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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on 12/7/23, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “electrode of the optical amplification unit” (claim 1, not labeled in figures), “electrode of the laser unit” (claim 1, not labeled in figures), “trench” (claims 2-3, 6-8, not labeled in figures), “optical waveguide” (claim 2, not labeled in figures), “planarized layer” (claims 5-6), “grating” (claim 6), “quantum well structure” (claim 6), “cladding layer” (claim 6), “angled sidewalls” (claim 6-7, not labeled in figures), “P-type electrode” (claim 6, not labeled in figures), “N-type electrode” (claim 6, not labeled in figures), “contact layer” (claims 6, 9) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “electrode of the optical amplification unit” (0007, not labeled in figure), “electrode of the laser unit” (0007, not labeled in figures), “trench” (0008, not labeled in figures), “optical waveguide” (0010, not labeled in figures), “planarized layer” (0008), “grating” (0008), “quantum well structure” (0008), “cladding layer” (0008), “angled sidewalls” (0008, not labeled in figures), “P-cladding layer side electrode” (0035, not labeled in figures), “N-cladding layer side electrode” (0035, not labeled in figures), “contact layer” (0008), or the associated method/manufacturing steps as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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 Interpretation
“length” in claim 8 is interpreted to mean the dimension of the lower base in the y-direction in figure 2. “depth” is the dimension of the trench in the z-direction in fig. 2 (specification 0030-0031).
Claim Objections
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities:
“a semiconductor optical amplification” should read “a semiconductor optical amplifier” line 3 (see specification 0026, “SOA”)
. Appropriate correction is required.
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 (and 7-9 via dependency) 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.
Claim 6 indefinite due to phrase “both sides of the active layer” in lines 13-14. Claim 6 introduces two active layers, one each for the laser unit and the optical amplification unit (lines 4-5). It is unclear which of the two active layers is being referenced in lines 13-14. Examiner interprets “the active layer” in lines 13-14 to mean the combination of the laser unit and amplification unit active layers, based on instant application fig. 1.
The term “close” in claim 6 line 16 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. Distance between high reflection layer and laser unit and distance between low reflection layer and optical amplification unit rendered indefinite. Examiner interprets first instance of “close” in claim 6 line 16 to require a high reflection layer that is physically connected to a laser module and located closer to a laser unit than to an optical amplification unit, and second instance to require a low reflection layer that is physically connected to a laser module and located closer to an optical amplification unit than to a laser unit.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama (WO-2010122899-A1, machine translation “Akiyama_English” cited and included herewith) in view of Yamaoka (WO-2022130622-A1, machine translation “Yamaoka_English” cited and included herewith).
Regarding claim 1, Akiyama discloses a laser module (fig. 8), comprising: a substrate (substrate 60, line 157); a laser unit disposed on the substrate and configured to generate a laser light (laser unit 10 on 60 configured to generate laser light, lines 177-188); an optical amplification unit disposed on the substrate (optical amplification unit 20 on 60, line 156), wherein an optical channel of the optical amplification unit is communicated with an optical channel of the laser unit (optical channel of 20 (part of 65) communicated with optical channel of 10 (other part of 65), lines 146-147, 177-188), and an electrode of the optical amplification unit is electrically isolated from an electrode of the laser unit (electrode 22 of 20 electrically isolated from electrode 12 of 10, lines 139-143); a high reflection layer disposed on an end of the laser unit oriented away from the optical amplification unit (high reflection layer 16 disposed on left end of 10 oriented away from 20, line 142); and a low reflection layer disposed on an end of the optical amplification unit oriented away from the laser unit (low reflection layer 18 disposed on right end of 20 oriented away from 10, lines 145-146), wherein a reflectance of the low reflection layer is fine tunable (reflectance of 18 has the ability to be fine-tuned, i.e. it’s ‘fine tunable’), wherein a gain light is produced by entering the laser light emitted from the optical channel of the laser unit into the optical channel of the optical amplification unit (gain light from 20 produced by entering laser light from 10 into 20, see evidentiary reference NPL_SOA “Working Principle”, standard operation of an SOA), such that electrons in the optical channel of the optical amplification unit that have energy higher than a ground state are induced to return to the ground state (“Working Principle”, standard operation of an SOA), wherein the laser light and the gain light are emitted to an outside of the laser module via the low reflection layer (light emitted to outside of laser module via 18, lines 144-145).
Akiyama does not disclose fine tuning the reflectance of the low reflection layer to cause a reflected light of the optical amplification unit to induce a photon-photon resonance effect with the laser light of the laser unit.
“fine tuning” is interpreted to be a method of production in a product-by-process limitation and is not relevant to patentability. The limitation to be assessed for patentability is a reflectance that causes a reflected light of the optical amplification unit to induce a photon-photon resonance effect with the laser light of the laser unit, not the means of achieving this reflectance.
Yamaoka an optical device with an photon-photon resonance/PPR effect controlled by an adjustable reflection region (figs. 1+2 reflection region 103, lines 175-205).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fine tune the reflectance of the low reflection layer to cause a reflected light of the optical amplification unit to induce a photon-photon resonance effect with the laser light of the laser unit to expand the modulation band + increase optical output (Yamaoka lines 203-205).
Regarding claim 4, modified Akiyama discloses the laser module as claimed in claim 1, wherein the laser unit is a distributed feedback Bragg grating laser (10 is DFB laser, lines 137-138), and the optical amplification unit is a semiconductor optical amplification (20 is SOA).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama in view of Yamaoka and Shima (US-5528615-A).
Regarding claim 2, modified Akiyama discloses the laser module as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Akiyama does not disclose further comprising a trench extending from the high reflection layer to the low reflection layer, wherein the optical channel of the optical amplification unit and the optical channel of the laser unit are disposed in the trench to form an optical waveguide.
Shima discloses a semiconductor laser with a trench having an inverted trapezoidal cross section and extending the full length of the semiconductor laser, wherein the laser’s optical channel is disposed in the trench (figs. 2+3+9 optical channel 2-6 disposed in inverted trapezoid trench, col. 6 lines 20-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a trench extending from the high reflection layer to the low reflection layer, wherein the optical channel of the optical amplification unit and the optical channel of the laser unit are disposed in the trench to form an optical waveguide to improve heat dissipation from increased contact made between optical channel and surrounding surfaces, improve current confinement, and reduce height of device, and to make the trench inverted/reverse trapezoidal to reduce the threshold current and decrease electrical and thermal resistance (evidentiary reference NPL_Aoki Abstract).
Regarding claim 3, modified Akiyama discloses the laser module as claimed in claim 2, wherein a cross-sectional shape of the trench is an inverted trapezoid (see claim 2 modification, “reverse trapezoidal” Shima fig. 2).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama in view of Yamaoka and Joyner (US-7076126-B2).
Regarding claim 5, modified Akiyama discloses the laser module as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Akiyama does not disclose wherein a planarized layer of at least one of the laser unit and the optical amplification unit is made of benzocyclobutene.
Joyner discloses a waveguide with a BCB planarized passivating layer (fig. 14 BCB layer 98 over waveguide, col. 18 line 60 – col. 19 line 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a planarized layer of at least one of the laser unit and the optical amplification unit is made of benzocyclobutene to facilitate integration of additional layers/components within device (Joyner col. 19 lines 25-50), BCB beneficial due to low stress and easy planarization and patterning (Joyner col. 13 lines 40-60).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 7-9 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 6: Prior art of record does not disclose all elements of claim 6. The high degree of specificity within the method outlined in claim 6 requires an unreasonable and nonobvious level of modification to any single prior art method to read on the entirety of the claim.
Claim 7-9: Depend from claim 6
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Matsui US-20210098969-A1: Teaches use of photon-photon resonance in DBR laser to improve performance.
Kobayashi US-10128632-B2
Fisher US-7106774-B2
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alex Ehrlich whose telephone number is (703)756-5716. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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.
/A.E./Examiner, Art Unit 2828
/MINSUN O HARVEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights