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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains more than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 2 reads “…film formed…” and is believed to more clearly read “film is formed”.
Line 3 reads “…thereof is…” and is believed to more clearly read “…thereof and is….”.
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, 5, 7, 9 (and all claims dependent therefrom; 2-9) 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 1 at line 13 refers to “both end surfaces”. It is unclear what end surfaces are being referenced, making the scope of the claim unclear.
For purposes of examination, the limitation will be read as “first and second end surfaces of the laser element”.
Claim 1 at line 18 refers to “and cut in a rectangular shape”. It is unclear if the term “cut” is meant to be referring to an area where material has been removed or is perhaps referring to a more general process of shaping.
For purposes of examination, the limitation is understood to be a more general process of shaping.
The Examiner further notes MPEP 2113 outlining product-by-process limitations being limited only by the resultant structure thereof.
Claim 5 at line 2 refers to “the cleavage line” without first defining the cleavage line, making the scope of the claim unclear.
For purposes of examination, the limitation is understood to read “cleavage lines”.
Claim 5 at line 3 refers to “a barrier metal”. Claim 5 also depends from claim 4 in which “a barrier metal” is established to be present. It is therefore unclear if the barrier metal of claim 5 is a new barrier metal or the previously referred to barrier metal.
For purposes of examination, the limitation is read as “the barrier metal”.
Claim 7 at line 4 refers to “an insulation layer”. Claim 7 also depends from claim 1 in which “an insulation layer” is established to be present. It is therefore unclear if the insulation layer of claim 7 is a new barrier metal or the previously referred to barrier metal.
For purposes of examination, the limitation is read as “the insulation layer”.
Claim 9 at line 2 refers to “the pattern”, “the character”, “the symbol” and “the combination thereof” without first defining the presence of these elements.
For purposes of examination, the limitations will be read as “a pattern”, “a character”, “a symbol” and “a combination thereof”.
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) 1-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerhard et al. (US 2020/0161836) in view of Noguchi et al. (US 2020/0244041).
With respect to claim 1, Gerhard teaches a semiconductor laser element (fig.1a, abstract) comprising: a GaN substrate (fig.1a #1, [0048]); a nitride semiconductor layer (fig.1a #24/23, [0067]) laminated on the GaN substrate; an active layer (fig.1a #3) laminated on the nitride semiconductor layer; a nitride semiconductor layer (fig.1a #22/21+unshown clad, [0070], [0067]) laminated on the active layer and formed in a ridge waveguide structure (fig.1a #9); transparent conductive film side bands (fig.1a #41s on left/right, fig.1e) laminated on the nitride semiconductor layer and extending in a band shape along a longitudinal direction toward both end surfaces (fig.1e #41s on left/right extend towards ends of the laser); a transparent conductive film (fig.1a central #41, fig.1e) provided continuously with the transparent conductive film side bands (central #41 formed in continuous extended pattern with left/right #41s), laminated on the nitride semiconductor layer, and formed with each of regions sandwiched between the transparent conductive film side bands (fig.1a portions of central #41 are between left/right #41s) and cut in a rectangular shape (central #41 is rectangular and regions indicated in annotated figure below are rectangular) to be in contact with the end surfaces (central #41 is in contract with ends, see annotated figure 1e below); an insulating layer (fig.1a #19) laminated on the transparent conductive film (as #19 is “in close proximity with”); and a metal layer (fig.1a #15) laminated on the insulating layer. Gerhard further teaches using p/n layering ([0049]), but does not specify the first nitride layer is of a first conductivity type, and the second nitride layer is of a second conductivity type. Noguchi teaches a related nitride ([0022]) laser (fig.1) making use of a transparent conductive oxide (fig.1 #16) and which uses a first layer of a first conductivity type (fig.1 #12, [0023]) and a second layer of a second conductivity type (fig.1 #14, [0028]). 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 Gerhard to make use of the opposed doping types on either side of the active region as demonstrated by Noguchi in order to facilitate current flow into the active region by using a pn junction.
PNG
media_image1.png
716
591
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Gerhard teaches the nitride semiconductor layer of the first conductivity type includes a cladding layer and a guide layer ([0070]).
With respect to claim 3, Gerhard teaches the nitride semiconductor layer of the second conductivity type includes a cladding layer and a guide layer ([0070]).
With respect to claim 4, Gerhard teaches the metal layer includes a pad metal layer ([0069], Ti layer), a barrier metal layer ([0069] Pt layer), and a bonding metal layer ([0069] Au layer; capable of bonding [0074]).
With respect to claim 5, Gerhard teaches the metal layer laminated on the cleavage line to be a front end surface and a rear end surface (note mpep 2113, wherein “cleavage” is understood to be a product-by-process limitation only limited by the final product; here the front/rear ends are separated from other material and therefor are considered the cleavage line(s)) is a barrier metal layer ([0069], each metal layer formed across entire top surface, therefore the barrier Pt layer is on each end face).
With respect to claim 6, Gerhard teaches the transparent conductive film includes indium tin oxide (ITO), indium titanium oxide (ITiO) ([0076]), aluminum oxide-doped zinc oxide (AZO), or IGZO (InGaZnOx).
With respect to claim 8, Gerhard teaches the transparent conductive film formed in a pattern, a character, a symbol, or a combination thereof is disposed in the region of the transparent conductive film sandwiched between the transparent conductive film side bands and cut into the rectangular shape (the annotated fig.1e above has the two rectangular portions of central #41, each of these portions can be considered a pattern or a symbol).
Claim(s) 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerhard and Noguchi in view of Gerhard et al. (US 2020/0091681; hereafter ‘681).
With respect to claim 7, Gerhard, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach a region of the transparent conductive film sandwiched between the transparent conductive film side bands and cut in a rectangular shape is covered with an insulating layer. ‘681 teaches a similar laser device (fig.1a) which includes forming the insulator (fig.4 #19) to cover the transparent conductor (fig.4 #41, [0031]). 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 Gerhard to make use of using the insulator to at least partially cover a region of the transparent conductive film sandwiched between the transparent conductive film side bands and cut in a rectangular shape as ‘681 has taught that such covering is useful for controlling both temperature and current distribution (‘681, [0059]).
With respect to claim 9, Gerhard, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach the pattern, the character, the symbol, or the combination thereof of the transparent conductive film formed in the region of the transparent conductive film sandwiched between the transparent conductive film side bands and cut into the rectangular shape is different between a front end surface and a rear end surface. ‘681 further teaches the ends of the central conductor #41 can be of differing shapes (fig.3e top vs bottom of #41 is different). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to change the shape of the front vs rear of the transparent conductive film of Gerhard as ‘681 has demonstrated such changes in shape are useful for controlling the current injection areas and mode structure (‘681, [0053]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see the included pto892 form for a list of related art.
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