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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the amendments made to claims 6,7 and 12-14. Claims 17-20 stand as cancelled. Claims 3 and 10 stand as withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 4 of the Remarks, filed 01/07/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1,2,4,9,11 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ramdane in view of Blauvelt.
Drawings
The previous objection to the drawings has been withdrawn in light of the remarks filed on 01/07/2026.
The drawings were received on 01/07/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been withdrawn in light of the remarks filed 01/072026 and the citation of paragraph [0041] of the specification of the claimed application.
The previous rejections of claims 6,7,13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been withdrawn in light of the amendments made to claims 6,7,13 and 14.
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 1,2,4,5,8,9,11,12,15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramdane et al. (hereinafter Ramdane) (US 5680411 A) in view of Blauvelt et al. (hereinafter Blauvelt) (US 20160248223 A1).
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
Ramdane fails to disclose,
where the operating wavelength of the laser is near the exciton absorption peak of the active region
Blauvelt discloses in Fig. 9,
an operating wavelength [λ3] of a laser that is 10nm less than an estimated gain peak [λ0] (Paras. [0066,0067])
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 lower operating wavelength as disclosed in Blauvelt in the device of Ramdane for the purpose of operating the laser at an output wavelength less than a transparent gain peak wavelength of the modulator section. (Blauvelt Paras. [0024,0047,0060]) Further, Examiner notes that the lower operating wavelength value relative to the gain peak wavelength as shown in Blauvelt would have been “obvious to try” as a known result-effective variable as disclosed in MPEP § 2144.05 (II) in the context of optically modulated lasers as shown in both Ramdane and Blauvelt.
Examiner notes an operating wavelength of 10nm less than the gain peak [1.53µm] of Ramdane would equate to a wavelength of [1.52µm] in the device of Ramdane. Therefore, meeting the limitation of “near the exciton absorption peak of the active region” using the definition described in paragraph [0041] of the specification of the claimed application.
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 5, Ramdane in view of Blauvelt 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 the modified device 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 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),
Ramdane fails to disclose,
the operating wavelength near the exciton absorption peak of the active region
Blauvelt discloses in Fig. 9,
an operating wavelength [λ3] of a laser that is 10nm less than an estimated gain peak [λ0] (Paras. [0066,0067])
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 lower operating wavelength as disclosed in Blauvelt in the device of Ramdane for the purpose of operating the laser at an output wavelength less than a transparent gain peak wavelength of the modulator section. (Blauvelt Paras. [0024,0047,0060]) Further, Examiner notes that the lower operating wavelength value relative to the gain peak wavelength as shown in Blauvelt would have been “obvious to try” as a known result-effective variable as disclosed in MPEP § 2144.05 (II) in the context of optically modulated lasers as shown in both Ramdane and Blauvelt.
Examiner notes an operating wavelength of 10nm less than the gain peak [1.53µm] of Ramdane would equate to a wavelength of [1.52µm] in the device of Ramdane. Therefore, meeting the limitation of “near the exciton absorption peak of the active region” using the definition described in paragraph [0041] of the specification of the claimed application.
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 12, Ramdane in view of Blauvelt 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 the modified device 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 12 above further discloses in Blauvelt,
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.
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.
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’s absorption of the optical power produced by the laser section is at a maximum at zero volts.
Jiang discloses in Fig. 4,
an EAM [405] (Col. 10, line 33) with a maximum absorption value 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’s [405 Fig. 4] (Col. 10, line 33) absorption of the optical power produced by the laser section is it a minimum 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’s absorption of the optical power produced by the laser section is at a maximum 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’s [405 Fig. 4] (Col. 10, line 33) absorption of the optical power produced by the laser section is it a minimum at +1 volts (Col. 10, lines 47-52).
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Examiner notes (US 20020186726 A1) which discloses a maximum absorption at zero bias. See PTO-892 form.
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
Prosecution Insights