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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the amendment to claim 18.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 4, shown in Fig. 6, in the reply filed on 06/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8,10,11,13 and 17-29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/29/2026.
Examiner notes that claim 10 includes the limitations of “wherein lengths of the one or more second portions in the direction in which the diffraction grating layer extends differ from one another”. This limitation is not shown in the elected species 4 shown in Fig. 6. This limitation is shown in Fig. 5 and paragraph [0035] of the specification of the claimed application. Therefore, claim 10 reads on a non-elected species and is understood as being withdrawn.
Examiner notes claim 11 includes the limitations of “wherein one of the one or more first portions of the second region is arranged in contact with the phase shift portion.” The species shown in Fig. 6 only discloses a second portion of a second region in contact with the phase shift portion. Claim 11 reads on the species shown in Fig. 11 and disclosed in paragraph [0044] of the specification of the claimed application. Therefore, claim 11 reads on a non-elected species and is understood as being withdrawn.
Examiner notes claim 13 includes the limitations of “wherein the one or more second portions are each formed such that, in a plan view, an interface between the first refractive index region and the second refractive index region is inclined with respect to the direction in which the diffraction grating layer extends.” The species shown in Fig. 6 does not includes an inclined refractive index region. Claim 13 reads on the species shown in Fig. 8 and disclosed in paragraph [0038] of the specification of the claimed application. Therefore, claim 13 reads on a non-elected species and is understood as being withdrawn.
Examiner notes claim 17 includes the limitations of “wherein the through- hole is discretely arranged in the first region.” The species shown in Fig. 6 does not include the discretely (separately) arranged through holes in the first region. Claim 17 reads on the species shown in Fig. 10 and disclosed in paragraph [0043] of the specification of the claimed application. Therefore, claim 17 reads on a non-elected species and is understood as being withdrawn.
Examiner notes claim 18 includes the limitations of “wherein the through-hole is arranged in the first region in a region that is 50% or less and 20% or more of an entire first region in a plan view.” Claim 18 reads on the species shown in Fig. 10 and disclosed in paragraph [0043] of the specification of the claimed application. Therefore, claim 17 reads on a non-elected species and is
understood as being withdrawn.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 “close” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” 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.
Claim 6 includes the limitations of “close to the second end portion” and “close to the first end portion”. These limitations are in reference to a location of a front facet and a back facet. The claims nor the specification disclose what distance of the front and back facets must be to the first and second end portions in order to meet the limitations of the claim.
For the purposes of examination of the instant application, the term “close to the first end portion” and “close to the second end portion” will be understood as being on the same half of the device and the respective first or second end portion.
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.
Claims 1,2,4,6,7,12,15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green (US 20220263286 A1) in view of Akiba et al. (hereinafter Akiba) (US 4701930 A).
Regarding claim 1, Green discloses in Fig. 7,
A semiconductor laser [100] (Para. [0060]), comprising:
a substrate [101 Fig. 3] (Para. [0052]);
an active layer [102] (Para. [0053]) formed above the substrate (See Fig. 3);
a diffraction grating layer [122,124] (Para. [0060]) which includes a λ/4 phase shift portion (Para. [0067]), and includes a first region [122] (Para. [0060]) between a first end portion [portion next to 114] (Para. [0060]) and the λ/4 phase shift portion [QWS in 124] (Para. [0067]) and a second region [124] (Para. [0060]) between a second end portion [portion next to 112] (Para. [0060]) on a side opposite to the first end portion [114] (Para. [0060])
wherein the first region [122] has a diffraction pattern arranged therein (Para. [0060]), the diffraction pattern being formed to reflect a light beam having a Bragg wavelength (Para. [0055]) and having a first refractive index region [grating corrugation] (Para. [0060]) and a second refractive index region [uncorrugated region between corrugations] (Para. [0060]) alternately arranged therein (see Fig. 11 for example),
wherein the second region [124] is provided with one or more first portions [130] (Para. [0060]) including the diffraction pattern to reflect the light beam having the Bragg wavelength in the first region [122] (Paras. [0055,0056,0060]) and one or more second portions [138] that transmit the light beam having the Bragg wavelength in the first region [122] (Paras. [0018,0060]),
wherein the one or more second portions [138] are formed of the first refractive index region and the second refractive index region (Para. [0060]), and
wherein a total length of the one or more first portions [130] in a direction in which the diffraction grating layer extends [110] is shorter than a length of the first region [122] (see Fig. 7) (Para. [0060]).
Green fails to disclose,
the second region between a second end portion on a side opposite to the first end portion and the λ/4 phase shift portion; and
a first electrode and a second electrode that are each common to the first region and the second region,
Akiba discloses in Fig. 2,
a λ/4 phase shift portion (Col. 1, lines 6-11) between a first region [first region] and second region [second region] (Col. 2, lines 33-37) and,
a first electrode [12] (Col. 1, line 68) and a second electrode [11] (Col. 1, line 67) that are each common to the first region and the second region (See Fig. 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed application to implement the quarter wavelength phase shift between the two regions and the first and second electrode common to both regions as shown in Akiba in the device of Green for the purpose of controlling the locations of the shift in intensity of reflections of the device and for controlling the effect of laser oscillations with the electrodes. (Akiba Col. 2, lines 33-43 and Claim 1)
Regarding claim 2, Green in view of Akiba discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Green Fig. 7,
wherein the first region [122] has a uniform diffraction grating structure (Paras. [0056,0060]) in which the first refractive index region and the second refractive index region are alternately arranged in the direction in which the diffraction grating layer extends (see Fig. 11 for example) (Para. [0060]),
wherein the one or more first portions [130] (Para. [0060])of the second region [124] are each formed by alternately arranging the first refractive index region and the second refractive index region that have the same length as a length of the first refractive index region and the second refractive index region in the first region [122] (Paras. [0060,0067]) such that a phase shifts by π from a phase of a diffraction grating in the first region (Paras. [0056,0067]), and
wherein the one or more second portions [138] of the second region [124] are each formed by alternately arranging the first refractive index region and the second refractive index region (see Fig. 11 for example) (Para. [0060]) such that one of a front end or a back end of the first refractive index region is located at a position different from a periodic position of the one of the front end or the back end of the first refractive index region in the one or more first portions [138 directly next to 130 Fig. 7] (Para. [0060]).
Regarding claim 4, Green in view of Akiba discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Green Fig. 7,
wherein a normalized coupling coefficient of the first region [122] is larger than a normalized coupling coefficient of the second region [124] (Para. [0058]).
Regarding claim 6, Green in view of Akiba discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Green Fig. 7,
further comprising:
a front facet [112] (Para. [0060])close to the second end portion; and
a back facet [114] (Para. [0055]) close to the first end portion,
wherein each of the front facet [112] and the back facet [114] has a low-reflection facet coating film formed thereon (Para. [0055]).
Regarding claim 7, Green in view of Akiba discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Green Fig. 7,
wherein the length of the first region [122] in the direction in which the diffraction grating layer extends is shorter than a length of the second region [124].
Regarding claim 12, Green in view of Akiba discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Green Fig. 7,
wherein the one or more first portions [130] each include a plurality of the first refractive index regions [grating corrugation] (Para. [0060]) and a plurality of the second refractive index regions [uncorrugated regions] (Para. [0060]).
Regarding claim 15, Green in view of Akiba discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
further comprising a through-hole for injecting a current into the active layer.
Akiba discloses in Fig. 2,
a passivation film [10] (Col. 1, lines 67,68) with a through-hole for injecting a current into an active layer [3] (Col. 1, line 58),
the through hole arranged over a first region, a second region, and a phase shift portion (see Fig. 2)
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 passivation film with a through hole opening as shown in Akiba in the device of Green for the purpose of selectively allowing current flow from the electrode.
Regarding claim 16, Green in view of Akiba discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 15 above and further discloses,
wherein the through- hole is arranged over the first region [Green 122], the phase shift portion [Akiba Fig. 2], and the second region [Green 124] (see Akiba Fig. 2).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green in view of Akiba as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al. (hereinafter Suzuki) (US 20190165544 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Green in view of Akiba discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
wherein a difference between an average refractive index between the first end portion and the λ/4 phase shift portion and an average refractive index between the second end portion and the λ/4 phase shift portion is within 0.5%.
Suzuki discloses,
an effective refractive index of a first region equal to the effective refractive index of a second region (Para. [0101])
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 equivalent effective refractive indices of a first and second region as shown in Suzuki in the modified device of Green for the purpose of controlling the phase shift amount more precisely. (Suzuki Para. [0101])
Claims 5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green in view of Akiba as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakamura et al. (hereinafter Nakamura) (US 20210234333 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Green in view of Akiba discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
wherein an area ratio between the first refractive index region and the second refractive index region in the first region is substantially the same as an area ratio between the first refractive index region and the second refractive index region in each of the one or more first portions and the one or more second portions.
Nakamura discloses in Fig. 1,
wherein an area ratio between a first refractive index region and a second refractive index region [grating structure Fig. 1] (Para. [0031]) in a first region [10] (Para. [0025]) is substantially the same as an area ratio between the first refractive index region and the second refractive index region in each of a one or more first portions and a one or more second portions (Para. [0031]).
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 equivalent area ratios of the regions of the grating structure as shown in Nakamura for the purpose of having a desired amount of reflection and transmission in the device. (Nakamura Para. [0031])
Regarding claim 20, Green in view of Akiba and Nakamura discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 5 above and further discloses in Nakamura,
wherein a difference between the area ratio between the first refractive index region and the second refractive index region in the first region and the area ratio between the first refractive index region and the second refractive index region in each of the one or more first portions and the one or more second portions is within 20% (Para. [0031]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green in view of Akiba as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kato (US 20090225796 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Green in view of Akiba discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose
wherein lengths of the one or more first portions in the direction in which the diffraction grating layer extends differ from one another.
Kato discloses in Fig. 1A,
a grating portion [5a] with first portions [5b] and second portions [5c] (Para. [0060]) where lengths of first portions different in an extending direction (Para. [0060])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed application to implement the differing lengths of the grating portions as shown in Kato with the grating portions of the modified device of Green for the purpose of modulating the coupling coefficient. (Kato Para. [0059])
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green in view of Akiba as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aoyanagi et al. (hereinafter Aoyanagi) (JP 2003051640 A).
Regarding claim 14, Green in view of Akiba discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Green Fig. 7,
further comprising a cladding layer [106] (Para. [0053]) above the active layer [102] (Para. [0053])
the modified device of Green fails to disclose,
wherein the first refractive index region of the diffraction grating layer is a layer having a refractive index higher than a refractive index of the cladding layer, and
wherein the second refractive index region of the diffraction grating layer has the same refractive index as the refractive index of the cladding layer.
Aoyanagi discloses in Fig. 1,
wherein a first refractive index region [20a] (Para. [26]) of a diffraction grating layer [20] (Para. [26]) is a layer having a refractive index higher than a refractive index of a cladding layer [22] (Para. [26]), and
wherein a second refractive index region [20b] (Para. [26]) of the diffraction grating layer [20] has the same refractive index as the refractive index of the cladding layer [22] (Para. [27]).
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 grating layer structure buried by the cladding layer material as shown in Aoyanagi in the modified device of Green for the purpose of having an embedded grating structure with the desired refractive index differences buried by the upper cladding layer. (Aoyanagi Para. [27])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Examiner notes (US 20220216673 A1) which discloses a plurality of grating portions with different lengths. 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
/TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights