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 filed February 23, 2026 have been fully considered. The arguments are persuasive in part not persuasive in part. Applicant makes several arguments.
First Applicant argues in Claims 1, 17 and 19 that the amendment adding the limitation of a phase shifter that is configured to align the laser modes with the lasing wavelengths overcomes the rejection of record. Examiner agrees that Eggleston in view of Guo does not teach a phase shifter that is configured to align the laser modes with the lasing wavelengths. However, Mehta teaches a phase shifter that is configured to align the laser modes with the lasing wavelengths (Fig. 2, 226 Paragraph 0030 “The phase tuning section 226 allows the cavity modes' wavelengths to be tuned to reduce or minimize the overall loss for all of the lasing modes by lining them up with the modes of the ring.”) See below for full rejection.
Second Applicant argues in Claims 1, 17 and 19 the set of ring resonators found in Eggleston are not configured to provide the lasing wavelengths because they are used to reject wavelengths and do not select the lasing wavelength as claimed. Examiner disagrees. Applicant is arguing a claim limitation that is not found in the Claim set. The limitation in question is as follows “a set of ring resonators configured to provide the lasing wavelengths” The Claim only requires that the ring resonators be configured to provide the lasing wavelengths not that is specifically selects the wavelengths. Either through rejecting wavelengths or selecting wavelengths, a lasing wavelength is provided. Even assuming Applicant’s that providing is more narrowly interpreted to mean only selecting a wavelength by the ring resonators Eggleston teaches a selection process. (Col. 6 Lines 37-45 “FIG. 7 is a graph depicting the filtering properties of the group of ring resonators 30, showing the how each of the specific wavelengths outside of the selected set (λa, λb, λc, and λd) is removed. In accordance with the teachings of the present disclosure, therefore, by knowing the number of comb lines that is desired to be generated, optical filter 20 is designed to eliminate all of the unwanted comb lines so that MLL 10 only generates the specified number of mode-locked wavelengths.”) There are two ways to select an object from a group of objects either from direct selection of the object or removal of the rest of the objects from the group. The ring filters are doing the latter by removing wavelengths only the selected wavelengths are left.
Third Applicant argues that in Claim 2 Fig. 5A does not show the epitaxial gain layer have more non-homogeneous broadening than homogeneous broadening and it is impossible to make a comb laser using the Eggleston reference. Examiner disagrees. Eggleston does produce a comb laser (Col. 2 Lines53-56 “FIG. 5 is a set of plots illustrating a methodology employed by embodiments of the present disclosure, where FIG. 5(a) illustrates the generated comb lines (optical spectrum) without any optical filtering,”) and looking at Fig. 5(a) shows a non-homogeneous broadening because the broadening is not perfectly symmetrical.
For the given reasons above the Examiner finds the arguments persuasive in part and not persuasive in part.
Due to amendment the 112 rejections are withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-8-11, 14-18 are rejected as being unpatentable over 35 U.S.C. 103 over Eggleston et al. US 10038301 in view of Guo et al. US 20210013699 and Mehta et al. US 20210057880.
Regarding Claim 1, Eggleston teaches An optical source (Fig. 16), comprising:
an optical cavity (Fig. 6, between 18 and 24) comprising at least one mirror (Fig. 6, 24); and
a gain chip (Fig. 6, 12) comprising multiple epitaxial gain layers (Col. 4 Lines 23-26 “SOA 12 may comprise any appropriate III-V based type of gain structure typically used including, but not limited to, bulk materials, quantum well structures, quantum dot structures, and the like.”), wherein the epitaxial gain layers are configured to act as a gain medium that provides multiple lasing wavelengths in a band of frequencies without mode hopping (Abstract “A hybrid laser structure (comprising III-V gain material and a silicon-based photonic integrated circuit Fig. 5(a) shows multiple wavelengths) is configured to control the number of generated mode-locked wavelengths by including an optical wavelength filter within the photonic integrated circuit portion of the laser cavity.”)and
wherein the optical source comprises an optical component configured to select laser modes of the optical cavity (Fig. 6, 20 Col. 4 Lines 57-59 “As will be discussed in detail below, optical filter 20 is used to control the specific number of mode-locked wavelengths provided as an output from MLL 10.”), wherein the optical component comprises:
an aperiodic grating;
an echelle grating having a common arm that includes the epitaxial gain layers and multiple output arms configured to provide the lasing wavelengths;
an optical de-interleaver having a common arm comprising the expitaxial gain layers and multiple output arms which is configured to provide the lasing wavelengths; or
a set of ring resonators configured to provide the lasing wavelengths. (Col. 6 Lines 11-14 “FIG. 6 illustrates an exemplary embodiment of the present invention, where in this case optical filter 20 comprises a set of eight ring resonators 301, 302, . . . , 308, with four rings disposed on either side of waveguide 16.”)
Eggleston does not teach the gain chip is a semiconductor laser chip, the optical cavity comprises a phase shifter that is configured to align the laser modes with the lasing wavelengths.
However,
Guo teaches a gain chip that is a semiconductor laser chip. (Fig. 1 Paragraph 0053 “FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram of a surface-emitting laser.”)
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 gain chip as taught by Eggleston by having it be a semiconductor laser chip as disclosed by Guo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to save power and simplify manufacturing. (Guo Paragraph 0018)
Eggleston in view of Guo does not teach a phase shifter that is configured to align the laser modes with the lasing wavelengths.
Mehta teaches a phase shifter that is configured to align the laser modes with the lasing wavelengths. (Fig. 2, 226 Paragraph 0030 “The phase tuning section 226 allows the cavity modes' wavelengths to be tuned to reduce or minimize the overall loss for all of the lasing modes by lining them up with the modes of the ring.”)
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 source as taught by Eggleston having a phase shifter as disclosed by Mehta. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to minimize overall loss for all the lasing modes. (Mehta Paragraph 0030)
Regarding Claim 2, Eggleston teaches the epitaxial gain layers comprise layers with density of states with more non-homogeneous broadening than homogeneous broadening. (Fig. 5a shows a broad bandwidth thus the epitaxial gain layers have more non-homogenous broadening than homogenous broadening.)
Regarding Claim 4, Eggleston teaches the lasing wavelengths are tunable. (Col. 1 Lines 54-58 “. Alternatively, the optical waveguide filter may be formed as an active device having a tunable passband (tunable in both bandwidth and center wavelength), allowing for the number of generated comb lines to be tuned.”)
Regarding Claim 5, Eggleston in combination with Guo teaches the optical source comprises a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) laser. (Paragraph 0071 “Typically, the diffracted output of the second-order grating consists of two parts: downward and upward. As shown in FIG. 1, the laser simultaneously provides both downward and upward light output. FIG. 9A is a surface-emitting laser of the disclosure, in which the first cladding layer 5 of the laser includes an epitaxially grown DBR 19” See Claim 1 for rationale.)
Regarding Claim 6, Eggleston in combination with Guo teaches the optical source comprises a distributed feedback (DFB) laser. (Paragraph 0062 “A second-order grating is directly introduced into the first-order grating. In this situation, since the phase change caused by each period of the second-order grating is φ=(2π/λ)λ=2π, the introduction of the second-order grating will not change the resonance wavelength of the DFB laser.” See Claim 1 for rationale.)
Regarding Claim 7, Eggleston in combination with Guo teaches the semiconductor laser chip comprises an optical waveguide (Guo Paragraph 0053 “A ridge waveguide 11 is formed on the second cladding layer 8, and a grating 12 is etched on the ridge waveguide 11.”) and the aperiodic grating is included in sidewalls of the optical waveguide. (Guo Fig. 1, 12 is the aperiodic grating included in the sidewalls of the optical waveguide. See Claim 1 for rationale.)
Regarding Claim 8, Eggleston in combination with Guo teaches the semiconductor laser chip comprises an optical waveguide (Guo Fig. 1, 5) and the aperiodic grating is included above the optical waveguide. (Fig. 1 of Guo teaches the aperiodic grating 12 is above the optical waveguide. See Claim 1 for rationale.)
Regarding Claim 9, Eggleston in combination with Guo does not teach the mirror comprises a distributed mirror.
However,
Mehta teaches the mirror comprises a distributed mirror. (Paragraph 0036 “One of the first mirror 542 or the second mirror 552 is a DBR or a narrow-band DBR”)
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 mirror as taught by Eggleston in view with Guo by having the mirror be a distributed mirror as disclosed by Mehta. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to select certain wavelengths. (Mehta Paragraph 0036)
Regarding Claim 10, Eggleston teaches the epitaxial gain layers comprise quantum-dot gain layers or quantum-well gain layers. (Col. 4 Lines 23-26 “SOA 12 may comprise any appropriate III-V based type of gain structure typically used including, but not limited to, bulk materials, quantum well structures, quantum dot structures, and the like.”)
Regarding Claim 11, Eggleston teaches the epitaxial gain layers have inhomogenously broadened gain. (Fig. 5a shows a broad bandwidth thus the epitaxial gain layers have non-homogenous broadening gain.)
Regarding Claim 14, Eggleston teaches the epitaxial gain layers are configured to provide the multiple lasing wavelengths in the band of frequencies with mode beating less than a predefined value. (Fig. 5(a) shows the gain layers providing a band of frequencies with no mode beating.)
Regarding Claim 15, Eggleston teaches the predefined value is -120 dB/Hz. (Fig. 5(a) shows the gain layers providing a band of frequencies with no mode beating.)
Regarding Claim 16, Eggleston teaches the multiple lasing wavelengths comprises continuous lasing wavelengths. (Fig. 5(a) shows a continuous wavelength spectrum)
Regarding Claim 17, Eggleston teaches A system (Fig. 6), comprising an optical source (Fig. 6), wherein the optical source comprises:
an optical cavity (Fig. 6, between 18 and 24) comprising at least one mirror (Fig. 6, 24); and
a gain chip (Fig. 6, 12) comprising multiple epitaxial gain layers (Col. 4 Lines 23-26 “SOA 12 may comprise any appropriate III-V based type of gain structure typically used including, but not limited to, bulk materials, quantum well structures, quantum dot structures, and the like.”), wherein the epitaxial gain layers are configured to act as a gain medium that provides multiple lasing wavelengths in a band of frequencies without mode hopping (Abstract “A hybrid laser structure (comprising III-V gain material and a silicon-based photonic integrated circuit Fig. 5(a) shows multiple wavelengths) is configured to control the number of generated mode-locked wavelengths by including an optical wavelength filter within the photonic integrated circuit portion of the laser cavity.”)and
wherein the optical source comprises an optical component configured to select laser modes of the optical cavity (Fig. 6, 20 Col. 4 Lines 57-59 “As will be discussed in detail below, optical filter 20 is used to control the specific number of mode-locked wavelengths provided as an output from MLL 10.”), wherein the optical component comprises:
an aperiodic grating;
an echelle grating having a common arm that includes the epitaxial gain layers and multiple output arms configured to provide the lasing wavelengths;
an optical de-interleaver having a common arm comprising the expitaxial gain layers and multiple output arms which is configured to provide the lasing wavelengths; or
a set of ring resonators configured to provide the lasing wavelengths. (Col. 6 Lines 11-14 “FIG. 6 illustrates an exemplary embodiment of the present invention, where in this case optical filter 20 comprises a set of eight ring resonators 301, 302, . . . , 308, with four rings disposed on either side of waveguide 16.”)
Eggleston does not teach the gain chip is a semiconductor laser chip, the optical cavity comprises a phase shifter that is configured to align the laser modes with the lasing wavelengths.
However,
Guo teaches a gain chip that is a semiconductor laser chip. (Fig. 1 Paragraph 0053 “FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram of a surface-emitting laser.”)
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 gain chip as taught by Eggleston by having it be a semiconductor laser chip as disclosed by Guo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to save power and simplify manufacturing. (Guo Paragraph 0018)
Eggleston in view of Guo does not teach a phase shifter that is configured to align the laser modes with the lasing wavelengths.
Mehta teaches a phase shifter that is configured to align the laser modes with the lasing wavelengths. (Fig. 2, 226 Paragraph 0030 “The phase tuning section 226 allows the cavity modes' wavelengths to be tuned to reduce or minimize the overall loss for all of the lasing modes by lining them up with the modes of the ring.”)
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 source as taught by Eggleston having a phase shifter as disclosed by Mehta. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to minimize overall loss for all the lasing modes. (Mehta Paragraph 0030)
Regarding Claim 18, Eggleston teaches the epitaxial gain layers are configured to act as the gain medium that provides the multiple lasing wavelengths in the band of frequencies with mode beating less than a predefined value. (Fig. 5(a) shows the gain layers providing a band of frequencies with no mode beating.)
Claims 19-20 are rejected as being unpatentable over 35 U.S.C. 103 over Eggleston in view of Mehta.
Regarding Claim 19, Eggleston teaches A method for providing multiple lasing wavelengths, comprising:
by an optical cavity (Fig. 6, between 18 and 24) comprising at least one mirror (Fig. 6, 24); and a gain chip (Fig. 6, 12) comprising multiple epitaxial gain layers (Col. 4 Lines 23-26 “SOA 12 may comprise any appropriate III-V based type of gain structure typically used including, but not limited to, bulk materials, quantum well structures, quantum dot structures, and the like:
providing, using the epitaxial gain layers are configured to act as a gain medium that provides multiple lasing wavelengths in a band of frequencies without mode hopping (Abstract “A hybrid laser structure (comprising III-V gain material and a silicon-based photonic integrated circuit Fig. 5(a) shows multiple wavelengths) is configured to control the number of generated mode-locked wavelengths by including an optical wavelength filter within the photonic integrated circuit portion of the laser cavity.”); and
selecting, using the optical source comprises an optical component configured to select laser modes of the optical cavity (Fig. 6, 20 Col. 4 Lines 57-59 “As will be discussed in detail below, optical filter 20 is used to control the specific number of mode-locked wavelengths provided as an output from MLL 10.”), wherein the optical component comprises:
an aperiodic grating;
an echelle grating having a common arm that includes the epitaxial gain layers and multiple output arms that provide the lasing wavelengths;
an optical de-interleaver having a common arm comprising the expitaxial gain layers and multiple output arms which that provides the lasing wavelengths; or
a set of ring resonators that provide the lasing wavelengths. (Col. 6 Lines 11-14 “FIG. 6 illustrates an exemplary embodiment of the present invention, where in this case optical filter 20 comprises a set of eight ring resonators 301, 302, . . . , 308, with four rings disposed on either side of waveguide 16.”)
Eggleston does not teach the optical cavity comprises a phase shifter aligning using the phase shifter the laser modes with the lasing wavelengths.
However,
Mehta teaches a phase shifter aligning using the phase shifter the laser modes with the lasing wavelengths. (Fig. 2, 226 Paragraph 0030 “The phase tuning section 226 allows the cavity modes' wavelengths to be tuned to reduce or minimize the overall loss for all of the lasing modes by lining them up with the modes of the ring.”)
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 source as taught by Eggleston having a phase shifter as disclosed by Mehta. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to minimize overall loss for all the lasing modes. (Mehta Paragraph 0030)
Regarding Claim 20, Eggleston teaches the multiple lasing wavelengths are provided in the band of frequencies with mode beating less than a predefined value. (Fig. 5(a) shows the gain layers providing a band of frequencies with no mode beating.)
Claim 3 is rejected as being unpatentable over 35 U.S.C. 103 over Eggleston and Guo and Mehta in view of Garnache-Creuillot et al. US 20170256913.
Regarding Claim 3, Eggleston in combination with Guo does not teach the epitaxial gain layers comprise InGaAs/GaAs self-assembled epitaxial gain layers.
However,
Garnache-Creuillot teaches the epitaxial gain layers comprise InGaAs/GaAs self-assembled epitaxial gain layers. (Paragraph 0086 “The gain region 104 is, for example, made with six strain-balanced InGaAs/GaAs(P) Quantum Wells”)
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 epitaxial gain layers as taught by Eggleston in view with Guo by having them be made of InGaAs/GaAs as disclosed by Garnache-Greuillot. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to change the wavelength of emitted light.
Claim 12 is rejected as being unpatentable over 35 U.S.C. 103 over Eggleston and Guo in view of Fermann et al. US 20170063015.
Regarding Claim 12, Eggleston in view of Guo does not teach the optical cavity comprises an optical fiber.
However,
Fermann teaches the optical cavity comprises an optical fiber. (Fig. 1C Paragraph 0046 FIG. 1C represents an exemplary embodiment of a fiber-based master oscillator power amplifier (MOPA) laser system 100)
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 cavity as taught by Eggleston in view of Guo by adding the optical fiber as disclosed by Fermann. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to make mass production easier. (Fermann Paragraph 0045 “Various design considerations for the laser system and the target applications are described herein. Such design considerations include, but are not limited to, (1) well defined output polarization state; (2) construction of the fiber laser preferably adaptable to mass production; (3) use of optical elements that are preferably inexpensive; 4) techniques and designs for generation of passive modelocked signals with well controllable parameters; as well as (5) simplified pulse amplification implementation.”)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is 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.
Regarding Claim 13, Eggleston does not teach the optical source does not use mode locking.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Krishanomoorthy et al. US 20190027899 teaches many of the features found in Claim 1.
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 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