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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Margallo Balbas (20210072384) in view of Bogaerts (20210048724).
Referring to claim 1, Margallo Balbas shows an optical-electro system, comprising:
a substrate (see figure 1A Ref 100A);
at least one photo-detecting unit at least partially formed on the substrate to detect a signal light (see figure 106A);
at least one optical waveguide at least partially formed on the substrate (see the waveguide shown in figure 1A), each of the at least one optical waveguide connected to one of the at least one photo-detecting unit to input a local light (see figure 1A note the waveguide that connects the LO to 102); and
at least one electronic output port connected to the at least one photo-detecting unit to transmit at least one electronic output signal from the at least one photo-detecting unit (see paragraph 79 note the direct detection optical to electrical converter is then provided to the DSP module), wherein the at least one electronic output signal is associated with the signal light (note the detected signal light as shown in figure 1A Ref 101) and the local light (note the LO light that is detected by the balanced PD Ref 104 in figure 1A).
While Margallow Balbas shows at least one optical waveguide is configured to compensate the local light with a phase difference with respect to a reference phase through optical path length compensation or refractive index compensation (see paragraph 77, 88, and 106), Margallow Balbas shows the compensation through physical parameters such as bends or distance of the waveguide and fails to show a specific phase shifting unit.
Bogaerts shows a similar device that includes a phase shifting unit that corrects for a reference phase through optical path length compensation (see paragraph 76). It would have been obvious to include the phase shifting unit because this allows for precise control of the phase compensation as taught by Bogaerts (see paragraph 76).
Referring to claim 2, Margallow Balbas shows each of the at least one photo- detecting unit is manufactured through at least one of an optoelectronic technology or an integrated circuit technology (see the IC layout as shown in figure 6).
Referring to claim 3, Margallow Balbas shows each of the at least one photo- detecting unit includes at least one balanced photodetector (see paragraph 61).
Referring to claim 4, Margallow Balbas shows the at least one balanced photodetector comprises:
a first optical input interface, formed on the substrate and connected to the optical waveguide to receive the local light from the optical waveguide (see figure 1A note the waveguide that delivers the LO Ref 104 to the 2x2 MMI);
a second optical input interface, formed on the substrate to receive the signal light (see figure 1A note the waveguide that delivers the signal light 101 to the 2x2 MMI Ref 102);
an optical coupling unit formed on the substrate, connected to the first optical input interface and the second optical input interface, wherein the optical coupling unit couples the local flight and the signal light to generate a first interfered light and a second interfered light (see figure 1A Ref 102),
a first optical output interface connected to the optical coupling unit to output the first interfered light; and a second optical output interface connected to the optical coupling unit to output the second interfered light (see the output of the 2x2 MMI that outputs an interference light to the balanced PD Ref 106A and 106B).
Referring to claim 5, Margallow Balbas shows the at least one balanced photodetector further comprises:
a first photodetector to receive the first interfered light and convert the first interfered light into a first current (see figure 1A Ref 106A);
a second photodetector to receive the second interfered light and convert the second interfered light to a second current (see figure 1A Ref 106B); and
a current combiner (Note figure 1A shows a general overview of the balanced detector system but fails to show the current being combined, Figure 3 shows the output of the balanced detector that combines the current in the detector pair via the TIA), connected to:
the first photodetector to receive the first current (see figure 3 the first detector in the detector pair Ref 304A),
the second photodetector to receive the second current (see figure 3 Ref 304A note the second detector in the detector pair),
one of the at least one electronic output port (see the output of the TIA Ref 306A), and
wherein the current combiner combines the first current and the second current to form the at least one electronic output signal (note the output of the TIA is inherently electrical because it is passed to a DAC Ref 308A).
Referring to claim 6, Margallow Balbas shows the current combiner comprises at least one amplifier (see the TIA Ref 306A).
Referring to claim 7, Margallow Balbas shows the second optical input interface comprises at least one micro-optical lens to focus the signal light to the optical coupling unit (see paragraph 74).
Referring to claim 8, Margallow Balbas shows the local light is coherent with the signal light (note this is inherent with the Local Oscillator signal as shown by figure 1A Ref 104).
Referring to claim 9, Margallow Balbas shows focal light comprises a modulated light wave (see paragraph 76 note the FMCW wave).
Referring to claim 10, Margallow Balbas shows the modulated light wave is a frequency modulated continuous wave (see paragraph 76).
Referring to claim 11, Margallow Balbas shows the modulated light wave is at least one of an amplitude modulated continuous wave or a phase modulated continuous wave (see paragraph 76).
Referring to claim 16, Margallow Balbas shows a light source to emit a source light (see figure 8 Ref 806).
Referring to claim 17, Margallow Balbas shows a beam splitter to receive the source light and split the source light into an emitted signal light and the focal light (see figure 8 note the split light from the laser source Ref 806).
Referring to claim 18, Margallow Balbas shows the signal light is the emitted signal light reflected from a target object (see figure 8 Ref 802).
Referring to claim 19, Margallow Balbas shows a light emission port to emit the emitted signal light (see the light emitter figure 8 Ref 810).
Referring to claim 20, Margallow Balbas shows the light emission port includes a diffuser to receive the emitted light bearn and diffuse the emitted light beam towards a target object (see figure 8 note the diffuse light from the emitter Ref 810).
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 LUKE D RATCLIFFE whose telephone number is (571)272-3110. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571-272-6970. 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.
/LUKE D RATCLIFFE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights