DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 through 20 originally filed 26 December 2023. Claims 1 through 20 are addressed by this 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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4).
The description uses the reference characters "8" to refer to more than one part each. The same reference character must never be used to designate different parts.
In the present case, these reference characters or similar numbers appear in the following locations: "8" is mentioned in ¶24 and ¶40.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5).
The description includes the reference characters "L2" and "W3" which do not appear in the drawings. Reference characters mentioned in the description must appear in the drawings.
In the present case, these reference characters or similar numbers appear in the following locations: "L2" is mentioned in ¶31 and ¶48 and "W3" is mentioned in ¶51.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1 through 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura (US Pub. 2011/0134955), in view of Kitoh et al. (Kitoh, US Patent 6,104,738), and further in view of Takaki et al. (Takaki, US Pub. 2004/0042516).
Kitamura and Takaki were initially cited in the IDS received 26 December 2023.
Regarding claim 1, Kitamura discloses, "A substrate" (p. [0079] and Fig. 2, pt. 2). "An active layer formed in or under a mesa structure formed on the substrate" (p. [0079], [0098], and Fig. 2, pts. 2, 7, and 18). "A cladding layer formed above the active layer formed in the mesa structure" (p. [0097] and Fig. 2, pts. 7, 16, and 18). "The diffraction grating layer including a plurality of first refractive index regions and a plurality of second refractive index regions" (p. [0059] and Fig. 1, pt. 1). "A low-reflection facet coating film provided on both facets in a direction in which the mesa structure extends" (p. [0085] and Fig. 1, pt. 5). "Wherein the mesa structure includes, in plan view, a first region… and a second region" (p. [0059] and Fig. 1, pts. 9 and 10). "[The first region] having a first width" (p. [0059] and Fig. 4, pt. 9). "Wherein the first region includes a first diffraction grating region in which the plurality of first refractive index regions and the plurality of second refractive index regions for use in reflecting a light beam having a Bragg wavelength are alternately arranged" (p. [0059] and Fig. 1, pt. 9). "Wherein the second region includes a second diffraction grating region in which the plurality of first refractive index regions and the plurality of second refractive index regions are alternately arranged" (p. [0059] and Fig. 1, pt. 10). "A non-diffraction grating region which transmits the light beam having the Bragg wavelength" (p. [0059] and Fig. 1, pt. 8). "Wherein the first diffraction grating region and the second diffraction grating region form a resonator" (p. [0078] and Fig. 1). Kitamura does not explicitly disclose, "[The second region] having a second width that is wider than the first width." Kitoh discloses, "[The second region] having a second width that is wider than the first width" (col. 2, lines 48-54 and Fig. 2C, pts. W1 and W2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kitamura with the teachings of Kitoh. In view of the teachings of Kitamura regarding a DFB laser that includes different grating sections for providing different degrees of feedback, the additional inclusion of regions of different width as taught by Kitoh would enhance the teachings of Kitamura by allowing the different regions to additionally provide either increased gain or improved mode selectivity.
The combination of Kitamura and Kitoh does not explicitly disclose, "A diffraction grating layer formed in the cladding layer." "Wherein the first region has a normalized coupling coefficient that is larger than a normalized coupling coefficient of the second region." Takaki discloses, "A diffraction grating layer formed in the cladding layer" (p. [0073] and Fig. 9, pts. 17 and 31). "Wherein the first region has a normalized coupling coefficient that is larger than a normalized coupling coefficient of the second region" (p. [0074] and Fig. 9, pts. 30A and 30B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Kitamura and Kitoh with the teachings of Takaki. In view of the teachings of Kitamura regarding a DFB laser that includes different grating sections for providing different degrees of feedback, the alternate construction of the grating in the upper cladding layer as well as the alternate arrangement of the gratings such that one region has a greater normalized coupling coefficient as taught by Takaki would enhance the teachings of Kitamura and Kitoh by providing a suitably alternate manner of locating the grating as well as providing a suitably alternate degree of coupling in each region.
Regarding claim 2, Kitamura does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the first width is equal to or smaller than a cut-off width with respect to the light beam having the Bragg wavelength." Kitoh discloses, "Wherein the first width is equal to or smaller than a cut-off width with respect to the light beam having the Bragg wavelength" (col. 8, lines 61-3 and Fig. 2C, pt. W1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kitamura with the teachings of Kitoh for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Kitamura does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the second width is equal to or larger than the cut-off width with respect to the light beam having the Bragg wavelength." Kitoh discloses, "Wherein the second width is equal to or larger than the cut-off width with respect to the light beam having the Bragg wavelength" (col. 8, lines 61-3 and Fig. 2C, pt. W2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kitamura with the teachings of Kitoh for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Kitamura does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the second width is equal to or larger than 1.2 times the first width." Kitoh discloses, "Wherein the second width is equal to or larger than 1.2 times the first width" (col. 10, lines 20-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kitamura with the teachings of Kitoh for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Kitamura does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the first width is equal to or smaller than 1.5 times the Bragg wavelength." Kitoh discloses, "Wherein the first width is equal to or smaller than 1.5 times the Bragg wavelength" (col. 8, lines 61-3 and Fig. 2C, pt. W1, where effect recited in Kitoh corresponds to use of the claimed value). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kitamura with the teachings of Kitoh for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, The combination of Kitamura and Kitoh does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the normalized coupling coefficient of the first region is equal to or larger than 60% of a normalized coupling coefficient of the entire semiconductor laser." Takaki discloses, "Wherein the normalized coupling coefficient of the first region is equal to or larger than 60% of a normalized coupling coefficient of the entire semiconductor laser" (p. [0074] and Fig. 9, pts. 30A and 30B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Kitamura and Kitoh with the teachings of Takaki for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, The combination of Kitamura, Kitoh, and Takaki does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the normalized coupling coefficient of the first region is equal to or smaller than 80% of a normalized coupling coefficient of the entire semiconductor laser." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the gratings within the device in a manner that the normalized coupling coefficient falls within the noted range so as to produce a desired degree of coupling in each region, 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.
Regarding claim 8, Kitamura discloses, "Wherein the first diffraction grating region has a length in the direction in which the mesa structure extends that is equal to or smaller than 40% of a length of the entire diffraction grating layer" (p. [0082] and Fig. 1, pt. 9).
Regarding claim 9, Kitamura discloses, "Wherein the second diffraction grating region comprises a plurality of second diffraction grating regions" (p. [0059] and Fig. 1, pt. 10). "The non-diffraction grating region comprises a plurality of non-diffraction grating regions" (p. [0059] and Fig. 1, pt. 8).
Regarding claim 10, Kitamura discloses, "Wherein the plurality of second diffraction grating regions and the plurality of non-diffraction grating regions have different lengths in the direction in which the mesa structure extends" (p. [0081] and Fig. 1, pts. 8 and 10, where the absolute length of the no grating regions is different from the absolute length of the grating regions to account for the differing refractive index).
Regarding claim 11, Kitamura discloses, "Wherein the number of second diffraction grating regions and the number of non-diffraction grating regions are each one" (p. [0081] and Fig. 1, pts. 8 and 10, where the second region may be designated to include only one set of grating and no grating regions).
Regarding claim 12, Kitamura does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the mesa structure further includes a third region between the first region and the second region." "Wherein the third region has a mesa width that changes from the first width to the second width." Kitoh discloses, "Wherein the mesa structure further includes a third region between the first region and the second region" (col. 7, lines 45-53 and Fig. 2C, pt. Region B). "Wherein the third region has a mesa width that changes from the first width to the second width" (col. 7, lines 45-53 and Fig. 2C, pt. Region B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kitamura with the teachings of Kitoh for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Kitamura discloses, "Wherein the first region includes a non-diffraction grating region on the second region side" (p. [0059] and Fig. 4, pt. 9, where the first region may be logically extended to include a portion of the no grating region to which it is adjacent).
Regarding claim 15, Kitamura discloses, "An electrode for use in applying a voltage to the active layer" (p. [0098] and Fig. 2, pt. 19). "Wherein the electrode is integrally arranged across the first region and the second region" (p. [0098] and Fig. 3, pt. 19).
Regarding claim 17, Kitamura discloses, "A through hole for use in injecting currents to the active layer" (p. [0098] and Fig. 2, pts. 19 and 20).
Regarding claim 18, Kitamura discloses, "Wherein the through hole is arranged across the first region and the second region" (p. [0098] and Fig. 3, pts. 19 and 20).
Regarding claim 20, The combination of Kitamura, Kitoh, and Takaki does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein in the first region, the through hole is arranged in a region of 20% or more and 50% or less of the entire first region in plan view." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the coverage of the through holes for the electrodes so as to ensure that the various electrodes exhibit both sufficient coverage for good connection as well as sufficient spacing between the elements, 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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura, in view of Kitoh, in view of Takaki, and further in view of Welch et al. (Welch, US Patent 5,539,571).
Regarding claim 13, The combination of Kitamura, Kitoh, and Takaki does not explicitly disclose, "A spot size conversion part." "Wherein the spot size conversion part is in contact with the second region." "Wherein the spot size conversion part is prevented from including the first diffraction grating region and the second diffraction grating region." "Wherein the mesa structure of the spot size conversion part has a width that is gradually decreased from the second width." Welch discloses, "A spot size conversion part" (col. 13, lines 53-63 and Fig. 25, pts. 179 and 181, where the widened portion of the resonator of Kitoh corresponds in waveguide function to the amplifier region 179 of Welch such that tapered region 181 is positioned opposite the narrow region of Kitoh). "Wherein the spot size conversion part is in contact with the second region" (col. 13, lines 53-63 and Fig. 25, pts. 179 and 181, where the widened portion of the resonator of Kitoh corresponds in waveguide function to the amplifier region 179 of Welch such that tapered region 181 is positioned opposite the narrow region of Kitoh). "Wherein the spot size conversion part is prevented from including the first diffraction grating region and the second diffraction grating region" (col. 13, lines 53-63 and Fig. 25, pts. 179 and 181, where the widened portion of the resonator of Kitoh corresponds in waveguide function to the amplifier region 179 of Welch such that tapered region 181 is positioned opposite the narrow region of Kitoh). "Wherein the mesa structure of the spot size conversion part has a width that is gradually decreased from the second width" (col. 13, lines 53-63 and Fig. 25, pts. 179 and 181, where the widened portion of the resonator of Kitoh corresponds in waveguide function to the amplifier region 179 of Welch such that tapered region 181 is positioned opposite the narrow region of Kitoh). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Kitamura, Kitoh, and Takaki with the teachings of Welch. In view of the teachings of Kitamura regarding a DFB laser that includes different grating sections for providing different degrees of feedback, the additional inclusion of a converging taper at the output region as taught by Welch would enhance the teachings of Kitamura, Kitoh, and Takaki by allowing for good coupling between the laser waveguide and subsequent elements.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura, in view of Kitoh, in view of Takaki, and further in view of Sysak et al. (Sysak, US Pub. 2016/0380407).
Regarding claim 16, The combination of Kitamura, Kitoh, and Takaki does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the first region includes a λ/4 phase shift portion at a leading end of the first diffraction grating region on the second region side." Sysak discloses, "Wherein the first region includes a λ/4 phase shift portion at a leading end of the first diffraction grating region on the second region side" (p. [0033], [0047], [0067], and Fig. 2B, pts. 215 and 240). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Kitamura, Kitoh, and Takaki with the teachings of Sysak. In view of the teachings of Kitamura regarding a DFB laser that includes different grating sections for providing different degrees of feedback, the alternate positioning of the phase shift at the boundary of one of the grating regions as taught by Sysak would enhance the teachings of Kitamura, Kitoh, and Takaki by providing a suitable location for the phase shift in a laser device that includes both variable width regions as well as variable coupling regions.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura, in view of Kitoh, in view of Takaki, and further in view of Davies et al. (Davies, US Pub. 2015/0288140).
Regarding claim 19, The combination of Kitamura, Kitoh, and Takaki does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the through hole is discretely arranged in the first region." Davies discloses, "Wherein the through hole is discretely arranged in the first region" (p. [0056] and Fig. 2A, pts. 208A, 208An+1, and 210). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Kitamura, Kitoh, and Takaki with the teachings of Davies. In view of the teachings of Kitamura regarding a DFB laser that includes different grating sections for providing different degrees of feedback, the alternate construction of the continuous grating region to include multiple electrodes over that grating region as taught by Davies would enhance the teachings of Kitamura, Kitoh, and Takaki by allowing the continuous grating region to have a wide bandwidth of reflection that is tunable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takabayashi (US Pub. 2006/0209911) is cited for teaching a device in which multiple electrodes are provided atop the device and separated by a passivation layer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean P Hagan whose telephone number is (571)270-1242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, 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.
/SEAN P HAGAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights