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 3 in the reply filed on 09/22/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the examination of the identified species would not impose a serious search and/or examination burden. This is not found persuasive because, Applicant states that the Office has failed to properly provide sufficient reasons for the supporting the election requirement as provided under MPEP § 803. Examiner notes that the explanation of how the species are independent or distinct was provided with details of the structural differences of each species and is further provided in the instant action for clarity below:
The species are independent or distinct because Species 1, shown in Figs. 2-5, discloses a first embodiment comprising a multi-segment grating structure with a longitudinal waveguide structure [28] with a constant width over a first section [K1] and a second section [K2]. Species 1 comprises a first sub-grating [241] and a second sub-grating [242].
Species 2, shown in Fig. 6, discloses a second embodiment comprising a multi-segment grating structure with a longitudinal waveguide structure [28] extending along the resonant cavity [211]. A width [W2] of the waveguide structure in a second section [K2] is greater than a width [W1] of the waveguide structure in a first section [K1].
Species 3, shown in Fig. 7, discloses a third embodiment comprising a multi-segment grating structure with a longitudinal waveguide structure [28] extending along the resonant cavity [211] where the width [W2] of the waveguide structure in the second section [K2] gradually increases in the longitudinal direction.
Species 4, shown in Fig. 8, discloses a fourth embodiment comprising a first sub-grating [241] and second sub-grating [242] with differing lengths. The length of the second sub-grating [242] is greater than the length of the first sub-grating [241].
Species 5, shown in Figs. 9A-10, discloses a fifth embodiment comprising a grating layer [24] with a first sub-grating [241], a second sub-grating [242], and a third sub-grating [243[ as well as three no-corrugation segments [240]. Species 5 further includes a plurality of positive electrodes [231a,231b,231c].
Examiner notes that at least for the reasons above, the species differ from each other in a manner that would impose a distinct search burden. The species each comprise distinct structural differences that impose a search burden. The different species include different waveguide structures, grating and no-corrugation section structures and differing electrode structures. These structural differences require materially different searches including difference search strategies and/or search queries which is provided as circumstances that support a serious search burden as outlined in MPEP § 809.02(a).
Another example of how the different species impose a distinct search burden is the inclusion of specific claims that read on one species while not reading on another. For example, claim 17 which includes the limitations of “wherein a width of the waveguide structure of the second section varies in the longitudinal direction” reads on Species 3, shown in Fig. 7, but does not read on species 1 shown in Fig. 5. This discloses both a patentable distinction between species as well as a distinct search burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 8-11,15,27-30,34,38 and 39 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 09/22/2026.
Examiner notes that claim 8 reads “wherein the electrode structure includes a plurality of positive electrodes and a plurality of negative electrodes”. This claimed structure is not disclosed in Species 3, shown in Fig. 7. The limitations of claim 8 read on species 5, shown in Figs. 9A-10 and disclosed in paragraph [0068] of the specification of the claimed application. Therefore, claim 8 will be understood as reading on a non-elected species and treated as withdrawn.
Examiner notes claim 9 is also treated as withdrawn at least due to its dependency to withdrawn claim 8.
Examiner notes claim 9 further includes details of the plurality of positive and plurality of negative electrodes that do not read on Species 3 shown in Fig. 7 and are drawn to the multi-electrode structure of Figs. 9A and 9B and disclosed in paragraph [0075] of the specification of the claimed application and is therefore treated as withdrawn.
Examiner notes that claim 10 reads “wherein the electrode structure includes a plurality of positive electrodes”. This claimed structure is not disclosed in Species 3, shown in Fig. 7. The limitations of claim 10 read on species 5, shown in Figs. 9A-10 and disclosed in paragraph [0068] of the specification of the claimed application. Therefore, claim 10 will be understood as reading on a non-elected species and treated as withdrawn.
Examiner notes claim 11 is also treated as withdrawn at least due to its dependency to withdrawn claim 10.
Examiner notes claim 11 further includes details of the plurality of positive and plurality of negative electrodes that do not read on Species 3 shown in Fig. 7 and are drawn to the multi-electrode structure of Figs. 9A and 9B and disclosed in paragraph [0075] of the specification of the claimed application and is therefore treated as withdrawn.
Examiner notes that claim 15 reads “wherein the waveguide structure of the first section and the waveguide of the second section are identical”. This claimed structure is not disclosed in Species 3, shown in Fig. 7. The limitations of claim 15 read on species 1, shown in Figs. 2-5 and disclosed in paragraph [0041] of the specification of the claimed application. The waveguide structure shown in Fig. 7 increases in the longitudinal direction as disclosed in paragraph [0046] of the claimed application.
Therefore, claim 15 will be understood as reading on a non-elected species and treated as withdrawn.
Examiner notes that claim 27 reads “wherein the electrode structure includes a plurality of positive electrodes and a plurality of negative electrodes”. This claimed structure is not disclosed in Species 3, shown in Fig. 7. The limitations of claim 27 read on species 5, shown in Figs. 9A-10 and disclosed in paragraph [0068] of the specification of the claimed application. Therefore, claim 27 will be understood as reading on a non-elected species and treated as withdrawn.
Examiner notes claim 28 is also treated as withdrawn at least due to its dependency to withdrawn claim 27.
Examiner notes claim 28 further includes details of the plurality of positive and plurality of negative electrodes that do not read on Species 3 shown in Fig. 7 and are drawn to the multi-electrode structure of Figs. 9A and 9B and disclosed in paragraph [0075] of the specification of the claimed application and is therefore treated as withdrawn.
Examiner notes that claim 29 reads “wherein the electrode structure includes a plurality of positive electrodes”. This claimed structure is not disclosed in Species 3, shown in Fig. 7. The limitations of claim 29 read on species 5, shown in Figs. 9A-10 and disclosed in paragraph [0068] of the specification of the claimed application. Therefore, claim 29 will be understood as reading on a non-elected species and treated as withdrawn.
Examiner notes claim 30 is also treated as withdrawn at least due to its dependency to withdrawn claim 29.
Examiner notes claim 30 further includes details of the plurality of positive and plurality of negative electrodes that do not read on Species 3 shown in Fig. 7 and are drawn to the multi-electrode structure of Figs. 9A and 9B and disclosed in paragraph [0075] of the specification of the claimed application and is therefore treated as withdrawn.
Examiner notes that claim 34 reads “wherein the waveguide structure of the first section and the waveguide of the second section are identical”. This claimed structure is not disclosed in Species 3, shown in Fig. 7. The limitations of claim 34 read on species 1, shown in Figs. 2-5 and disclosed in paragraph [0041] of the specification of the claimed application. The waveguide structure shown in Fig. 7 increases in the longitudinal direction as disclosed in paragraph [0046] of the claimed application.
Therefore, claim 34 will be understood as reading on a non-elected species and treated as withdrawn.
Examiner notes that claim 38 reads “one of the plurality of sections” followed by “another one of the plurality of sections” and further followed by “one rest of the plurality of sections”. This claim language is limiting three separate sections of the longitudinal waveguide structure which is not disclosed in Species 3, shown in Fig. 7. The limitations of claim 38 read on species 5, shown in Figs. 9A-10 and disclosed in paragraphs [0073,0076] of the specification of the claimed application. The waveguide structure shown in Fig. 7 comprises only two sections [K1] and [K2].
Therefore, claim 38 will be understood as reading on a non-elected species and treated as withdrawn and claim 39 will also be treated as withdrawn due to its dependency on withdrawn claim 38.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2,5-7,12,14,16-21,24-26,31,33 and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “high-power single-wavelength semiconductor laser” in claims 1-2,5-7,12,14,16-21,24-26,31,33 and 35-37 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-power” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Since the term “high-power” is not clearly defined by the claims nor the specification, there is no clear bound of what power level is sufficient in order to meet the limitation of a “high-power” semiconductor laser as claimed.
For the purposes of examination of the instant application, the term “high-power” semiconductor laser will be understood as a semiconductor laser with an output power of greater than 70mW at an injection current of 200mA as shown in the Takaki Fig. 7B.
Claims 6 and 25 recite the limitation "the positive electrode" in line 3 of claim 6, line 3 of claim 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of examination of the instant application, the term “the positive electrode” as recited in claims 6 and 25 will be understood as “a positive electrode”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2,20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 2 reads “wherein lengths of the plurality of sub-gratings are the same or different”. Examiner notes that every combination of gratings lengths meet the limitations of claim 2 since both options of the same grating length or different grating lengths are listed as options in the limitations of claim 2. Therefore, the claim fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 20 reads “wherein lengths of the plurality of sub-gratings are the same or different”. Examiner notes that every combination of gratings lengths meet the limitations of claim 20 since both options of the same grating length or different grating lengths are listed as options in the limitations of claim 20. Therefore, the claim fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 21 reads “wherein lengths of the plurality of no-corrugation segments are the same or different”. Examiner notes that every combination of no-corrugation segment lengths meet the limitations of claim 21 since both options of the same no-corrugation segment lengths or different no-corrugation segment lengths are listed as options in the limitations of claim 21. Therefore, the claim fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1,2,5-7,12,14,16-21,24-26,31,33 and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takaki et al. (hereinafter Takaki) (US 20040042516 A1) in view of Kato (US 20090296753 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Takaki discloses in Fig. 2,
A high-power single-wavelength [see Fig. 7B] (Paras. [0004,0041,0070]) semiconductor laser [100] (Para. [0041]) having multi- segment grating structure [29 and 30 Fig. 5A] (Paras. [0042,0062]), comprising:
a cavity body (Para. [0041]), having a resonant cavity [laser cavity] (Para. [0042]), a reflective facet [25] (Para. [0046]) and an anti- reflective facet [24] (Para. [0046]), the resonant cavity [laser cavity] being disposed in the cavity body (Paras. [0041,0042]), the reflective facet [25] and the anti-reflective facet [24] being respectively disposed to a first side [25 on left side Fig. 2] (Para. [0046]) and a second side of the cavity body [24 on right side Fig. 2] (Para. [0046]), the first side being opposite to the second side [see Fig. 2];
a gain layer [13] (Para. [0041]), disposed in the resonant cavity [laser cavity] (Para. [0041]);
an electrode structure [22] (Para. [0046]), disposed on the cavity body (Para. [0046]);
a grating layer [Fig. 5A] (Para. [0062]), disposed in the resonant cavity (Paras. [0047,0062]), including a first sub-grating [leftmost 29 Fig. 5A] (Para. [0062]), a second sub-grating [rightmost 29 Fig. 5A] (Para. [0062]) and a plurality of no-corrugation segments [30 Fig. 5A] (Para. [0062]), the first sub- grating [leftmost 29 Fig. 5A], the second sub-grating [rightmost 29 Fig. 5A] and the plurality of no-corrugation segments [30 Fig. 5A] being alternately arranged (Para. [0062]);
an upper cladding layer [17] (Para. [0051]) disposed in the resonant cavity (Para. [0041]), above the gain layer [13] and the grating layer (Paras. [0042,0044]) and
Takaki fails to disclose,
a lower cladding layer and, the upper and lower cladding layer wrapping the gain layer and the grating layer to form a lateral waveguide structure; and
a longitudinal waveguide structure, extending along the resonant cavity between the first side and the second side, connecting the first sub-grating, the second sub-grating and the plurality of no-corrugation segments
Kato discloses,
a lower cladding layer [18 Fig. 8] (Para. [0083]) and an upper cladding layer [26 Fig. 8] (Para. [0083]) wrapping a gain layer [22 Fig. 8] (Para. [0083]) and a grating layer [28 Fig. 8] (Para. [0083]) forming a lateral waveguide structure (Para. [0083]), and
a longitudinal waveguide structure [36 Fig. 7] (Para. [0081]), extending along a resonant cavity between a first [left side Fig. 7] and second side [right side Fig. 7] (Para. [0081]), connecting a plurality of segments [36A-36C] (Para. [0082])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the waveguide structures of Kato connecting the regions of the device of Takaki for the purpose of variable control of optical confinement in the device. (Kato Para. [0088])
Regarding claim 2, Takaki in view of Kato discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Takaki Fig. 5A,
wherein lengths of the first sub-grating [leftmost 29] and the second sub-grating [rightmost 29] are the same or different (Paras. [0062,0063]).
Regarding claim 5, Takaki in view of Kato discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Takaki Fig. 2,
wherein the first sub-grating [leftmost 29 Fig. 5A] and the second sub-grating [rightmost 29 Fig. 5A] (Para. [0062]) have the same period (Para. [0062]).
Regarding claim 6, Takaki in view of Kato discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Takaki Fig. 2,
further including a contact layer [19] (Para. [0045]) disposed between the positive electrode [22] (Para. [0045]) and the upper cladding layer [17] (Para. [0045]).
Regarding claim 7, Takaki in view of Kato discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Takaki Fig. 2,
wherein the electrode structure includes a positive electrode [22] (Para. [0046]) and a negative electrode [23] (Para. [0046]), the positive electrode [22] (Para. [0046]) and the negative electrode [23] (Para. [0046]) are disposed respectively to a third side [22 on top of device Fig. 2] (Para. [0046]) and a fourth side [23 on bottom of device Fig. 2] (Para. [0046]) of the cavity body (Para. [0046]), and the third side is opposite to the fourth side (Para. [0046]).
Regarding claim 12, Takaki in view of Kato discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Takaki Fig. 2,
wherein the gain layer [13] is a structure having multiple quantum wells or quantum dots (Para. [0041]).
Regarding claim 14, Takaki in view of Kato discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses,
wherein the longitudinal waveguide structure is extended in a longitudinal direction [see 36 Kato Fig. 7] (Kato Para. [0020]), and divided into a first section [left half section of 36 Kato Fig. 7] (Kato Para. [0050]) and a second section [right half section of 36 Kato Fig. 7] (Kato Para. [0050]), the first section includes the reflective facet [25 Takaki Fig. 5A] (Takaki Para. [0046]), one of the plurality of no- corrugation segments [left side 30 Takaki Fig. 5A] (Takaki Para. [0062]) and the first sub-grating [leftmost 29 Takaki Fig. 5A] (Takaki Para. [0062])], the second section [right half section of 36 Kato Fig. 7] includes another one of another one of the plurality of no-corrugation segments [right side 30 Takaki Fig. 5A (Takaki Para. [0062]), the second sub- grating [rightmost 29 Takaki Fig. 5A] (Takaki Para. [0062]) and the anti-reflective facet [24 Takaki Fig. 5A] (Takaki Para. [0050]), and the longitudinal direction is extended from the first side to the second side [from left to right Takaki Fig. 5A and Kato Fig. 7].
Paragraph [0050] of Kato shows the waveguide structure that can be seen as two separate sections with a length of L/2, therefore the two sections each comprising half of the length of the laser as shown in Fig. 7 of Kato.
When the waveguide structure of Kato is implemented into Takaki, the first section [left half section of 36 Kato Fig. 7] will include the reflective facet [25 Takaki Fig. 5A], a no-corrugation segment [left side 30 Takaki Fig. 5A] and the first sub-grating [leftmost 29 Takaki Fig. 5A]. Further, the second section [right half section of 36 Kato Fig. 7] will include another no-corrugation segment [right side 30 Takaki Fig. 5A] and the second sub-grating [rightmost 29 Takaki Fig. 5A] and the anti-reflective facet [24 Takaki Fig. 5A]
Regarding claim 16, Takaki in view of Kato discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 14 above and further discloses in Kato Fig. 7,
wherein a width of waveguide structure of the second section [w2 in right half section of 36] is greater than that of the first section [w1 in left half section of 36] (Para. [0088]).
Regarding claim 17, Takaki in view of Kato discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 14 above and further discloses in Kato Fig. 7,
wherein a width of the waveguide structure [36] of the second section [right half section of 36] (Para. [0088]) varies in the longitudinal direction [from w1 to w2] (Para. [0088]).
Regarding claim 18, Takaki in view of Kato discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 17 above and further discloses in Kato Fig. 7,
wherein the width of the waveguide structure [36] of the second section [right half section of 36] is increased in the longitudinal direction [increases from w1 to w2] (Para. [0088]).
Regarding claim 19, Takaki discloses in Fig. 2,
A high-power single-wavelength (Paras. [0004,0041]) semiconductor laser [100] (Para. [0041]) having multi- segment grating structure [29 and 30 Fig. 5A] (Paras. [0042,0062]), comprising:
a cavity body (Para. [0041]), having a resonant cavity [laser cavity] (Para. [0042]), a reflective facet [25] (Para. [0046]) and an anti- reflective facet [24] (Para. [0046]), the resonant cavity [laser cavity] being disposed in the cavity body (Paras. [0041,0042]), the reflective facet [25] and the anti-reflective facet [24] being respectively disposed to a first side [25 on left side Fig. 2] (Para. [0046]) and a second side of the cavity body [24 on right side Fig. 2] (Para. [0046]), the first side being opposite to the second side [see Fig. 2];
a gain layer [13] (Para. [0041]), disposed in the resonant cavity [laser cavity] (Para. [0041]);
an electrode structure [22] (Para. [0046]), disposed on the cavity body (Para. [0046]);
a grating layer [Fig. 5A] (Para. [0062]), disposed in the resonant cavity (Paras. [0047,0062]), including a plurality of sub-gratings [29 Fig. 5A] (Para. [0062]) and a plurality of no-corrugation segments [30 Fig. 5A] (Para. [0062]), the plurality of sub-gratings [29 Fig. 5A] and the plurality of no-corrugation segments [30 Fig. 5A] being alternately arranged (Para. [0062]);
an upper cladding layer [17] (Para. [0051]) disposed in the resonant cavity (Para. [0041]), above the gain layer [13] and the grating layer (Paras. [0042,0044])
Takaki fails to disclose,
a lower cladding layer and, the upper and lower cladding layer wrapping the gain layer and the grating layer to form a lateral waveguide structure; and
a longitudinal waveguide structure, extending along the resonant cavity between the first side and the second side, connecting the plurality of sub-gratings and the plurality of no-corrugation segments.
Kato discloses,
a lower cladding layer [18 Fig. 8] (Para. [0083]) and an upper cladding layer [26 Fig. 8] (Para. [0083]) wrapping a gain layer [22 Fig. 8] (Para. [0083]) and a grating layer [28 Fig. 8] (Para. [0083]) forming a lateral waveguide structure (Para. [0083]), and
a longitudinal waveguide structure [36 Fig. 7] (Para. [0081]), extending along a resonant cavity between a first [left side Fig. 7] and second side [right side Fig. 7] (Para. [0081]), connecting a plurality of segments [36A-36C] (Para. [0082])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the waveguide structures of Kato connecting the regions of the device of Takaki for the purpose of variable control of optical confinement in the device. (Kato Para. [0088])
Regarding claim 20, Takaki in view of Kato discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 19 above and further discloses in Takaki,
wherein lengths of the plurality of sub- gratings [29 Fig. 5A] are the same or different (Paras. [0062,0063])
Regarding claim 21, Takaki in view of Kato discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 19 above and further discloses in Takaki,
wherein lengths of the plurality of no- corrugation segments [30 Fig. 5A] are the same or different (Paras. [0062,0063]).
Regarding claim 24, Takaki in view of Kato discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 19 above and further discloses in Takaki,
wherein the plurality of sub-gratings [29 Fig. 5A] have the same period (Para. [0062]).
Regarding claim 25, Takaki in view of Kato discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 19 above and further discloses in Takaki Fig. 2,
further including a contact layer [19] (Para. [0045]) disposed between the positive electrode [22] (Para. [0046]) and the upper cladding layer [17] (Para. [0045]).
Regarding claim 26, Takaki in view of Kato discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 19 above and further discloses in Takaki Fig. 2,
wherein the electrode structure includes a positive electrode [22] (Para. [0046]) and a negative electrode [23] (Para. [0046]), the positive electrode [22] (Para. [0046]) and the negative electrode [23] (Para. [0046]) are disposed respectively to a third side [22 on top of device Fig. 2] (Para. [0046]) and a fourth side [23 on bottom of device Fig. 2] (Para. [0046]) of the cavity body (Para. [0046]), and the third side is opposite to the fourth side (Para. [0046]).
Regarding claim 31, Takaki in view of Kato discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 19 above and further discloses in Takaki Fig. 2,
wherein the gain layer [13] is a structure having multiple quantum wells or quantum dots (Para. [0041]).
Regarding claim 33, Takaki in view of Kato discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 19 above and further discloses,
wherein the longitudinal waveguide structure is extended in a longitudinal direction [see 36 Kato Fig. 7] (Kato Para. [0020]), and divided into a first section [left half section of 36 Kato Fig. 7] (Kato Para. [0050]) and a second section [right half section of 36 Kato Fig. 7] (Kato Para. [0050]), the first section includes the reflective facet [25 Takaki Fig. 5A] (Takaki Para. [0046]), one of the plurality of no- corrugation segments [left side 30 Takaki Fig. 5A] (Takaki Para. [0062]) and at least one of the plurality of sub-gratings [leftmost 29 Takaki Fig. 5A] (Takaki Para. [0062])], the second section [right half section of 36 Kato Fig. 7] includes at least one of the plurality of no-corrugation segments [right side 30 Takaki Fig. 5A (Takaki Para. [0062]), at least one of the plurality of sub- gratings [rightmost 29 Takaki Fig. 5A] (Takaki Para. [0062]) and the anti-reflective facet [24 Takaki Fig. 5A] (Takaki Para. [0050])
Paragraph [0050] of Kato shows the waveguide structure that can be seen as two separate sections with a length of L/2, therefore the two sections each comprising half of the length of the laser as shown in Fig. 7 of Kato.
When the waveguide structure of Kato is implemented into Takaki, the first section [left half section of 36 Kato Fig. 7] will include the reflective facet [25 Takaki Fig. 5A], a no-corrugation segment [left side 30 Takaki Fig. 5A] and the first sub-grating [leftmost 29 Takaki Fig. 5A]. Further, the second section [right half section of 36 Kato Fig. 7] will include another no-corrugation segment [right side 30 Takaki Fig. 5A] and the second sub-grating [rightmost 29 Takaki Fig. 5A] and the anti-reflective facet [24 Takaki Fig. 5A]
Regarding claim 35, Takaki in view of Kato discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 33 above and further discloses in Kato Fig. 7,
wherein a width of waveguide structure of the second section [w2 in right half section of 36] is greater than that of the first section [w1 in left half section of 36] (Para. [0088]).
Regarding claim 36, Takaki in view of Kato discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 33 above and further discloses in Kato Fig. 7,
wherein a width of the waveguide structure [36] of the second section [right half section of 36] (Para. [0088]) varies in the longitudinal direction [from w1 to w2] (Para. [0088]).
Regarding claim 37, Takaki in view of Kato discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 33 above and further discloses in Kato Fig. 7,
wherein the width of the waveguide structure [36] of the second section [right half section of 36] is increased in the longitudinal direction [increases from w1 to w2] (Para. [0088]).
Claims 3 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takaki in view of Kato as applied to claims 1 and 19 above, and further in view of Lu et al. (hereinafter Lu) (CN 113328339 B).
Examiner notes an attached machine translation will be used for the claim mapping of Lu for the remainder of the instant action. See PTO-892 form.
Regarding claim 3, Takaki in view of Kato discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
wherein the second sub-grating and the second side are connected with a passive waveguide.
Lu discloses in Fig. 2,
a grating section [14] (Para. [39]) connected to a side of a device through a passive waveguide [17] (Para. [44])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a passive waveguide connecting the grating to a second side of the modified device of Takaki as shown in Lu for the purpose of avoiding damage to the laser. (Lu Para. [44])
Regarding claim 23, Takaki in view of Kato discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
wherein one of the plurality of sub-gratings is connected to the second side with a passive waveguide segment.
Lu discloses in Fig. 2,
a grating section [14] (Para. [39]) connected to a side of a device through a passive waveguide [17] (Para. [44])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a passive waveguide connecting the grating to a second side of the modified device of Takaki as shown in Lu for the purpose of avoiding damage to the laser. (Lu Para. [44])
Claims 4 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takaki in view of Kato as applied to claims 1 and 19 above, and further in view of Mori et al. (hereinafter Mori) (US 20040001522 A1)
Regarding claim 4, Takaki in view of Kato discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Takaki Fig. 2,
the grating layer being parallel to the gain layer [13] (Paras. [0041,0062]).
Takaki in view of Kato fails to disclose,
a buffer layer disposed between the grating layer and the gain layer
Mori discloses in Fig. 15,
a buffer layer [117] (Para. [0306]) disposed between a grating layer [112] (Para. [0307]) and a gain layer [118] (Para. [0306])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the buffer layer between the grating and gain layers as shown in Mori in the modified device of Takaki for the purpose of protection of the active layer. (Mori Para. [0376])
Regarding claim 22, Takaki in view of Kato discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 19 above and further discloses in Takaki Fig. 2,
the grating layer being parallel to the gain layer [13] (Paras. [0041,0062]).
Takaki in view of Kato fails to disclose,
a buffer layer disposed between the grating layer and the gain layer
Mori discloses in Fig. 15,
a buffer layer [117] (Para. [0306]) disposed between a grating layer [112] (Para. [0307]) and a gain layer [118] (Para. [0306])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the buffer layer between the grating and gain layers as shown in Mori in the modified device of Takaki for the purpose of protection of the active layer. (Mori Para. [0376])
Claims 13 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takaki in view of Kota as applied to claims 1 and 19 above, and further in view of Rosiewicz et al. (hereinafter Rosiewicz) (US 20150043607 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Takaki in view of Kota discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
wherein the anti-reflective facet has a non- zero reflectivity.
Rosiewicz discloses in Fig. 1A,
an anti-reflective facet [130] (Para. [0034]) with a non-zero reflectivity (Para. [0034])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the non-zero reflectivity as disclosed in Rosiewicz in the anti-reflective facet of the modified device of Takaki for the purpose of allowing lasing with good stability and high yield. (Rosiewicz Para. [0034])
Regarding claim 32, Takaki in view of Kota discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 19 above but fails to disclose,
wherein the anti-reflective facet has a non- zero reflectivity.
Rosiewicz discloses in Fig. 1A,
an anti-reflective facet [130] (Para. [0034]) with a non-zero reflectivity (Para. [0034])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the non-zero reflectivity as disclosed in Rosiewicz in the anti-reflective facet of the modified device of Takaki for the purpose of allowing lasing with good stability and high yield. (Rosiewicz Para. [0034])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Examiner particularly notes (US 8457172 B2) which discloses a grating structure with a plurality of grating segments and no-corrugation segments.
Examiner further notes (US 7653093 B2) which discloses a plurality of grating sections and no-corrugation segments with a passive waveguide structure. See PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNTER J NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5318. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:30am-5:00 ET.
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.
/H.J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2828 /MINSUN O HARVEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights