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 Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the amendments made to claims 1 and 18. Claim 5 has been cancelled. Claims 18-20 stand as withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 and 6-17 regarding the limitation of “periodic grating structures defined by geometric sidewall modulations” 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the argument that there is no teaching or suggestion in the cited references in regard to the limitation of “a single resonance frequency of the light that feeds back into the gain chip to produce a self-injection lock for the laser device” Examiner has fully considered but respectfully found the argument non-persuasive.
Lee discloses in paragraphs [0066] and [0069] that the output reflector [115] of Lee may cause the laser to emit light at the first wavelength and not at other wavelengths. Further, Lee discloses grating and ring resonator element allow for a specific operating wavelength to be obtained. Lee also discloses in paragraph [0065] that a portion of light from the grating [125] is directed back to the optical amplifier [105].
Therefore disclosing the self-injection locking as feedback of light from the wavelength selective elements which allows a single wavelength value through the two wavelength selective elements as shown in Fig. 2A of Lee.
Drawings
The previous objection to the drawings has been withdrawn in light of the cancellation of claim 5.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1,2-4,6,9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (hereinafter Lee) (US 20220385036 A1) in view of “Interferometric interrogation of π-phase shifted fiber Bragg grating sensors” (hereinafter Srivastava) and De Valicourt (WO 2017131879 A1) and further in view of Djordjevic et al. (hereinafter Djordjevic) (US 9257814 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses in Fig. 2A
A laser device [Fig. 2A] (Para. [0032]) comprising:
a gain region [RSOA 105] (See Fig. 1D) (Paras. [0060, 0069]) configured to emit a beam of light (Para. [0064]); and
a photonics device [115] (Para. [0061]) optically coupled to the gain chip [105] (Para. [0060]), the photonics device [115] comprising:
a waveguide platform [waveguides 117 see Fig. 1A] (Para. [0061]) including an input waveguide [connection of 105 to 130] (Para. [0064]), which is optically coupled to the gain region [105] (Para. [0064]), the input waveguide [connection of 105 to 130] (Para. [0064]) in optical communication with a cascaded arrangement of waveguide structures [210] (Para. [0069]) on the waveguide platform (Paras. [0064,0069]),
wherein the waveguide structures cooperate to yield a single resonance frequency [Figs 2B,2C] (Paras. [0065,0069]) of the light that feeds back into the gain region [105] (Para. [0065]) to produce a self-injection lock for the laser device (Para. [0069]).
Lee fails to disclose,
The gain region comprising a gain chip
the photonic device comprising a photonics chip
the waveguide structures including waveguide grating structures
the waveguide grating structures comprising:
a first waveguide grating structure configured to produce a single resonance frequency within a stopband; and
a second waveguide grating structure in optical communication with the first waveguide grating structure, the second waveguide grating structure configured to diffract a narrowband resonance, overlapping with the stopband of the first waveguide grating structure, back toward the gain chip, while passing any light outside of the stopband of the first waveguide grating structure out of the waveguide platform;
wherein the first and second waveguide grating structure include periodic grating structures defined by geometric sidewall modulations
De Valicourt discloses in Fig. 2,
an InP based RSOA (Para. [0057]) coupled to a silicon photonics integrated circuit [210] (Para. [0050])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the InP based RSOA and the photonics device of Lee as a silicon photonics integrated circuit as shown in De Valicourt for the purpose of efficient current injection and for using a cost effective material in silicon. (De Valicourt Paras. [0042,0057])
Lee in view of De Valicourt fails to disclose,
the waveguide structures including waveguide grating structures
the waveguide grating structures comprising:
a first waveguide grating structure configured to produce a single resonance frequency within a stopband; and
a second waveguide grating structure in optical communication with the first waveguide grating structure, the second waveguide grating structure configured to diffract a narrowband resonance, overlapping with the stopband of the first waveguide grating structure, back toward the gain chip, while passing any light outside of the stopband of the first waveguide grating structure out of the waveguide platform;
Srivastava discloses,
a cascaded arrangement of waveguide grating structures [πFG and FBG filter Fig. 2] (Page 90) comprising
a first waveguide grating structure [πFBG] configured to produce a single resonance frequency within a stopband [Fig. 1 Page 89] (Page 89, right column, paragraph 1); and
a second waveguide grating structure [FBG filter] in optical communication with the first waveguide grating structure [πFBG] (Page 89, right column, last paragraph and Page 90, left column first paragraph), the second waveguide grating structure [FBG Filter] configured to diffract a narrowband resonance (Page 90, left column first paragraph), overlapping with the stopband of the first waveguide grating structure [πFBG] (See Fig. 1, Page 89, right column), back toward a gain chip [ASE Fig. 2], while passing any light outside of the stopband (Fig. 1) of the first waveguide grating structure [πFBG] out of a waveguide platform (Page 90, left column first paragraph);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the πFBG grating and the filter FBG grating as the resonance and filter structures (respectively) of the modified device of Lee for the purpose of retaining only a desired narrow transmission peak in the device. (Srivastava Page 89, right column, last paragraph and Page 90, left column first paragraph)
Lee in view of De Valicourt and Srivastava fails to disclose,
wherein the first and second waveguide grating structure include periodic grating structures defined by geometric sidewall modulations
Djordjevic discloses in Fig. 1,
a grating structure [120] (Col. 7, lines 3-7) including periodic grating structure defined by geometric sidewall modulations (Col. 7, lines 3-7 and 49-62)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the sidewall modulation of gratings as shown in Djordjevic in the modified device of Lee for the purpose of achieving a low contrast design. (Djordjevic Col. 7, lines 49-52)
Regarding claim 2, Lee in view of Srivastava, De Valicourt and Djordjevic as applied to claim 1 above further discloses in De Valicourt Fig. 2,
wherein the gain chip [250] comprises a reflective semiconductor optical amplifier (RSOA) (Para. [0050]).
Regarding claim 3, Lee in view of Srivastava, De Valicourt and Djordjevic as applied to claim 1 above further discloses in De Valicourt Fig. 2,
wherein the gain chip [250] comprises an indium phosphide (InP) based RSOA (Para. [0050]).
Regarding claim 4, Lee in view of Srivastava, De Valicourt and Djordjevic as applied to claim 1 above further discloses in De Valicourt Fig. 2,
wherein the photonics chip comprises a silicon photonics integrated circuit [210] (Para. [0050]).
Regarding claim 6, Lee in view of Srivastava, De Valicourt and Djordjevic discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Srivastava,
wherein the first waveguide grating structure [πFBG] includes a single defect cavity Bragg grating configured to operate as a resonator (Page 89, left column, second paragraph).
Regarding claim 9, Lee in view of Srivastava, De Valicourt and Djordjevic as applied to claim 1 above further discloses in Srivastava,
wherein the second waveguide grating structure [Filter FBG Fig. 2] comprises a filter Bragg grating [Abstract, Page 89, right column, last paragraph].
Regarding claim 11, Lee in view of Srivastava, De Valicourt and Djordjevic as applied to claim 1 above further discloses in Lee Fig. 2A,
wherein the input waveguide [connection of 105 to 130] is split between a first waveguide arm [140 to 125] and a second waveguide arm [145 to 125] on the waveguide platform (Paras. [0069,0076]).
Examiner notes paragraph [0076] of Lee discloses the coupler can be a Y-coupler, with a single port at an input side from [105] and two ports facing the wavelength selective element [210].
Claims 7,8,10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Srivastava, De Valicourt and Djordjevic as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Silicon photonic grating-assisted contra-directional couplers” (hereinafter Shi).
Regarding claim 7, Lee in view of Srivastava, De Valicourt and Djordjevic discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Srivastava,
wherein the first waveguide grating structure [πFBG] comprises a periodic grating structure (Page 88, eight column, last paragraph) configured to produce a pi phase shift in a central portion thereof (Page 88, eight column, last paragraph).
Lee in view of Srivastava, De Valicourt and Djordjevic fails to disclose,
wherein the first waveguide grating structure comprises a grating-assisted contradirectional coupler
Shi discloses in Fig. 3,
a π-shifted grating-assisted contradirectional coupler (Fig. 3, Section 3.2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the π-shifted grating-assisted contradirecitonal coupler of Shi as the first waveguide grating structure of the modified device of Lee for the purpose of allowing direct integration of the grating structure with other photonic devices. (Shi Section 7.2, second paragraph)
Regarding claim 8, Lee in view of Srivastava, De Valicourt and Djordjevic and Shi as applied to claim 7 above further discloses in Shi,
wherein the pi phase shift is an abrupt change in a spatial pattern of waveguide modulation [Fig. 3, section 3.2], such that a periodic structure of the waveguide modulation is shifted in spatial phase by pi radians Section 3.2) on either side of an interface [middle shifted portion Fig. 3], which generates a confined field of the light at a resonance wavelength (Shi section 3.2), with the light circulating around the pi phase shift. [Fig. 3] (Section 3.2 and note under Fig. 3)
Regarding claim 10, Lee in view of Srivastava, De Valicourt and Djordjevic discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Shrivastava,
wherein the second waveguide grating [FBG filter] structure comprises a periodic grating structure without a pi phase shift (Page 89, right column, last paragraph and Page 90, left column first paragraph).
Lee in view of Srivastava, De Valicourt and Djordjevic fails to disclose,
the second waveguide grating structure comprising a grating-assisted contradirectional coupler
Shi discloses in Fig. 2,
a waveguide grating structure [Fig. 2] comprising a grating-assisted contradirecitonal coupler (Section 3.1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the contradirectional coupler structure of Shi with the FBG filter of Lee in view of Shrivastava for the purpose of allowing propagation in both positive and negative directions. (Shi Section 3.1)
Regarding claim 12 Lee in view of Srivastava, De Valicourt and Djordjevic and Shi as applied to claim 11 above further discloses,
wherein the first waveguide arm [Lee Fig. 2A 140 to 125] comprises:
a first waveguide branch [Lee Fig. 2A connection of 140 to 205] (Lee Para. [0064]) coupled between the input waveguide [Lee Fig. 2A 130] (Lee Para. [0064]) and an input port of the first waveguide grating structure [input port of π-shifted grating Shi Fig. 3 in place of Lee 205] (Shi section 3.2);
a second waveguide branch [Lee Fig. 2A connection of 204 to 125] coupled between a transmission port of the first waveguide grating structure [through port of π-shifted grating Shi Fig. 3 in place of Lee 205] (Shi section 3.2) and an input port of the second waveguide grating structure [Ao+ port Shi Fig. 2 in place of Lee 125] (Shi section 3.1);
and a third waveguide branch coupled with a reflection port of the first waveguide grating structure [drop port Shi Fi. 3 in place of Lee 205] (Shi section 3.2).
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Srivastava, De Valicourt and Djordjevic and Shi as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Zheng et al. (hereinafter Zheng) (US 20130016423 A1).
Regarding claim 13 Lee in view of Srivastava, De Valicourt and Djordjevic and Shi as applied to claim 12 above further discloses,
wherein the second waveguide arm [Lee Fig. 2A 145 to 125] (Lee Para. [0064]) comprises:
a fourth waveguide branch [Lee Fig. 2A connection of 145 to 125] coupled between the input waveguide [Lee Fig. 2A 130] and a reflection port of the second waveguide grating structure [Bo- port Shi Fig. 2 in place of Lee 125] (Lee Para. [0064, Shi section 3.1);
Lee in view of Srivastava, De Valicourt and Djordjevic and Shi fails to disclose,
a fifth waveguide branch split off from the fourth waveguide branch to a laser output
Zheng discloses in Fig. 2B,
a waveguide branch [160] (Para. [0062]) split off from a waveguide branch [114-2] (Para. [0042]) to a laser output (Para. [0051])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement a tap as shown in Zheng in the fourth waveguide branch of the modified device of Li for the purpose of controlling the amount of laser output relative to the gain of the laser cavity. (Zheng Para. [0051])
Regarding claim 14, Lee in view of Srivastava, De Valicourt and Djordjevic, Shi and Zheng as applied to claim 13 above further discloses,
wherein the first waveguide grating structure [π-shifted grating Shi Fig. 3 in place of Lee 205 Fig. 2A] (Shi Section 3.2) includes a single defect cavity (Shrivastava page 89, left column first and second paragraphs) configured to produce a transmission spectrum of the light comprising the single resonance frequency within the stopband and a set of passband frequencies [Shrivastava Figs. 1 and 4] (Shrivastava Page 89, right column, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 15 Lee in view of Srivastava, De Valicourt and Djordjevic, Shi and Zheng as applied to claim 14 above further discloses,
wherein the transmission spectrum of the light [Shrivastava Fig. 1] (Shrivastava Page 89, right column, first paragraph) is sent from the transmission port of the first waveguide grating structure [through port of π-shifted grating [Shi Fig. 3 in place of Lee 205] (Shi Section 3.2) to the input port of the second waveguide grating structure [Ao+ port Shi Fig. 2 in place of Lee 125] (Shi Section 3.2), with remaining wavelengths of the light exiting through the reflection port of the first waveguide grating structure [drop port Shi Fi. 3 in place of Lee 205] (Shi section 3.1).
Regarding claim 16 Lee in view of Srivastava, De Valicourt and Djordjevic, Shi and Zheng as applied to claim 15 above further discloses,
wherein the second waveguide grating structure [Shi Fig. 2] includes a filter grating [Shrivastava FBG filter Fig. 2] configured to produce a reflection spectrum of the light comprising a narrowband resonance [Shrivastava Fig. 1] (Page 90, left column first paragraph) within a stopband that overlaps with the stopband of the first waveguide grating structure [Shrivastava Fig. 1] (Shrivastava Page 89, right column, last paragraph and Page 90, left column first paragraph).
Regarding claim 17, Lee in view of Srivastava, De Valicourt and Djordjevic, Shi and Zheng as applied to claim 16 above further discloses,
wherein the light within the reflection spectrum, including only the single resonance frequency (Shrivastava Fig. 1) (Shrivastava Page 89, right column, last paragraph) from the first waveguide grating structure [π-shifted grating Shi Fig. 3 in place of Lee 205 Fig. 2A], is sent from the reflection port of the second waveguide grating structure [Bo+ port Shi Fig. 2 in place of Lee 125] back to the gain chip [Lee 105 Fig. 2A with structure of De Valicourt 205 Fig. 2] (Lee Para. [0064], De Valicourt Para. [0057]), with remaining wavelengths of light exiting through a drop port of the second waveguide grating structure [Bl+ and Al+ ports Shi Fig. 2 in place of Lee 125] (Shi section 3.1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Examiner notes (US 20150030324 A1) which discloses a self-injection locking structure with the use of a fiber Bragg grating (FBG). See PTO-892 form.
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 HUNTER J NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5318. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:30am-5:00 ET.
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.
/H.J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2828 /TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights