Non-Final Rejection
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-6 are pending.
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 4 and 5 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.
Regarding claim 4, the claim requires “a straight waveguide region is within 20 to 100 μm.” It is not clear what is meant by this—what about the straight waveguide is within those values? It is assumed applicant means the length of that region is within those values.
Regarding claim 5, the language “processed by twice of mesa processing” is indefinite and unclear. It is apparently claiming that mesa processing occurs twice, but the language should be made clearer.
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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2017/0179679 (“Lee”).
Regarding claim 1, Lee describes a semiconductor laser in Fig. 15A, starting at [0083], comprising a laser having an active region for injecting a current to produce an optical gain (at BH, see other embodiments such as [0029] explaining the laser is at the buried heterostructure BH);
a modulator for changing an absorption coefficient by applying a voltage (electroabsorption modulator at DR); and
a spot size converter for combining an enlarged taper and a reduced taper, which are monolithically integrated on a same substrate, wherein the spot size converter is disposed between a laser region of the laser and an absorption region of the modulator (the region between the laser and modulator, which is tapered as claimed combining enlarged and reduced taper).
Regarding claim 6, the modulator is an EAM, [0085], therefore an electrical signal is converted to an optical signal by changing an amount of a light absorption through a voltage control. This is what an EAM does.
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 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0274329 (“Hokama”) in view of Lee.
Hokama shows in Figs. 1-8 (starting [0052], all various views of the same embodiment) a semiconductor laser comprising:
a laser 121 having an active region 102 for injecting a current to produce an optical gain;
a modulator 123
a spot size converter 122 for combining an enlarged taper and a reduced taper, which are monolithically integrated on a same substrate (enlarging at say C of Fig. 1, reducing at say E of Fig. 1),
wherein the spot size converter is disposed between a laser region of the laser and an absorption region of the modulator (apparent in Fig. 1).
Hokama shows a modulator as above, but does not say what type of modulator; it therefore does not necessarily show it is for changing an absorption coefficient by applying a voltage. Lee shows a similar system with laser integrated with modulator, and uses an EAM, Fig. 15A, [0085], which by definition changes absorption by applying a voltage. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use an EAM as the modulator as a simple substitution of a known element for another yielding predictable results. MPEP 2143 I.B. Hokama shows the invention except does not specify modulator type, but this is already known as in Lee. A person skilled in the art could use the Lee EAM and the result would have been predictable because Hokama must use some kind of modulator, and it is natural to look to similar devices such as Lee to see what kinds are typical. The skilled artisan would understand how the combination would operate following the modification with the teachings of Lee.
Regarding claim 4, it is apparent in Hokama Fig. 1 that the aspect ratios of the tapers are the same. There are additionally straight waveguide regions, say between 114 and 105 or between 115 and 108 in Fig. 1. Note that unlike claim 3, the location of the straight waveguide is not specified, though if it was a similar modification could be made. The length of the straight waveguide region is not given. However such a length is well within the normal size found typically in semiconductor devices, and the present application gives no reason or criticality for having such length. When the general conditions of the claim are found in the art, specifying optimal ranges such as these generally does not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.05 II.A. Likewise, changes in size or proportion are generally not patentable without any criticality of such size. MPEP 2144.04 IV.A. For example, the skilled artisan often needs to meet certain specifications for their device, such as size of the device, and therefore may choose to alter the size of the various parts to meet their needs. Without any criticality or reason to choose such size, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make it within 20 to 100 μm as claimed.
Regarding claim 5, the claim involves process steps of making the device, i.e. it is a product-by-process claim. Such a claim is not limited to the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. The structure recited is that there are two mesas of different heights/depths, and the depths of the mesas differ by about 0.1 to 10 μm. Hokama shows that the laser side and the modulator side have mesas at different depths. Compare Fig. 3 and 12 (laser side) where the mesa reaches down below the core 102 and lower cladding 110 into substrate 101, with Figs. 7-8 (modulator side) where the mesa ends in upper cladding 113, it does not reach down below the core 109 and lower cladding 112. Hokama does not show the difference in depths of the mesas. However such a size is well within the normal size found typically in semiconductor devices, and the present application gives no reason or criticality for having such depths. When the general conditions of the claim are found in the art, specifying optimal ranges such as these generally does not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.05 II.A. Likewise, changes in size or proportion are generally not patentable without any criticality of such size. MPEP 2144.04 IV.A. For example, the skilled artisan often needs to meet certain specifications for their device, such as size of the device, and therefore may choose to alter the size of the various parts to meet their needs. Without any criticality or reason to choose such size, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make it such that the depths are within 0.1 to 10 μm as claimed.
Regarding claim 6, again the modulator when combined with Lee is an EAM, Lee [0085], therefore an electrical signal is converted to an optical signal by changing an amount of a light absorption through a voltage control. This is what an EAM does.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of US 2002/0054738 (“Matsushima”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hokama and Lee as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Matsushima.
Regarding claim 3, Lee Fig. 15A shows the spot size converter is in the order of an enlarged taper and a reduced taper. Hokama shows the same in Fig. 1. This differs from the claim which also has a straight region in between. Matsushima teaches that a spot size converter for a laser beam might have an enlarged taper and a reduced taper, Fig. 9(a), somewhat like Lee/Hokama, but alternatively might have a straight region 12 in between, Fig. 9(b). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to additionally include a straight region in between because it can help stop the beam from losing its course and bring it back towards the destination, improving coupling efficiency, as taught by Matsushima. [0052].
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of US 2005/0006654 (“Kang”), and further in view of US 2004/0119079 (“Hayakawa”).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hokama in view of Lee, and further in view of Kang, and further in view of Hayakawa.
Regarding claim 2: A semiconductor laser comprising:
a laser having an active region for injecting a current to produce an optical gain;
a first spot size converter for combining an enlarged taper and a reduced taper;
a modulator for changing an absorption coefficient by applying an electric signal;
. . .
wherein the first spot size converter is disposed between a laser region of the laser and a modulator region,
These features are taught by Lee alone, or by Hokama in view of Lee as in the rejections of claim 1 above.
They do not further show a second spot size converter for combining an enlarged taper and a reduced taper and a semiconductor optical amplifier, which are monolithically integrated on a same substrate, and the second spot size converter is disposed between the modulator and the semiconductor optical amplifier.
Kang teaches that it was already known to include a SOA monolithically integrated with a laser and modulator. See Fig. 3-4. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to additionally include an SOA because this compensates for loss in the modulator, [0007], and keeping everything monolithic keeps it a smaller size, [0011], as taught by Kang. Hayakawa teaches that it was known to include a spot size converter between a laser and SOA. Fig. 10, [0190]-[0196]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a spot size converter between laser and SOA as the waveguides often differ in size, so light loss between them can be reduced, as taught by Hayakawa. This would be applicable to between the modulator and SOA following the combination with Kang. As the primary references, the skilled artisan may use the spot size converter already used in Hokama and Lee, with the expanding and reducing portions.
Conclusion
US 2015/0092800 also shows a SSC between laser and monolithically integrated amplifier.
US 2020/0326476 shows a SSC between laser and modulator that is similar to the invention, but kind of the opposite (reduces on both sides to a straight portion, rather than expanding on both sides to a straight portion).
US 2022/0268997 shows a similar SSC (expanding and reducing) but is at the output of a laser, not between a laser and modulator.
US 6,246,709 was applied in the PCT and also seems to meet at least claim 1.
US 2002/0097941 shows integrated laser and modulator having mesas at different depths.
US 2010/0247033 shows SSC between laser and modulator, but not the same shape.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Menefee whose telephone number is (571)272-1944. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 applications may be obtained from Patent Center. See: 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.
/JAMES A MENEFEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights