DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 through 30 originally filed 20 December 2023. By amendment received 21 December 2023; claims 2, 4 through 6, 8, 10 through 12, and 17 through 23 are amended and claims 13 through 16 and 25 through 30 are cancelled. By amendment received 16 May 2026; claims 6, 12, 19, and 23 are amended and claim 31 is added. Claims 1 through 12, 17 through 24, and 31 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 .
Response to Amendment
The claim listing received 16 April 2026 amends claim 19 relative to the claim listing received 21 December 2023 despite this claim not being indicated as amended. This non-indicated amendment appears to partially revert changes made in the 21 December 2023 filing, creates no issue, and is entered. Note is made of this amendment simply because circumstances suggest that it may have been made in error. Please review claim 19 to ensure the language therein is as desired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered; they are addressed below.
Applicant argues that the amendment to the disclosure resolves the previous drawing objection. This argument is persuasive and the corresponding objection is withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the amendment to the claims resolves the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(d). This argument is persuasive and the corresponding objections are withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the combination of Shono et al. (Shono, US Patent 5,559,818) and Hasenberg et al. (Hasenberg, US Patent 7,903,711) does not teach or render obvious the limitations "A first strained barrier layer located on one side of the strained quantum well layer", "The first strained barrier layer and the strained quantum well layer are configured to form strain compensation", and "A second barrier layer located on the other side of the strained quantum well layer", as required by claim 1, because, according to applicant, Shono employs a different arrangement. To support this argument, applicant contends that the barrier layers of Shono are both strained.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because the claim does not exclude the configuration of Shono (MPEP §2145VI). Specifically, only claim 31 specifies that the second barrier layer is unstrained. Since claim 1 does not specify the strain of the second barrier layer, claim 1 cannot be defined over the combined teachings of Shono and Hasenberg on this basis. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
The limitations "A first strained barrier layer located on one side of the strained quantum well layer", "The first strained barrier layer and the strained quantum well layer are configured to form strain compensation", and "A second barrier layer located on the other side of the strained quantum well layer", are rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Shono and Hasenberg (see below). Applicant's argument that Shono employs a different arrangement is not persuasive because the claim does not exclude the configuration of Shono (MPEP §2145VI).
Applicant argues that the combination of Shono and Hasenberg does not teach or render obvious the limitation "Wherein a band offset between a conduction band of the first strained barrier layer and a conduction band of the strained quantum well layer is less than a band offset between a valence band of the strained quantum well layer and a valence band of the first strained barrier layer, and a band offset between a valence band of the strained quantum well layer and a valence band of the second barrier layer is less than a band offset between a conduction band of the second barrier layer and a conduction band of the strained quantum well layer" because, according to applicant, Shono does not discuss this feature. To support this argument, applicant contents that the barrier layers of Shono do not have a specific relationship of band offsets.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because the present claim is rejected on the basis of Shono and Hasenberg and Hasenberg teaches these particular limitations (MPEP §2145IV). Specifically, Hasenberg teaches a band offset relation that reads on the claimed configuration (Hasenberg, col. 3, lines 23-33 and col. 4, lines 11-28 discussing the configuration shown in Fig. 2A, pts. 16, 18, and 20). Since Hasenberg teaches the argued features, the combination of Shono and Hasenberg render obvious the argued limitations. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
The limitation "Wherein a band offset between a conduction band of the first strained barrier layer and a conduction band of the strained quantum well layer is less than a band offset between a valence band of the strained quantum well layer and a valence band of the first strained barrier layer, and a band offset between a valence band of the strained quantum well layer and a valence band of the second barrier layer is less than a band offset between a conduction band of the second barrier layer and a conduction band of the strained quantum well layer" is rendered obvious by Shono and Hasenberg (see below). Applicant's argument that Shono does not discuss this feature is not persuasive because the present claim is rejected on the basis of Shono and Hasenberg and Hasenberg teaches these particular limitations (MPEP §2145IV).
Applicant argues that the cited prior art do not teach or render obvious the limitation "Wherein the second barrier layer is a strain-free barrier layer" set forth in new claim 31. Applicant's argument is persuasive. However, upon further search and consideration, Miyazawa (US Patent 6,288,410) has been located which, in combination with the previously cited art, renders obvious this feature. As such, new rejections have been formulated as set forth below.
As such, all claims are addressed as follows:
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 through 9, 17, 18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shono et al. (Shono, US Patent 5,559,818) in view of Hasenberg et al. (Hasenberg, US Patent 7,903,711).
Regarding claim 1, Shono discloses, "A strained quantum well layer" (col. 4, lines 25-33 and Fig. 3, pt. 42). "A first strained barrier layer located on one side of the strained quantum well layer" (col. 4, lines 14-17 and 25-33 and Fig. 3, pts. 41, 42, and 43, where the barrier layer 41 on the n-side of the device corresponds to the first strained barrier layer). "Wherein the first strained barrier layer is configured to transport electrons" (col. 3, lines 48-67 and Fig. 2, pts. 3, 4, and 41). "The first strained barrier layer and the strained quantum well layer are configured to form strain compensation" (col. 6, lines 4-13). "A second barrier layer located on the other side of the strained quantum well layer" (col. 4, lines 14-17 and 25-33 and Fig. 3, pts. 41, 42, and 43, where the barrier layer 41 on the p-side of the device corresponds to the second strained barrier layer). "Wherein the second barrier layer is configured to transport holes" (col. 3, lines 48-67 and Fig. 2, pts. 4, 5, and 41). Shono does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a band offset between a conduction band of the first strained barrier layer and a conduction band of the strained quantum well layer is less than a band offset between a valence band of the strained quantum well layer and a valence band of the first strained barrier layer." "A band offset between a valence band of the strained quantum well layer and a valence band of the second barrier layer is less than a band offset between a conduction band of the second barrier layer and a conduction band of the strained quantum well layer." Hasenberg discloses, "Wherein a band offset between a conduction band of the first strained barrier layer and a conduction band of the strained quantum well layer is less than a band offset between a valence band of the strained quantum well layer and a valence band of the first strained barrier layer" (col. 4, lines 11-28 and Fig. 2A, pts. 16 and 18). "A band offset between a valence band of the strained quantum well layer and a valence band of the second barrier layer is less than a band offset between a conduction band of the second barrier layer and a conduction band of the strained quantum well layer" (col. 3, lines 23-33 and Fig. 2A, pts. 18 and 20). 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 Shono with the teachings of Hasenberg. In view of the teachings of Shono regarding a laser having a strained quantum well active layer, the alternate construction of the barrier layers as taught by Hasenberg would enhance the teachings of Shono by allowing the carrier confinement characteristics of the barrier layers to be enhanced.
Regarding claim 2, Shono does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the band offset between the conduction band of the first strained barrier layer and the conduction band of the strained quantum well layer is less than the band offset between the conduction band of the second barrier layer and the conduction band of the strained quantum well layer." "The band offset between the valence band of the strained quantum well layer and the valence band of the second barrier layer is less than the band offset between the valence band of the strained quantum well layer and the valence band of the first strained barrier layer." Hasenberg discloses, "Wherein the band offset between the conduction band of the first strained barrier layer and the conduction band of the strained quantum well layer is less than the band offset between the conduction band of the second barrier layer and the conduction band of the strained quantum well layer" (col. 3, lines 20-33 and Fig. 2A, pts. 16, 18, and 20). "The band offset between the valence band of the strained quantum well layer and the valence band of the second barrier layer is less than the band offset between the valence band of the strained quantum well layer and the valence band of the first strained barrier layer" (Fig. 2A, pts. 16, 18, and 20). 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 Shono with the teachings of Hasenberg for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, The combination of Shono and Hasenberg does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a band gap of the first strained barrier layer is equal to a band gap of the second barrier layer." The examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that it was known in the art to adjust the band gaps of materials within an active layer to control the flow of carriers through the active layer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the constituent layers to exhibit the band relations set forth in the claim so as to produce a desired control over carrier flow within the active layer, 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 4, Shono discloses, "The strained quantum well layer is a tensile strained quantum well layer" (col. 4, lines 25-33 and Fig. 3, pt. 42). "The first strained barrier layer is a compressive strained barrier layer" (col. 4, lines 14-17 and 25-33 and Fig. 3, pt. 41). Shono does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a luminous wavelength of the high-efficiency active layer is in a range of 750nm to 860nm." "The material of the tensile strained quantum well layer comprises GaAsx3P1-x3." "The material of the compressive strained barrier layer comprises Inx1Ga1-x1P." "The material of the second barrier layer comprises Alx2Ga1-x2As." Hasenberg discloses, "Wherein a luminous wavelength of the high-efficiency active layer is in a range of 750nm to 860nm" (col. 2-3, lines 65-1). "The material of the tensile strained quantum well layer comprises GaAsx3P1-x3" (col. 3, lines 23-26 and Fig. 2A, pt. 18). "The material of the compressive strained barrier layer comprises Inx1Ga1-x1P" (col. 3, lines 20-22 and Fig. 2A, pt. 16). "The material of the second barrier layer comprises Alx2Ga1-x2As" (col. 3, lines 27-31 and Fig. 2A, pt. 20). 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 Shono with the teachings of Hasenberg for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Shono does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a band offset between a conduction band of the compressive strained barrier layer and a conduction band of the tensile strained quantum well layer is a first band offset." "A band offset between a valence band of the tensile strained quantum well layer and a valence band of the compressive strained barrier layer is a second band offset." Hasenberg discloses, "Wherein a band offset between a conduction band of the compressive strained barrier layer and a conduction band of the tensile strained quantum well layer is a first band offset" (col. 4, lines 11-28 and Fig. 2A, pts. 16 and 18). "A band offset between a valence band of the tensile strained quantum well layer and a valence band of the compressive strained barrier layer is a second band offset" (col. 4, lines 11-28 and Fig. 2A, pts. 16 and 18). 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 Shono with the teachings of Hasenberg for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Shono and Hasenberg does not explicitly disclose, "A ratio of the first band offset to the second band offset is in a range of 35/65 to 47/53." The examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that it was known in the art to adjust the band gaps of materials within an active layer to control the flow of carriers through the active layer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the constituent layers to exhibit the band relations set forth in the claim so as to produce a desired control over carrier flow within the active layer, 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 6, Shono does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a band offset between the valence band of the tensile strained quantum well layer and the valence band of the second barrier layer is a third band offset." "A band offset between the conduction band of the second barrier layer and the conduction band of the tensile strained quantum well layer is a fourth band offset." Hasenberg discloses, "Wherein a band offset between the valence band of the tensile strained quantum well layer and the valence band of the second barrier layer is a third band offset" (col. 3, lines 23-33 and Fig. 2A, pts. 18 and 20). "A band offset between the conduction band of the second barrier layer and the conduction band of the tensile strained quantum well layer is a fourth band offset" (col. 3, lines 23-33 and Fig. 2A, pts. 18 and 20). 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 Shono with the teachings of Hasenberg for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Shono and Hasenberg does not explicitly disclose, "A ratio of the third band offset to the fourth band offset is in a range of 35/65 to 47/53." The examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that it was known in the art to adjust the band gaps of materials within an active layer to control the flow of carriers through the active layer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the constituent layers to exhibit the band relations set forth in the claim so as to produce a desired control over carrier flow within the active layer, 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 7, Shono does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the thickness of the tensile strained quantum well layer is in a range of 8nm to 20nm." Hasenberg discloses, "Wherein the thickness of the tensile strained quantum well layer is in a range of 8nm to 20nm" (col. 3, lines 23-27 and Fig. 2A, pt. 18). 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 Shono with the teachings of Hasenberg for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Shono does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein x3 ranges from 0.70 to 0.95." Hasenberg discloses, "Wherein x3 ranges from 0.70 to 0.95" (col. 3, lines 23-26 and Fig. 2A, pt. 18). 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 Shono with the teachings of Hasenberg for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, The combination of Shono and Hasenberg does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the material of the tensile strained quantum well layer is GaAs0.82P0.18." The examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that it was known in the art to adjust the composition ratio of a III-V material in an active layer so as to control an emission wavelength. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the composition of the quantum well so as to produce a desired emission wavelength, 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 17, Shono discloses, "A semiconductor light-emitting device" (col. 3, lines 43-46 and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Shono discloses, "A semiconductor substrate layer" (col. 3, lines 47-58 and Fig. 1, pt. 1). "Wherein the high-efficiency active layer is located on the semiconductor substrate layer" (col. 3, lines 47-67 and Fig. 1, pts. 1 and 4). Shono does not explicitly disclose, "The material of the strained quantum well layer is tensilely strained relative to the material of the semiconductor substrate layer, and the material of the first strained barrier layer is compressively strained relative to the material of the semiconductor substrate layer, or, alternatively, the material of the strained quantum well layer is compressively strained relative to the material of the semiconductor substrate layer, and the material of the first strained barrier layer is tensilely strained relative to the material of the semiconductor substrate layer." Hasenberg discloses, "The material of the strained quantum well layer is tensilely strained relative to the material of the semiconductor substrate layer, and the material of the first strained barrier layer is compressively strained relative to the material of the semiconductor substrate layer, or, alternatively, the material of the strained quantum well layer is compressively strained relative to the material of the semiconductor substrate layer, and the material of the first strained barrier layer is tensilely strained relative to the material of the semiconductor substrate layer" (col. 4, lines 11-28 and Fig. 2A, pts. 16 and 18). 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 Shono with the teachings of Hasenberg for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, Shono discloses, "Forming a first strained barrier layer" (col. 4, lines 14-17 and 25-33 and Fig. 3, pts. 41, 42, and 43, where the barrier layer 41 on the n-side of the device corresponds to the first strained barrier layer). "Wherein the first strained barrier layer is configured to transport electrons" (col. 3, lines 48-67 and Fig. 2, pts. 3, 4, and 41). "Forming a second barrier layer" (col. 4, lines 14-17 and 25-33 and Fig. 3, pts. 41, 42, and 43, where the barrier layer 41 on the p-side of the device corresponds to the second strained barrier layer). "Wherein the second barrier layer is configured to transport holes" (col. 3, lines 48-67 and Fig. 2, pts. 4, 5, and 41). "Forming a strained quantum well layer between the step of forming the first strained barrier layer and the step of forming the second barrier layer" (col. 4, lines 25-33 and Fig. 3, pt. 42). "Wherein the first strained barrier layer and the strained quantum well layer are configured to form strain compensation" (col. 6, lines 4-13). Shono does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a band offset between the conduction band of the first strained barrier layer and the conduction band of the strained quantum well layer is less than a band offset between the valence band of the strained quantum well layer and the valence band of the first strained barrier layer." "A band offset between the valence band of the strained quantum well layer and the valence band of the second barrier layer is less than a band offset between the conduction band of the second barrier layer and the conduction band of the strained quantum well layer." Hasenberg discloses, "Wherein a band offset between the conduction band of the first strained barrier layer and the conduction band of the strained quantum well layer is less than a band offset between the valence band of the strained quantum well layer and the valence band of the first strained barrier layer" (col. 4, lines 11-28 and Fig. 2A, pts. 16 and 18). "A band offset between the valence band of the strained quantum well layer and the valence band of the second barrier layer is less than a band offset between the conduction band of the second barrier layer and the conduction band of the strained quantum well layer" (col. 3, lines 23-33 and Fig. 2A, pts. 18 and 20). 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 Shono with the teachings of Hasenberg for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, Shono discloses, "The strained quantum well layer is a tensile strained quantum well layer" (col. 4, lines 25-33 and Fig. 3, pt. 42). "The first strained barrier layer is a compressive strained barrier layer" (col. 4, lines 14-17 and 25-33 and Fig. 3, pt. 41). Shono does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a luminous wavelength of the high-efficiency active layer is in a range of 750nm to 860nm." "The material of the tensile strained quantum well layer comprises GaAsx3P1-x3." "The material of the compressive strained barrier layer comprises Inx1Ga1-x1P." "The material of the second barrier layer comprises Alx2Ga1-x2As." Hasenberg discloses, "Wherein a luminous wavelength of the high-efficiency active layer is in a range of 750nm to 860nm" (col. 2-3, lines 65-1). "The material of the tensile strained quantum well layer comprises GaAsx3P1-x3" (col. 3, lines 23-26 and Fig. 2A, pt. 18). "The material of the compressive strained barrier layer comprises Inx1Ga1-x1P" (col. 3, lines 20-22 and Fig. 2A, pt. 16). "The material of the second barrier layer comprises Alx2Ga1-x2As" (col. 3, lines 27-31 and Fig. 2A, pt. 20). 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 Shono with the teachings of Hasenberg for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Claims 10 through 12, 19, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shono, in view of Hasenberg, and further in view of Asano et al. (Asano, US Patent 6,285,695).
Regarding claim 10, Shono does not explicitly disclose, "The material of the compressive strained quantum well layer comprises Inx6Ga1-x6As." "The material of the tensile strained barrier layer comprises GaAsx4P1-x4." "The material of the second barrier layer comprises Alx5Ga1-x5As." Hasenberg discloses, "The material of the compressive strained quantum well layer comprises Inx6Ga1-x6As" (col. 3, lines 23-26 and Fig. 2A, pt. 18). "The material of the tensile strained barrier layer comprises GaAsx4P1-x4" (col. 3, lines 20-22 and Fig. 2A, pt. 16). "The material of the second barrier layer comprises Alx5Ga1-x5As" (col. 3, lines 27-31 and Fig. 2A, pt. 20). 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 Shono with the teachings of Hasenberg for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Shono and Hasenberg does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a luminous wavelength of the high-efficiency active layer is in a range of 870nm to 1100nm." "The strained quantum well layer is a compressive strained quantum well layer." "The first strained barrier layer is a tensile strained barrier layer." Asano discloses, "Wherein a luminous wavelength of the high-efficiency active layer is in a range of 870nm to 1100nm" (col. 6, lines 18-23). "The strained quantum well layer is a compressive strained quantum well layer" (col. 3, lines 10-16 and Fig. 1, pt. 5). "The first strained barrier layer is a tensile strained barrier layer" (col. 3, lines 10-16 and Fig. 1, pt. 4). 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 the combination of Shono and Hasenberg with the teachings of Asano. In view of the teachings of Shono regarding a laser having a strained quantum well active layer, the additional inclusion of separate waveguide layers adjacent to the outer barrier layers as well as the alternate strain configuration and emission wavelength of the active layer as taught by Asano would enhance the teachings of Shono and Hasenberg by allowing greater flexibility in construction of the waveguide layers as well as allowing for improved operation at an alternate emission band.
Regarding claim 11, Shono does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a band offset between a conduction band of the tensile strained barrier layer and a conduction band of the compressive strained quantum well layer is a first band offset." "A band offset between a valence band of the compressive strained quantum well layer and a valence band of the tensile strained barrier layer is a second band offset." Hasenberg discloses, "Wherein a band offset between a conduction band of the tensile strained barrier layer and a conduction band of the compressive strained quantum well layer is a first band offset" (col. 4, lines 11-28 and Fig. 2A, pts. 16 and 18). "A band offset between a valence band of the compressive strained quantum well layer and a valence band of the tensile strained barrier layer is a second band offset" (col. 4, lines 11-28 and Fig. 2A, pts. 16 and 18). 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 Shono with the teachings of Hasenberg for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Shono, Hasenberg, and Asano does not explicitly disclose, "A ratio of the first band offset to the second band offset is in a range of 30/70 to 45/55." The examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that it was known in the art to adjust the band gaps of materials within an active layer to control the flow of carriers through the active layer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the constituent layers to exhibit the band relations set forth in the claim so as to produce a desired control over carrier flow within the active layer, 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 12, Shono does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a band offset between the valence band of the compressive strained quantum well layer and the valence band of the second barrier layer is a third band offset." "A band offset between the conduction band of the second barrier layer and the conduction band of the compressive strained quantum well layer is a fourth band offset." Hasenberg discloses, "Wherein a band offset between the valence band of the compressive strained quantum well layer and the valence band of the second barrier layer is a third band offset" (col. 3, lines 23-33 and Fig. 2A, pts. 18 and 20). "A band offset between the conduction band of the second barrier layer and the conduction band of the compressive strained quantum well layer is a fourth band offset" (col. 3, lines 23-33 and Fig. 2A, pts. 18 and 20). 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 Shono with the teachings of Hasenberg for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Shono, Hasenberg, and Asano does not explicitly disclose, "A ratio of the third band offset to the fourth band offset is in a range of 30/70 to 45/55." The examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that it was known in the art to adjust the band gaps of materials within an active layer to control the flow of carriers through the active layer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the constituent layers to exhibit the band relations set forth in the claim so as to produce a desired control over carrier flow within the active layer, 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 19, Shono discloses, "The semiconductor light-emitting device further comprises an N-type limiting layer and a P-type limiting layer" (col. 3, lines 48-67 and Fig. 2, pts. 3 and 5).
The combination of Shono and Hasenberg does not explicitly disclose, "An N-type waveguide layer and a P-type waveguide layer arranged opposite to each other." "Wherein the high-efficiency active layer is located between the N-type waveguide layer and the P-type waveguide layer." "Wherein the N-type limiting layer is located on a side, away from the high-efficiency active layer, of the N-type waveguide layer." "The P-type limiting layer is located on a side, away from the high-efficiency active layer, of the P-type waveguide layer." Asano discloses, "An N-type waveguide layer and a P-type waveguide layer arranged opposite to each other" (col. 3, lines 10-16 and Fig. 1, pts. 3 and 7). "Wherein the high-efficiency active layer is located between the N-type waveguide layer and the P-type waveguide layer" (col. 3, lines 10-16 and Fig. 1, pts. 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7). "Wherein the N-type limiting layer is located on a side, away from the high-efficiency active layer, of the N-type waveguide layer" (col. 3, lines 10-16 and Fig. 1, pts. 2, 3, and 4). "The P-type limiting layer is located on a side, away from the high-efficiency active layer, of the P-type waveguide layer" (col. 3, lines 10-16 and Fig. 1, pts. 6, 7, and 8). 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 the combination of Shono and Hasenberg with the teachings of Asano for the reasons provided above regarding claim 10.
Regarding claim 24, Shono does not explicitly disclose, "The material of the compressive strained quantum well layer comprises Inx6Ga1-x6As." "The material of the tensile strained barrier layer comprises GaAsx4P1-x4." "The material of the second barrier layer comprises Alx5Ga1-x5As." Hasenberg discloses, "The material of the compressive strained quantum well layer comprises Inx6Ga1-x6As" (col. 3, lines 23-26 and Fig. 2A, pt. 18). "The material of the tensile strained barrier layer comprises GaAsx4P1-x4" (col. 3, lines 20-22 and Fig. 2A, pt. 16). "The material of the second barrier layer comprises Alx5Ga1-x5As" (col. 3, lines 27-31 and Fig. 2A, pt. 20). 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 Shono with the teachings of Hasenberg for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Shono and Hasenberg does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein aluminous wavelength of the high-efficiency active layer is in a range of 870nm to 1100nm." "The strained quantum well layer is a compressive strained quantum well layer." "The first strained barrier layer is a tensile strained barrier layer." Asano discloses, "Wherein aluminous wavelength of the high-efficiency active layer is in a range of 870nm to 1100nm" (col. 6, lines 18-23). "The strained quantum well layer is a compressive strained quantum well layer" (col. 3, lines 10-16 and Fig. 1, pt. 5). "The first strained barrier layer is a tensile strained barrier layer" (col. 3, lines 10-16 and Fig. 1, pt. 4). 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 the combination of Shono and Hasenberg with the teachings of Asano for the reasons provided above regarding claim 10.
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shono, in view of Hasenberg, and further in view of Pinzone (US Patent 5,685,904).
Regarding claim 22, Shono discloses, "Wherein the strained quantum well layer is formed after the first strained barrier layer is formed" (col. 4, lines 18-24 and Fig. 2, pts. 41 and 42). Shono does not explicitly disclose, "In the step of forming the first strained barrier layer, an In-source gas, a Ga-source gas and a P-source gas are introduced." "In the step of forming the strained quantum well layer, the Ga-source gas, an As-source gas, and the P-source gas are introduced." Hasenberg discloses, "In the step of forming the first strained barrier layer, an In-source gas, a Ga-source gas and a P-source gas are introduced" (col. 3, lines 20-22 and Fig. 2A, pt. 16). "In the step of forming the strained quantum well layer, the Ga-source gas, an As-source gas, and the P-source gas are introduced" (col. 3, lines 23-26 and Fig. 2A, pt. 18). 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 Shono with the teachings of Hasenberg for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Shono and Hasenberg does not explicitly disclose, "Between the step of forming the first strained barrier layer and the step of forming the strained quantum well layer, first interruption processing, second interruption processing and third interruption processing are sequentially performed." Pinzone discloses, "Between the step of forming the first strained barrier layer and the step of forming the strained quantum well layer, first interruption processing, second interruption processing and third interruption processing are sequentially performed" (col. 5, lines 36-49). 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 the combination of Shono and Hasenberg with the teachings of Pinzone. In view of the teachings of Shono regarding a laser having a strained quantum well active layer, the particular growth process including growth interrupts in which the group V precursor flow is maintained as taught by Pinzone would enhance the teachings of Shono and Hasenberg by allowing layers of differing compositions to be cleanly constructed one atop the other.
The combination of Shono, Hasenberg, and Pinzone does not explicitly disclose, "During the first interruption processing, the In-source gas, the Ga-source gas and the As-source gas are turned off, and the P-source gas is introduced." "During the second interruption processing, the In-source gas and the Ga-source gas are turned off, and the As-source gas and the P-source gas are introduced." "During the third interruption processing, the In-source gas and the Ga-source gas are turned off, and the As-source gas and the P-source gas are introduced." "Wherein a supplying amount of the P-source gas decreases with time during the third interruption processing." The examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that it was known in the art to change the group V precursor atmosphere of a growth chamber during an interruption in growth so as to reconfigure the chamber from a condition for growing a layer having one composition of group V elements to a condition for growing a layer having a different composition of group V elements with a stable group V element flow and it was known in the art to perform an action in a series of discrete steps in which a system state is allowed to settle between those steps. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the atmosphere transition in a series of steps in which gas flows are individually changed in sequence, since such a process conforms to the known practice of maintaining group V precursor flow through the generally known practice of performing individual changes one at a time.
Regarding claim 23, Shono discloses, "Wherein the second barrier layer is formed after the strained quantum well layer is formed" (col. 4, lines 18-24 and Fig. 2, pts. 41 and 42). Shono does not explicitly disclose, "In the step of forming the strained quantum well layer, the Ga-source gas the As-source gas and the P-source gas are introduced." "In the step of forming the second barrier layer, an Al-source gas, the Ga-source gas and the As-source gas are introduced." Hasenberg discloses, "In the step of forming the strained quantum well layer, the Ga-source gas the As-source gas and the P-source gas are introduced" (col. 3, lines 23-26 and Fig. 2A, pt. 18). "In the step of forming the second barrier layer, an Al-source gas, the Ga-source gas and the As-source gas are introduced" (col. 3, lines 27-31 and Fig. 2A, pt. 20). 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 Shono with the teachings of Hasenberg for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Shono and Hasenberg does not explicitly disclose, "Fourth interruption processing is performed between the step of forming the strained quantum well layer and the step of forming the second barrier layer." Pinzone discloses, "Fourth interruption processing is performed between the step of forming the strained quantum well layer and the step of forming the second barrier layer" (col. 5, lines 36-49). 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 the combination of Shono and Hasenberg with the teachings of Pinzone for the reasons provided above regarding claim 22.
The combination of Shono, Hasenberg, and Pinzone does not explicitly disclose, "In the fourth interruption processing, the Ga-source gas and the P-source gas are turned off, and the As-source gas is introduced." The examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that it was known in the art to change the group V precursor atmosphere of a growth chamber during an interruption in growth so as to reconfigure the chamber from a condition for growing a layer having one composition of group V elements to a condition for growing a layer having a different composition of group V elements with a stable group V element flow. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the growth interruption by stopping all gasses except the group V precursor desired for the subsequent layer, since such a process conforms to the known practice of maintaining group V precursor flow while preparing the atmosphere for the next layer growth.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shono, in view of Hasenberg, in view of Asano, and further in view of Miyazawa (US Patent 6,288,410).
Regarding claim 31, The combination of Shono, Hasenberg, and Asano does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the second barrier layer is a strain-free barrier layer." Miyazawa discloses, "Wherein the second barrier layer is a strain-free barrier layer" (col. 13-14, lines 67-9 and Fig. 5, pt. 47). 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 the combination of Shono, Hasenberg, and Asano with the teachings of Miyazawa. In view of the teachings of Shono regarding a laser having a strained quantum well active layer, the alternate use of at least one strained barrier layer and at least one unstrained barrier layer as taught by Miyazawa would enhance the teachings of Shono, Hasenberg, and Asano by allowing for a transition between strain effects throughout the device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jewell et al. (Jewell, US Patent 5,719,895) is cited for teaching strain compensation between only two oppositely strained adjacent layers.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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