No n-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. Claims 1-13 are pending. 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. Claim 5 is addressed first because it requires fewer references and the independent claims are similar . Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0063776 (“Larson”) in view of US 2005/0006654 (“Kang”) . Regarding claim 5, Larson shows in Fig. 2A and the discussion thereof (see also Fig. 1 discussion as the base elements other than 222 are the same): A semiconductor optical integrated element 200 comprising: a laser 102 that outputs continuous light (FMCW is discussed in several places) ; a first multimode interference coupler 118 that inputs the light from an input port, divides the modulated light, and outputs the divided modulated light from two or more output ports; semiconductor optical amplifiers 124-1,124-2 that are connected to respective output ports of the first multimode interference coupler 118 and amplify each of the divided modulated light; and a second multimode interference coupler 222 that has input ports connected to respective outputs of the semiconductor optical amplifiers 124-1,124-2 , multiplexes the amplified modulated light, and divides and outputs the multiplexed modulated light to two output ports. Larson does not disclose that the laser is a DFB and that it ha s an EA modulator that modulates the continuous light and outputs modulated light . Kang teaches that a DFB laser may be integrated with an EA modulator before that output is put into semiconductor optical amplifiers. Fig. 3. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use this type of laser and modulator as well because then the device can be used in other applications such as an optical transmitter, as taught by Kang. [0005]-[0012]. Claim s 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson in view of Kang , and further in view of WO 2011/ 068458 (“WO ‘458”) . Regarding claim 1 : A semiconductor optical integrated element comprising: a DFB laser that outputs continuous light; an EA modulator that modulates the continuous light and outputs modulated light; a first multimode interference coupler that inputs the modulated light from a first input port, divides the modulated light, and outputs the divided modulated light from two or more output ports; semiconductor optical amplifiers that are connected to respective output ports of the first multimode interference coupler and amplify each of the divided modulated light; a second multimode interference coupler that has input ports connected to respective outputs of the semiconductor optical amplifiers, multiplexes the amplified modulated light, and outputs the multiplexed modulated light from a first output port; and The above limitations are the same as claim 5 except for only requiring one output port and are taught by Larson and Kang for the same reasons. Larson and Kang do not show a monitoring waveguide that is connected to a second input port of the first multimode interference coupler. WO ‘458 shows a similar device in Figs. 1-2, discussion starting p. 4, with an MMI coupler (p. 6 line 10) having one input with laser 41, another input with detector 51, i.e. a monitoring waveguide, and output waveguide 2. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include this monitoring waveguide so that light can be both transmitted and detected, which is useful for certain applications, as taught by WO ‘458. P. 1 lines 22-30. Regarding claim 2, Larson additionally includes a phase adjustment unit 126-1, 126-2 that applies a propagation delay in waveguides connecting respective outputs of the semiconductor optical amplifiers 124-1,124-2 and input ports of the second multimode interference coupler 122 . [0018], [0021]. Regarding claims 3 and 7, again Larson’s second MMI coupler 222 in Fig. 2A has two output port s , multiplexes the amplified modulated light, and divides and outputs the modulated light to the first and second output ports. [0025]-[0029]. Claims 4, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson , Kang, and WO ‘458 as applied to claims 1, 2, and 3, respectively, and further in view of US 7,738,794 (“Akiyama”) . For each of these, Larson, Kang, and WO ‘458 show the limitations of the parent claims above, but do not show an AR coat mounted on an output end face of the monitoring waveguide. Note WO ‘458 says that its detector is monolithically integrated within the waveguide, but it does not have to be that way and any known detector can be used. P. 5 lines 23-29. Akiyama teaches in Fig. 14, see Fifth E mbodiment starting col. 14, a similar configuration where a DFB laser is input to MMI coupler 34 and it goes through another MMI coupler 35 before being output. On another input of the first MMI coupler is a waveguide 41 where light is output. There is an AR coating on both sides of the device , col. 14 lines 26-28, so on the output of this waveguide. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the monitor i n WO ‘458 does not have to be monolithically integrated because the reference expressly allows this, therefore it could be outside the waveguide. Akiyama teaches that in a similar location on a similar waveguide there may be an AR coating. A person skilled in the art would understand that this would be beneficial in permitting the light to escape, rather than having unwanted reflections return into the device, therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include such AR coating for this reason. Claims 6, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson, Kang, and WO ‘458 as applied to claims 1, 2, and 3, respectively, and further in view of US 2019/0165544 (“Suzuki”). Claim 12 i s rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson, Kang, WO ‘458 , and Akiyama as applied to claim 4 , and further in view of Suzuki . Claim 13 i s rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson and Kang as applied to claim 5 , and further in view of Suzuki . For each of these, the primary references are applied as above against the parent claims, but they do not show a DBR is connected to a side of the DFB laser opposite to a side where the continuous light is output. Suzuki teaches in Fig. 1 , discussion starting at [00 31 ], that a laser may have a DFB laser 110 , and there may be an additional distributed Bragg reflector 12 0 at the end opposite where the laser emits. Suzuki teaches that such a laser generally is improved for certain applications like communications because it reduces threshold gain in emission mode by reflection from the rear DBR. [0006]. Suzuki’s specific laser has high optical power, reliability, and yield. [0049]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use this configuration for these reasons. Conclusion US 7,221,500 teaches the bulk of the system without the laser input. US 2022/0231476 shows a similar system with laser to MMI coupler to plural SOAs to second MMI. US 2003/0077033 also shows a MMI coupler with laser and monitor on the same input side. JP 2019-57541 shows a DFB, EAM, SOA configuration with monitoring, but no MMI. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT James Menefee whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1944 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT MinSun Harvey can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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