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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 2, shown in Fig. 4 in the reply filed on 06/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 5,8,12 and 13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 5 includes the limitations of “wherein the second region includes a plurality of regions in each of which the π-shift region, the secondary λ/4 shift portion, the in-phase region, and the secondary λ/4 shift portion are arranged in the stated order,
wherein lengths of the π-shift regions are the same, and
wherein lengths of the in-phase regions are the same.” This limitation is not shown in the elected species 2 shown in Fig. 4. Therefore, claim 5 does not read on the elected species and is understood as being withdrawn.
Examiner notes that claim 8 includes the limitations of “wherein the first end portion and the back facet include a window structure therebetween, and wherein the second end portion and the front facet include a window structure therebetween.” This limitation is not shown in the elected species 2 shown in Fig. 4. This limitation is shown in Fig. 7 and disclosed in paragraphs [0033-0036] of the specification of the claimed application. Therefore, claim 8 reads on a non-elected species and is understood as being withdrawn.
Examiner notes claim 12 includes the limitations of “wherein the through- hole is discretely arranged in the first region.” The species shown in Fig. 4 does not include the discretely (separately) arranged through holes in the first region. Claim 12 reads on the species shown in Fig. 8 and disclosed in paragraphs [0037-0039] of the specification of the claimed application. Therefore, claim 12 reads on a non-elected species and is understood as being withdrawn.
Examiner notes claim 13 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 [[the ]]an entire first region in a plan view.” Claim 13 reads on the species shown in Fig. 8 and disclosed in paragraph [0040] of the specification of the claimed application. Therefore, claim 13 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.
Claims 1-4,6,7 and 9-11 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 reflectance” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high reflectance” 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 claims nor the specification disclose what scope of reflectance or reflectivity values are considered “high reflectance” the limitations of claim 1 are unclear. For the purposes of examination of the instant application, the term “high reflectance” in regard to the first region will be understood to mean a reflectance that is higher than the second region.
Claims 2-4,6,7 and 9-11 are rejected at least on their dependency to indefinite claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 includes the limitation of “wherein the second region includes a plurality of regions in each of which the π-shift region, the secondary λ/4 shift portion, the in-phase region, and the secondary λ/4 shift portion are arranged in the stated order,”. Examiner notes the inclusion of the same term “the secondary λ/4 shift portion” at differing positions in the stated order causes confusion on if the claim is limiting a single secondary λ/4 shift portion in two different spots of a desired order or if the claim is actually limiting a second “secondary λ/4 shift portion” that is different than the initially stated secondary λ/4 shift portion.
For the purposes of examination of the instant application, claim 6 will be understood to be limiting two separate λ/4 shift portions in a desired order.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 incudes the limitations of “wherein the first end portion and the back facet are located at substantially the same position, and
wherein the second end portion and the front facet are located at substantially the same position.”
The term substantially the same position is not clearly defined by the claims or the specification. Therefore, there is no clear limitation of what positions of the first and second end portions can be and still meet the limitations of the claim. For the purposes of examination of the instant application, the first and second end portions will be understood as having the same positions as the back and front facets (respectively).
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.
Claims 1-4,7,10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura (US 20110134955 A1) in view of Suzuki et al. (hereinafter Suzuki) (US 20190165544 A1) and Gotoda et al. (hereinafter Gotoda) (US 20160149379 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kitamura discloses in Fig. 1,
A semiconductor laser (Para. [0059]), comprising:
a substrate [2 Fig. 2] (Para. [0079]);
an active layer [7] (Para. [0078]) formed above the substrate [2] (Para. [0078]);
a diffraction grating layer [1] (Para. [0059]) that includes a primary λ/4 phase shift portion [4] (Para. [0079]) , and includes a first region [9] (Para. [0059]) between a first end portion [end portion next to device rear side] and the primary λ/4 phase shift portion [4] (Para. [0059]) and a second region [10] (Para. [0060]) between a second end portion [end portion next to device front side] on a side opposite to the first end portion [device rear side] and the primary λ/4 phase shift portion [4] (Paras. [0059,0060]);
a first electrode (Para. [00078], also see Fig. 3) below the substrate [2] in common to the first region [9] and the second region [10] (Para. [0078]); and
a second electrode [19 Fig. 3] (Para. [0098]) above the diffraction grating layer [1] in common to the first region [9] and the second region [10] (Fig. 3),
wherein the first region [9] has a diffraction pattern [1] arranged therein (Para. [0059]), the diffraction pattern [1] having a high reflectance with respect to a light beam having a Bragg wavelength (Para. [0087]),
wherein the second region [10] includes:
an in-phase region [1 in 10] (Para. [0059]) having the same phase as the phase of the first region [9] (Para. [0059]), and
wherein each of a front facet [device front side Fig. 1] close to the second end portion [end portion next to device front side] and a back facet [device rear side] close to the first end portion [end portion next to device rear side] has a low-reflection facet coating film [5] (Para. [0085]) formed thereon.
Kitamura fails to disclose,
a region in which a π-shift region with a phase shifting by π from a phase of the first region, a secondary λ/4 shift portion, the secondary λ/4 shift portion are arranged toward the second end portion in a stated order; and
the π-shift region arranged on the second end portion side of the region,
wherein a total length of the π-shift region is longer than a total length of the in- phase region in a direction in which the diffraction grating layer extends,
wherein a length of the first region is larger than a difference between the total length of the π-shift region and the total length of the in-phase region in the direction in which the diffraction grating layer extends
Suzuki discloses in Fig. 1,
a region in which a π-shift region [105a] (Para. [0034]) with a phase shifting by π from a phase of the first region (Para. [0033]),
the π-shift region [105a] arranged on the second end portion side of the region [left side of region shown in Fig. 1] (Para. [0033]),
wherein a total length of the π-shift region [105a] (Para. [0033]) is longer than a total length of an in- phase region in a direction in which the diffraction grating layer extends (Paras. [0033,0084]),
wherein a length of a first region [120] is larger than a difference between the total length of the π-shift region [105a] and the total length of the in-phase region in the direction in which the diffraction grating layer extends (Paras. [0033,0084])
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 π phase shift region with a length larger than a length of an in-phase region as shown in Suzuki in the device of Kitamura for the purpose of having the emission mode occurring in a central stopband and improving single-mode characteristics. (Suzuki Paras. [0061,0064])
Kitamura in view of Suzuki fails to disclose,
A secondary λ/4 shift portion, the π-shift region, the secondary λ/4 shift portion and the in-phase region arranged are arranged toward the second end portion in a stated order; and
Gotoda discloses in Fig. 1,
a plurality of λ/4 shift portions [6] (Para. 0061]) arranged between respective regions [51,52] (para. [0061])
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 plurality of λ/4 phase shift portions as shown in Gotoda in the modified device of Kitamura for the purpose of being less affected by reflected return light. (Gotoda Para. [0061])
Regarding claim 2, Kitamura in view of Suzuki and Gotoda discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses,
wherein the first region [Kitamura 9 Fig. 1] is formed by alternately arranging a first refractive index region and a second refractive index region (Para. [0008]) that have the same length in the direction in which the diffraction grating layer extends (see Kitamura Fig. 4),
wherein the π-shift region [Suzuki 105a Fig. 1] in the second region [Kitamura 10 Fig. 1] is formed by alternately arranging the first refractive index region and the second refractive index region (Suzuki Para. [0051])that have the same length as a length of the first refractive index region and the second refractive index region in the first region (Suzuki Para. [0034]) such that a phase shifts by π (Suzuki Para. [0034]) from the phase of the first region (Suzuki Para. [0034]), and
wherein the in-phase region [Kitamura grating 1 in 10 Fig. 1] in the second region [Kitamura 10 Fig. 1] (Para. [0059]) is formed by alternately arranging the first refractive index region and the second refractive index region that have the same length as the length of the first refractive index region and the second refractive index region in the first region (See Kitamura Fig. 4) [Kitamura 9 Fig. 9] (Kitamura Para. [0059]) such that a phase is the same as the phase of the first region (Kitamura Para. [0070]).
Regarding claim 3, Kitamura in view of Suzuki and Gotoda disclose the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Kitamura Fig. 1,
wherein a normalized coupling coefficient of the first region [9] is larger than a normalized coupling coefficient of the second region [10] (Para. [0060]).
Regarding claim 4, Kitamura in view of Suzuki and Gotoda disclose the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Kitamura Fig. 1,
wherein a length ratio between the first region [9] and the second region [10] in the direction in which the diffraction grating layer extends is from 3:7 to 9:1 (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Kitamura in view of Suzuki and Gotoda disclose the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Kitamura Fig. 1,
wherein the first end portion and the back facet [Device rear side Fig. 1] are located at substantially the same position (see Fig. 1), and
wherein the second end portion and the front facet [Device front side] are located at substantially the same position (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Kitamura in view of Suzuki and Gotoda disclose the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Kitamura Figs. 2 and 3,
further comprising a through-hole [hole in passivation film 20 Fig. 2] for injecting a current into the active layer [7] (Paras. [0096,0098).
Regarding claim 11, Kitamura in view of Suzuki and Gotoda disclose the device outlined in the rejection of claim 10 above and further discloses in Kitamura Figs. 2 and 3,
wherein the through- hole [hole in passivation film 20 Fig. 2] is arranged over the first region and the second region [over grating 1 Fig. 3].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura in view of Suzuki and Gotoda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Carter et al. (hereinafter Carter) (US 20040247000 A1) and Makuta (US 5353298 A).
Regarding claim 6, Kitamura in view of Suzuki and Gotoda discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses,
wherein the second region [Kitamura 10 Fig. 1] includes a plurality of regions in each of which the π-shift region , the secondary λ/4 shift portion [Gotoda 6 Fig. 1], the in-phase region [grating 1 in region 10 Kitamura Fig. 1], and the secondary λ/4 shift portion are arranged in the stated order,
the modified device of Kitamura fails to disclose,
a plurality of π-shift regions and,
wherein lengths of the π-shift regions differ from one another, and
wherein lengths of the in-phase regions differ from one another.
Carter discloses,
a grating [8] with a plurality of π phase shifts, and grating regions with different lengths (Para. [0008])
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 plurality of π phase shift regions and grating regions of differing lengths as disclosed in Carter into the modified device of Kitamura for the purpose of providing a predetermined reflection spectrum. (Carter Para. [0008])
Kitamura in view of Suzuki, Gotoda and Carter fails to disclose,
wherein lengths of the π-shift regions differ from one another
Makuta discloses in Fig. 10,
A plurality of phase shift regions [1,2,3] (Col. 8, lines 25-37) with lengths differing from one another (Col. 8, lines 25-37)
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 varying phase shift region lengths as disclosed in Makuta in the modified device of Kitamura for the purpose of achieving a desired reflectivity for each side of the device. (Makuta Col. 8, lines 53-64)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura in view of Suzuki and Gotoda as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Aoyanagi et al. (hereinafter Aoyanagi) (JP 2003051640 A).
Examiner notes an attached machine translation will be used for the claim mapping of Aoyanagi. See PTO-892 form
Regarding claim 9, Kitamura in view of Suzuki and Gotoda discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 2 above and further discloses in Kitamura Fig. 5a,
further comprising a cladding layer [13] (Para. [0094]) above the active layer [7] (Para. [0094]),
the modified device of Kitamura 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 20180175589 A1) which discloses a plurality of phase shift portions. Examiner also notes (US 20100272133 A1) which discloses a plurality of π phase shift regions. 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