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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for domestic benefit under 35 U.S.C. 365(c) with PCT/JP2020/047874.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on May 30, 2023 and September 6, 2024 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-13, 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “substantially” in claims 10, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 21 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of compact prosecution Examiner has interpreted the word substantially to be as if it is not there.
Claim 12 is rejected due to dependence on Claim 11.
Claim 20 is rejected due to dependence on Claim 19.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], 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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, 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 18 claims the exact same limitation as Claim 17. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9, 10, 14, 16 18, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoon US 20110310918.
Regarding Claim 9, Yoon teaches A wavelength-tunable laser (Fig. 4) comprising:
a circling waveguide (Fig. 4, 53) having a circling structure (Fig. 4 shows 53 has a circling structure);
a first coupled waveguide (Fig. 4, 56) coupled to the circling waveguide in a first region (Fig. 4 shows 56 coupled to 53 via coupler 55); and
a second coupled waveguide (Fig. 4, 51) coupled to the circling waveguide in a second region (Fig. 4 shows 51 coupled to 53 via coupler 54), wherein a first reflection region (Fig. 4, 59 Paragraph 0046 “the reflecting mirror 59.”) is connected in a light guiding direction of the first coupled waveguide (Fig. 4 shows that 59 is connected in the light guiding direction of the first coupled waveguide which is represented by the arrows above and below 56),
wherein an active region (Fig. 4, 20 Paragraph 0047 “the gain unit 20”) and a second reflection region (Fig. 4, 40 Paragraph 0047 “The tunable selective wavelength reflecting unit 40”) are sequentially connected in a light guiding direction of the second coupled waveguide (Fig. 4 shows that the active region and the second reflection region are sequentially connected in the light guiding direction of the second coupled waveguide represented by the arrows above and below 51), and
wherein a refractive index of at least part of the circling waveguide is modulated. (Paragraph 0050 “A third thin film electrode 58 may be disposed on the ring resonance waveguide 53. Once voltage or current is applied to the third thin film electrode 58, ring resonance conditions are changed by electro-optics such that wavelengths of a laser light reflected from the comb reflecting unit 50 may be tunable finely.”)
Regarding Claim 10, Yoon teaches a refractive index of at least part of a region in which light is guided in the first coupled waveguide and a refractive index of at least part of a region in which light is guided in the second coupled waveguide are modulated at substantially the same time as the refractive index of the at least part of the circling waveguide. (Paragraph 0046 “Although not illustrated in the drawings, a fourth thin film electrode for finely tuning a laser light may be disposed on the second feedback terminal 56 between the ring resonance waveguide 53 and the reflecting mirror 59. The fourth thin film electrode may be disposed on the first feedback terminal 51.” Adding current to a waveguide changes the refractive index of that part of the waveguide)
Regarding Claim 14, Yoon teaches A wavelength-tunable laser comprising N wavelength-tunable lasers (Fig. 4 shows N wavelength-tunable lasers where N = 1).
Regarding Claim 16, Yoon teaches A wavelength-tunable laser (Fig. 5) comprising:
a circling waveguide; (Fig. 5, 53)
a Y-branched coupled waveguide (See annotated Fig. 5 below); and
an active region (Fig. 5, 20) and a reflection region (Fig. 5, 40) sequentially provided in a light guiding direction at a base end of the Y-branched coupled waveguide (Fig. 5 shows the active region and the reflection region sequentially provided at the base end of the Y-branched coupled waveguide),
wherein a first coupled waveguide (Fig. 5, 56) of the Y-branched coupled waveguide is coupled to the circling waveguide in a first region (Fig. 5 shows the waveguide 56 is coupled to the circling waveguide in the first region 55), wherein a second coupled waveguide (Fig. 5, 51) of the Y-branched coupled waveguide is coupled to the circling waveguide in a second region (Fig. 5 shows the waveguide 51 is coupled to the circling waveguide in the second region 54), and
a refractive index of at least part of the circling waveguide is modulated. (Paragraph 0050 “A third thin film electrode 58 may be disposed on the ring resonance waveguide 53. Once voltage or current is applied to the third thin film electrode 58, ring resonance conditions are changed by electro-optics such that wavelengths of a laser light reflected from the comb reflecting unit 50 may be tunable finely.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
584
885
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a refractive index of at least part of a region in which light is guided in the first coupled waveguide, and a refractive index of at least part of a region in which light is guided in the second coupled waveguide are modulated at substantially the same time as the refractive index of at least part of the circling waveguide. (Paragraph 0046 “Although not illustrated in the drawings, a fourth thin film electrode for finely tuning a laser light may be disposed on the second feedback terminal 56 between the ring resonance waveguide 53 and the reflecting mirror 59. The fourth thin film electrode may be disposed on the first feedback terminal 51.” Adding current to a waveguide changes the refractive index of that part of the waveguide)
Regarding Claim 18, Yoon teaches a refractive index of at least part of a region in which light is guided in the first coupled waveguide and a refractive index of at least part of a region in which light is guided in the second coupled waveguide are modulated at substantially the same time as the refractive index of the at least part of the circling waveguide. (Paragraph 0046 “Although not illustrated in the drawings, a fourth thin film electrode for finely tuning a laser light may be disposed on the second feedback terminal 56 between the ring resonance waveguide 53 and the reflecting mirror 59. The fourth thin film electrode may be disposed on the first feedback terminal 51.” Adding current to a waveguide changes the refractive index of that part of the waveguide)
Regarding Claim 22, Yoon teaches A wavelength-tunable laser comprising N wavelength-tunable lasers (Fig. 4 shows N wavelength-tunable lasers where N = 1).
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 15, 23 are rejected as being unpatentable over 35 U.S.C. 103 over Yoon in view of S. Matsuo et al. "Directly modulated buried heterostructure DFB laser on Si02/Si substrate fabricated by regrowth of InP using bonded active layer," Opt. Express 22, 12139-12147 (2014).
Regarding Claim 15, Yoon does not teach the wavelength- tunable laser has a membrane structure.
However,
S. Matsuo teaches the wavelength- tunable laser has a membrane structure. (Conclusion “We have developed the first directly modulated membrane DFB laser on a SiO2/Si substrate by using BH growth on a Si substrate.”)
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 wavelength-tunable laser as taught by Yoon by adding the membrane structure as disclosed by S. Matsuo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to decrease the cost of production. (Matsuo Conclusion “These results indicate that the proposed fabrication method is a promising way to fabricate high-efficiency lasers at a low cost.”)
Regarding Claim 23, Yoon does not teach the wavelength- tunable laser has a membrane structure.
However,
S. Matsuo teaches the wavelength- tunable laser has a membrane structure. (Conclusion “We have developed the first directly modulated membrane DFB laser on a SiO2/Si substrate by using BH growth on a Si substrate.”)
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 wavelength-tunable laser as taught by Yoon by adding the membrane structure as disclosed by S. Matsuo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to decrease the cost of production. (Matsuo Conclusion “These results indicate that the proposed fabrication method is a promising way to fabricate high-efficiency lasers at a low cost.”)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13, 19-21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 11, Yoon does not teach a refractive index of at least part of a region in which light is guided in the first coupled waveguide and a refractive index of at least part of a region in which light is guided in the second coupled waveguide are modulated with substantially identical signals; and a refractive index of the circling waveguide is modulated with a different signal from the substantially identical signals.
Claim 12 is dependent on Claim 11 and would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 112(b) rejection found in Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 13, Yoon does not teach a refractive index of part of a region in which light is guided in the first coupled waveguide and a refractive index of at least part of a region in which light is guided in the second coupled waveguide are modulated with signals substantially identical to a signal for a refractive index of part of the circling waveguide; a refractive index of a portion other than the part of the region in which light is guided in the first coupled waveguide is modulated with a different signal from the substantially identical signals; and a resonance wavelength shift amount of the circling waveguide is equal to a longitudinal- mode resonance wavelength shift amount.
Regarding Claim 19, Yoon does not teach a refractive index of at least part of a region in which light is guided in the first coupled waveguide and a refractive index of at least part of a region in which light is guided in the second coupled waveguide are modulated with substantially identical signals; and a refractive index of the circling waveguide is modulated with a different signal from the substantially identical signals.
Claims 20 is dependent on Claim 19 and would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 112(b) rejection found in Claim 19.
Claims 20 is dependent on Claim 19 and would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 112(b) rejection found in Claim 19 and its own 112(b) rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Koda et al. US 11221446 teaches many features found In Claim 9.
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