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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it should not contain claim language. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of Group I (claims 1-18) in the reply filed on 05/06/26 is acknowledged.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 1 (1st embodiment Figs 1-5) in the reply filed on 05/06/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that searching all the species would not present a serious burden to the examiner. This is not found persuasive because the applicant did not state on the record that the embodiments are obvious variants of each other. Applicant indicated that claims 1-18 read on the elected embodiment, the examiner disagrees and points out that claims 10, 11, 14-16 do not read on the elected embodiment for the following reasons.
Claim 14 discloses a limitation: “the tunable optical filter is positioned to receive light from the optical tap of the first optical splitter and the first photodetector is positioned to receive light from the tunable optical filter”. However, this limitation is directed to the second embodiment of Fig 7. The elected embodiment discloses “the tunable optical filter is positioned in line with an optical path from the tunable DFB laser diode to the first optical splitter”.
Claims 15-16 are dependent on claim 14.
Claim 10 discloses a limitation: “the thermo-electric cooler includes a thermistor”. However, the elected embodiment does not disclose that the TEC has a thermistor.
Claim 11 is dependent on claim 10.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Accordingly, claims 10, 11, 14-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 8 discloses a limitation: “wherein the laser frequency information includes temperature information for the tunable optical filter”, however the device disclosed in claims 1 and 6 on which claim 8 depends does not include “a temperature sensor configured to sense a filter temperature for the tunable optical filter.” The temperature sensor is only disclosed in claim 3, but claim 6 does not depend on claim 3. It is not possible for the optical filter chip to provide temperature information without a temperature sensor.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6-8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tolstikhin (2019/0052063), hereinafter ‘063.
Regarding claim 1, Fig 3 of ‘063 discloses a tunable distributed feedback (DFB) laser unit comprising
1. “a thermo-electric cooler [303];
a tunable DFB laser diode [210-1]; and
an optical filter chip [301] comprising:
a tunable optical filter [220];
a first optical splitter with an optical tap [tap leading from WDM 220 to PD 325] and an output path [path leading from WDM 220 to SOA 330], and
a first photodetector [325] configured to receive light from the optical tap from the first optical splitter and to monitor output intensity from the tunable optical filter (see paragraph 0055);
wherein the tunable DFB laser diode [210-1] is supported on the thermo-electric cooler [303] and
wherein the light [λ1] from the tunable DFB laser diode [210-1] or a fraction thereof is directed through the tunable optical filter [220].”
Regarding claims 2, 6-8 and 13, Fig 3 of ‘063 discloses a tunable DFB laser unit as described above:
2. “wherein the optical filter chip [301] is supported on the thermo-electric cooler [303].”
6. “further comprising a logical controller [not shown] coupled with the tunable DFB laser diode [210-1] and the optical filter chip [301],
wherein the optical filter chip [301] is configured to provide laser frequency information to the logical controller as feedback for control of a laser frequency [λ1] of the tunable DFB laser diode [210-1].” See paragraphs 0054-0056.
7. “wherein the logical controller [not shown] is configured to control the laser frequency [λ1] to match an optical filter frequency for wavelength locking.” See paragraphs 0054-0056.
8. “wherein the laser frequency information includes one or more of temperature information for the tunable optical filter and output intensity [optical power] from the tunable optical filter [220].” See paragraphs 0054-0056.
13. “wherein the tunable optical filter [220] is positioned in line with an optical path from the tunable DFB laser diode [210-1] to the first optical splitter [tap leading from WDM 220 to PD 325].”
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.
Claims 3-5, 9, 12, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘063 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Orcutt (2017/0026131), hereinafter ‘131.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, ‘063 discloses the tunable DFB laser unit as described above, but does not disclose a temperature sensor and a spot size converter.
However, these elements are well known in the art as evidenced by Fig 12 of ‘131, which discloses:
3. “wherein the optical filter chip [100] further comprises a temperature sensor [1222] configured to sense a filter temperature for the tunable optical filter.”
4. “wherein the optical filter chip [100] further comprises a spot size converter [16] configured to couple the optical filter chip to the tunable DFB laser diode [10].”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of ‘131 into the device of ‘063 by using a temperature sensor and a spot size converter, since the combination would yield the predictable result of determining the temperature of the tunable optical filter and efficiently coupling laser light.
Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because “all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Regarding claim 5, ‘063 discloses the tunable DFB laser unit as described above, but does not disclose the structure of the SiPho chip:
5. “wherein the optical filter chip includes
a silicon photonic chip extending from a first end to a second end,
the silicon photonic chip including an upper cladding layer, a silicon device layer, a lower cladding layer, and a silicon substrate,
wherein the silicon device layer is located between the upper cladding layer and the lower cladding layer.”
However, the examiner takes an official notice that such structure of the SiPho chip is well known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of ‘063 by using a SiPho chip that consists of a Si device layer, cladding layers and a Si substrate, since the combination would yield the predictable result of effectively confining and guiding laser light.
Regarding claim 9, ‘063 discloses the tunable DFB laser unit as described above, but does not disclose:
9. “wherein the logical controller is configured to provide a dithering of currents to the laser diode for tuning adjustments for the laser.”
However, the examiner takes an official notice that controllers that provide such functions are well known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of ‘063 by using a controller configured to provide a dithering of currents to the laser diode, since the combination would yield the predictable result of effectively tuning the laser.
Thus, the claimed invention of claims 5 and 9 would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because “all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Regarding claim 12, ‘063 discloses the tunable DFB laser unit as described above, but does not disclose:
12. “wherein the tunable optical filter has a free spectral range (FSR) of 500 GHz to cover 300 GHz tuning range.”
However, the examiner takes an official notice that an FSR of an optical filter is a result effective variable that determines the tuning range of the output light.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of invention to set the FSR of the optical filter to 500 GHz to cover the 300 GHz tuning range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges or the optimum value for a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215(CCPA 1980).
Regarding claims 17-18, the arguments applied above to the apparatus described with regards to claims 1, 3, 6-9 are applicable to these claims as well.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because Figures 1-4 and 7-8 are not of sufficient quality, some of the details and reference numerals in these figures are impossible to discern. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant’s attention is drawn to the references cited on form PTO-892 which lists other references with similar features as the invention. However, none of them disclose all the features of the pending claims.
Contact Info
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. A. GOLUB-MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8602. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MinSun Harvey can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/M. A. Golub-Miller/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights