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 claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the examiner has cited Marshall (5,132,978) to teach the amended limitations of claims 1, 9 and 20.
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.
Claims 1- 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (US PG Pub 2018/0156860) in view of Barenburg et al. (US PG Pub 2003/0021014) as evidenced by Marshall (5,132,978).
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura et al. disclose: a seed light source (131) configured to output incoherent seed light with a predetermined bandwidth (Fig. 2, [0048], [0049]); and a booster amplifier (132) that is a semiconductor optical amplifier configured to optically amplify the seed light input from a first facet, and output the amplified seed light as amplified light from a second facet (Fig. 2, [0049], [0050]), the booster amplifier is configured to operate in a gain saturated state, and relative intensity noise (RIN) and ripple are simultaneously suppressed in the amplified light (in a state in which the optical amplifier 132 is saturated in a gain, the amount of change in the output including noise corresponding to the input change decreases, ripple would also inherently decrease) (Fig. 2, [0050], [0059]).
Nakamura et al. do not disclose: wherein the first facet and the second facet of the booster amplifier are subjected to a reflection reduction treatment, to an extent that does not eliminate ripple originating from many longitudinal modes due to Fabry-Perot oscillation between the first facet and the second facet.
Barenburg et al. disclose: first facet and the second facet of optical amplifier are coated with anti-reflection coatings ([0006]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nakamura by coating the first and second facets with anti-reflection coatings in order to reduce facet reflections in the optical amplifier. The device as modified disclose: to an extent that does not eliminate ripple originating from many longitudinal modes due to Fabry-Perot oscillation between the first facet and the second facet (see Marshall (5,132,978) (col. 2, lines 45-54) which teaches: Anti-reflection coatings applied to the facets may be used to minimise the ripple: at present facet reflectivities of 10 -5 have been achieved which reduces ripple to 1dB for 20 dB gain, but more commonly facet reflectivities of 10-3 and ripple of 3dB has to be tolerated).
Regarding claim 2, Nakamura as modified disclose: wherein the seed light is one of spontaneous emission light (SE) and amplified spontaneous emission light (ASE) (Nakamura, Fig. 2, [0049]).
Regarding claim 3, Nakamura as modified disclose: wherein the seed light source includes at least one of a super luminescent diode (SLD), a semiconductor optical amplifier, and an amplified spontaneous emission light source including an optical fiber that is doped with rare earth (seed light source is a super luminescent diode) (Nakamura, Fig. 2, [0049]).
Regarding claim 4, Nakamura as modified do not disclose: wherein power of the amplified light that is output by the booster amplifier is 100 mW or more.
However, In accordance with MPEP 2144.05 II, Optimization of Ranges: Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In the prior art the general conditions are disclosed, a light source device comprising a booster amplifier outputting amplified light at an output power value. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to obtain a workable range of values for the output power by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 5, Nakamura as modified do not disclose: wherein facet reflectivity of the first facet of the booster amplifier and facet reflectivity of the second facet of the booster amplifier fall in a range between 10−3 and 10−5.
However, In accordance with MPEP 2144.05 II, Optimization of Ranges: Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In the prior art the general conditions are disclosed, a light source device comprising a booster amplifier with anti-reflection coated facets. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to obtain a workable range of values for the reflectivity of each facet by routine experimentation.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (US PG Pub 2018/0156860) in view of Barenburg et al. (US PG Pub 2003/0021014) and Otani (US PG Pub 2018/0106963) as evidenced by Marshall (5,132,978).
Regarding claim 6, Nakamura as modified do not explicitly disclose: a driving device configured to drive the light source.
Otani discloses: driving device (21 and/or 22) configured to drive a light source (11a, 11d) (Fig. 4, [0047]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nakamura as modified by coupling a driving device to the light source in order to control the driving current to the light source.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (US PG Pub 2018/0156860) in view of Barenburg et al. (US PG Pub 2003/0021014) and Pedersen et al. (US PG Pub 2003/0067655) as evidenced by Marshall (5,132,978).
Regarding claim 7, Nakamura as modified do not disclose: a Raman optical amplification fiber configured to receive input of the amplified light as pumping light.
Pedersen et al. disclose: Raman optical amplifier pumped by a pump laser ([0006]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nakamura as modified by coupling a Raman optical amplifier to the device of Nakamura in order to amplify signals over a broad range of wavelengths.
Regarding claim 8, Nakamura as modified do not disclose: a Raman optical amplification fiber configured to receive input of the amplified light as pumping light.
Pedersen et al. disclose: Raman optical amplifier pumped by a pump laser ([0006]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nakamura by coupling a Raman optical amplifier to the device of Nakamura in order to amplify signals over a broad range of wavelengths.
Claims 9-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (US PG Pub 2018/0156860) in view of Barenburg et al. (US PG Pub 2003/0021014) and Otani (US PG Pub 2018/0106963) as evidenced by Marshall (5,132,978).
Regarding claim 9, Nakamura et al. disclose: a seed light source (131) configured to output incoherent seed light with a predetermined bandwidth (Fig. 2, [0048], [0049]); and a booster amplifier (132) that is a semiconductor optical amplifier configured to optically amplify the seed light input from a first facet, and output the amplified seed light as amplified light from a second facet (Fig. 2, [0049], [0050]), wherein the seed light source and the booster amplifier operated in a state in which relative intensity noise (RIN) and the ripple are simultaneously suppressed in the amplified light (in a state in which the optical amplifier 132 is saturated in a gain, the amount of change in the output including noise corresponding to the input change decreases, ripple would also inherently decrease) (Fig. 2, [0050], [0059]).
Nakamura et al. do not disclose: the first facet and the second facet of the booster amplifier are subjected to a reflection reduction treatment to an extent that does not eliminate ripple originating from many longitudinal modes due to Fabry-Perot oscillation between the first facet and the second facet, and wherein the seed light source and the booster amplifier are driven with a driving current.
Barenburg et al. disclose: first facet and the second facet of optical amplifier are coated with anti-reflection coatings ([0006]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nakamura by coating the first and second facets with anti-reflection coatings in order to reduce facet reflections in the optical amplifier. The device as modified disclose: to an extent that does not eliminate ripple originating from many longitudinal modes due to Fabry-Perot oscillation between the first facet and the second facet (see Marshall (5,132,978) (col. 2, lines 45-54) which teaches: Anti-reflection coatings applied to the facets may be used to minimise the ripple: at present facet reflectivities of 10 -5 have been achieved which reduces ripple to 1dB for 20 dB gain, but more commonly facet reflectivities of 10-3 and ripple of 3dB has to be tolerated).
Nakamura as modified do not disclose: wherein the seed light source and the booster amplifier are driven with a driving current.
Otani discloses: driving device (21 and 22) configured to drive a light source (11a) and amplifier (11d) (Fig. 4, [0047]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nakamura as modified by coupling a driving device to the light source and amplifier in order to control the driving current to the light source and amplifier.
Regarding claim 10, Nakamura as modified disclose: wherein the booster amplifier is driven so as to operate in a gain saturated state (Nakamura, Fig. 2, [0050], [0059]).
Regarding claim 11, Nakamura as modified do not disclose: wherein the seed light source is driven with a driving current that allows to output the seed light of certain power such that power of the amplified light approaches a maximum value.
However, In accordance with MPEP 2144.05 II, Optimization of Ranges: Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In the prior art the general conditions are disclosed, a light source device comprising a seed light source driven with a driving current and a booster amplifier outputting amplified light at an output power value. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to obtain a workable range of values for the driving current and output power by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 12, Nakamura as modified do not disclose: wherein the seed light source is driven with a driving current that is reduced by five times or more as compared to a driving current with which a magnitude of ripple in the amplified light is minimized.
However, In accordance with MPEP 2144.05 II, Optimization of Ranges: Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In the prior art the general conditions are disclosed, a light source device comprising a seed light source driven with a driving current and a booster amplifier outputting amplified light at an output power value. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to obtain a workable range of values for the driving current by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 13, Nakamura as modified disclose: wherein the seed light is one of spontaneous emission light (SE) and amplified spontaneous emission light (ASE) (Nakamura, Fig. 2, [0049]).
Regarding claim 14, Nakamura as modified disclose: wherein the seed light source includes at least one of a super luminescent diode (SLD), a semiconductor optical amplifier, and an amplified spontaneous emission light source including an optical fiber that is doped with rare earth (seed light source is a super luminescent diode) (Nakamura, Fig. 2, [0049]).
Regarding claim 15, Nakamura as modified do not disclose: wherein power of the amplified light that is output by the booster amplifier is 100 mW or more.
However, In accordance with MPEP 2144.05 II, Optimization of Ranges: Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In the prior art the general conditions are disclosed, a light source device comprising a booster amplifier outputting amplified light at an output power value. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to obtain a workable range of values for the output power by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 16, Nakamura as modified do not disclose: wherein facet reflectivity of the first facet of the booster amplifier and facet reflectivity of the second facet of the booster amplifier fall in a range between 10−3 and 10−5.
However, In accordance with MPEP 2144.05 II, Optimization of Ranges: Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In the prior art the general conditions are disclosed, a light source device comprising a booster amplifier with anti-reflection coated facets. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to obtain a workable range of values for the reflectivity of each facet by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 17, Nakamura as modified a driving device configured to drive the light source (see the rejection of claim 9).
Regarding claim 20, the apparatus of claim 9 discloses the claimed method (see the rejection of claim 9).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (US PG Pub 2018/0156860) in view of Barenburg et al. (US PG Pub 2003/0021014), Otani (US PG Pub 2018/0106963) and Pedersen et al. (US PG Pub 2003/0067655) as evidenced by Marshall (5,132,978).
Regarding claim 18, Nakamura as modified do not disclose: a Raman optical amplification fiber configured to receive input of the amplified light as pumping light.
Pedersen et al. disclose: Raman optical amplifier pumped by a pump laser ([0006]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nakamura as modified by coupling a Raman optical amplifier to the device of Nakamura in order to amplify signals over a broad range of wavelengths.
Regarding claim 19, Nakamura as modified do not disclose: a Raman optical amplification fiber configured to receive input of the amplified light as pumping light.
Pedersen et al. disclose: Raman optical amplifier pumped by a pump laser ([0006]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nakamura by coupling a Raman optical amplifier to the device of Nakamura in order to amplify signals over a broad range of wavelengths.
Conclusion
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 XINNING(TOM) NIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1437. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-6:00pm.
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.
/XINNING(Tom) NIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights