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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for domestic benefit 119(e) from application 17/014665 which claims benefit to application 15/650586 which claims benefit to application 62/362551
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on May 21, 2024 and January 28, 2026 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 2 Subspecies a (Fig. 2B) in the reply filed on January 1, 26 is acknowledged. Claims 10-16, 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Subspecies, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 10-16, 19-20 include an optical amplifying module which is not drawn to the elected subspecies 2a (Fig. 2B) rather it is drawn to subspecies 2b (Fig. 4B) and subspecies 2c (Fig. 6B). For this reason Claims 10-16, 19-20 are withdrawn.
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
The term “substantially same amount” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially same amount” 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 purposes of compact prosecution Examiner has interrupted the term “substantially same amount” to mean the same amount.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-5, 7, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Koch et al. US 20140328591.
Regarding Claim 1, Koch teaches A planar lightwave circuit (See annotated Fig. 3a below), comprising:
a laser source (Fig. 3a, 302a-302n Paragraph 0032 “tunable laser array 302a-302n,”) implemented within the planar lightwave circuit (Fig. 3a shows the laser source is within the Lightwave circuit), the laser source including a plurality of lasers (Fig. 3a, 302a-302n is a plurality of laser), wherein each of the plurality of lasers is configured to generate continuous wave light having a respective wavelength that is different than wavelengths of continuous wave light generated by others of the plurality of lasers (Paragraph 0033 “Tunable laser array outputs a plurality of laser signals 303a-303n. The plurality of laser signals 303a-303n has wavelengths λa- λn, which are tunable based on electrical signals.”); and
an optical marshalling module (Fig. 3a, 306 Paragraph 0032 “optical router 306,”) implemented within the same planar lightwave circuit as the laser source (Fig. 3a shows 306 is within the same lightwave circuit as the laser source), the optical marshalling module having a plurality of optical output ports (Fig. 3a, 308a-308n Paragraph 0032 “output couplers 308a-308n”), the optical marshalling module configured to convey a portion of the continuous wave light output by each of the plurality of lasers to each of the plurality of optical output ports, such that all wavelengths of continuous wave light generated by the plurality of lasers are conveyed to each of the plurality of optical output ports of the optical marshalling module. (Paragraph 0033 “Optical router 306 then outputs the plurality of received modulated laser signals to one or more output ports in the generated output configuration based on the wavelength of each of the tuned wavelength of each of the plurality of received modulated laser signals.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
582
834
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Koch teaches the continuous wave light generated by the plurality of lasers is directed into the optical marshalling module without travelling through an optical port. (Paragraph 0033 “Other embodiments may not include a modulator array.” Without the modulator array the laser light is directed into the optical marshalling module without travelling through an optical port.)
Regarding Claim 3, Koch teaches the planar lightwave circuit is formed within a laser module. (Fig. 3a, 300a. Fig. 3a shows that the Lightwave circuit is formed within the laser module.)
Regarding Claim 4, Koch teaches the laser module is disposed on a substrate. (Paragraph 0024 “Different embodiments of optical transmitter 100 can include tunable laser array 102, modulator array 104, and optical router 108 on the same or different chips.”)
Regarding Claim 5, Koch teaches the laser module is formed within a chip. (Paragraph 0024 “Different embodiments of optical transmitter 100 can include tunable laser array 102, modulator array 104, and optical router 108 on the same or different chips.”)
Regarding Claim 7, Koch teaches each of the plurality of lasers is directly optically connected to the optical marshalling module. (Paragraph 0033 “Other embodiments may not include a modulator array.” Without the modulator array the laser light is directed into the optical marshalling module.)
Regarding Claim 17, Koch teaches A method for manufacturing a planar lightwave circuit (See annotated Fig. 3a below), comprising:
forming a plurality of lasers within the planar lightwave circuit (Fig. 3a, 302a-302n Paragraph 0032 “tunable laser array 302a-302n,” Fig. 3a shows the plurality of lasers are within the planar Lightwave circuit), wherein each of the plurality of lasers is configured to generate continuous wave light having a respective wavelength that is different than wavelengths of continuous wave light generated by others of the plurality of lasers (Paragraph 0033 “Tunable laser array outputs a plurality of laser signals 303a-303n. The plurality of laser signals 303a-303n has wavelengths λa- λn, which are tunable based on electrical signals.”); and
forming an optical marshalling module (Fig. 3a, 306 Paragraph 0032 “optical router 306,”) within the same planar lightwave circuit as the laser source (Fig. 3a shows 306 is within the same lightwave circuit as the laser source), wherein the optical marshalling module is formed to convey a portion of the continuous wave light output by each of the plurality of lasers to each of a plurality of optical output ports of the optical marshalling module, such that all wavelengths of continuous wave light generated by the plurality of lasers are conveyed to each of the plurality of optical output ports of the optical marshalling module. (Paragraph 0033 “Optical router 306 then outputs the plurality of received modulated laser signals to one or more output ports in the generated output configuration based on the wavelength of each of the tuned wavelength of each of the plurality of received modulated laser signals.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
582
834
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 18, Koch teaches disposing the planar lightwave circuit on a substrate. (Paragraph 0024 “Different embodiments of optical transmitter 100 can include tunable laser array 102, modulator array 104, and optical router 108 on the same or different chips.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 6 is rejected as being unpatentable over 35 U.S.C. 103 over Koch in view of Lei et al. US 20140185980.
Regarding Claim 6, Koch does not teach the chip is flip-chip attached to a substrate.
However,
Lei teaches the chip is flip-chip attached to a substrate. (Paragraph 0026 “The gain chip 120 may be mounted on the SOI platform via any suitable coupling method, such as a flip-chip bonding method, a butt joint method, or an adiabatical coupling method.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lightwave circuit as taught by Koch by having the chip be flip-chip attached to a substrate as disclosed by Lei. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow direct coupling of the lasers to the marshaling module. (Lei Paragraph 0026)
Claim 8 is rejected as being unpatentable over 35 U.S.C. 103 over Koch in view of Welch et al. US 20030095737.
Regarding Claim 8, Koch does not teach the optical marshalling module is configured to maintain a polarization of the continuous wave light between each of the plurality of lasers and each of the plurality of optical output ports.
However,
Welch teaches the optical marshalling module is configured to maintain a polarization of the continuous wave light between each of the plurality of lasers and each of the plurality of optical output ports.(Paragraph 0076 “Conventional optical fibers typically do not preserve optical polarization. Thus, optical fiber pigtails and modulators will transmit and receive both transverse electric (TE) and transverse magnetic (TM) polarization modes. Similarly, the optical combiner is polarization sensitive to both the TE and TM modes. In order to attenuate the effects of polarization dispersion, the modulator and the optical combiner are, therefore, designed to be polarization insensitive, increasing their cost. Alternatively, polarization preserving fibers may be employed for optically coupling each laser source to its corresponding modulator and for coupling each modulator to the optical combiner. Polarization preserving fibers comprise fibers with a transverse refractive index profile designed to preserve the polarization of an optical mode as originally launched into a fiber.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical marshalling module as taught by Koch by having it be configured to maintain a polarization between the plurality of lasers and the optical output ports as disclosed by Welch. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to maintain the same properties of the light as it goes through the marshalling module. (Welch Paragraph 0076)
Claim 9 is rejected as being unpatentable over 35 U.S.C. 103 over Koch in view of another embodiment of Koch.
Regarding Claim 9, Koch doesn’t teach the optical marshalling module is configured to convey a substantially same amount of optical power to each of the plurality of optical output ports.
However,
Another embodiment of Koch teaches the optical marshalling module is configured to convey a substantially same amount of optical power to each of the plurality of optical output ports. (Paragraph 0047 “The plurality of output ring resonators can be critically coupled and the amount of power dropped to each channel is controlled by the MZI. In one embodiment, all wavelengths will be split in equal ratios in this configuration.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical marshalling module as taught by Koch by having the optical marshalling module having substantially same amount of optical power to each of the optical output ports as disclosed by another embodiment of Koch. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to equally distribute the combined light. (Koch Paragraph 0047)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kish, JR. et al US 20090175573 teaches many features found in Claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN SUTTON KOTTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1859. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00.
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.
/STEPHEN SUTTON KOTTER/Examiner, Art Unit 2828 /MINSUN O HARVEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2828