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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Groups I, III (claims 1-13, 21-24, 26) in the reply filed on 11/24/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that glass interposer is closely similar to glass substrate if not the same, species arguments. Examiner agrees to examine group III claims 21-24 along with group I claims 1-13 and 26. However, claim 14 is the only independent claim with a 2nd cavity and has a combination relationship with independent claims 1, 21, 26 since none of these claim a 2nd cavity, but claims 1, 21 have a detector, and claim 26 clearly has other details claim 14 does not have. So claim 14 (due to the 2nd cavity) still has a combination relationship with each of independent claims 1, 21, 26. So, claims 1-13, 21-24, 26 are examined on the merits and claims 14-20 of group II remain withdrawn.
The requirement of restricting out group II claims 14-20 is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-7, 9-10, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doerr et al. (US 10797462; “Doerr”) with obviousness evidenced by {OEB} LaChapelle et al. (US 11119219; “LaChapelle”).
Regarding claim 1, Doerr (fig. 2 ) teaches an apparatus comprising: a laser 208; a silicon PIC 200 comprising: a pump waveguide 204, wherein an output of the laser 208 is coupled to the pump waveguide 204; and a signal waveguide 202/220/206, wherein at least a portion of the pump waveguide 204 is adjacent the signal waveguide 202/220/206 (e.g., fig. 2), wherein the signal waveguide 202/220/206 is doped (e.g., col. 6 lines 28-38: “Er-doped”); with an element that, when pumped by the laser 208 (e.g., col. 6 lines 28-38), amplifies (e.g., col. 6 lines 28-38) a signal in the signal waveguide 206 (e.g., element 206 is part of the signal waveguide at least since it carries signal light {mixed in element 220}); and a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) die 214 comprising a detector 222 (e.g., fig. 2) coupled to the signal waveguide 202.
Doerr does not explicitly teach glass substrate.
However, it was well-known to use a glass substrate/interposer as an alternative to Silicon in a PIC as evidenced by LaChapelle (e.g., LaChapelle col. 40, lines 38-43). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a glass substrate/interposer as an alternative to Silicon in a PIC at least for the purpose of using an accepted and well-known alternate technology.
Thus claim 1 is rejected.
Regarding claim 6. Doerr teaches the PIC die 200 comprises the laser 208 .
Regarding claim 7. wherein a power of the laser is at least partially based on a power detected by the detector would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since feedback based on power detected is very well known.
Regarding claim 9. wherein the PIC die comprises the glass substrate is already described as obvious in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10 further comprising an optical fiber coupled to the signal waveguide 202, wherein the optical fiber is disposed in a V-groove defined in the glass substrate would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention at least since this is a very well-known practice in the art.
Regarding claim 12. Doerr teaches wherein the element is erbium since waveguide 206 is Er-doped. Further, regarding claim 13. wherein the element is praseodymium would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention at least since praseodymium is a well-known alternative to Er-doping.
Claim(s) 21, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bandyopadhyay et al. (US 20210159659; “Bandyopadhyay”) with obviousness evidenced by {OEB} LaChapelle et al. (US 11119219; “LaChapelle”).
Regarding claim 21, Bandyopadhyay teaches an apparatus comprising: a chip 110f with an active optical fiber {AOF} 140 structure 155 attached thereto (e.g., fig. 6) comprising a signal waveguide 140 (e.g., fig. 6); a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) die 110f comprising a transceiver coupled to the signal waveguide {WG} 140 (e.g., fig. 6); and means for amplifying (e.g., signal WG 140 is an active optic fiber {AOF; ¶ 0052: doped so its capable of amplifying}) a signal in the signal waveguide 140 (e.g., ¶s 0052-0053; fig. 6).
Bandyopadhyay does not explicitly state chip 110f with an active optical fiber {AOF} 140 structure 155 attached thereto is on a glass substrate/interposer. Moreover, Bandyopadhyay does not say LP circuit/transceiver comprises a detector.
However, it was well-known for a photonic chip/PIC to use glass as a substrate/interposer instead of, for example a Silicon/semiconductor substrate/interposer as evidenced by LaChapelle (e.g., LaChapelle col. 40, lines 37-42: glass/silica substrate for a PIC). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use glass as a substrate/interposer instead of, for example a Silicon/semiconductor substrate/interposer as the PIC base/substrate/interposer (e.g., MPEP §2144.06 Art Recognized Equivalence for the Same Purpose [R-6] >I. < COMBINING EQUIVALENTS KNOWN FOR THE SAME PURPOSE, II. < SUBSTITUTING EQUIVALENTS KNOWN FOR THE SAME PURPOSE and/or MPEP §2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose).
Additionally, as stated above Bandyopadhyay teaches a transceiver. Since it was well known for a transceiver circuitry to contain a detector, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the transceiver circuitry 120 to contain a photodetector and therefore have a detector coupled to the signal waveguide {WG} 140.
Thus claim 21 is rejected.
Regarding claim 24. wherein a power of the laser is at least partially based on a power detected by the detector would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since feedback based on power detected is very well known.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 26 is allowed.
Claims 2-5, 8, 11, 22-23 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mr. Michael Mooney whose telephone number is 571-272-2422. The examiner can normally be reached during weekdays, M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on 571-272-2397. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). For checking the filing status of an application, please refer to <https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/checking-application-status/check-filing-status-your-patent-application>.
/MICHAEL P MOONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874