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 .
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/17/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-2, 5-14, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0103719 (Kurczveil) in view of 2011/0134433 (Yamada).
For claim 1, Kurczveil teaches a semiconductor ring laser (fig. 2 and 4) comprising:
a closed loop laser cavity (fig. 1, 103, [0016]); and
an optical gain device that is optically interconnected with the closed loop laser cavity, the optical gain device comprising:
a first optical gain segment (fig. 2, 104 left of 105); and
a second optical gain segment (fig. 2, 104 right of 105);
the first optical gain segment and the second optical gain segment being non- identical, optically interconnected with each other ([0018], separate gain medium sections are separated by SA section 105, gain segments are non-identical based on length and separate locations, and optically interconnected as they are both part of the resonator).
Kurczveil does not explicitly teach the first optical gain segment and the second optical gain segment electrically isolated from each other. However, Yamada teaches controlling different gain segments (fig. 1 and 8) individually in order to control the overall gain ([0053], [0142]). The examiner previously took official notice that it was well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to electrically isolate sections in order to individually control different segments of a laser. Applicant did not traverse and it is therefore taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03C. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to electrically isolate the first and second optical gain segment in order to allow for individual control of the optical gain segments as taught by Yamada in the device of Kurczveil.
Kurczveil further inherently teaches wherein the first optical gain segment and the second optical gain segment are configured to have a different nonlinear optical gain saturation and/or compression to provide different round-trip gains for optical waves propagating in a clockwise direction and in a counterclockwise direction, respectively, in the closed loop laser cavity (fig. 1, due to different lengths of left and right sections of 104). While the limitation is not explicitly recited, the structure is similar to one of the structures listed in the instant application for producing different gain characteristics. The instant application, at paragraph [0090] of the specification, recites differing gain characteristics may be provided by the differing geometries and lengths of the gain sections. The differing lengths of Kurczveil are, therefore expected to inherently provide the claimed limitation.
Kurczveil further teaches the closed loop laser cavity comprises a ridge waveguide structure (fig. 4, 403, [0034]), the first optical gain segment being arranged at a first section of the ridge waveguide structure (fig. 2, left of 105) and the second optical gain segment being arranged at a second section of the ridge waveguide structure (fig. 2, right of 105), the first section of the ridge waveguide structure having a different configuration than the second section of the ridge waveguide structure (fig. 2, different lengths of 104), and
the first section and the second section of the ridge waveguide structure having different configurations in terms of at least one of the transparency carrier densities of the first and second sections, the compositions of the semiconductor materials in the first and second sections, and the arrangement and/or the number of the layers of semiconductor materials in the first and second sections (fig. 2, different lengths are different configurations).
For claim 2, Kurczveil teaches the optical gain device is arranged in the closed loop laser cavity (fig. 2).
For claim 5 and 6, Kurczveil teaches the first section of the ridge waveguide structure and the second section of the ridge waveguide structure have different geometries (fig. 2, different lengths).
For claim 7, Yamada further teaches wherein the first optical gain segment and the second optical gain interconnectable with a first electrical biasing source a second electrical biasing source, the first electrical biasing source and the second electrical biasing source being configured to provide electrical biasing conditions that are different from each other (first and second gain segments 101 and 102 and first and second electrical biasing sources 104 and 105).
The combination does not explicitly teach a first and second electrically isolated metal contact. However, the examiner previously took official notice that electrically isolated metal contacts were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide contact between a controllers and separate gain regions. Applicant did not traverse and it is therefore taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03C. 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 first and second electrically isolated metal contact between the gain regions and biasing sources of the combination in order to provide contact between a controllers and separate gain regions
For claim 8, Kurczveil teaches the first optical gain segment comprises a first semiconductor optical amplifier, SOA, and the second optical gain segment comprises a second SOA ([0018]).
For claim 9, Kurczveil teaches an optical filter structure that is optically interconnected with the closed loop laser cavity (fig. 2, 203). The combination does not teach the optical filter structure being configured to have a bandpass filter characteristic with a predefined 3dB bandwidth and the closed loop laser cavity being configured to have a predefined mode spacing, wherein a ratio of the predefined 3dB bandwidth to the predefined mode spacing has a value in a range from 0.5 to 10.0. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the range for the ration of 3dB bandwidth to mode spacing in order to properly modulate the individual wavelengths , 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.
For claim 10, Kurczveil teaches the optical filter structure is a tunable optical filter structure ([0028]).
For claim 11, Kurczveil teaches an optical delay line that is optically interconnected with the closed loop laser cavity (fig. 2, 110 and 108 may both be considered delay lines).
For claim 12, Kurczveil teaches the semiconductor ring laser is configured to allow hybrid integration or monolithic integration (fig. 4, 404-408 are III-V while 401-403 are SI/buried oxide).
For claim 13, Kurczveil teaches the semiconductor ring laser is an indium phosphide, InP,-based ring laser ([0036]).
For claim 14, Kurczveil in view of Yamada teaches a photonic integrated circuit (Kurczveil, [0026]-[0027]), PIC, comprising a semiconductor ring laser according to claim 1 (as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above).
For claim 16, Kurczveil teaches the PIC is an InP-based PIC ([0036]).
For claim 18, Kurczveil in view of Yamada teaches an opto-electronic system comprising a PIC according to claim 14 (as discussed in the rejection of claim 14 above). Kurczveil further teaches the opto-electronic system is one of a transmitter, a receiver, a transceiver, a coherent transmitter, a coherent receiver and a coherent transceiver (fig. 2, 200, [0027], transmitter 200).
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0103719 (Kurczveil) in view of 2011/0134433 (Yamada) and further in view of US 2022/0216672 (Andreou).
For claim 15, the previous combination does not teach the PIC is a monolithically integrated PIC. However, Andreou teaches a ring laser (fig. 1) similar to that of the previous combination which may be formed monolithically ([0047]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the monolithic structure of Andreou as an alternative to the hybrid structure of the previous combination. Further, the monolithic structure has the advantage of not requiring structurally combining hybrid elements.
For claim 17, Kurczveil ([0036]) and Andreou ([0047]) both teach wherein the PIC is an InP-based PIC.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the combination does not teach the amended limitation of claim 1, specifically “the first section and the second section of the ridge waveguide structure having different configurations in terms of at least one of the transparency carrier densities of the first and second sections, the compositions of the semiconductor materials in the first and second sections, and the arrangement and/or the number of the layers of semiconductor materials in the first and second sections.” However, as discussed in the rejection above, Kurczveil teaches the claimed limitation as different lengths are different configurations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael W Carter whose telephone number is (571)270-1872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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.
/Michael Carter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828