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
Claims 11-13, 19 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 17, 2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, claims 1-10, 14-18 in the reply filed on December 17, 2025 is acknowledged.
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 1-3, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D. Liang et al. “Teardrop Reflector-Assisted Unidirectional Hybrid Silicon Microring Lasers.” IEEE Photonics Technology Letters 24 (2012) in view of Deacon (US PG Pub 2002/0018507) and Li et al. (US PG Pub 2014/0110572).
Regarding claim 1, Liang et al. disclose: a first microring resonator (MRR) laser (unidirectional ring laser) having a first resonant frequency and a first free spectral range (FSR) (ring laser inherently has a first resonant frequency and a first free spectral range determined by the diameter of the ring laser) (Fig. 2a, page 2, left column), a first frequency-dependent filter (coupler between the ring laser and bus waveguide) formed along a portion of the first MRR laser via a common bus waveguide to attenuate one or more frequencies different from the first resonant frequency (Fig. 2a, page 2, left column), and a first reflector (reflector at one end of the bus waveguide) formed at a first end of the common bus waveguide to enhance a unidirectionality of optical signal within the first MRR laser (Fig. 2a, page 2, left column).
Liang et al. do not disclose: wherein the first FSR is greater than a channel spacing of the optical device; wherein a length of the common bus waveguide is chosen to achieve a second FSR of the common bus waveguide to be substantially equal to the channel spacing to enable a single-mode operation for the optical device.
Deacon discloses: the FSR of the linear cavity of FIG. 1 is determined by the optical length between the first reflector and a second reflector ([0068]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Liang by adding a second reflector to the common bus waveguide and to adjust the length of the bus waveguide between a first and second reflector in order to change the free spectral range of the optical device.
Liang as modified do not disclose: wherein the first FSR is greater than a channel spacing of the optical device; to enable a single-mode operation for the optical device.
Li et al. disclose: a silicon microring resonator is laterally coupled with a silicon single-mode channel waveguide via a sub-micrometer gap spacing ([0043]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Liang as modified by adjusting the free spectral range of the common bus waveguide so that a second FSR of the common bus waveguide is less than the first FSR in order to obtain single mode operation for the optical device.
PNG
media_image1.png
124
378
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Liang
Regarding claim 2, Liang as modified disclose: wherein the first MRR laser is designed to have a predetermined diameter to achieve the first FSR (ring laser inherently has a first resonant frequency and a first free spectral range determined by the diameter of the ring laser) (Liang, Fig. 2a, page 2, left column).
Regarding claim 3, Liang as modified do not disclose: further comprising one or more additional MRR lasers and respective frequency-dependent filters created via the common bus waveguide, wherein the first MRR laser is designed to have the first FSR greater than the second FSR.
However, In accordance with MPEP 2144.04 [R-6], Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale: As discussed in MPEP § 2144, if the facts in a prior legal decision are sufficiently similar to those in an application under examination, the examiner may use the rationale used by the court. Examples directed to various common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients are discussed below. If the applicant has demonstrated the criticality of a specific limitation, it would not be appropriate to rely solely on case law as the rationale to support an obviousness rejection.
MPEP 2144.04 [R-6] VI B, Duplication of Parts: In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add one or more additional MRR lasers since adding additional MRR lasers does not produce a new and unexpected result.
Regarding claim 6, Liang as modified disclose: further comprises a second reflector formed at a second end of the common bus waveguide (see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, Liang as modified disclose: wherein the first reflector is designed to reflect more light compared to the second reflector (inherent for the device of Liang as modified, first reflector (left reflector) in Fig. 2 of Liang is HR coated, second reflector (right reflector) reflects less light because the output of the device is coupled out of the second reflector).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D. Liang et al. “Teardrop Reflector-Assisted Unidirectional Hybrid Silicon Microring Lasers.” IEEE Photonics Technology Letters 24 (2012) in view of Deacon (US PG Pub 2002/0018507), Li et al. (US PG Pub 2014/0110572) and Suzuki et al. (US PG Pub 2021/0288461).
Regarding claim 8, Liang as modified do not disclose: further comprising a second frequency-dependent filter formed along another portion of the first MRR laser via an MRR-specific bus waveguide formed proximate to the first MRR laser, wherein the second frequency-dependent filter further attenuates one or more frequencies different from the first resonant frequency.
Suzuki et al. disclose: further comprising a second frequency-dependent filter (coupler 18) formed along another portion of the first MRR laser via an MRR-specific bus waveguide (14) formed proximate to the first MRR laser (Fig. 1, [0026]-[0030]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Liang as modified by adding a second waveguide, coupler and reflector to an upper part of the ring laser in order to stabilize the frequency of the optical device.
Regarding claim 9, Liang as modified disclose: further comprising a reflector (15) formed at an end of the MRR-specific bus waveguide (14) (Suzuki, Fig. 1, [0026]-[0030]).
Regarding claim 10, Liang as modified disclose: wherein the reflector is an MRR loop mirror (Suzuki, Fig. 2, [0025]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 14-18 are allowed.
Claim 4 is allowable as the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “…wherein the first MRR laser is designed to have the first FSR greater than the second FSR multiplied by a sum of the additional MRR lasers and the first MRR laser.”
Claim 5 is allowable as the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “…wherein the additional MRR lasers are tuned to respective resonant frequencies that are different from the first resonant frequency of the first MRR laser, wherein, due to the second FSR being substantially equal to the channel spacing, interference between frequencies of the additional MRR lasers and the first MRR laser is minimized and light in the common bus waveguide comprises increased power corresponding to the first resonant frequency and the resonant frequencies corresponding to the additional MRR lasers separated by the channel spacing.”
Claim 14 is allowable as the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “…a second MRR laser having a second resonant frequency offset from the first resonant frequency…a second frequency-dependent filter formed along a portion of the second MRR laser via the common bus waveguide to attenuate one or more frequencies different from the second resonant frequency,…and wherein a length of the common bus waveguide is chosen to achieve a second FSR of the common bus waveguide to be substantially equal to the channel spacing to enable a single-mode operation for the comb laser”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Orenstein et al. (US PG Pub 2003/0219045) disclose: a tunable semiconductor laser device is presented. The device comprises a laser structure formed by at least two waveguides and an active region located within at least a segment of one of the waveguides; and comprises a tunable spectral filter optically coupled to the laser structure. The tunable spectral filter includes at least two filtering elements, at least one of them being a microring cavity (Abstract). Kaplan (US PG Pub 2005/0196103) discloses: An integrated optical device with a loop resonator is provided, having at least one closed waveguiding loop which has losses. A coupler and at least one input waveguide is coupled to the loop resonator, An adjustment unit controls a coupling coefficient K.sub.1 of the coupler, and a second coupler is coupled to the loop resonator. At least one output waveguide is coupled with the second coupler to the loop resonator. Another adjustment unit is configured to control coupling coefficient (Abstract). Luo et al. (US PG Pub 2017/0139237) disclose: a dual-ring-modulated laser includes a gain medium having a reflective end coupled to a gain-medium reflector and an output end coupled to a reflector circuit to form a lasing cavity. This reflector circuit comprises: a first ring modulator; a second ring modulator; and a shared waveguide that optically couples the first and second ring modulators. The first and second ring modulators have resonance peaks, which are tuned to have an alignment separation from each other. During operation, the first and second ring modulators are driven in opposing directions based on the same electrical input signal, so the resonance peaks of the first and second ring modulators shift wavelengths in the opposing directions during modulation. The modulation shift for each of the resonance peaks equals the alignment separation, so the resonance peaks interchange positions during modulation to cancel out reflectivity changes in the lasing cavity caused by the modulation (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XINNING(TOM) NIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1437. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-6:00pm.
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.
/XINNING(Tom) NIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights