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 .
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.
Priority
The priority has been considered by the examiner. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 21, 2023, October 14, 2024, September 23, 2025 and March 26, 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “53” has been used to designate both “reflection coating”, “surface” and “an electrode”. 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)(4) because reference characters "53" and "55" have both been used to designate “an electrode”. 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.
Appropriated correction are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
With regard claim 12, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), first paragraph, because it does not reasonable provide enablement for “a photonic crystal structure of the photonic crystal comprises the first dielectric material and is fully embedded in the second dielectric material and/or the transparent conductive material”. Applicant disclosure Figure 6 and page 18, line 25 through page 19, line 11 disclose the photonic structure is made of a dielectric layer, that dielectric layer include at least three dielectric layers. The entire PC layer is dielectric material? How will current pass between the electrodes? How the device can emit an electromagnetic wave outlined in claim 3 from which this claim depends? This limitation doesn’t seems to make sense.
The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to identify or make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Claims 13 and 14 depend on claim 12, are rejected since they inherit the lack of enablement of the claims on which they depend.
With regard claim 15, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), first paragraph, because it does not reasonable provide enablement for “the photonic crystal is structured into a layer without conductive material”. The entire PC layer is dielectric? How will current pass between the electrodes? How the device can emit an electromagnetic wave as outlined in claim 3 from which this claim depends? This limitation doesn’t seems to make sense.
The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to identify or make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Appropriated corrections are required.
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 4 – 7, 11 and 14 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the dielectric" in 4th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purpose of examination, the examiner interpreted “the dielectric” as “a dielectric”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the layer sequence" in 4th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purpose of examination, the examiner interpreted “the layer sequence” as “a layer sequence”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the layer sequence" in 4th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purpose of examination, the examiner interpreted “the layer sequence” as “a layer sequence”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the layer sequence" in 4th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purpose of examination, the examiner interpreted “the layer sequence” as “a layer sequence”.
With regard claim 7, the phrase limitation “the gain medium has one or more claddings” is considered indefinite. It is unclear what it means for the gain medium has one or more claddings. What does the limitation "the gain medium has one or more claddings" mean? Is the one or more cladding part of the gain medium? Is the one or more cladding located near the gain medium? For the applicant, what does it mean for the gain medium has one or more claddings?
For purpose of examination, the examiner interpreted the gain medium has one or more claddings as “the cladding(s) is/are located closed to the gain medium”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the dielectric layer" in 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purpose of examination, the examiner interpreted “the dielectric layer” as “a dielectric layer”.
With regard claim 11 the phrase limitations “the dielectric layer comprises: a first dielectric material, a second dielectric material and/or a conductive material transparent in the region of the electromagnetic wave, and/or wherein the conductive layer comprises: a first conductive material, a second conductive material and/or a dielectric material transparent in the region of the electromagnetic wave” are considered indefinite. It is unclear whether the dielectric materials consist of dielectric materials, conductive materials, or a combination of dielectric and conductive materials.
For purpose of examination, the examiner interpreted “the dielectric layer comprises: a first dielectric material, a second dielectric material and/or a conductive material transparent in the region of the electromagnetic wave, and/or wherein the conductive layer comprises: a first conductive material, a second conductive material and/or a dielectric material transparent in the region of the electromagnetic wave” as “a conductive layer comprises a first conductive material and second conductive material”.
With regard claim 14 the phrase limitation “a photonic crystal structure of the photonic crystal” is considered indefinite. Claim 14 depends on claim 12; given that claim 12 claims "a photonic crystal structure of the photonic crystal," it is unclear how many photonic crystal structures of the photonic crystal exist. Is there more than one photonic crystal structure of the photonic crystal?
For purpose of examination, the examiner interpreted “a photonic crystal structure of the photonic crystal” as “the photonic crystal structure of the photonic crystal”.
Claims 8 – 10 depend on claim 7, are rejected since they inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend. Claims 12 – 14 depend on claim 11, are rejected since they inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
Appropriated corrections are required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 12 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
With regard claim 12, the phrase limitation “a photonic crystal structure of the photonic crystal comprises the first dielectric material and is fully embedded in the second dielectric material and/or the transparent conductive material”, it does not constitute a further limitation. Claim 12 depend on claim 11, claim 11 depend on claim 3 and claims 3 states “the photonic crystal is structured in a conductive layer”. How can the photonic crystal be structured in a conductive layer and also be structured in a dielectric material?
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
With regard claim 15, the phrase limitation “the photonic crystal is structured into a layer without conductive material” Claim 15 depend on claim 3 and claims 3 states “the photonic crystal is structured in a conductive layer”. How can the photonic crystal be structured in a conductive layer and also be structured without conductive material?
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Appropriated corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (CN 112397998).
PNG
media_image1.png
289
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Liu disclose an optoelectronic component comprising a stack (see Annotation Figure 1, character 100’, which include a buffer layer 3, a multilayer structure 10 (include multiple low-refractive-index material layers (4), multiple high-refractive-index material layers (5), and an active layer (6)), a material layer (7), a photonic crystal layer (8), and a P-type electrode layer (9), and paragraph [0039]) including a photonic crystal (see Annotation Figure 1, character 8, Abstract and paragraphs [0010 and 0039]) and a gain medium (see Annotation Figure 1, character 6, Abstract and paragraphs [0039 and 0041], the reference called “active layer”), wherein:
the gain medium (see Annotation Figure 1, character 6) comprises at least one quantum well (see paragraph [0041]) and is configured to emit an electromagnetic wave (see Annotation Figure 1),
the photonic crystal (see Annotation Figure 1, character 8) is structured in a dielectric layer (see paragraph [0041], the photonic crystal layer is made of a silicon nitride) and is electromagnetically coupled to the gain medium (see Annotation Figure 1, character 6), and
the stack (see Annotation Figure 1, character 100’) is arranged on a substrate.
(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 3, 6, 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Noda et al. (US 2021/0184431).
PNG
media_image2.png
131
362
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
324
334
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
352
332
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Noda disclose an optoelectronic component comprising a stack (see Figures 1 and 26, character 11) including exactly one photonic crystal (see Figure 1, character 14P and Figure 26, character 16P, Abstract, and paragraphs [0080 – 0082, 0084, 0088 – 0089 and 0154]) and a gain medium (see Figures 1 and 26, character 15, and paragraphs [0083, 0086 and 0113]), wherein:
the gain medium (see Figures 1 and 26, character 15, and paragraphs [0113]) comprises at least one quantum well (see paragraph [0113]) and is configured to emit an electromagnetic wave (see Figures 1 and 26 and paragraph [0080 – 0081]),
the photonic crystal (see Figure 1, character 14P and Figure 26, character 16P, and paragraphs [0080 – 0082, 0084]) is structured in a conductive layer (see paragraph [0019, 0083 – 0084 and 0099], the n-guide layer (14) includes a lower guide layer (14A), a photonic crystal layer (air hole layer or PC layer) (14P), and an embedding layer (14B), where the n-guide is a conductive layer) and is electromagnetically coupled to the gain medium (see Figures 1 and 26, character 15), and
the stack (see Figures 1 and 26, character 11) including is arranged on a substrate (see Figures 1 and 26, character 12).
Regarding claim 6, Noda disclose the photonic crystal (see Figure 1, character 14P and Figure 26, character 16P) is arranged separate from the gain medium (see Figures 1 and 26, character 15) such that the photonic crystal (see Figure 1, character 14P and Figure 26, character 16P) is arranged on an outer layer (see Figure 1, character 14 and Figure 26, character 16) of the layer sequence (see Figures 1 and 26, character 11).
Regarding claim 11, Noda disclose the dielectric layer comprises: wherein the conductive layer comprises:
a first conductive material (see Figure 1, character 14A and Figure 26, character 16A)
a second conductive material (see Figure 1, character 14B and Figure 26, character 16B).
Regarding claim 16, Noda do not explicitly discloses a pump source configured to excite stimulated emission by means of the gain medium. However, it was shown above that Noda on Figures 1 and 26, Abstract and paragraphs [0080 – 0091 and 0152 - 0157] teach a photonic crystal surface emitting laser (PCSEL). For the PCSEL to generate light, it needs to be pumped by an electrical or optical pump. These features are implicitly taught a pump source configured to excite stimulated emission by means of the gain medium as is claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1, 4 and 7 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda et al. (US 2021/0184431) in view of Sasahata et al. (US 2009/0225804).
Regarding claim 1, Noda disclose an optoelectronic component comprising a stack (see Figures 1 and 26, character 11) including exactly one photonic crystal (see Figure 1, character 14P and Figure 26, character 16P, Abstract, and paragraphs [0080 – 0082, 0084, 0088 – 0089 and 0154]) and a gain medium (see Figures 1 and 26, character 15, and paragraphs [0083, 0086 and 0113]), wherein:
the gain medium (see Figures 1 and 26, character 15, and paragraph [0113]) comprises a layer sequence (see Figures 1 and 26, character 15) of at least two quantum wells (see paragraph [0113]),
the photonic crystal n, and paragraphs [0080 – 0082, 0084]) is electromagnetically coupled to the gain medium (see Figures 1 and 26, character 15, Abstract and paragraphs [0016, 0083 – 0084 and 0152 – 0153]), and
the stack (see Figures 1 and 26, character 11) is arranged on a substrate (see Figures 1 and 26, character 12, and paragraph [0083]).
PNG
media_image5.png
370
492
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Noda discloses the claimed invention except for the gain medium comprises at least one tunnel junction and is configured to emit an electromagnetic wave. Sasahata teaches a tunnel junction can be alternatively formed in the core layer. However, it is well known in the art to apply and/or modify the tunnel junction can be alternatively formed in the core layer as discloses by Sasahata in (see paragraph [0060]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the tunnel junction can be alternatively formed in the core layer. as suggested to the device of Noda, could be used to enable electrical current to flow between two materials via quantum tunneling.
Regarding claim 4, Noda and Sasahata, Noda disclose the layer sequence (see Figures 1 and 26, character 15) comprises the at least two quantum wells (see paragraph [0113]) and the at least one tunnel junction (see claim 1 rejection) and
the photonic crystal is structured in the dielectric layer (see Figure 1, character 14k, only portions of the PC layer is made to be dielectric, that portion are air holes).
Regarding claim 7, Noda disclose the gain medium (see Figures 1 and 26, character 15, and paragraph [0113]) has one or more claddings (see Figures 1 and 26, character 18, and paragraph [0083], the cladding(s) is/are related to the active layer based on position), and the one or more claddings (see Figures 1 and 26, character 18) are arranged in the layer sequence (see Figures 1 and 26, character 11).
Noda discloses the claimed invention except for a quantum well is spaced apart from a tunnel junction. Sasahata teaches a quantum well (see Figure 16, character 15) is spaced apart from a tunnel junction (see Figures 16, character 38 or 39). However, it is well known in the art to apply and/or modify the quantum well is spaced apart from a tunnel junction as discloses by Sasahata in (see Figure 16 and paragraphs [0027, 0056 – 0057 and 0060]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the quantum well is spaced apart from a tunnel junction as suggested to the device of Noda, could be used to enable electrical current to flow between two materials via quantum tunneling.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Noda and Sasahata disclosed the claimed invention except for the one or more claddings adjust a distance between the quantum well and the tunnel junction in each case such that a fundamental mode can be coupled out of the gain medium or the one or more claddings adjust a distance between the quantum well and the tunnel junction in each case such that a plurality of single modes can be coupled out of the gain medium and the single modes are coupled by energy transfer. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the one or more claddings adjust a distance between the quantum well and the tunnel junction in each case such that a fundamental mode can be coupled out of the gain medium or the one or more claddings adjust a distance between the quantum well and the tunnel junction in each case such that a plurality of single modes can be coupled out of the gain medium and the single modes are coupled by energy transfer to the device of Noda and Sasahata, in order to provide specific characteristics and/or properties of the desired laser and compact laser, 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.
In addition, the selection of adjust a distance between the quantum well and the tunnel junction, it’s obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed [the one or more claddings adjust a distance between the quantum well and the tunnel junction in each case such that a fundamental mode can be coupled out of the gain medium or the one or more claddings adjust a distance between the quantum well and the tunnel junction in each case such that a plurality of single modes can be coupled out of the gain medium and the single modes are coupled by energy transfer] or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen [the one or more claddings adjust a distance between the quantum well and the tunnel junction in each case such that a fundamental mode can be coupled out of the gain medium or the one or more claddings adjust a distance between the quantum well and the tunnel junction in each case such that a plurality of single modes can be coupled out of the gain medium and the single modes are coupled by energy transfer] or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen [the one or more claddings adjust a distance between the quantum well and the tunnel junction in each case such that a fundamental mode can be coupled out of the gain medium or the one or more claddings adjust a distance between the quantum well and the tunnel junction in each case such that a plurality of single modes can be coupled out of the gain medium and the single modes are coupled by energy transfer] are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Noda and Sasahata do not explicitly discloses one or more claddings adjust a distance between the quantum well and the tunnel junction. However, it was shown above that Noda on Figures 1 and 26 and paragraphs [0083 and 0113] teach that the gain medium and one or more claddings. Sasahata on Figure 16 and paragraphs [0027, 0056 – 0057 and 0060] disclose a tunnel junction. The combination of Noda’s cladding(s) and gain medium and Sasahata’s tunnel junction archives the location arrangement between the one or more claddings the quantum well and the tunnel junction. These features are implicitly taught one or more claddings adjust a distance between the quantum well and the tunnel junction as is claimed. )
Regarding claim 10, Noda and Sasahata, Noda disclose the photonic crystal (see Figure 1, character 14P and Figure 26, character 16P) comprises a cladding (see Figures 1 and/or 26, character 13).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda et al. (US 2021/0184431) in view of Lu et al. (US 2022/0385038).
PNG
media_image6.png
280
488
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Noda discloses the claimed invention except for the photonic crystal is comprised by the gain medium such that the photonic crystal is arranged in the layer sequence. Lu teaches a photonic crystal (see Figures 11a and 11b, character 4) is comprised by the gain medium (see Figures 11a and 11b, character 3) such that the photonic crystal (see Figures 11a and 11b, character 4) is arranged in the layer sequence (see Figures 11a and 11b, character 3, the gain medium comprise a plurality quantum well, which are the layer sequence). However, it is well known in the art to apply and/or modify the photonic crystal is comprised by the gain medium as discloses by Lu in (see Figures 11a and 11b, Abstract and paragraph [0089]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the photonic crystal is comprised by the gain medium as suggested to the device of Noda, in order to control the propagation, confinement, and emission of light at the nanoscale.
Claims 13 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda et al. (US 2021/0184431) in view of Liu et al. (CN 112397988).
Regarding claim 13, Noda discloses the claimed invention except for the photonic crystal structure of the photonic crystal is at least partially not embedded in the second dielectric material and/or the transparent conductive material on a side facing a quantum well. Liu teaches a photonic crystal (see Annotation Figure 1, character 8) is structured in the dielectric layer (the photonic crystal layer is made of a silicon nitride). However, it is well known in the art to apply and/or modify the photonic crystal is structured in the dielectric layer as discloses by Liu in (see Annotation Figure 1 and paragraph [0041]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the photonic crystal is structured in the dielectric layer as suggested to the device of Noda and Sasahata in order of transmitting electric force without conduction, can act as insulator, 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.
Notwithstanding, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular dimensions because applicant has not disclosed that the location are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another location. Indeed, it has been held that mere locational limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 14, Noda and Liu, Noda disclose a photonic crystal structure (see Figure 1, character 14 and Figure 26, character 16) of the photonic crystal (see Figure 1, character 14P and Figure 26, character 16P) is in direct contact with the gain medium (see Figures 1 and 26, character 15).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Delma R. Forde whose telephone number is (571)272-1940. The examiner can normally be reached M - TH 7:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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 O 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.
/Delma R Forde/Examiner, Art Unit 2828
/TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights