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 of Group I, Species B in the reply filed on 07/21/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 3,10 and 16-20 read on a nonelected invention/species and stand as withdrawn.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119, to provisional application 63/184,452 filed on 05/05/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/05/2022
was submitted after the filing date of this application on 05/04/2022. The submission is in compliance with 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 EML configured to operate in forward bias mode as described in claims 5 and 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Examiner notes that Fig. 3 shows an identical layer EML with a negative potential shown directly attached to the p-type contact of the EAM section [58] with the forward bias only being applied to the laser section [56] as shown with the positive potential sign. An apparatus with an EAM section operating under a forward bias is described in regard to the absorption/gain spectrums shown in Figs. 5 and 6 but the device operating in a forward bias mode is not shown. 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 Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 12 reads “the EML method of claim 9…” Examiner notes that independent claim 9 that claim 12 depends on is drawn to a device, not a method. Examiner respectfully believes claim 9 is supposed to read “The EML of claim 9…”. 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 1-16 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.
Regarding claim 1, the term “near” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of examination, the term “near” will be understood to mean within 5% as shown in the prior art used in the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 2-8 are rejected at least on their dependency to indefinite claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, lines 6 and 7 of claim 9 states “the operating wavelength based on the exciton absorption peak of the active region”. Examiner notes that the term “based on” in regard to the operating wavelength is indefinite and not further defined in the claim or the specification. The scope of what the Applicant is meaning in regard to the operating wavelength being “based on” the exciton absorption peak of the active region is therefore unclear.
For the purposes of examination in the instant application, the limitation of “the operating wavelength based on the exciton absorption peak of the active region” will be understood to read “the operating wavelength within 5% of the exciton absorption peak of the active region” as similarly interpreted in claim 1 above.
Claims 10-16 are rejected at least on their dependency to indefinite claim 9.
The term “approximately all” in claims 6 and 13 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The amount of absorption needed from the EAM section to meet the limitation of the claims is therefore indefinite as there is no standard for what absorption value classifies as meeting the limitations of “approximately all”.
For the purposes of examination in the instant application, the term “approximately all” is understood to mean “highly absorbed and attenuated” as shown in the prior art rejections of claims 6 and 13 below.
The term “approximately none” in claims 7 and 14 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The amount of absorption needed from the EAM section to meet the limitation of the claims is therefore indefinite as there is no standard for what absorption value classifies as meeting the limitations of “approximately none”.
For the purposes of examination in the instant application, the term “approximately none” is understood to mean “without being absorbed” as shown in the prior art rejections of claims 7 and 14 below
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,2,4,9,11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ramdane et al. (hereinafter Ramdane) (US 5680411 A).
Regarding claim 1, Ramdane discloses in Fig. 1,
An apparatus [Fig. 1] comprising a laser [L] (Col. 5, line 7) and an EAM [M] (Col.5, line 8 and Col. 6, lines 40-48) having an active region [18] (Col. 5, lines 18 and 19),
where the laser [L] produces an optical output at an operating wavelength (Col. 5, lines 47-53), the EAM [M] selectively absorbs optical power from the laser [L] at the operating wavelength in an amount based upon a bias voltage applied to the EAM (Col. 6, lines 60-67), and
where the operating wavelength of the laser [L] is near the exciton absorption peak of the active region [18] (Col.6, lines 26-39).
Col. 6, lines 40-43 state that the grating is adjusted so the laser emits at 1.550 µm. Further, the absorption peak is disclosed to be at a wavelength value of 1.53µm. Therefore, the operating wavelength of the device is set 20nm away (around 1.3% of operating wavelength) from the exciton absorption peak. Ramdane also discloses that a laser effect can be obtained with wavelength values between 1.52 and 1.56µm using the shown active layer structure. (Ramdane Col. 6, lines 34-39)
Regarding claim 2, Ramdane as applied to claim 1 above further discloses in Fig. 1,
The apparatus comprising an Electro-Modulated Laser (EML) [laser L and modulator M] (Col. 5, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 4, Ramdane as applied to claim 1 above further discloses in Fig. 1,
The apparatus comprising an Identical Layer (IL) EML (Col. 5, lines 9-11).
Regarding claim 9, Ramdane discloses in Fig. 1,
An Electro-Modulated Laser (EML) [laser L and modulator M] (Col. 5, lines 1-6), comprising:
a substrate [10] (Col. 5, lines 7 and 8) segmented into a laser section [L] (Col. 5, line 7) and an EAM section [M] (Col. 5, lines 7,8 and Col. 6. Lines 45 and 46) electrically isolated from each other (Col. 6, lines 1-6), the laser section [L] and the EAM section [M] each including an active region [18] (Col. 5, line 18) activated by voltage applied to p-doped [24] (Col. 5, line 26) and n-doped layers [10] (Col. 5, lines 5 and 64-67); and
a grating [12] (Col. 5, lines 48-53) that provides feedback in an operating wavelength of the laser section [L] (Col. 5, lines 48-53), the operating wavelength based on the exciton absorption peak of the active region [18] (Col.6, lines 26-39).
Regarding claim 11, Ramdane as applied to claim 9 above further discloses in Fig. 1,
The EML comprising an Identical Layer (IL) EML (Col. 5, lines 9-11).
Regarding claim 16, Ramdane as applied to claim 9 above further discloses in Fig. 1,
where the active region [18] is surrounded by Separate Confinement Heterostructure (SCH) semiconductor layers [16 and 20] (Col. 5, lines 28-31), and the grating [12] (Col. 5, lines 48-53) is embedded in one of the SCH layers [20]
Examiner notes that the grating in Ramdane is shown formed in the same manner as shown in the instant application Fig. 3, with the grating [12 Ramdane Fig. 1] within the top SCH layer [20], similar to the grating [62] within the top SCH layer [60] of the claimed application.
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 5,8,12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramdane in view of Blauvelt et al. (hereinafter Blauvelt) (US 20160248223 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Ramdane discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
The apparatus of claim 1 operated in forward bias mode.
Blauvelt discloses,
a modulator section [104 Fig. 3] (Para. [0127]) operated in a forward bias mode (Para. [0119,0127])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the modulator section of Blauvelt operating at a positive voltage bias in place of the modulator section of Ramdane for the purpose of allowing variable selective modulation based on a positive input voltage value.
Regarding claim 8, Ramdane in view of Blauvelt as applied to claim 5 above further discloses in Blauvelt,
where the EAM section [104 Fig. 3] exhibits gain on the optical power produced by the laser at a positive bias (Para. [0071,0128]) (See Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 12, Ramdane discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 9 above but fails to disclose,
The EML method of claim 9 configured to operate in forward bias mode.
Blauvelt discloses,
a modulator section [104 Fig. 3] (Para. [0127]) operated in a forward bias mode (Para. [0119,0127])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the modulator section of Blauvelt operating at a positive voltage bias in place of the modulator section of Ramdane for the purpose of allowing variable selective modulation based on a positive input voltage value.
Regarding claim 15, Ramdane in view of Blauvelt as applied to claim
where the EAM section [104 Fig. 3] is configured to exhibit gain on the optical power (see Fig. 7) (Para. [0128,0129]) produced by the laser at +1 volts (Para. [0112]).
Para. [0128] discloses that the modulator can be biased, moving towards optical gain. Para. [0112] also states that Bias (2) (which is the bias applied to the modulator section) can be in the range of 0.6 to 1.0 volts.
Claims 6,7,13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramdane in view Blauvelt as applied to claims 5 and 12 above and further in view of Jiang et al. (hereinafter Jiang) (US 6347108 B1).
Regarding claim 6, Ramdane in view of Blauvelt discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 5 above but fails to disclose,
where the EAM section absorbs approximately all of the optical power produced by the laser section at zero volts.
Jiang discloses in Fig. 4,
an EAM [405] (Col. 10, line 33) absorbing approximately all of the optical power produced by a laser section [140] in an “off’ state (Col. 10, lines 47-50)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the “off” and “on” modulation characteristics of the EAM of Jiang into the modulator of Ramdane in view of Blauvelt for the purpose of allowing high absorption from the modulator in an “off” state with no applied voltage and lower absorption in an “on” state of the device. Therefore, allowing high absorption values without applying a voltage bias.
Regarding claim 7, Ramdane in view of Blauvelt and Jiang as applied to claim 6 above further discloses in Jiang,
where the EAM section [405 Fig. 4] (Col. 10, line 33) absorbs approximately none of the optical power produced by the laser section at a positive bias (Col. 10, lines 47-52).
Regarding claim 13, Ramdane in view of Blauvelt discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 12 above but fails to disclose,
where the EAM section is configured to absorb approximately all of the optical power produced by the laser section at zero volts.
Jiang discloses in Fig. 4,
an EAM [405] (Col. 10, line 33) absorbing approximately all of the optical power produced by a laser section [140] in an “off’ state (Col. 10, lines 47-50)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the “off” and “on” modulation characteristics of the EAM of Jiang into the modulator of Ramdane in view of Blauvelt for the purpose of allowing high absorption from the modulator in an “off” state with no applied voltage and lower absorption in an “on” state of the device. Therefore, allowing high absorption values without applying a voltage bias.
Regarding claim 14, Ramdane in view of Blauvelt and Jiang as applied to claim 6 above further discloses in Jiang,
where the EAM section [405 Fig. 4] (Col. 10, line 33) is configured to absorb approximately none of the optical power produced by the laser section (Col. 10, lines 47-52) at +1 volts.
Examiner notes that Para. [0112] of Blauvelt discloses the bias applied to the modulator section can be in a range of 0.6V to 1.0 V.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNTER J NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5318. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:30am-5:00 ET.
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.
/H.J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2828 /TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828