DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 through 20 originally filed 14 April 2022. By election received 14 April 2022; Invention A is elected for examination and claims 19 and 20 are withdrawn from consideration. By amendment received 19 December 2025; claims 1, 4 through 6, and 12 are amended, claims 19 and 20 are cancelled, and claim 21 is added. By amendment received 12 May 2026; claim 1 is amended, claims 19 and 20 are cancelled, and claim 22 is added. Claims 1 through 18, 21, and 22 are addressed by this action.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12 May 2026 has been entered.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered; they are addressed below.
Applicant argues that the amendments to the claims overcomes the previous prior art rejections. This argument is persuasive and all previous rejections are withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, new art has been located which, in combination with the previously cited art, renders obvious the limitations of the amended claims. 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 4, 13, 14, 16 through 18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (JP Pub. H10-261837 A), in view of Liang (US Pub. 2015/0380900), and further in view of Goddard et al. (Goddard, US Pub. 2012/0063484).
Regarding claim 1, Uchida discloses, "A first ring resonator" (p. [0009] and Fig. 1, pt. 105). "A first semiconductor stack comprising a first n-side semiconductor layer" (p. [0010] and Fig. 2B, pt. 201). "A first p-side semiconductor layer" (p. [0012] and Fig. 2B, pt. 203). "A first active layer located between the first n-side semiconductor layer and the first p-side semiconductor layer" (p. [0012] and Fig. 2B, pts. 201, 202b, and 203). "A second ring resonator" (p. [0009] and Fig. 1, pt. 104). "Wherein the second ring resonator does not include a diffraction grating" (p. [0009] and Fig. 1, pt. 104). "The second ring resonator comprising a second semiconductor stack comprising a second n-side semiconductor layer" (p. [0010] and Fig. 2B, pt. 201). "A second p-side semiconductor layer" (p. [0010] and Fig. 2B, pt. 203). "A second active layer located between the second n-side semiconductor layer and the second p-side semiconductor layer" (p. [0010] and Fig. 2B, pts. 201, 202a, and 203). "Wherein a peak wavelength of light emitted by the second ring resonator is the same as a peak wavelength of light emitted by the first ring resonator" (p. [0019] ). Uchida does not explicitly disclose, "[The second ring resonator] optically coupled to the first ring resonator by evanescent field coupling." Liang discloses, "[The second ring resonator] optically coupled to the first ring resonator by evanescent field coupling" (p. [0013], [0020], and Fig. 2B, pts. 202 and 220). 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 Uchida with the teachings of Liang. In view of the teachings of Uchida regarding a laser based on coupled ring resonators, the alternate arrangement of the waveguides to be coupled by evanescent coupling as taught by Odani would enhance the teachings of Liang by allowing the waveguides to be coupled without needing to modify the shapes thereof to create a coupling region.
The combination of Uchida and Liang does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the first ring resonator comprises a diffraction grating." "[The diffraction grating] is disposed at least on an inner lateral surface of the first ring resonator." Goddard discloses, "Wherein the first ring resonator comprises a diffraction grating" (p. [0067] and Fig. 6). "[The diffraction grating] is disposed at least on an inner lateral surface of the first ring resonator" (p. [0067] and Fig. 6). 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 Uchida and Liang with the teachings of Goddard. In view of the teachings of Uchida regarding a laser based on coupled ring resonators, the additional inclusion of a grating along at least one ring as taught by Goddard Liang would enhance the teachings of Uchida and Liang by providing an additional mechanism for frequency selection so as to ensure operation in the desired mode.
Regarding claim 2, Uchida discloses, "Wherein the first active layer and the second active layer are formed of the same material" (p. [0024]).
Regarding claim 3, Uchida discloses, "Wherein an upper surface of the first active layer and an upper surface of the second active layer are coplanar" (p. [0024]).
Regarding claim 4, The combination of Uchida and Liang does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the diffraction grating is also disposed on an outer lateral surface of the first ring resonator." Goddard discloses, "Wherein the diffraction grating is also disposed on an outer lateral surface of the first ring resonator" (p. [0067] and Fig. 6). 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 Uchida and Liang with the teachings of Goddard for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Uchida discloses, "Wherein the first ring resonator is circular and has a radius in a range of 3 µm to 5000 µm" (p. [0028]).
Regarding claim 14, Uchida discloses, "Wherein each of the first semiconductor stack and the second semiconductor stack is made of a group III-V semiconductor material or a group II-VI semiconductor material" (p. [0010], [0012] and Fig. 2B, pts. 202a and 202b).
Regarding claim 16, Uchida discloses, "An output waveguide" (p. [0009] and Fig. 1, pt. 106). "Wherein the output waveguide and the second ring resonator are optically coupled" (p. [0009] and Fig. 1, pts. 104 and 106).
Regarding claim 17, Uchida discloses, "Wherein an upper surface of a third active layer of the output waveguide is coplanar with an upper surface of the second active layer" (p. [0010] and Figs. 1 and 2B, pts. 104, 106, and 202a, where both waveguides 104 and 106 include active layer 202a).
Regarding claim 18, Uchida discloses, "Wherein the third active layer and the second active layer are formed of the same material" (p. [0010] and Figs. 1 and 2B, pts. 104, 106, and 202a, where both waveguides 104 and 106 include active layer 202a).
Regarding claim 22, The combination of Uchida and Liang does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the diffraction grating is disposed only on the inner lateral surface of the first ring resonator." Goddard discloses, "Wherein the diffraction grating is disposed only on the inner lateral surface of the first ring resonator" (p. [0067] and Fig. 6). 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 Uchida and Liang with the teachings of Goddard for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida, in view of Liang, in view of Goddard, and further in view of Kwon et al. (Kwon, US Pub. 2012/0163821).
Regarding claim 5, The combination of Uchida, Liang, and Goddard does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the diffraction grating is also disposed on an upper surface of the first ring resonator." Kwon discloses, "Wherein the diffraction grating is also disposed on an upper surface of the first ring resonator" (p. [0049] and Fig. 5, pts. 133a, 133b, 134, and 134a). 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 Uchida, Liang, and Goddard with the teachings of Kwon. In view of the teachings of Uchida regarding a laser based on coupled ring resonators and the teachings of Odani regarding the inclusion of a grating along at least one ring, the additional inclusion of gratings along additional regions of the waveguide as taught by Kwon would enhance the teachings of Uchida, Liang, and Goddard by providing an additional coupling between the grating and the optical mode.
Claims 6, 12, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida, in view of Liang, in view of Goddard, and further in view of Odani et al. (Odani, JP Pub. S63-164382 A).
Regarding claim 6, The combination of Uchida, Liang, and Goddard does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the diffraction grating is also embedded in the first ring resonator." Odani discloses, "Wherein the diffraction grating is also embedded in the first ring resonator" (p. [0001] and Fig. 1B, pt. 11). 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 Uchida, Liang, and Goddard with the teachings of Odani. In view of the teachings of Uchida regarding a laser based on coupled ring resonators and the teachings of Odani regarding the inclusion of a grating along at least one ring, the alternate extent of the grating along the entirety of a ring as well as the alternate or additional positioning of the grating within the waveguide as taught by Odani would enhance the teachings of Uchida, Liang, and Goddard by providing mechanisms for additional coupling between the grating and the optical mode.
Regarding claim 12, The combination of Uchida, Liang, and Goddard does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the diffraction grating is located on an entire inner lateral surface of the first ring resonator." Odani discloses, "Wherein the diffraction grating is located on an entire inner lateral surface of the first ring resonator" (p. [0001] and Fig. 2, pt. 17, where the grating of Goddard may extend entirely around a ring as in Odani). 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 Uchida, Liang, and Goddard with the teachings of Odani for the reasons provided above regarding claim 6.
Regarding claim 21, The combination of Uchida, Liang, and Goddard does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the diffraction grating is located on an entire outer lateral surface of the first ring resonator." Odani discloses, "Wherein the diffraction grating is located on an entire outer lateral surface of the first ring resonator" (p. [0001] and Fig. 2, pt. 17, where the grating of Goddard may extend entirely around a ring as in Odani). 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 Uchida, Liang, and Goddard with the teachings of Odani for the reasons provided above regarding claim 12.
Claims 7 through 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida, in view of Liang, in view of Goddard, and further in view of Zhang (US Pub. 2016/0131926).
Regarding claim 7, The combination of Uchida, Liang, and Goddard does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the first ring resonator includes one or more linear portions and one or more curved portions." "A distance between the first ring resonator and the second ring resonator is at a minimum at one of the one or more linear portions." Zhang discloses, "Wherein the first ring resonator includes one or more linear portions and one or more curved portions" (p. [0035] and Fig. 2B, where each ring of Uchida is configured to take this shape). "A distance between the first ring resonator and the second ring resonator is at a minimum at one of the one or more linear portions" (Fig. 2B, where coupling between waveguides is suggested to occur at straight sections). 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 Uchida, Liang, and Goddard with the teachings of Zhang. In view of the teachings of Uchida regarding a laser based on coupled ring resonators, the alternate shaping of the ring to employ a rectangular shape as taught by Zhang would enhance the teachings of Uchida, Liang, and Goddard by providing a relatively longer region in which the waveguides may be coupled to one another while also indicating alternate ring shapes for filling a surface.
Regarding claim 8, The combination of Uchida, Liang, Goddard, and Zhang does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the distance is in a range of 10 nm to 400 nm." 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 distance between the rings so as to ensure a desired degree of coupling occurs between the rings, 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 9, The combination of Uchida, Liang, Goddard, and Zhang does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the diffraction grating is located on only one of (i) the one or more linear portions or (ii) the one or more curved portions." The examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that it was known in the art to 1) fabricate a ring resonator that includes a DFB with the DFB region only appearing in one portion of the ring resonator and 2) fabricate grating elements for a DFB along a straight waveguide. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate grating elements for the DFB only in the straight waveguide regions, since this alternate construction would allow a reduction in complexity of grating formation.
Regarding claim 10, The combination of Uchida, Liang, and Goddard does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the first ring resonator includes exactly four linear portions and exactly four curved portions." "The diffraction grating is located on all of the four linear portions." Zhang discloses, "Wherein the first ring resonator includes exactly four linear portions and exactly four curved portions" (p. [0035] and Fig. 2B). "The diffraction grating is located on all of the four linear portions" (p. [0035] and Fig. 2B, where including the grating of Goddard throughout a rectangular ring such as Zhang results in the grating appearing in these locations). 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 Uchida, Liang, and Goddard with the teachings of Zhang for the reasons provided above regarding claim 7.
Regarding claim 11, The combination of Uchida, Liang, and Goddard does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the first ring resonator includes exactly four linear portions and exactly four curved portions." "The diffraction grating is located on all of the four curved portions." Zhang discloses, "Wherein the first ring resonator includes exactly four linear portions and exactly four curved portions" (p. [0035] and Fig. 2B). "The diffraction grating is located on all of the four curved portions" (p. [0035] and Fig. 2B, where including the grating of Goddard throughout a rectangular ring such as Zhang results in the grating appearing in these locations). 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 Uchida, Liang, and Goddard with the teachings of Zhang for the reasons provided above regarding claim 7.
Regarding claim 15, The combination of Uchida, Liang, Goddard, and Zhang does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the first ring resonator and the second ring resonator comprise a semiconductor stack made of a nitride semiconductor material." The examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that it was known in the art to employ nitride in a III-V laser material so as to cause the laser to emit wavelengths uniquely available to nitride laser devices. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a nitride-based material for the laser so as to allow the laser to emit wavelengths available only to nitride-based laser devices, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
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