DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 through 20 originally filed 7 November 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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2 through 5 and 19 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 is objected to for use of the phrase "wherein: wherein". One of these words should be deleted.
Claims 3 through 5 each depend from claim 2 and inherit all features thereof. As such, these claims are objected to for inheriting the above deficiency.
Claim 19 is objected to for the construction of the term "lithographically fabricated second facet". The construction of this term is inconsistent with the remainder of the claims and should read "second lithographically fabricated facet" for consistency. Other corrections are possible.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 7, and 10 through 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Coldren et al. (Coldren, US Patent 4,608,697).
Regarding claim 1, Coldren discloses, "A semiconductor laser, configured to generate laser light at an operating wavelength" (col. 2, lines 36-42 and Fig. 1). "The semiconductor laser comprising: an optical waveguide comprising a gain medium" (col. 3, lines 30-44 and Fig. 1). "A first facet, at a first end of the optical waveguide" (col. 3, lines 25-29 and Fig. 1, pt. 11). "A second facet, at a second end of the optical waveguide" (col. 3, lines 25-29 and Fig. 1, pt. 21). "A first reflector, in the optical waveguide" (col. 3, lines 25-29 and Fig. 1, pt. 3). "[The first reflector] between the first facet and the second facet" (col. 3, lines 25-29 and Fig. 1, pts. 3, 11, and 21). "The first reflector being a discrete reflector" (col. 3, lines 25-29 and Fig. 1, pt. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Coldren discloses, "Wherein the semiconductor laser comprises at least four reflectors" (col. 3, lines 25-29 and Fig. 1, pts. 11, 12, 21, and 22). "[The at least four reflectors] including the first reflector, the first facet, and the second facet" (col. 3, lines 25-29 and Fig. 1, pts. 3, 11, 12, 21, and 22). "Each pair of reflectors forming a resonator of a plurality of resonators" (col. 3, lines 25-29 and Fig. 1, pts. 3, 11, 12, 21, and 22).
Regarding claim 10, Coldren discloses, "Wherein the separation between the first facet and the second facet is an integer multiple of one-half of the operating wavelength" (col. 4-5, lines 58-38, and Figs. 1 and 2, pts. 1, 2, and 3, where the described relationships mean that each of the cavities present in 1, 2, and 3 are dimensioned to have an effective length that is an integer multiple of half wavelengths).
Regarding claim 11, Coldren discloses, "Wherein the separation between the first reflector and the first facet is an integer multiple of one-half of the operating wavelength" (col. 4-5, lines 58-38, and Figs. 1 and 2, pts. 1, 2, and 3, where the described relationships mean that each of the cavities present in 1, 2, and 3 are dimensioned to have an effective length that is an integer multiple of half wavelengths).
Regarding claim 12, Coldren discloses, "Wherein each of the resonators has an effective length that is an integer multiple of one-half of the operating wavelength" (col. 4-5, lines 58-38, and Figs. 1 and 2, pts. 1, 2, and 3, where the described relationships mean that each of the cavities present in 1, 2, and 3 are dimensioned to have an effective length that is an integer multiple of half wavelengths).
Regarding claim 13, Coldren discloses, "Wherein each reflector between the first facet and the second facet has an effective length that is an integer multiple of one-half of the operating wavelength" (col. 4-5, lines 58-38, and Figs. 1 and 2, pts. 1, 2, and 3, where the described relationships mean that each of the cavities present in 1, 2, and 3 are dimensioned to have an effective length that is an integer multiple of half wavelengths).
Regarding claim 14, Coldren discloses, "Wherein the semiconductor laser comprises at most ten reflectors" (col. 3, lines 25-29 and Fig. 1, pts. 3, 11, 12, 21, and 22). "[The at most ten reflectors] including the first reflector, the first facet, and the second facet" (col. 3, lines 25-29 and Fig. 1, pts. 3, 11, 12, 21, and 22).
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 2 through 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coldren in view of Fujita et al. (Fujita, US Patent 4,794,608).
Regarding claim 2, Coldren discloses, "Wherein the first reflector is a slot" (col. 3, lines 25-29 and Fig. 1, pt. 3). Coldren does not explicitly disclose, "[The slot] extending partially through the optical waveguide." Fujita discloses, "[The slot] extending partially through the optical waveguide" (col. 10, lines 28-36 and Fig. 14B and pt. 70). 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 Coldren with the teachings of Fujita. In view of the teachings of Coldren regarding a coupled cavity laser, the alternate construction of the gap as a partially etched trench that is filled with a solid material as well as the additional indication of an operational wavelength as taught by Fujita would enhance the teachings of Coldren by allowing the facets of the gap to be protected as well as by providing an indication of suitable output wavelengths for which the laser may be constructed.
Regarding claim 3, Coldren does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the slot is filled with a transparent solid substance." Fujita discloses, "Wherein the slot is filled with a transparent solid substance" (col. 10, lines 28-36 and Fig. 14B and pts. 60 and 74). 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 Coldren with the teachings of Fujita for the reasons provided above regarding claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, The combination of Coldren and Fujita does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the transparent solid substance has an index of refraction greater than an index of refraction of the optical waveguide." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a material that exhibits a higher refractive index than the waveguide as the filling material so as to provide the required refractive index difference, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 5, Coldren does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the transparent solid substance has an index of refraction less than an index of refraction of the optical waveguide." Fujita discloses, "Wherein the transparent solid substance has an index of refraction less than an index of refraction of the optical waveguide" (col. 10, lines 28-36 and Fig. 14B and pts. 60 and 74, where at least SiO2 has a lower refractive index than waveguide layer 60). 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 Coldren with the teachings of Fujita for the reasons provided above regarding claim 2.
Regarding claim 16, Coldren does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the operating wavelength is between 350 nm and 2500 nm." Fujita discloses, "Wherein the operating wavelength is between 350 nm and 2500 nm" (col. 6, lines 52-54). 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 Coldren with the teachings of Fujita for the reasons provided above regarding claim 2.
Claims 6 and 17 through 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coldren in view of Behfar et al. (Behfar, US Pub. 2006/0187985).
Regarding claim 6, Coldren does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the first facet is not at a chip edge." "The second facet is not at a chip edge." Behfar discloses, "Wherein the first facet is not at a chip edge" (p. [0005], [0027], and Fig. 10A, pt. 122). "The second facet is not at a chip edge" (p. [0005], [0027], and Fig. 10A, pt. 124). 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 Coldren with the teachings of Behfar. In view of the teachings of Coldren regarding a coupled cavity laser, the alternate construction of the laser facets as etched facets as taught by Behfar would enhance the teachings of Coldren by allowing the laser facets to be protected during fabrication.
Regarding claim 17, Coldren discloses, "A semiconductor laser, configured to generate laser light at an operating wavelength" (col. 2, lines 36-42 and Fig. 1). "The semiconductor laser comprising: an optical waveguide comprising a gain medium" (col. 3, lines 30-44 and Fig. 1). "[The first facet] at a first end of the optical waveguide" (col. 3, lines 25-29 and Fig. 1, pt. 11). "[The second facet] at a second end of the optical waveguide" (col. 3, lines 25-29 and Fig. 1, pt. 21). "A first lithographically fabricated reflector" (col. 3, lines 25-29 and Fig. 1, pt. 3). "[The first reflector] in the optical waveguide" (col. 3, lines 25-29 and Fig. 1, pts. 3, 11, and 21). "[The first reflector] between the first… facet and the second… facet" (col. 3, lines 25-29 and Fig. 1, pt. 3). Coldren does not explicitly disclose, "A first lithographically fabricated facet." "A second lithographically fabricated facet." Behfar discloses, "A first lithographically fabricated facet" (p. [0005], [0027], and Fig. 10A, pt. 122). "A second lithographically fabricated facet" (p. [0005], [0027], and Fig. 10A, pt. 124). 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 Coldren with the teachings of Behfar for the reasons provided above regarding claim 6.
Regarding claim 18, Coldren discloses, "Wherein the semiconductor laser comprises at least four reflectors" (col. 3, lines 25-29 and Fig. 1, pts. 11, 12, 21, and 22). "[The at least four reflectors] including the first… reflector, the first … facet, and the second… facet" (col. 3, lines 25-29 and Fig. 1, pts. 3, 11, 12, 21, and 22). "Each pair of reflectors forming a resonator of a plurality of resonators" (col. 3, lines 25-29 and Fig. 1, pts. 3, 11, 12, 21, and 22).
Regarding claim 19, Coldren discloses, "Wherein the separation between the first… facet and the… second facet is an integer multiple of one-half of the operating wavelength" (col. 4-5, lines 58-38, and Figs. 1 and 2, pts. 1, 2, and 3, where the described relationships mean that each of the cavities present in 1, 2, and 3 are dimensioned to have an effective length that is an integer multiple of half wavelengths).
Regarding claim 20, Coldren discloses, "Wherein the separation between the first… reflector and the first… facet is an integer multiple of one-half of the operating wavelength" (col. 4-5, lines 58-38, and Figs. 1 and 2, pts. 1, 2, and 3, where the described relationships mean that each of the cavities present in 1, 2, and 3 are dimensioned to have an effective length that is an integer multiple of half wavelengths).
Claims 8, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coldren.
Regarding claim 8, Coldren does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a gain bandwidth of the gain medium is less than five times the free spectral range of the shortest resonator of the resonators." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a gap size that provides a free spectral range that is greater than five times the gain bandwidth so as to ensure that only one allowed cavity mode falls within the gain bandwidth, 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 9, Coldren does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a gain bandwidth of the gain medium is less than five times a free spectral range corresponding to a difference between an effective length of a first resonator of the resonators and an effective length of a second resonator of the resonators." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a gap size that provides a free spectral range that is greater than five times the gain bandwidth so as to ensure that only one allowed cavity mode falls within the gain bandwidth, 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 15, Coldren discloses, "[The reflectors] including the first reflector, the first facet, and the second facet" (col. 3, lines 25-29 and Fig. 1, pts. 3, 11, 12, 21, and 22). Coldren does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the semiconductor laser comprises exactly eight reflectors." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include additional gaps within the overall laser cavity so as to create additional cavities that must all align for operation at a desired mode and thereby increase selectivity of the desired mode, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Burrus et al. (Burrus, US Patent 4,528,670) is cited for teaching a coordination between gain bandwidth and FSR spacing.
Mears et al. (Mears, US Pub. 2002/0196826) is cited for teaching a coupled cavity laser that includes multiple gaps between cavities.
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