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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: [0051] mentions #113 in figure 8. 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. 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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: figure 8a shows #115 which is not in the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 Objections
Claim 1 at lines 16-19 objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 16-19 twice refer to “the other region” which is understood to be the “second region” in the first instance and the “first region” in the second instance. It would improve claim clarity to refer directly to either of the first/second region instead of introducing a less clear term such as “other region”.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 6 (and all claims dependent therefrom; 2-3, 7) 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.
Claims 1 and 4 state “A semiconductor laser, in which a diffraction grating is provided in a resonator”. This recitation implies there is a resonator and a diffraction grating is added to that resonator. In the instant application the grating effectively forms the resonator as it provides feedback for the generated light. Therefore, the grating is not clearly “provided in a resonator” in the sense that it is added to a resonator, but instead the grating forms the resonator or perhaps part of the resonator structure. This language brings about a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the disclosure which renders the scope of the claim uncertain (see MPEP 2173.03).
For purposes of examination, the language is considered to mean the grating forms the resonator or is part of the resonator.
Claim 5 and claim 6 recite the limitations "the third region", “the fourth region” and “the region inside the third and fourth region (only in claim 6) in lines 1-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
For purposes of examination, the limitations will be read using “a” instead of “the”.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Aihara et al. (WO 2021/005700; note citations made to US 2022/0393430 which is a translation thereof).
With respect to claim 4, Aihara discloses a semiconductor laser ([0001], fig.7), in which a diffraction grating (fig.7 #30) is provided in a resonator, comprising: a first cladding layer (fig.7 #21 lower) formed on a substrate (fig.7 #101); an active layer (fig.7 #12a) formed in a core shape (fig.7 as seen in cross-section) extending in a waveguide direction (fig.7 in/out of page) on the first cladding layer; a p-type semiconductor layer (fig.7 #11) and an n-type semiconductor layer (fig.7 #13) formed in contact with the active layer with the active layer interposed therebetween (fig.7); a second cladding layer formed on the active layer (fig.7 #21 upper); a p-electrode (fig.7 #40a) and an n-electrode (fig.7 #40k) connected to the p-type semiconductor layer and the n-type semiconductor layer; and an optical coupling layer embedded in the first cladding layer (fig.7 #22) or the second cladding layer in a state of being able to be optically coupled with the active layer ([0057]) and formed in a core shape (fig.7 as seen in cross-section) extending along the active layer (fig.7 in/out) and, wherein a first region (fig.10a center; see below) and a second region (fig.10a slightly to left of center; see below) in which a width of the optical coupling layer in a direction perpendicular to the waveguide direction is different from that of other regions (fig.10a indicated areas are different in width than at least some other regions) are provided in the resonator, the first region and the second region are arranged with an interval therebetween in the waveguide direction (see below, space between R1/R2), a width of the optical coupling layer in the first region is made larger than that in the other region (fig.10a), and a width of the optical coupling layer in the second region is made smaller than that in the other region (fig.10a) (note the changed waveguide material is Si, [0036], which is the material of #22, [0057]).
PNG
media_image1.png
498
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 5, Aihara discloses a width of the optical coupling layer in the third region on one end side and the fourth region on another end side in the resonator is larger than that in other regions (fig.10a/16, [0069]).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aihara in view of Nishitani et al. (JP H11195838, Applicant submitted prior art).
With respect to claim 6, Aihara teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach the
duty ratio of the diffraction grating in the waveguide direction of the third region on one end side
and the fourth region on another end side in the resonator is smaller than the duty ratio of the region
inside the third region and the fourth region. Nishitani teaches a related grating-based laser device in which the duty cycles on the ends are smaller than the duty cycle in the middle (fig.4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Aihara to make use the duty cycles for the grating to be smaller on the ends than the middle as demonstrated by Nishitani in order to suppress spatial hole burning (Nishitani, [0068]).
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (JP 2000-068590; Applicant submitted prior art) in view of Nishitani.
With respect to claim 1, Watanabe teaches a semiconductor laser (abstract, fig.2), in which a diffraction grating (fig.2 #12) is provided in a resonator, comprising: a first cladding layer (fig.2 #4) formed on a substrate (fig.2 #5); an active layer (fig.2 #2) formed in a core shape (fig.2 as active is found between clads it forms the core, with shape, of a waveguide) extending in a waveguide direction (fig.2 left/right) on the first cladding layer; a second cladding layer (fig.2 #3) formed on the active layer; and a p-electrode and an n-electrode connected to the layers (“Thereafter, electrodes are formed on both surfaces of the wafer.”), wherein a first region (fig.2 center of #12a1) and a second region (fig.2 edge of #12b) in which a pitch of the diffraction grating in the waveguide direction is different from that of other regions (fig.2 different than #12a2) are provided in the resonator, the first region and the second region are arranged with an interval therebetween (fig.2 #12a2 therebetween) in the waveguide direction, a pitch of the diffraction grating in the first region is made larger than that in the other region (“12a1 with a 400 nm period, and the outermost 50 μm is a second region 12b having a normal basic period of 200 nm”), and a pitch of the diffraction grating in the second region is made smaller than that in the other region (“12a1 with a 400 nm period, and the outermost 50 μm is a second region 12b having a normal basic period of 200 nm”). Watanabe does not specify using a p-type semiconductor layer and an n-type semiconductor layer formed in contact with the active layer with the active layer interposed therebetween. Nishitani teaches a related grating-based laser (fig.4) which includes a p-type semiconductor layer (fig.4 #6) and an n-type semiconductor layer (fig.4 #4) formed in contact with the active layer (fig.4 #5) with the active layer interposed therebetween. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to make use of the p and n layers sandwiching the active region in the device of Aihara as demonstrated by Nishitani in order to control the index of refraction in the center of the device by using the guide layers and allow for control of the optical mode location.
PNG
media_image2.png
800
464
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Watanabe further teaches the pitch of the diffraction grating in the first region is twice the pitch of the diffraction grating in the second region (“12a1 with a 400 nm period, and the outermost 50 μm is a second region 12b having a normal basic period of 200 nm”).
With respect to claims 3 and 7, Watanabe teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach the duty ratio of the diffraction grating in the waveguide direction of the third region on one end side
and the fourth region on another end side in the resonator is smaller than the duty ratio of the region
inside the third region and the fourth region. Nishitani teaches the related grating-based laser device in which the duty cycles on the ends are smaller than the duty cycle in the middle (fig.4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Watanabe to make use the duty cycles for the grating to be smaller on the ends than the middle as demonstrated by Nishitani in order to suppress spatial hole burning (Nishitani, [0068]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see the include pto892 form for a list of related art.
US 6965628, 6175581 are noted as similar to claim 1 and JP 2014-220388 being similar to claim 4.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOD THOMAS VAN ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8447. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8AM-430PM.
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.
/TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights