Final Rejection
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Following a non-final action, applicant filed an amendment on 5/14/2026 in which claims 1 and 14 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 7-10 and 17-18 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 12/19/2025.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed with the 5/14/2026 response have been fully considered. The examiner agrees that claims 6 and 16 are sufficiently definite and that the previous 112 rejection is withdrawn. The examiner agrees that the amendment to claims 1 and 14 overcomes the prior rejections and the previous art rejections are withdrawn. However, new grounds of rejection are presented below. The amendments necessitated the withdrawal of the previous rejection and the presentation of the new grounds, therefore this action is appropriately made final.
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 1-6, 11-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,038,301 (“Eggleston”) in view of US 2015/0255953 (“Chong”).
Regarding claim 1, Eggleston discloses in Fig. 9 (see below, compare to Fig. 1 of this application. Fig. 9 discussion starts col. 6 line 65, but discussion of other figures is relevant for like parts and function):
PNG
media_image1.png
294
452
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
296
670
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A multiple wavelength external cavity laser device, comprising:
a gain medium;
a reflector optically coupled to the gain medium;
This is an external cavity laser. In this example four wavelengths are produced at the output. Col. 7 lines 37-40. There is gain medium 12 and reflector 24 coupled thereto.
a first wavelength selective element optically coupled to the gain medium and the reflector, the first wavelength selective element configured to filter light having a first wavelength; and
The elements 601 to 604 each filter light of their own particular wavelength λa to λd Any can be considered the first element, say element 601 with first wavelength λa.
a first chirped grating reflector optically coupled to the first wavelength selective element, wherein the first chirped grating reflector is configured to reflect a plurality of wavelengths including the first wavelength, and
Grating reflector 18 is coupled to the wavelength selective elements and it is apparent that it reflects all of the wavelengths λa to λd. It is not said to be a chirped grating. Chong describes a similar system in Fig. 8, discussion starting [0031], a multiple wavelength external cavity laser with ring resonator 810 filtering wavelengths, and uses a chirped grating 830. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a chirped grating as the chirped grating permits synchronization of the cavity mode and the filter wavelength over the wavelength range, as taught by Chong, allowing continuous single-mode hop free tuning. [0031]-[0032], [0022]-[0024].
the gain medium is optically coupled between the first wavelength selective element and the reflector.
Gain medium 12 is plainly between selective element 601 and reflector 24
Regarding claim 2, Eggleston shows a second wavelength selective element 602 configured to filter light having a second wavelength, the second wavelength selective element optically coupled to the gain medium, the reflector, and grating. As to “a first portion of the first chirped grating reflector is configured to reflect the light having the first wavelength; and a second portion of the first chirped grating reflector is configured to reflect the light having the second wavelength” this is by definition true of a chirped grating, that is what it is and does. See also Chong [0022]-[0024], stating the chirped grating does this.
Regarding claim 3, again this is by definition what a chirped grating does, reflects light of different wavelengths from different portions. The device of claim 2, wherein the light having the first wavelength and the light having the second wavelength are reflected from a different portion of the chirped grating reflector.
Regarding claim 4, first and second wavelength selective elements 601 and 602 are in parallel (Fig. 9) and filter different wavelengths (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 5, using the Chong chirped grating was deemed obvious above. Chong further teaches the chirped grating will produce first and second optical cavities at the first and second wavelengths defined by the first and second portions of the grating. See Chong [0022]-[0024].
Regarding claim 6, using the Chong chirped grating was deemed obvious above. Chong further teaches in [0032] that “the rate of cavity length change to total cavity length should be proportional to the rate of wavelength change to center wavelength.” When used with multiple cavities as combined with Eggleston this would be true of each cavity.
Regarding claims 11, the Eggleston filters may be tunable. Col. 6 lines 2-10. Additionally and alternatively, Chong shows a similar device and teaches the ring resonator filter may be tunable. [0031]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to do so as this is a means for tuning the laser wavelength.
Regarding claim 12, the Eggleston filters are micro-ring resonator filters.
Regarding claim 13, there are additionally absorbing elements 64,66 coupled to the wavelength selective elements that absorb wavelengths that are not desired. Col. 7 lines 31-37. They may therefore be considered optical attenuators that control a characteristic of the light.
Claims 14-16 and 19-20 are method claims that describe the operation of the device of claims 1, 2, 5-6, 12, and 13, respectively, and are met for the same reasons discussed above.
Claims 1-6, 11-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chong in view of Eggleston.
Regarding claim 1, Chong discloses in Fig. 8 (discussion starts [0031], but discussion of other figures is relevant for like parts and function):
A multiple wavelength external cavity laser device, comprising:
a gain medium;
a reflector optically coupled to the gain medium;
Chong is an external cavity laser tunable over multiple wavelengths with gain medium 820 and reflector 840 coupled to the gain medium. [0031]
a first wavelength selective element optically coupled to the gain medium and the reflector, the first wavelength selective element configured to filter light having a first wavelength; and
Wavelength selective element 810.
a first chirped grating reflector optically coupled to the first wavelength selective element, wherein the first chirped grating reflector is configured to reflect a plurality of wavelengths including the first wavelength, and
Chirped grating reflector 830 is coupled to the wavelength selective element and it is apparent that it reflects multiple wavelengths, including the one selected by the filter.
the gain medium is optically coupled between the first wavelength selective element and the reflector.
Gain medium 820 is not between the reflector 840 and selective element 810. Eggleston shows a similar system as discussed in the first rejection above, and Eggleston has the gain medium 12 between the wavelength selective element 60 and the partially reflective output 24 like that claimed. See rejection above. Eggleston additionally teaches that the configuration may be flipped, that the mirror 24 may be fully reflective and the mirror 18 may be a partially reflective output mirror. Col. 5 lines 13-19. While this is described as to Fig. 4, Fig. 4 is a more generalized view and this teaching is equally applicable to Fig. 9, which is more like Chong. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to switch the output partial reflector and the full reflector, as the art Eggleston recognizes these are equivalent alternatives. See MPEP 2144.06 II. (obvious to substitute equivalents recognized in the prior art). It is apparent when this teaching is applied to Chong Fig. 8, the chirped grating 830 and partial reflector 840 would be switched. This would result in the gain medium 820 being between the wavelength selective device and the reflector as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, the second wavelength selective element is not shown. Eggleston shows a similar system except has second wavelength selective element 602 configured to filter light having a second wavelength, the second wavelength selective element optically coupled to the gain medium, the reflector, and grating. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use multiple filters at different wavelengths as this is a way for the system to produce outputs at different wavelengths, as shown in Eggleston. See Fig. 9 and discussion starting at col. 6 line 65. As to “a first portion of the first chirped grating reflector is configured to reflect the light having the first wavelength; and a second portion of the first chirped grating reflector is configured to reflect the light having the second wavelength” this is by definition true of the Chong chirped grating, that is what it is and does. See Chong [0022]-[0024] (different embodiment but relevant in explaining how a chirped grating operates).
Regarding claim 3, again this is by definition what a chirped grating does, reflects light of different wavelengths from different portions. Chong [0022]-[0024].
Regarding claim 4, in Eggleston the first and second wavelength selective elements 601 and 602 are in parallel (Fig. 9) and filter different wavelengths (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 5, the Chong chirped grating will produce first and second optical cavities at the first and second wavelengths defined by the first and second portions of the grating. See Chong [0022]-[0024].
Regarding claim 6, Chong further teaches in [0032] that “the rate of cavity length change to total cavity length should be proportional to the rate of wavelength change to center wavelength.” When used with multiple cavities as combined with Eggleston this would be true of each cavity.
Regarding claims 11-12, the Chong filter 810 is a tunable micro-ring filter. [0031].
Regarding claim 13, Chong does not show optical attenuators as claimed. Eggleston teaches that there are additionally absorbing elements 64,66 coupled to the wavelength selective elements that absorb wavelengths that are not desired. Col. 7 lines 31-37. They may therefore be considered optical attenuators that control a characteristic of the light. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include such elements as they ensure that the appropriate wavelength is used that as desired.
Claims 14-16 and 19-20 are method claims that describe the operation of the device of claims 1, 2, 5-6, 12, and 13, respectively, and are met for the same reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
Some reference with similarities are cited, but none are as good as those presented above.
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 James Menefee whose telephone number is (571)272-1944. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 applications may be obtained from Patent Center. See: 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.
/JAMES A MENEFEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights