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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 (and its dependents) 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 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.
Claims 1-7, 9-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 lines 27-29 “a first electrode” and “a second electrode” connected to the optical modulator raises clarity issues. Lines 6-8 introduces “an electrode configured to apply an electric field to the Mach-Zehnder type waveguide”. It is unclear if the first electrode is the electrode introduced earlier, or if the second electrode is the electrode introduced earlier, or if both the first and second electrodes are the electrode introduced earlier; or if they are two new/different elements. Given the claim construction and the specification (e.g. figure 2) the examiner respectfully suggests one possible solution of “and have an electric field applied to the Mach-Zehnder type waveguide”, however, there are several ways to overcome this issue. For purposes of examination the examiner will assume the electrode introduced in line 6 is the first and/or second electrode(s) of lines 27-28.
Claims 2-7, 9-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, since they depend on claim 1 and therefore have the same deficiencies.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-7, 9-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorg et al. US Patent Application Publication 2022/0337794, of record, in view of Doi et al. US Patent Application Publication 2011/0229070 and in further view of Ermeneux “Tutorial: High Speed Fiber Modulator Basics” https://www.laserdiodesource.com/high-speed-fiber-modulator-basics#:~:text=In%20order%20to%20operate%20the,performance%20(see%20figure%207), 2019, of record; with evidence of certain features provided by Riesebosch US Patent Application Publication 2013/0135879, of record, and Microchip Technology webpage “PMIC – Power Management ICs” as of 2020, of record.
Regarding claim 1 Sorg discloses a light source unit (title e.g. figure 3B planar light circuit 1), comprising: a light source part having an optical semiconductor device (e.g. VCSEL laser diodes 10, 11, 12, 32, 33 or 34); a first electrical signal generating device configured to generate an electrical signal to control current that drives the optical semiconductor device (implicit given paragraph [0076] “each of the laser diodes 10 to 12, 32 to 34 can be separately controlled” & paragraph [0069] noting “Each VCSEL has a fast modulation capability and only requires a low current”); an optical modulator having a Mach-Zehnder type optical waveguide (e.g. Mach-Zehnder modulator 71, 72, 73, 74, 75 or 76) with a lithium niobate (paragraph [0073] “Mach-Zehnder modulators … include a nonlinear refractive index material, e.g. lithium niobate”) film processed in a convex shape (see figures 3A-3B), and an electrode (e.g. electrode 61, 62, 63, 64, 65 or 66) configured to apply an electric field to the Mach-Zehnder type waveguide (paragraph [0011-12] “Mach-Zehnder modulator includes an electrode coupled to the electro-optical material ... the Mach-Zehnder modulator is configured to be controlled by an electrical signal provided by the electrode”); and a second electrical signal generating device configured to generate an electrical signal to control a voltage that operates the optical modulator (implicit since a voltage source is require to provide voltage to operate said Mach-Zehnder modulators), wherein the optical semiconductor device and the optical modulator are optically connected to each other (e.g. via waveguide 14), the first electrical signal generating device and the second electrical signal generating device are synchronizably1 connected to each other (the electrical signals can be, i.e. are capable of, being synchronized e.g. via control unit 33); and the intensity of light emitted from the optical modulator is changed by current modulation controlled by the first electrical signal generating device and voltage modulation controlled by the second electrical signal generating device (axiomatic), the optical modulator (e.g. 71) includes a first optical waveguide (e.g. first waveguide path 83), a second optical waveguide (e.g. second waveguide path 84), a first electrode connected to and extending along with the first waveguide (e.g. figure 5D electrode 61 paragraph [0083] “61 is arranged on top of the material 104”), a first end of the first electrode is connected to the second electrical signal generating device (paragraph [0011-12] “Mach-Zehnder modulator includes an electrode coupled to the electro-optical material ... the Mach-Zehnder modulator is configured to be controlled by an electrical signal provided by the electrode”).
Sorg does not explicitly disclose the first electrical signal generating device is connected to a synchronization signal generator together with the second electrical signal generating device, and the intensity of the light emitted from the optical modulator is changed by synchronizing timing of modulation signals with synchronization signals generated from the synchronization signal generator, the optical modulator includes a second electrode connected to and extending along with the second waveguide, and a second end of the first electrode is connected to a terminating resistor, and a first end of the second electrode is connected to the second electrical signal generating device, and a second end of the second electrode is connected to the terminating resistor.
Doi teaches a similar light source unit including an optical modulator having a Mach-Zehnder type optical waveguide with a lithium niobate (e.g. figure 1 Mach-Zehnder optical modulator 100 paragraph [0003] “lithium niobate”); a second electrical signal generating device that operates the optical modulator (e.g. high-frequency signal source 128), where the optical modulator includes a first optical waveguide (e.g. arm waveguide 116a), a second optical waveguide (e.g. arm waveguide 116b), a first electrode (e.g. electrode 122a) connected to and extending along with the first waveguide (e.g. see figure 1) and a first end of the first electrode is connected to the second electrical signal generating device (e.g. see figure 1); and further teaches a second electrode (e.g. electrode 122b) connected to and extending along with the second waveguide (e.g. see figure 1), and a second end of the first electrode (e.g.122a) is connected to a terminating resistor (e.g. terminal resistor 129), and a first end of the second electrode (e.g. 122b) is connected to the second electrical signal generating device (e.g. see figure 1), and a second end of the second electrode is connected to the terminating resistor (e.g. see figure 1) for the purpose of electrically connecting the optical modulator to the signal generator to operate (inter alia paragraphs [0003-05]) and to impedance match the electrode to avoid distortion from signal reflection. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the light source unit as disclosed by Sorg to have the optical modulator includes a second electrode connected to and extending along with the second waveguide, and a second end of the first electrode is connected to a terminating resistor, and a first end of the second electrode is connected to the second electrical signal generating device, and a second end of the second electrode is connected to the terminating resistor as taught by Doi for the purpose of electrically connecting the optical modulator to the signal generator to operate and to impedance match the electrode to avoid distortion from signal reflection.
Doi does not teach the first electrical signal generating device is connected to a synchronization signal generator together with the second electrical signal generating device, and the intensity of the light emitted from the optical modulator is changed by synchronizing timing of modulation signals with synchronization signals generated from the synchronization signal generator.
Ermeneux teaches a similar light source unit (in toto e.g. see figure 6) including a first electrical signal generating device (e.g. 1-Laser diode drive – see unlabeled photo on page 6) that drives an optical semiconductor device (e.g. laser diode), a second electrical signal generating device (e.g. 3-EOM fast modulation Electronics & 4-RF Amplifier) that drives an optical modulator (e.g. Electro optic modulator); and further teaches the first electrical signal generating device (e.g. 1) is connected to a synchronization signal generator device (e.g. 2-Synchronisation electronics & figure 2) together with the second electrical signal generating device (e.g. 3), and the intensity of the light emitted from the optical modulator is changed by synchronizing timing of modulation signals with synchronization signals generated from the synchronization signal generator (inter alia page 6 first sentence) for the purpose of obtaining the desired modulation and the combination provides very good technical performance (inter alia page 6 first sentence and last paragraph). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the light source unit as disclosed by the combination of Sorg as modified by Doi to have the first electrical signal generating device is connected to a synchronization signal generator device together with the second electrical signal generating device, and the intensity of the light emitted from the optical modulator is changed by synchronizing timing of modulation signals with synchronization signals generated from the synchronization signal generator as taught by Ermeneux for the purpose of obtaining the desired modulation and the combination provides very good technical performance.
Regarding claim 2 the combination of Sorg as modified by Doi and Ermeneux discloses the light source unit according to claim 1, as set forth above. Sorg, Doi and Ermeneux do not disclose or teach wherein the first electrical signal generating device and the second electrical signal generating device are on a common semiconductor substrate. The examiner takes Official Notice2 that a power management integrated circuits, a.k.a. PMICs, which has multiple power supplies on a common substrate is well known as evidenced by Riesebosch (paragraph [0016] notes power integrated circuits including current and/or voltage supplies are known) and Microchip Technology for the purpose of optimizing battery life, saving space and easily integrating power management in a compact mobile device (Microchip Technology first sentence). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the light source unit as disclosed by Sorg as modified by Ermeneux to have the first electrical signal generating device and the second electrical signal generating device on a common semiconductor substrate since PMICs are well known and one would be motivate to use a PMIC for the purpose of optimizing battery life, saving space and easily integrating power management in a device.
Regarding claims 3-4 the combination of Sorg as modified by Doi and Ermeneux discloses the light source unit according to claim 1, as set forth above. Sorg, Doi and Ermeneux do not discuss the physical property minimum light intensity change due to the first and/or second electrical signal generating device. Specifically, Sorg does not disclose wherein a minimum value of a change of light intensity by the first electrical signal generating device is greater than a minimum value of a change of light intensity by the second electrical signal generating device, as recited by claim 3; or wherein a minimum value of a change of light intensity by the second electrical signal generating device is greater than a minimum value of a change of light intensity by the first electrical signal generating device, as recited by claim 4. Applicant has not disclosed that a minimum value of a change of light intensity by the first electrical signal generating device is greater than or less than a minimum value of a change of light intensity by the second electrical signal generating device solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with either claimed situation. Regardless, there are a limited number of incremental intensity size relationships, i.e. greater than, less than or equal to. It has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within his or her technical grasp. See KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) and MPEP 2143. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for physical property of the minimum value of a change of light intensity by the first electrical signal generating device be greater than or less than the minimum value of a change of light intensity by the second electrical signal generating device since it appears that the invention would perform equally well in the either case and there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable relationships, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to choose known elements within his or her technical grasp.
Regarding claim 5 the combination of Sorg as modified by Doi and Ermeneux discloses the light source unit according to claim 1, as set forth above. Sorg further discloses wherein a peak wavelength of the optical semiconductor device (e.g. 10, 11, 12, 32, 33 or 34) is visible light of 380 nm to 830 nm (paragraph [0048 & 0056] discloses 10 & 32 are blue, 11 & 33 are red and 12 & 34 are green).
Regarding claim 6 the combination of Sorg as modified by Doi and Ermeneux discloses the light source unit according to claim 1, as set forth above. Sorg further discloses wherein a peak wavelength of the optical semiconductor device is infrared light (paragraph [0023] discloses 1 “may further comprise an IR laser diode”).
Sorg, Doi and Ermeneux do not explicitly disclose or teach the IR light is near IR with wavelengths of 830 nm to 2000 nm. However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case the combination of Sorg as modified by Doi and Ermeneux has light source unit including a semiconductor infrared light source fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to have the IR light with wavelengths of 830 nm to 2000 nm for the purpose of good propagation of said light in the waveguides. Therefore, It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the infrared light source in the light source unit as disclosed by the combination of Sorg as modified by Doi and Ermeneux to have the IR light with wavelengths of 830 nm to 2000 nm for the purpose of good propagation of said light in the waveguides and since discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7 the combination of Sorg as modified by Doi and Ermeneux discloses the light source unit according to claim 1, as set forth above. Sorg further discloses wherein an optical module comprises the optical semiconductor device (e.g. 10, 11, 12, 32, 33 or 34) and the optical modulator (e.g. 71, 72, 73, 74, 75 or 76, respectively), which are optically connected (see figure 3B); and the light source unit (e.g. 1) further comprising a plurality of different optical modules (paragraph [0032] disclose a pixel comprises “a first number N” of laser diodes and Mach-Zehnder modulators & paragraph [0006] discloses “first number N is 1, 2, 3 or 4. Alternatively, the first number N is at least 1, at least 2, at least 3 or at least 4” e.g. pixel 21 or 30) wherein the plurality of optical modules are independently controlled (paragraphs [0071 & 0074] “Phase differences or intensity reductions generated by … Mach-Zehnder modulators 71 to 76 are electrically controlled” & paragraph [0076] “each of the laser diodes 10 to 12, 32 to 34 can be separately controlled”).
Regarding claim 9 the combination of Sorg as modified by Doi and Ermeneux discloses the light source unit according to claim 7, as set forth above. Sorg further discloses it is further comprising a multiplexing part (e.g. combiners 20 or 40) configured to multiplex the light from the different optical modules (e.g. 10/71, 11/72 & 12/73) of the plurality of optical modules (see figure 3B), wherein the multiplexed light passing through the multiplexing part (e.g. 20) is emitted from one light exit port (e.g. outlet 19).
Regarding claim 10 the combination of Sorg as modified by Doi and Ermeneux discloses the light source unit according to claim 9, as set forth above. Sorg further discloses wherein the optical semiconductor devices (e.g. 10, 11 & 12) of the different optical modules emit visible light with a peak wavelength of 380 nm to 830 nm (e.g. paragraph [0048] discloses 10 is blue, 11 is red and 12 is green), and light emitted from the light exit port is visible light (paragraphs [0051-52] notes the output is a “red, green, blue emission”).
Regarding claim 11 the combination of Sorg as modified by Doi and Ermeneux discloses the light source unit according to claim 7, as set forth above. Sorg further discloses wherein the plurality of optical modules have at least: a blue optical module having the optical semiconductor device with a peak wavelength of 380 nm to 500 nm (e.g. module with 10 paragraph [0048] “10 is implemented as a blue VCSEL”); a green optical module having the optical semiconductor device with a peak wavelength or 500 nm to 600 nm (e.g. module with 12 paragraph [0048] “12 is implemented as a green VCSEL”); and a red optical module having the optical semiconductor device with a peak wavelength of 600 nm to 830 nm (e.g. module with 11 paragraph [0048] “11 is realized as a red VCSEL”), and a visible light multiplexing part (e.g. 20) configured to multiplex the light from the red optical module, the light from the green optical module and the light from the blue optical module is provided (paragraph [0049] “wavelength combiner” see figure 3B), and the multiplexed visible light passing through the visible light multiplexing part is emitted from one visible light exit port (e.g. 19).
Regarding claim 13 the combination of Sorg as modified by Doi and Ermeneux discloses the light source unit according to claim 11, as set forth above. Sorg further discloses it is further comprising a near infrared light module (paragraph [0053] “not shown … 1 comprises a fourth laser diode. The fourth laser diode is realized e.g. as an infrared VCSEL. Thus, the first number N is 4. At the outlet 19, red, green, blue and infrared radiation is emitted”) having an optical semiconductor device that emits near infrared light with a peak wavelength of 830 nm or more (paragraph [0053] “fourth laser diode is realized e.g. as an infrared VCSEL”), wherein a multiplexing part configured to multiplex the visible light emitted from the visible light multiplexing part and the near infrared light emitted from the near infrared light module is provided, and the multiplexed light passing through the multiplexing part is emitted from one light exit port (paragraph [0053] “At the outlet 19, red, green, blue and infrared radiation is emitted”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hamano et al. US Patent 5,074,631; in regards to a M-Z modulator (e.g. see figure 8A) with the two arms of the modulator (e.g. 21 & 22) connected to a signal generator (e.g. 52) and having a terminating resistor (e.g. R).
Nakamura et al. US Patent Application Publication 2021/0341813; in regards to a M-Z modulator (e.g. see figure 5) with the two arms of the modulator (e.g. 8a & 8b) connected to a signal generator (e.g. 6) and having a terminating resistor (e.g. 7) for the purpose of impedance matching to reduce reflection of an electrical signal (paragraph [0056]).
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 George G King whose telephone number is (303)297-4273. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571) 272-2333. 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.
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 May 26, 2026
1 The examiner notes that the suffix “-ably” means “capable of” according to the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, thus synchronizably means “capable of being synchronized.” It has been held that the recitation that an element is "capable of" performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense; In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. Also see Intel Corp. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm’n, 946 F.2d 821, 832, 20 USPQ2d 1161, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1991), MPEP 2114. IV and MPEP 2173.05(g).
2 Since applicant did not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice the statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant did not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice, see MPEP 2144.03 C.
Prosecution Insights