to four times the waveguide width of the narrow portion. However, In accordance with MPEP 2144.05 II, Optimization of Ranges: Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In the prior art the general conditions are disclosed, a semiconductor laser device comprising a waveguide having a wide portion provided with a first diffraction grating and a narrow portion each having a width value. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to obtain a workable range of values for the width of the narrow portion and the wide portion by routine experimentation. Regarding claim 10, Hashimoto as modified do not disclose: wherein: a waveguide width of a portion provided with the first diffraction grating is in a range from twice to four times the waveguide width of the narrow portion. However, In accordance with MPEP 2144.05 II, Optimization of Ranges: Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In the prior art the general conditions are disclosed, a semiconductor laser device comprising a waveguide having a wide portion provided with a first diffraction grating and a narrow portion each having a width value. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to obtain a workable range of values for the width of the narrow portion and the wide portion by routine experimentation. Regarding claim 11, Hashimoto as modified do not disclose: wherein: the waveguide width of the narrow portion is in a range from 15 μm to 90 μm . However, In accordance with MPEP 2144.05 II, Optimization of Ranges: Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In the prior art the general conditions are disclosed, a semiconductor laser device comprising a waveguide having a wide portion provided with a first diffraction grating and a narrow portion each having a width value. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to obtain a workable range of values for the width of the narrow portion and the wide portion by routine experimentation. Regarding claim 12, Hashimoto as modified do not disclose: the waveguide width of the narrow portion is in a range from 15 μm to 90 μm . However, In accordance with MPEP 2144.05 II, Optimization of Ranges: Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In the prior art the general conditions are disclosed, a semiconductor laser device comprising a waveguide having a wide portion provided with a first diffraction grating and a narrow portion each having a width value. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to obtain a workable range of values for the width of the narrow portion and the wide portion by routine experimentation. Regarding claim 13, Hashimoto as modified do not disclose: a waveguide width of a portion provided with the first diffraction grating is in a range from 30 μm to 360 μm . However, In accordance with MPEP 2144.05 II, Optimization of Ranges: Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In the prior art the general conditions are disclosed, a semiconductor laser device comprising a waveguide having a wide portion provided with a first diffraction grating and a narrow portion each having a width value. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to obtain a workable range of values for the width of the narrow portion and the wide portion by routine experimentation. Regarding claim 14, Hashimoto as modified do not disclose: a waveguide width of a portion provided with the first diffraction grating is in a range from 30 μm to 360 μm . However, In accordance with MPEP 2144.05 II, Optimization of Ranges: Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In the prior art the general conditions are disclosed, a semiconductor laser device comprising a waveguide having a wide portion provided with a first diffraction grating and a narrow portion each having a width value. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to obtain a workable range of values for the width of the narrow portion and the wide portion by routine experimentation. Regarding claim 16, Hashimoto as modified do not disclose: a M 2 factor of light emitted from the second end surface is in a range from 5 to 50. However, In accordance with MPEP 2144.05 II, Optimization of Ranges: Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In the prior art the general conditions are disclosed, a semiconductor laser device outputting light from a second end surface, the output light having a M 2 value. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to obtain a workable range of values for M 2 by routine experimentation. Claim s 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto et al. (US PG Pub 2021/0013701) in view of Kawaguchi et al. (US PG Pub 2010/0316082) and Chae (US PG Pub 2019/0341744). Regarding claim 6, Hashimoto as modified do not disclose: each of the first protruding portions and each of the second protruding portions are disposed such that the first protruding portion and the second protruding portion are curved in a shape protruding from the side of the first end surface toward the side of the second end surface. Chae discloses: curved DBR (curved DBR inherently has first and second protruding portions) ([0095]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hashimoto as modified by forming the device with curved gratings in order to eliminate the need for separate collimating and focusing mirrors . Regarding claim 7, Hashimoto as modified disclose: a tangent line of an inner periphery of each of the first protruding portions and a tangent line of an inner periphery of each of the second protruding portions are parallel to a wave surface of propagating light (inherently taught by the rejection of claim 6) . Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto et al. (US PG Pub 2021/0013701) in view of Kawaguchi et al. (US PG Pub 2010/0316082) and Deutsch et al. (US PG Pub 2020/0285049). Regarding claim 17, Hashimoto as modified disclose: the semiconductor laser element according to claim 1. Hashimoto as modified do not disclose: a plurality of light source units, each comprising: the semiconductor laser element according to claim 1, and a collimating lens on which light emitted from the semiconductor laser element is incident; and a second diffraction grating configured to diffract and combine light emitted from the plurality of light source units. Deutsch et al. disclose: a plurality of light source units, and a collimating lens on which light emitted from the semiconductor laser element is incident; and a diffraction grating configured to diffract and combine light emitted from the plurality of light source units (claim 23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hashimoto by forming a plurality of light source units and adding a collimating lens and external grating in order to increase the output power of the device . Allowable Subject Matter Claim s 4 and 15 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. Claim 4 is allowable as the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “… the first semiconductor layer is disposed between the active layer and the second semiconductor layer. ” Claim 15 is allowable as the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “… wherein: a distance from the first end surface to the first diffraction grating is represented as (m+1/4)×λ 0 / n eff using an integer m, an effective refractive index n eff of each transverse mode, and a wavelength λ 0 in vacuum of each transverse mode. ” Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chen et al. (US 6,301,283) disclose: a distributed feedback semiconductor laser including a semiconductor substrate having a bottom surface and a top surface; an active layer formed on the top surface of the semiconductor substrate; a ridge stripe formed on the active layer having a first surface and extending in a first direction; a periodic structure that is periodic in the first direction; a plurality of p-type electrodes formed on the first surface of the ridge stripe; and an n-type electrode formed on the bottom surface of the semiconductor substrate. The first surface of the ridge stripe is parallel with a growth plane of the active layer, the first surface having at least two different widths in a direction perpendicular to the first direction (Abstract) . Capasso et al. (US PG Pub 2003/0219054) disclose: Techniques for amplifying light produced by a quantum cascade laser are described. An assembly according to the present invention includes an optical amplifier having an optical input and an optical output. The optical output has an area significantly greater than that of the optical output and the geometry of the amplifier is such that the amplifier widens from the optical input to the optical output. The optical amplifier is formed of a layered waveguide structure which achieves quantum confinement of electrons and photons within the active region. A distributed feedback laser is suitably coupled to the optical amplifier at the optical input of the amplifier. The widening of the amplifier makes available a large number of electrons, so that the amplifier is able to produce many photons resulting from stimulated transitions caused by introduction of light to the optical input of t he amplifier, even if the great majority of the transitions occur nonradiatively (Abstract) . Schmidt et al. (US PG Pub 2004/0008746) disclose: Semiconductor laser diodes, particularly high power ridge waveguide laser diodes, are often used in opto-electronics as so-called pump laser diodes for fiber amplifiers in optical communication lines. To provide the desired high power output and stability of such a laser diode and avoid degradation during use, the present invention concerns an improved design of such a device, the improvement in particular consisting of novel design of the ridge waveguide of the laser. Essentially the novel design consists in a segmented ridge wave-guide having at least two straight segments, i.e. segments with constant, but different cross sections or widths, and at least one flared segment connecting the two different straight segments. A further improvement can be achieved by combining this approach with a laser diode design termed "unpumped end sections" and described in copending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/852 994, entitled "High Power Semiconductor Laser Diode". Preferable for an advantageous manufacturing process is a segmented ridge waveguide design with three straight segments, at least two of them differing in cross section or width, and two flared segments connecting the differing straight segments. This latter design results in a wafer pattern of identical and identically oriented laser diode structures, thus allowing the use of standard manufacturing processes (Abstract) . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT XINNING(TOM) NIU whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1437 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F: 9:30am-6:00pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Minsun Harvey can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /XINNING(Tom) NIU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828