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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections of claims 7,9 and 10 under 35 USC § 112(b) are moot in light of the cancellation of claims 7,9 and 10. The rejection of claim 21 under 35 USC § 112(b) has been withdrawn in light of the amendment made to claim 21.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1,5,6 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner notes the terms “first light”, “second light” and “third light” as stated in claim 1 are not disclosed in the applicant’s specification. Paragraphs [0062-0065] refer to light passing through each respective port of the coupler at different positions simply as “the light” and not referred to as separate first, second and third lights. Therefore, there is no clear way on the proper interpretation of the claim limitations (see specification objection below). Regarding the different possible interpretations of “first light”, “second light” and “third light”, Examiner notes the 35 USC 112(b) rejection below for a more detailed explanation on the different possible interpretations for the described claim limitations.
Examiner notes that using the first claim interpretation described below in regard to the three separate and distinct light sources, the amendment is not supported by the original disclosure and is then considered as new matter.
The second interpretation described below, in regard to the first, second and third lights simply as labels for the one initial light at different points of the device in regard to coupling ports would not raise a new matter issue, as the terms of first, second and third would be seen simply as labels for the initial light.
Claims 5,6 and 18-21 are rejected at least on their dependency to claim 1.
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 1,5,6 and 18-21 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, Examiner notes that the claim reads
“wherein the directional coupler is configured:
to transmit a first portion of first light received at the first port to the third port and a second portion of the first light to the fourth port;
to transmit a first portion of second light received at the third port to the first port and a second portion of the second light to the second port; and
to transmit a first portion of third light received at the fourth port to the first port and a second portion of the third light to the second port.”
Examiner notes that the terms “first light”, “second light” and “third light” as recited in lines 24,26 and 28 of claim 1 (respectively) raise confusion on how the “first, second and third lights” are supposed to be interpreted to meet the claim limitations. The specification does not clearly provide proper antecedent basis for the first, second and third lights and is therefore seen as indefinite as described in MPEP §2173.03 when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain (see specification objection below). Therefore, there is no clear understanding of how the first, second and third lights are meant to be interpreted in the claim limitations. three separate lights or the same light referred to in different ways in regard to the position of the light inside of the laser.
One way the claim language of “first light”, “second light” and “third light” can be interpreted is that the first, second and third lights are three separate and distinct lights. This interpretation would imply that these first, second and third lights are either coming directly from three distinct light sources in the device. With light from a first light source being considered “first light”, light form a second light source being considered “second light” and light from a third light source being considered “third light”.
Alternatively, the limitations of “first light”, “second light” and “third light” can interpreted simple as labels for the position of light in each respective port of the directional coupler. This interpretation would be a single light source coming into the coupler and then referring to the second and third lights as the same initial light source, split into separate coupling ports and returning after entering and exiting the wavelength-selective element.
For the purposes of examination in the instant application, the term “first light”, “second light” and “third light” are understood to mean the position of the light in each respective port/space of the coupler and waveguide.
Claims 5,6 and 18-21 are rejected at least on their dependency to indefinite claim 1.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “to transmit a first portion of first light received at the first port to the third port and a second portion of the first light to the fourth port;
to transmit a first portion of second light received at the third port to the first port and a second portion of the second light to the second port; and
to transmit a first portion of third light received at the fourth port to the first port and a second portion of the third light to the second port.”
Examiner notes that there is not proper antecedent basis for the terms “first light”, “second light” and “third light” as recited in the claim. The specification simply refers to light coupled at different ports of the coupler as “the light” and not as “first light”, “second light” and “third light”.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the amendments made to claims 1,2,5,6,11,12,18,19 and 21. Claims 2,11,12,14 and 15 stand as withdrawn. Claims 3,4,7-10,13,16 and 17 stand as cancelled. No new claims have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1,5,6 and 18-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 21 reads “…without using of active tuning”, Examiner respectfully believes that the claim should read “… without using active tuning” or “…without the use of active tuning”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon (US 20110310918 A1) in view of Lou et al. (hereinafter Lou) (US 20140029940 A1A1) and further in view of Wen et al. (hereinafter Wen) (US 20190199057 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yoon discloses in Fig. 5
A laser [100] (Para. [0050]), comprising:
an optical amplifier [20] (Para. [0037]); and
an output reflector [50] (Para [0043]), the output reflector being configured to
receive light from the optical amplifier [20] (Para. [0051]) and to reflect light at a first
wavelength back toward the optical amplifier (Para. [0051,0052]), the output reflector
[50] comprising:
a wavelength-selective element [53] (Para. [0049]), and
a directional coupler [60] (Para. [0051]) configured to receive the light from the optical amplifier [20] (Para. [0051]) and to couple a portion of the light to the wavelength-selective element [53] (Para. [0051]).
wherein the directional coupler [60] comprises:
A first port [connection of 20 to 60] (Para. [0051]) on a first side of the directional coupler [left side of 60] and coupled to the optical amplifier [20] (Para. [0051])
a third port [connection of 60 to 51] (Para. [0051]) on a second side of the directional coupler [right side of 60] and coupled to the first port of the wavelength selective element [left of 54] (Para. [0051]); and
a fourth port [connection of 60 to 56] (Para. [0051]) on the second side of the directional coupler [right side of 60] and coupled to the second port of the wavelength selective element, [left of 55] (Para. [0051]) and
wherein the directional coupler [60] is configured
to transmit a first portion of first light received at the first port [connection of 20 to 60] to the third port [connection of 60 to 51] and second portion of the first light to the fourth port [connection of 60 to 56] (Para. [0052]);
Yoon fails to disclose,
the wavelength selective element comprising an echelle grating and
the echelle grating comprises
a first port, on a first side of the echelle grating and a
second port on the first side of the echelle grating, the echelle grating configured to transmit light at a first wavelength between the first and second ports of the echelle grating and
the coupler comprising:
a second port on the first side of the directional coupler and coupled to an output of the laser
and the coupler configured to:
to transmit a first portion of second light received at the third port to the first port and a second portion of the second light to the second port; and
to transmit a first portion of third light received at the fourth port to the first port and a second portion of the third light to the second port.
Luo discloses in Fig. 2,
A wavelength selective element [210] (Para. [0031]) comprising an echelle grating [224] (para. [0032])
the echelle grating comprising
a first port [212] (Para. [0031]), on a first side of the echelle grating [left side of 224] and a
second port [220] (Para. [0031]) on the first side of the echelle grating [left side of 224], the echelle grating [224] configured to transmit light at a first wavelength between the first [212] and second ports [220] of the echelle grating [224] (Para. [0030.0031])
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 echelle grating of Luo in place of the wavelength-selective element of Yoon for the purpose of enabling precise control of laser-wavelength spacings. (Luo Para. [0043])
Yoon in view of Luo fails to disclose,
the coupler comprising:
a second port on the first side of the directional coupler and coupled to an output of the laser
and the coupler configured to:
to transmit a first portion of second light received at the third port to the first port and a second portion of the second light to the second port; and
to transmit a first portion of third light received at the fourth port to the first port and a second portion of the third light to the second port.
Wen discloses in Fig. 1,
a coupler [114] (Para. [0041]) comprising,
a second port [4] (Para. [0045]) on a first side of the directional coupler [left of 114] and coupled to an output of the laser [140] (Para. [0045])
and the coupler [114] configured:
to transmit a first portion of second light received at a third port [2] to a first port [1] and a second portion of the second light to the second port [4] (Para. [0043,0045]); and
to transmit a first portion of third light received at a fourth port [3] to the first port [1] and a second portion of the third light to the second port [4] (Para. [0041,0043,0045])
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 second port coupled to an output of a laser with the coupler transmitting respective portions of light to each waveguide port as shown in Wen into the coupler of Yoon in view of Luo for the purpose of directly coupling light from the coupler to an output port and selectively guiding light to respective coupling ports. (Wen Para. [0043,0045])
Regarding claim 5, Yoon in view of Luo and Wen as applied to claim 1 above further discloses in Luo
Wherein the echelle grating [224] occupies less than 4 mm2 (Para. [0050] Table 1)
When the footprint value shown in table 1 is converted into millimeters, the value becomes 0.5mm x 0.2mm which equates to a value of 1 mm2
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon in view of Luo and Wen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lipson et al. (hereinafter Lipson) (US 20210177060 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the modified device of Yoon discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
Wherein the echelle grating has a 3dB bandwidth of less than 0.6 nm
Lipson discloses in Fig. 1,
An echelle grating [114] (Para. [0013]) with a 3dB bandwidth of less than 0.6nm (Para. [0054])
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 wavelength selective element of Lipson in place of the wavelength-selective element of the modified device of Yoon for the purpose of achieving a narrow linewidth,
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon in view of Luo and Wen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Malhouitre et al. (hereinafter Malhouitre) (WO 2021204749 A1) (Examiner notes that the US publication of Malhouitre (US 20230168429 A1) will be used for the claim mapping of Malhouitre for the remainder of this office action. See PTO-892 form).
Regarding claim 18, the modified device of Yoon discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
Wherein the directional coupler is connected to the wavelength-selective element by a waveguide having a core comprising at least 70 atomic percent silicon
Malhouitre discloses in Fig. 1,
a waveguide [25] having a core comprising at least 70 atomic percent silicon (Para. [0029,0030,0032,0088])
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 silicon waveguide of Malhouitre into the modified device of Yoon for the purpose of the device having improved performance using silicon waveguides. (Malhouitre Para. [0004])
Regarding claim 19, the modified device of Yoon discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
Wherein the directional coupler is connected to the wavelength-selective element having a core comprising at least 35 atomic percent silicon and at least 35 atomic percent nitrogen
Malhouitre discloses in Fig. 1,
a waveguide [15] having a core comprising at least 35 atomic percent silicon and at least 35 atomic percent nitrogen (Para. [0036])
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 silicon nitride waveguide of Malhouitre into the device of Yoon to connect the coupler to the wavelength-selective element for the purpose of the device having improved performance using silicon nitride waveguides. (Malhouitre Para. [0004])
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon in view of Luo, Wen and Malhouitre as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Waarts et al. (hereinafter Waarts) (US 20040131093 A1).
Regarding claim 20, the modified device of Yoon discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 19 above but fails to disclose,
Wherein the laser is capable of operating at wavelength of less than 1 micron,
Waarts discloses,
a laser diode chip [100] comprising a GaAs/InGaAs semiconductor chip (Para.
[0047])
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 laser diode chip of Waarts in
place of the amplifier of the modified device of Yoon in view of Malhouitre for the purpose of using an amplifier
that is commercially available and relatively inexpensive. (Waarts Para. [0047])
Examiner notes that Yoon is silent to the material used for the amplifier structure.
It is disclosed that the chip of Waarts et al. is capable of producing a fundamental
wavelength of 980 nm (Para. [0047]). Therefore, when the chip of Waarts et al. is
implemented into the modified device of Yoon in view of Malhouitre, the device is
capable of operating at a wavelength less than 1 micron.
Regarding claim 21, Yoon in view of Malhouitre and further in view of Waarts further discloses in Waarts,
The laser configured to repeatably produce light to within 0.2 nm of a first wavelength without using of active tuning (Para. [0047])
Para. [0047] of Waarts discloses a linewidth of less than 0.1 nm when using
the laser diode chip described in Waarts Therefore, when the chip of Waarts
is implemented into the modified device of Yoon, the wavelength
produced is within 0.1 nm of the given wavelength of 980nm.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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