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 without traverse of Group II, comprising claims 15, 16, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28-30, and 33-35 in the reply filed on 02/19/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/19/2026.
Claims Status
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28-30, and 33-35 are pending.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11-13 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 15, 16, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28-30, and 33-35 are examined on the merits.
Priority
The instant application is a national stage application of PCT/EP2020/084552, filed 12/03/2020, which claims priority to provisional US application No. 62/944644, filed 12/06/2019. Therefore, the Effective Filing Date (EFD) assigned to each of the claims 15, 16, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28-30, and 33-35 is the provisional filing date of application No. 62/944644, filed 12/06/2019.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed 09/19/2022, 05/01/2024, and 09/05/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have therefore been considered. Signed copies of the IDS documents are included with this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “230” has been used to designate both “DAC + drivers” and “memory”. 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 7, line 30 “communication wtih a remote target object” should read “communication with a remote target object”
On page 7, line 34 “individual specifity” should read “individual specificity”
page 11, line 38 “calbration model” should read “calibration model”
page 14, line 35 “calibration..” should read “calibration.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 15, “pre-processing the locally corrected spectrum […]; multiplying the preprocessed locally corrected spectrum” should read “pre-processing the locally corrected spectrum […]; multiplying the pre-processed locally corrected spectrum” or “preprocessing the locally corrected spectrum […]; multiplying the preprocessed locally corrected spectrum”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 15, 16, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28-30, and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to an abstract idea of mental steps, mathematic concepts, or a natural law without significantly more.
The MPEP at MPEP 2106.03 sets forth steps for identifying eligible subject matter:
(1) Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of
matter?
(2A)(1) Are the claims directed to a judicially recognized exception, i.e. a law of nature,
a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
(2A)(2) If the claims are directed to a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the
judicial exception integrated into a practical application?
(2B) If the claims are directed to a judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial
exception, do the claims provide an inventive concept?
With respect to step (1): Yes, the claims recite a method and system.
With respect to step (2A)(1): The claims are directed to abstract ideas of mental processes and mathematical concepts.
“Claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (such as a mathematical formula or equation), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection” (MPEP 2106.04). Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts (mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes (procedures for observing, evaluating, analyzing/judging and organizing information (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Laws of nature or natural phenomena include naturally occurring principles/relations that are naturally occurring or that do not have markedly different characteristics compared to what occurs in nature (MPEP 2106(b)).
Mental processes recited in claims 15 and 25:
identifying from a plurality of clusters of spectra a cluster to which the raw spectrum belongs based on spectral shape of the raw spectrum
Mathematical concepts recited in claims 15 and 25:
applying a local scattering correction (LSC) to the raw spectrum to obtain a locally corrected spectrum
pre-processing the locally corrected spectrum using a cluster-specific optimized set of pre-processing parameters
multiplying the preprocessed locally corrected spectrum with a cluster-specific calibration vector to obtain a calibrated concentration value for the analyte
Dependent claims 16, 18, 19, 22, 23, 26, 28, 30, 33, and 35 recite additional steps that either are directed to abstract ideas or further limit the judicial exceptions in independent claim 15 and 25, and as such, are further directed to abstract ideas. Hence, the claims explicitly recite numerous elements that individually and in combination constitute abstract ideas. The relevant recitations are:
Claims 16 and 26: “measuring using the SoC intensities of EMR received from the object at each of the plurality of wavelengths; and converting the intensities into absorbance values, wherein the raw spectrum comprises an absorbance spectrum”
Claims 18 and 28: “the plurality of clusters of spectra correspond to spectra collected previously using the SoC; and each of the plurality of clusters is represented via a respective LSC reference, cluster centroid, and a respective calibration vector”
Claims 19 and 30: “deriving a globally corrected spectrum using a global scattering correction (GSC) reference; within each cluster from the plurality of clusters: comparing the globally corrected spectrum with a respective LSC reference to obtain a distance corresponding to that cluster; and selecting a cluster for which the corresponding distance is minimum”
Claims 22 and 33: “wherein the local scattering correction comprises local multiplicative scattering correction, local standard normal variate (SNV) correction, or local mean centering and normalization correction, Kubelka-Munk correction, Saunderson correction, or a combination thereof”
Claims 23 and 35: “wherein determining the spectral shape of the raw spectrum comprises: pre-processing the raw spectrum by applying thereto a linear transformation and a baseline correction based on a reference spectrum of a selected analyte”
The abstract ideas in the claims are evaluated under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) and determined herein to each cover mental processes and mathematic concepts because the claims recite no more than performing processing of spectral data.
With respect to step (2A)(2): The claims must therefore be examined further to determine whether they integrate that abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). The claimed additional elements are analyzed alone or in combination to determine if the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d).I.; MPEP 2106.05(a-h)). If the claim contains no additional elements beyond the judicial exception, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d).III).
Claims 15 and 25 recite the following additional elements that are not abstract ideas:
obtaining, using a hybrid group III-V/group IV semiconductor photonics system-on-a-chip (SOC), a raw spectrum from an object having the analyte
a processing unit comprising a processor and memory
The step of obtaining a raw spectrum from an object gathers the data on which the judicial exceptions are performed and is thus directed to a step of data gathering. Data gathering does not impose any meaningful limitation on the abstract idea, or how the abstract idea is performed. Data gathering steps are not sufficient to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The element of a processing unit comprising a processor and memory is interpreted as a generic computer. The courts have weighed in and consistently maintained that when, for example, a memory, display, processor, machine, etc. ... are recited so generically (i.e., no details are provided) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer, and these limitations may be viewed as nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claims 16, 18, 26, 28, 29, 34 are directed to further limitations of data gathering or limiting the steps of data gathering, or simply storing a value and thus performing a step ancillary to the judicial exception.
None of these dependent claims recite additional elements, alone or in combination, which would integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Lastly, the claims have been evaluated with respect to step (2B): Because the claims recite an abstract idea, and do not integrate that abstract idea into a practical application, the claims lack a specific inventive concept. Under said analysis, Applicant is reminded that the judicial exception alone cannot provide that inventive concept or practical application (MPEP 2106.05). Identifying whether the additional elements beyond the abstract idea amount to such an inventive concept requires considering the additional elements individually and in combination to determine if they provide significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.A i-vi).
With respect to the instant claims, the additional elements described above do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. As set forth in the MPEP at 2106.05(d).I, determinations of whether or not additional elements (or a combination of additional elements) may provide significantly more and/or an inventive concept rests in whether or not the additional elements (or combination of elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Said assessment is made by a factual determination stemming from a conclusion that an element (or combination of elements) is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry, which is determined by either a citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates a well-understood, routine or conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to one or more of the court decisions as discussed in MPEP 2106(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); and/or a statement that the examiner is taking official notice with respect to the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
With respect to claims 15 and 25: The additional elements of obtaining, using a hybrid group III-V/group IV semiconductor photonics system-on-a-chip (SOC), a raw spectrum from an object having the analyte, and a processing unit comprising a processor and memory do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. The prior art to Ramirez et al. (“III-V-on-Silicon Integration: From Hybrid Devices to Heterogeneous Photonic Integrated Circuits”, published September 2019) discloses that heterogeneous integration of III-V materials onto silicon photonics has experiences enormous progress in the last few years (Abstract). Additionally, the instant application discloses on page 1, line 34 that a photonics system within a single chip assembly is typically realized as a monolithic photonic integrated circuit (PIC) based on III-V semiconductor or a combination of III-V semiconductor and group-IV semiconductor. Furthermore, as exemplified in the MPEP at 2106.05(f) with reference to Alice Corp. 573 US at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983 “claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible”. Therefore, the device constitutes no more than a general link to a technological environment, which is insufficient to constitute an inventive concept that would render the claims significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2105(b)I-III). As such, it is recognized that these additional limitations are routine, well understood, and conventional in the art. These limitations do not improve the functioning of a computer, or comprise an improvement to any other technical field, they do not require or set forth a particular machine, they do not affect a transformation of matter, nor do they provide a non-conventional or unconventional step. As such, these limitations fail to rise to the level of significantly more.
With respect to claims 16 and 26: The additional element of directing from the SoC to the object electromagnetic radiation (EMR) tunable at a plurality of wavelengths does not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. The instant application discloses on page 1, line 23 that many techniques for spectroscopic, non-invasive measurement of analytes, such as measurement of blood glucose using near-infrared spectroscopy, employ a broadband light source, and that the EMR emitted from such a source and that received from a medium to be analyzed have components at a number of wavelengths. As such, it is recognized that these additional limitations are routine, well understood, and conventional in the art. These limitations do not improve the functioning of a computer, or comprise an improvement to any other technical field, they do not require or set forth a particular machine, they do not affect a transformation of matter, nor do they provide a non-conventional or unconventional step. As such, these limitations fail to rise to the level of significantly more.
With respect to claims 18 and 28: The additional element of the respective LSC reference, the respective cluster centroid, and the respective calibration vector for each cluster being stored on the SoC does not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. As recited in the MPEP at 2106.05(d).II with reference to Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, storing and retrieving information in memory is a routine and conventional activity. As such, it is recognized that these additional limitations are routine, well understood, and conventional in the art. These limitations do not improve the functioning of a computer, or comprise an improvement to any other technical field, they do not require or set forth a particular machine, they do not affect a transformation of matter, nor do they provide a non-conventional or unconventional step. As such, these limitations fail to rise to the level of significantly more.
With respect to claim 29: The additional element of the SoC comprising memory for storing the optimized set of pre-processing parameters for each cluster does not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. As recited in the MPEP at 2106.05(d).II with reference to Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, storing and retrieving information in memory is a routine and conventional activity. As such, it is recognized that these additional limitations are routine, well understood, and conventional in the art. These limitations do not improve the functioning of a computer, or comprise an improvement to any other technical field, they do not require or set forth a particular machine, they do not affect a transformation of matter, nor do they provide a non-conventional or unconventional step. As such, these limitations fail to rise to the level of significantly more.
With respect to claim 34: The additional elements of a wavelength shift tracker to track a shift in wavelength of radiation emitted by the SoC, a wavelength tracker to track absolute wavelength of the radiation emitted by the SoC, a temperature sensor to measure the temperature of the SoC, and an SoC output power monitor to monitor the intensity of the EMR emitted by the SoC during a wavelength sweep do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. The prior art Vizbaras et al. (WO 2018/215388 A1, IDS reference) discloses a wavelength shift tracker, a wavelength tracker, a power monitor, and temperature sensing (page 4, line 8; page 20, line 22; page 26, line 23; Figure 6). As such, it is recognized that these additional limitations are routine, well understood, and conventional in the art. These limitations do not improve the functioning of a computer, or comprise an improvement to any other technical field, they do not require or set forth a particular machine, they do not affect a transformation of matter, nor do they provide a non-conventional or unconventional step. As such, these limitations fail to rise to the level of significantly more.
The claims have all been examined to identify the presence of one or more judicial exceptions. Each additional limitation in the claims has been addressed, alone and in combination, to determine whether the additional limitations integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Each additional limitation in the claims has been addressed, alone and in combination, to determine whether those additional limitations provide an inventive concept which provides significantly more than those exceptions. Individually, the limitations of the claims and the claims as a whole have been found lacking.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 15, 16, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28-30, and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruchti et al. (US 2007/0179367 A1, IDS reference) in view of Vizbaras et al. (WO 2018/215388 A1, IDS reference).
Regarding claims 15 and 25, Ruchti et al. teaches a method for measuring concentration of an analyte, the method comprising:
obtaining a raw spectrum from an object having the analyte (paragraph [0038]; Figure 1);
identifying from a plurality of clusters of spectra a cluster to which the raw spectrum belongs based on spectral shape of the raw spectrum (paragraph [0038]; Figure 1);
applying a local scattering correction (LSC) to the raw spectrum to obtain a locally corrected spectrum (paragraphs [0038], [0162]);
pre-processing the locally corrected spectrum using a cluster-specific optimized set of pre-processing parameters (paragraphs [0165], [0166]); and
multiplying the preprocessed locally corrected spectrum with a cluster-specific calibration vector to obtain a calibrated concentration value for the analyte (paragraphs [0085], [0165], [0166]).
Furthermore, Ruchti et al. teaches an apparatus comprising a detector of light energy for acquiring spectral data, a processor, and memory, the memory being coupled to the processor and comprising a plurality of processor instructions.
Ruchti et al. does not teach the claim elements of using a hybrid group III-V/group IV semiconductor photonics system-on-a-chip (SoC).
However, Vizbaras et al. teaches a spectroscopic laser sensor based on hybrid III-V/IV system-on-a-chip technology (Abstract). Vizbaras et al. teaches a hybrid III-V/IV system on-a chip sensor for real-time continuous blood constituent monitoring (p.11, line 14).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the hybrid group III-V/group IV semiconductor photonics system-on-a-chip (SoC) to the method and apparatus of Ruchti et al. because both Ruchti et al. and Vizbaras et al. are directed to estimating analyte properties in a sample (see Ruchti et al. paragraph [0004], see Vizbaras et al. page 1, line 9). Vizbaras et al. teaches that the hybrid group III-V/group IV semiconductor photonics system-on-a-chip (SoC) allows for continuous monitoring of blood analyte concentrations levels (page 1, line 10) with non-invasive illumination of a blood sample (page 7, line 8). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of measuring concentrations of blood analyte levels with the hybrid group III-V/group IV semiconductor photonics system-on-a-chip (SoC) and would be motivated to do so in order to continuously monitor the levels.
Regarding claims 16 and 26, the claims are directed to directing from the SoC to the object electromagnetic radiation (EMR) tunable at a plurality of wavelengths; measuring using the SoC intensities of EMR received from the object at each of the plurality of wavelengths; and converting the intensities into absorbance values, wherein the raw spectrum comprises an absorbance spectrum. Ruchti et al. teaches the method of claim 15 and the system of claim 25 in view of Vizbaras et al.
Ruchti et al. does not teach the claim element of directing from the SoC to the object electromagnetic radiation (EMR) tunable at a plurality of wavelengths.
However, Vizbaras et al. teaches the laser-based sensors having the ability to sweep wavelength across a bandwidth and allowing for real-time monitoring (page 13, line 12). Vizbaras et al. also teaches that the laser sensor may be configured to perform a wavelength sweep across a tuning range as a function of time, and the laser sensor may include a photodiode configured to convert light reflected from the subject into an electrical signal (page 4, line 24), and converting diffuse reflectance spectra to absorbance (page 6, line 23).
Regarding claims 18 and 28, the claims are directed to the plurality of clusters of spectra corresponding to spectra collected previously using the SoC; and each of the plurality of clusters being represented via a respective LSC reference, cluster centroid and a respective calibration vector, the respective LSC reference, the respective cluster centroid, and the respective calibration vector for each cluster being stored on the SoC. Ruchti et al. teaches the method of claim 15 and the system of claim 25 in view of Vizbaras et al. Ruchti et al. teaches an apparatus comprising a memory (claim 38). Ruchti et al. also teaches the clusters corresponding to spectra previously collected (Figure 1), each of the clusters being represented via an inference removal cluster (Figure 1), a prediction spectrum, calibration spectrum, and calibration point (Figure 2).
Ruchti et al. does not teach the claim element of the elements being stored on the SoC.
However, Vizbaras et al. teaches that calibrated attenuation coefficients for each individual molecules are predetermined and the values stored in the CPU of the SoC for calibrated algorithm execution to process the experimentally obtained diffuse reflectance spectrum, to decompose the spectrum into individual absorbance spectral components and calculate calibrated concentration levels (page 30, line 17).
Regarding claims 19 and 30, the claims are directed to deriving a globally corrected spectrum using a global scattering correction (GSC) reference; within each cluster from the plurality of clusters: comparing the globally corrected spectrum with a respective LSC reference to obtain a distance corresponding to that cluster; and selecting a cluster for which the corresponding distance is minimum. Ruchti et al. teaches the method of claim 15 and the system of claim 25 in view of Vizbaras et al. Ruchti et al. also teaches scattering of the sample affect the tissue state (paragraph [0015]), numerous methods to remove spectral variation and correct the spectral data (paragraph [0085]), and using methods that utilize a calibration point to locally center subsequent data (paragraph [0051]).
Regarding claim 22 and 33, the claims are directed to the local scattering correction comprising local multiplicative scattering correction, local standard normal variate (SNV) correction, Kubelka-Munk correction, Saunderson correction, or local mean centering and normalization correction or a combination thereof. Ruchti et al. teaches the method of claim 15 and the system of claim 25 in view of Vizbaras et al. Ruchti et al. also teaches the prior art performing mean-centering on the basis of a know external variable (paragraph [0019]), a localized scattering coefficient affecting the sample state (paragraph [0015]), and using methods that utilize a calibration point to locally center subsequent data (paragraph [0051]). Ruchti et al. also teaches using multiplicative signal correction (paragraph [0085]).
Regarding claim 23 and 35, the claims are directed to pre-processing the raw spectrum by applying thereto a linear transformation and a baseline correction based on a reference spectrum of a selected analyte. Ruchti et al. teaches the method of claim 15 and the system of claim 25 in view of Vizbaras et al. Ruchti et al. also teaches applying linear discriminant analysis to the clusters of the spectrum (paragraph [0039]). Furthermore, Ruchti et al. teaches using local centering to minimize the nonlinear span of the measured data in the calibration space resulting in more robust linearized predictions (paragraph [0059]). Ruchti et al. teaches deriving an abstract feature of the tissue measurements through linear transformations (paragraph [0123]).
Regarding claim 29, the claim is directed to the SoC comprising memory for storing the optimized set of pre-processing parameters for each cluster. Ruchti et al. teaches the system of claim 25 in view of Vizbaras et al. Ruchti et al. teaches an apparatus comprising a memory (claim 38).
Ruchti et al. does not teach the claim element of an SoC.
However, Vizbaras et al. teaches that calibrated attenuation coefficients for each individual molecules are predetermined and the values stored in the CPU of the SoC for calibrated algorithm execution to process the experimentally obtained diffuse reflectance spectrum, to decompose the spectrum into individual absorbance spectral components and calculate calibrated concentration levels (page 30, line 17).
Regarding claim 34, the claim is directed to the SoC comprising a wavelength shift tracker to track a shift in wavelength of radiation emitted by the SoC, a wavelength tracker to track absolute wavelength of the radiation emitted by the SoC; a temperature sensor to measure the temperature of the SoC; and an SoC output power monitor to monitor the intensity of the EMR emitted by the SoC during a wavelength sweep. Ruchti et al. teaches the system of claim 25 in view of Vizbaras et al.
Ruchti et al. does not teach the claim element of the SoC comprising a wavelength shift tracker to track a shift in wavelength of radiation emitted by the SoC, a wavelength tracker to track absolute wavelength of the radiation emitted by the SoC; a temperature sensor to measure the temperature of the SoC; and an SoC output power monitor to monitor the intensity of the EMR emitted by the SoC during a wavelength sweep.
However, Vizbaras et al. teaches a second arm of an interferometer guide to a second grating coupler which couples light into a second photodiode, which monitors the MZI transfer function for precise wavelength tracking (page 20, line 22). Vizbaras et al. teaches a photodiode for signal level monitoring and a photodiode for wavelength monitoring (Figure 6), the tunable laser sensor being configured such that in operation, applying at least one of current or heat to at least one of the coupled resonator (page 4, line 8), and drive signal controlled by a microprocessor wherein the signal processing takes place for the heaters (page 26, line 23).
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emilie A Smith whose telephone number is (571)272-7543. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm.
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, Larry D Riggs can be reached at (571)270-3062. 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.
/E.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1686
/LARRY D RIGGS II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1686
Prosecution Insights