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 .
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 applicant’s arguments filed on 12/10/2025 are not persuasive.
On page 4, lines 6 to 19, the applicant argued “Sanford nowhere teaches explicitly or implicitly any waveguide resonator, nor any mention of index of refraction. In fact, Sanford only teaches a typical free-space Ti:sapphire laser system, using a bulk Ti:sapphire crystal.”. However applicant’s argument is not persuasive because as stated in the rejection, Element 208 of Sanford is necessarily "waveguide resonators" constituting "a gain medium" ([0037]), as each is a laser device which necessarily comprises a gain medium to produce light, as well as a resonator to enable feedback for stimulated emission and coherent light production, and at least the simple interface of air/gain-medium/air (low index material/ high index material/ low index material) and a second waveguide resonator composed of a titanium doped sapphire gain medium (218, paragraph [0038] teaches that the mode-locked laser 218 can be a passively mode locked laser such as titanium sapphire. Element 208 is necessarily "waveguide resonators" constituting a "Ti:Sapphire gain medium" ([0038])), as each is a laser device which necessarily comprises a gain medium to produce light, as well as a resonator to enable feedback for stimulated emission and coherent light production, and at least the simple interface of air/gain-medium/air (low index material/ high index material/ low index material) within the lasing devices can be said to constitute basic waveguides).
On page 5, line lines 6 to 9, the applicant agued “Moreover, Essaian does not discuss combining different waveguide components, as recited in claim 1. And, Sanford does not teach waveguide components. Thus, the combination of Essaian and Sanford does not teach or fairly suggest waveguide optical components combined and integrated on a substrate, as recited in claim 1”. However, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive as discussed above.
On page 5, lines 15 to 19, the applicant argued “There is no evidence or convincing argument on the record that it was obvious at the time the invention was made that such a Ti-doped sapphire gain medium could be integrated onto a substrate to obtain a microscale integrated circuit. At the time the invention was made, no one had yet fabricated a thin-film Ti:sapphire gain device platform, or more generally any sapphire thin-film device platform”. However, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the claim does not recite “a thin-film Ti:sapphire gain device platform or a sapphire thin-film device platform”.
Claim Interpretation
The term “dispersion-engineered” in claim 5 is being interpreted by the examiner for the purpose of examination to mean any mirror described as being “dispersive” or having “dispersive properties”.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanford et al. (US 20170301526) in view of Essaian et al. (US 9,019,999).
With respect claim 1, Sanford discloses et al. a Ti:Sapphire laser device (214, 208, 212, and 218) comprising: a first waveguide resonator composed of a gain medium ( Element 208 is necessarily "waveguide resonators" constituting "a gain medium" ([0037]), as each is a laser device which necesarily comprises a gain medium to produce light, as well as a resonator to enable feedback for stimulated emission and coherent light production, and at least the simple interface of air/gain-medium/air (low index material/ high index material/ low index material) within the lasing devices can be said to constitute basic waveguides); a frequency doubler (212) composed of a second order nonlinear material (paragraph 37); a second waveguide resonator composed of a titanium doped sapphire gain medium (218, paragraph [0038] teaches that the mode-locked laser 218 can be a passively mode locked laser such as titanium sapphire. Element 208 is necessarily "waveguide resonators" constituting a "Ti:Sapphire gain medium" ([0038])), as each is a laser device which necesarily comprises a gain medium to produce light, as well as a resonator to enable feedback for stimulated emission and coherent light production, and at least the simple interface of air/gain-medium/air (low index material/ high index material/ low index material) within the lasing devices can be said to constitute basic waveguides); wherein the first waveguide resonator (208) is optically coupled to the frequency doubler (212) and is capable of producing laser radiation from pump diode light (214) input to the Ti:Sapphire laser device (output from 218); wherein the frequency doubler(212) is optically coupled to the second waveguide resonator (see fig. 6, 212 and 218 are optically coupled) and is capable of producing frequency doubled radiation from the laser radiation (paragraph 37).
Sanford et al. does not disclose a microscale integrated circuit and a substrate, wherein the integration of the first waveguide resonator, frequency doubler and second waveguide resonator onto a substrate
Essaian et al. discloses a laser device which comprises a laser diode( fig. 1, 1 (similar to #208 in primary)), a solid-state gain medium (fig. 1, 8 (similar to #218 in primary)) and a nonlinear crystal (fig. 1, 10 (similar to #212 in primary) integrated onto a base (fig.6 , 1270 which can be called "a substrate"). Essaian et al. also discloses that the system is referred to as "microchip laser source" (col.13 lines 17-18). Since Essaian et al. disclose the substate and the microscale integrated circuit, it would have been obvious to combine Essaian et al teaching with Sanford et al because the substrate would act as a heatsink (col.13 lines 35-37 of Essaian et al.) and that the "micro" size is to be used to make the system compact ( col.1 lines 20-24 of Essain et al.
With respect to claim 2, Sanford, as modified above, teaches the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1. Sanford further teaches, The Ti:Sapphire laser device of claim 1 wherein the first waveguide resonator is a Nd:YVO4 resonator or Nd:YAG resonator (paragraph [0038]).
With respect to claim 8, Sanford, as modified above, teaches the substrate is made of glass (see paragraph 42 of Essaian et al where it teaches some non-metals are also practicable for forming the optical bench platform 1270, so long as the non-metal material selected has high thermal conductivity. Taking official notice that for sapphire being good conductor).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanford et al. (US 20170301526 A1) in view of Essaian et al. (US 9,019,999) , Levy et al. ("Harmonic generation in silicon nitride ring resonators," Opt. Express 19, 11415-11421 (2011)) and Martini et al. "Four wave mixing in 3C SiC ring resonators". Appl. Phys. Lett. 18 June 2018; 112 (25): 251110
With respect to claim 3, Sanford, as modified above, teaches the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1, but fails to teach a configuration wherein the frequency doubler comprises a SiC ring resonator that frequency doubles the laser radiation via a doubly resonant second- harmonic generation process. Levy further teaches a configuration wherein the frequency doubler comprises a ring resonator (abstract) that frequency doubles the laser radiation via a doubly resonant second- harmonic generation process (figure 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Sanford to include the teachings of Levy in order to further increase the efficiency of the second-harmonic generation (introduction, paragraph 2). Sanford as modified fails to teach the ring resonator being made of SiC. Martini further teaches a Sic ring resonator (conclusion). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Sanford to make use of the SiC material as taught include by Martini in order to enhance the nonlinear properties of the ring resonator (introduction).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanford et al. (US 20170301526 A1), in view of Essaian et al. (US 9,019,999) and Cai et al. (Efficient second harmonic generation in x(2) profile reconfigured lithium niobate thin film, Optics Communications, Volume 387,2017, Pages 405-408).
With respect to claim 4, Sanford as modified above, teaches the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1, but fails to teach a configuration wherein the frequency doubler comprises a thin film lithium niobite resonator. Cai further teaches (figure 4), the Ti:Sapphire laser device of claim 1 wherein the frequency doubler comprises a thin film lithium niobite resonator.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Sanford to include the teachings of Cai in order to improve the integration of photonic components (introduction, paragraph 1).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanford et al. (US
20170301526 A1), in view of in view of Essaian et al. (US 9,019,999) and Grujic et al. (WO 2013071322 A2)
With respect to claim 5, Sanford, as modified above, teaches the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1, but fails to teach a configuration wherein the second waveguide resonator includes dispersion-engineered laser cavity mirrors. Grujic further teaches; The Ti:Sapphire laser device of claim 1 wherein the second waveguide resonator includes dispersion-engineered (interpreted under claim interpretation heading above) laser cavity mirrors (abstract). |t would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Sanford to include the teachings of Grujic in order to achieve a large spectral bandwidth (reference located one quarter of the way into the description).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanford et al. (US 20170301526 A1), in view of Essaian et al. (US 9,019,999) and Holzwarth et al. (US 20160181759 A1).
With respect to claim 6, Sanford as modified above, teaches the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1, but fails to teach a configuration wherein the second waveguide resonator includes a low-loss Kerr nonlinear mirror and one broadband linear mirror. Holzwarth further teaches (figure 3), The Ti:Sapphire laser device of claim 1 wherein the second waveguide resonator (1) includes a low-loss (in the above 35 USC 112(b) rejection, the term low loss is interpreted to describe the quality having a loss low enough to enable to non-linear Kerr effect. Due to the fact that the Kerr effect is seen paragraph [0035], the mirror can be understood to be “low loss”) Kerr (paragraph [0035]) nonlinear mirror (17) and one broadband (in the above 35
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanford et al. (US 20170301526 A1) in view of Essaian et al. (US 9,019,999), Martini et al. "Four wave mixing in 3C SIC ring resonators". Appl. Phys. Lett. 18 June 2018; 112 (25): 251110, Iwase et al. (US 2014/0207128A1) and Pyo et al. (US 20120262930 A1).
With respect to claim 7, Sanford as modified above, teaches the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1, but fails to teach a configuration wherein the substrate is SiO2 and the laser has a device layer stack comprising YVO on SiO2 on SiC on SiO2 on the substrate.
Martini Further teaches a Sic ring resonator (conclusion).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Sanford to make use of the SiC material as taught include by Martini in order to enhance the nonlinear properties of the ring resonator (introduction).
Sanford as modified by Martini fails to teach a configuration wherein the substrate is SiO02 and the laser has a device layer stack comprising YVO on SiO2 on the substrate.
Iwase further teaches a YVO laser (paragraph [0071]) .
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Sanford to include the teachings of lwase in order to replace the YAG laser taught by the primary reference with a YVO laser due to its higher emission cross section. Sanford, as modified by Martini, fails to teach a substrate made of SiO2 upon which the other materials are deposited. Pyo further teaches (figure 2) deposition of optical materials on a SiO2 substrate (paragraph [0032]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Sanford to include the teachings of Pyo in order to allow for the transmission of light through the substrate (paragraph [0054]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MINSUN OH HARVEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1835. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, John Fristoe can be reached at 571-272-4926. 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.
/MINSUN O HARVEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights