DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being anticipated by US 2022/0360048 (Yokokawa).
For claim 1, Yokokawa teaches a semiconductor laser device (fig. 1-2) comprising:
a laser region (fig. 1-2, 12; [0033]) including an active layer and configured to generate light (fig. 2, 16; [0033] and [0036]);
an amplification region (fig. 1-2, 14) including the active layer (fig. 2, 16) and configured to amplify the light ([0049]), the amplification region being adjacent to the laser region (fig. 1 and 2, 14 adjacent 12); and
an electrode provided to extend over the laser region and the amplification region (fig. 2, 42).
For claim 2, Yokokawa teaches
the laser region and the amplification region include a first cladding (fig. 2, 20; [0038]) layer and a second cladding layer (fig. 2, 22; [0039]),
wherein the first cladding layer, the active layer, and the second cladding layer are stacked sequentially (fig. 2) and form a mesa in the laser region and the amplification region (fig. 1, and 3, 10, [0039]), and
wherein a width of the mesa in the amplification region is larger than or equal to a width of the mesa in the laser region (fig. 1, the width of the amplification mesa and the width of the ridge of the laser region are the equal at where the amplification region and laser region adjoin).
For claim 3, Yokokawa teaches
the amplification region includes a first amplification region and a second amplification region (the amplification region 14 in fig. 1 and 2 may be arbitrarily divided into a “first amplification region” adjacent the laser region and a “second amplification region” separated from the laser region by the first amplification region),
wherein the laser region and the first amplification region are adjacent to each other, wherein the first amplification region and the second amplification region are adjacent to each other (as described above, the amplification region may be divided into first and second amplification regions as claimed), and
wherein the electrode is provided in the laser region, the first amplification region, and the second amplification region (2, electrode 42 is in laser region 12 and amplification region 14 subdivided into first and second amplification regions).
For claim 8, Yokokawa teaches a method of controlling a semiconductor laser device (fig. 1 and 2), the semiconductor laser device including
a laser region (fig. 1-2, 12; [0033]) including an active layer and configured to generate light (fig. 2, 16),
an amplification region (fig. 1-2, 14) including the active layer (fig. 2, 16) and configured to amplify the light ([0049]), the amplification region being adjacent to the laser region (fig. 1 and 2, 14 adjacent 12), and
an electrode provided to extend over the laser region and the amplification region (fig. 2, 42),
the method comprising: applying an identical voltage to the laser region and the amplification region by using the electrode ([0042; using the same top and bottom electrode 40/42 applies and identical voltage).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0360048 (Yokokawa) in view of US 5,228,049 (Paoli).
For claim 4, Yokokawa does not teach a width of the mesa in the second amplification region is larger than or equal to a width of the mesa in the first amplification region, and wherein the width of the mesa in the first amplification region is larger than or equal to a width of the mesa in the laser region.
However, Paoli teaches a similar device with a mesa in the laser region (fig. 2 and 5, 36) and an amplification region with a first amplification region (fig. 2 and 5, left half of 10’) and a second amplification region (fig. 2 and 5, right half of 10’) where a width of the mesa in the second amplification region (fig. 2 and 5, width Wi at right end of second amplification region; col. 4, l. 42-45) is larger than or equal to a width of the mesa in the first amplification region (fig. 2 and 5, width Wi at right end of first amplification region; col. 4, l. 42-45), and wherein the width of the mesa in the first amplification region is larger than or equal to a width of the mesa in the laser region (col. 4, l. 39-41) in order to match the shape of the waveguide to the emitted radiation (col. 4, l.43-45) and allow for collimation of the output beam (col. 6, l. 55-57).
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 widths of Paoli the invention of Yokokawa in order to match the shape of the waveguide to the emitted radiation and allow for collimation of the output beam.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0360048 (Yokokawa).
For claim 5, the size of the first amplification region may be arbitrarily chosen such that a length of the second amplification region is larger than or equal to a length of the first amplification region, and wherein the length of the laser region is larger than or equal to the length of the first amplification region. Yokokawa does not teach the second amplification region length is larger than or equal to the laser region length.
However, the examiner takes official notice that amplifier length was well-known in the art as a known results effective variable increasing gain with length. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to increase the overall length of the amplification region such that the second amplification region length is larger than or equal to the laser region length in order to achieve a desired gain in the amplifier, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0360048 (Yokokawa) in view of US 2022/0271506 (Sugiyama).
For claim 6, Yokokawa teaches an optical apparatus (fig. 1 and 2) comprising:
a semiconductor laser device (fig. 1 and 2);
wherein the semiconductor laser device includes
a laser region (fig. 1-2, 12; [0033]) including an active layer and configured to generate light (fig. 2, 16; [0033] and [0036]),
an amplification region (fig. 1-2, 14) including the active layer (fig. 2, 16) and configured to amplify the light ([0049]), the amplification region being adjacent to the laser region (fig. 1 and 2, 14 adjacent 12), and
an electrode provided to extend over the laser region and the amplification region (fig. 2, 42).
Yokokawa does not teach a feeder configured to be used to apply a voltage to the semiconductor laser device, and wherein the feeder is electrically connected to the electrode.
However, Sugiyama teaches an optical apparatus (fig. 7) with a feeder (fig. 7, 11) configured to be used to apply a voltage to the semiconductor laser device (fig. 7, 2), and wherein the feeder is electrically connected to the electrode ([0055]) in order to reliably achieve electrical connections and provide injection current ([0055]).
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 feeder of Sugiyama with the invention of Yokokawa in order to reliably achieve electrical connections and provide injection current.
For claim 7, Sugiyama further teaches a plurality of wires electrically connected to the feeder and the electrode, wherein the plurality of wires are connected across the electrode ensuring reliable connections (fig. 7, W2) The combination does not explicitly teach at least one of the plurality of wires is connected to a portion of the electrode, the portion being provided in the laser region, and wherein at least another one of the plurality of wires is connected to a portion of the electrode, the portion being provided in the amplification region. However, the exact location is not critical in the combination and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to connect at least one wire in the laser region and at least one wire in the amplification region, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael W Carter whose telephone number is (571)270-1872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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.
/Michael Carter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights