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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, Species A1, and Species B1 in the reply filed on 12/17/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 15, 16, 19, and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/17/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/11/2022 was filed after the filing date of this application on 09/01/2021. 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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the disc of claim 17 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 17 is 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. Claim 17 recites “the first cavity associated with the micro-ring laser is a disc”. Claim 17 depends from claim 1 which requires “a micro-ring laser having a first cavity”. A disc is a solid filled circle while a ring is a hollow hoop. Accordingly, it is unclear how claim 17 can contain all the limitations of claim 1. 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.
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, 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gu et al. (CN112310808A), hereafter Gu.
Regarding claim 1, Gu discloses an optical device (Title), comprising: a micro-ring laser having a first cavity (Fig. 1 element 2), wherein light emitted by the micro-ring laser is configured to circulate the first cavity ([0030]); and a waveguide (Fig. 1 element 1) having a second cavity defined by a first reflector (Fig. 1 elements 41; [0054]), wherein the waveguide and the micro-ring laser are positioned with a distance therebetween that allows at least some of the light emitted by the micro-ring laser to leak into the second cavity from the first cavity and reflect off the first reflector (Fig. 1 element 3; [0055]).
Regarding claim 2, Gu further disclose a second reflector ([0039]), wherein: the first reflector is positioned at a first side of the waveguide in relation to the micro-ring laser ([0039]), the second reflector is positioned on a second side of the waveguide ([0039]), the second side opposite the first side in relation to the micro-ring laser ([0039]), and the second reflector is associated with a reflectivity that is less than a reflectivity of the first reflector ([0039]).
Regarding claim 5, Gu further discloses the first reflector provides self- injection locking for the optical device ([0057]).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3, 7-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu in view of Liang (US20160336708A1), hereafter Liang.
Regarding claim 3, Gu does not explicitly disclose the first reflector is a Distributed Braggs Reflector (DBR). However, Liang disclose the first reflector is a Distributed Braggs Reflector (DBR) (Fig. 4 element 428). An advantage is to use a known component to create the reflective elements. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gu with the first reflector is a Distributed Braggs Reflector (DBR) as disclosed by Liang in order to use a known component to create the reflective elements and since it has been held simply substituting one known element (e.g. a reflective coating) for another known element (e.g. a DBR) with predictable results (e.g. both are reflective and Gu indicates other reflective components may be used [0054]) requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 7, Gu further discloses aligning the cavity modes of the first cavity and the second cavity and the length of the second cavity controls the mode spacing in the second cavity ([0057]). Gu does not explicitly disclose a thermal heater configured to adjust temperature of the second cavity. However, Liang discloses using heater to tune the waveguide (Fig. 6A element 660A). An advantage is to tune the output of the device ([0021]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gu with a thermal heater configured to adjust temperature of the second cavity as disclosed by Liang in order to tune the output of the device.
Regarding claim 8, Gu further discloses a coupler between the first cavity and the second cavity (Fig. 1 element 3). Gu does not explicitly disclose the coupler is tunable. However, Liang discloses the coupler is tunable ([0018]). An advantage is tune the output of the device ([0018]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Gu with the coupler is tunable as disclosed by Liang in order to tune the output of the device.
Regarding claim 9, Gu further discloses the coupler is at least one of a directional coupler, multi-mode interference (MMI) coupler, or a vertical coupler ([0055]).
Regarding claim 10, Liang further discloses the tunable coupler is tunable either by metal-oxide-silicon (MOS) effect or thermal tuning ([0021]).
Regarding claim 13, Gu further discloses a ring of the micro-ring laser and the waveguide are planar on a same plane (Fig. 1 elements 1 and 2 are on the plane of the page).
Regarding claim 14, Gu in view of Liang do not explicitly disclose the DBR has corrugations that are on top of the waveguide with respect to the plane. However, the Office takes Official Notice that forming DBR has corrugations that are on top of the waveguide with respect to the plane is well known in the art. An advantage is to use well known techniques in order to form the DBR. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gu in view of Liang with the DBR has corrugations that are on top of the waveguide with respect to the plane as is known in the art in order to use well known techniques in order to form the DBR.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu in view of Thompson (US4002997), hereafter Thompson.
Regarding claim 6, Gun does not explicitly disclose the first cavity comprises a single mode filter. However, Thompson discloses the first cavity comprises a single mode filter (col. 8 ll. 30-37). An advantage is to select the desired mode (col. 8 ll. 30-37). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gu with the first cavity comprises a single mode filter as disclosed by Thompson in order to select the desired mode.
Claim 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu in view of Ilchenko et al. (US20050185681A1), hereafter Ilchenko.
Regarding claims 11, Gu does not explicitly disclose a phase tuner positioned on the micro-ring laser, wherein the phase tuner is tunable to adjust wavelengths of modulation side-bands of the micro-ring laser. However, Ilchenko discloses a phase tuner positioned on the micro-ring laser, wherein the phase tuner is tunable to adjust wavelengths of modulation side-bands of the micro-ring laser ([0039]). An advantage is to limit phase noise ([0039]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gu with a phase tuner positioned on the micro-ring laser, wherein the phase tuner is tunable to adjust wavelengths of modulation side-bands of the micro-ring laser as disclosed by Ilchenko in order to limit phase noise.
Regarding claims 12, Gu does not explicitly disclose a phase tuner positioned on the first side of the waveguide, wherein the phase tuner is tunable to adjust wavelengths of modulation side-bands of the micro-ring laser. However, Ilchenko discloses a phase tuner positioned on the micro-ring laser, wherein the phase tuner is tunable to adjust wavelengths of modulation side-bands of the micro-ring laser ([0039]). An advantage is to limit phase noise ([0039]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gu with a phase tuner positioned on the micro-ring laser, wherein the phase tuner is tunable to adjust wavelengths of modulation side-bands of the micro-ring laser as disclosed by Ilchenko in order to limit phase noise. Additionally, the Office takes Official Notice that placing the phase tuner on the first waveguide would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Gu in view of Ilchenko with placing the phase tuner on the first waveguide as is known in the art, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu in view of Srinivasan et al. (US20080089367A1), hereafter Srinivasan.
Regarding claim 17, Gu does not explicitly disclose the first cavity associated with the micro-ring laser is a disc. However, Srinivasan discloses the first cavity associated with the micro-ring laser is a disc ([0022]). An advantage is to use a known alternative cavity shape. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gu with the first cavity associated with the micro-ring laser is a disc as disclosed by Srinivasan in order to use a known alternative cavity shape and since it has been held simply substituting one known element (e.g. a ring cavity) for another known element (e.g. a disc cavity) with predictable results (e.g. both are known cavities with known modes) requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu.
Regarding claim 18, Gu does not explicitly disclose the optical device transmits optoelectronic signals having frequencies between 50 GHz to 70 GHz. However, the Office takes Official Notice that optimizing the frequencies a device emits at is well known in the art based on the intended use of the device. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gu with the optical device transmits optoelectronic signals having frequencies between 50 GHz to 70 GHz, since it is known in the art to optimizing the transmission frequencies based on the intended use and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: While the individual elements of claims 4 are known in the art, the Office has no motivation to combine the various elements to arrive at applicant’s claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited. See, e.g., US6819691.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA KING whose telephone number is (571)270-1441. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10am-5pm MT.
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, Min Sun 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.
/Joshua King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828 04/04/2026