The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a strong electro-optic Pockels effect” that contains a relative term “strong”. For the purposes of this Action and in accordance with the instant specification, the limitation “a strong electro-optic Pockels effect” is interpreted as defining an electro-optic coefficient at least as large as that of lithium niobate, the latter recited by claim 1 as the material of the microresonator and described by the instant specification as possessing “a strong electro-optic Pockels effect” (“By taking advantage of the strong electro-optic Pockels effect of LN” at para. 0008).
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a high speed” that contains a relative term “high”. For the purposes of this Action and in accordance with the instant specification, the limitation “a high speed” is interpreted as defining frequencies of tens of MHz, as exemplified by the instant specification (“the present invention is directed to a microwave-rate soliton microcomb whose repetition rate can be tuned with a speed up to, for example, 75 MHz, which is orders of magnitude faster than conventional soliton microcomb sources” at para. 0033).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 – 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the soliton repetition rate” in which the article “the” causes an insufficient antecedent basis issue. For the purposes of this Action, the limitation is interpreted as “a soliton repetition rate”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “whose repetition rate” which causes an ambiguity, wince claim 1 recites several items. For the purposes of this Action, the limitation is interpreted as “wherein the soliton repetition rate”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein, the demonstrated device offers a significant bandwidth”, whereas claim 1 does not define any “demonstrated device”. For the purposes of this Action, the limitation is interpreted as “wherein the microresonator is configured for a significant bandwidth”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein, the low-frequency phase noise” and “the reference source” in which the articles “the” cause insufficient antecedent basis issues. For the purposes of this Action, the limitations are interpreted as “wherein low-frequency phase noise” and “a reference source” respectively.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein, the demonstrated device and approach include”, whereas claim 1 does not define a “demonstrated device and approach”. For the purposes of this Action, the limitation is interpreted as “wherein the microresonator is configured for”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Near-octave lithium niobate soliton microcomb”, including “Supplemental materials”, by Gong et al, vol. 7, No. 10, Optica, pp. 1275 – 1278, 2020 (hereinafter Gong).
Regarding claim 1, Gong describes (Figs. 1, 2, 4, S4, and S5; Abstract; pp. 1275 – 1277) a microwave-rate (tens of GHz; Fig. 2) soliton microcomb for high-speed (electro-optical) tuning soliton microcomb comprising an on-chip high-Q lithium niobate (LN) microresonator (Figs. 1a, 1b, and S3 and their captions; “we demonstrate the generation of soliton microcombs in LN thin films” in the Abstract; last para. on p. 1277; Fig. S3 shows a narrowband peak due to a high finesses factor Qin) as a comb resonator whose dispersion (dispersion profile in Figs. 2b and 3) is engineered for soliton comb generation (“We show that by tailoring the microring geometry, especially its height, favorable dispersion can be realized for the emission of dual dispersion waves (DWs) to expand the soliton bandwidth to 4/5 octaves” at 3rd para. on p. 1275) where a strong electro-optic Pockels effect (in LN; “lithium niobate (LN)-on-insulator has gained particular interest [9,14,16], owing to its strong [Symbol font/0x63](2) and [Symbol font/0x63](3) nonlinearities as well as its broad transparency window” at 2nd para. on p. 1275; 1st complete para. on p. 1277; see Section “Claim interpretation” above) is used to dynamically tune (by electro-optics/electrodes, as shown in Fig. S4) the soliton repetition rate (“The microring (Elem. 2) for soliton microcomb generation is surrounded with electrodes which are employed to control the soliton microcomb FSR” at 1st para. of Section 4 in the Supplemental materials), by directly integrating electrooptic tuning and modulation elements (electrodes) into the comb resonator (“The electro-optical tuning can be implemented by applying electric fields along the z axis (g33 = 30 pm/V [20]) via suspended electrodes over the waveguide without impacting its dispersion or by applying inplane electric fields along the y axis [31]” at 1st complete para. on p. 1277: “The microring (Elem. 2) for soliton microcomb generation is surrounded with electrodes which are employed to control the soliton microcomb FSR” under Fig. S4).
Regarding claim 7, Gong describes (Figs. 1, 2, and S4; Abstract; 1st complte para. on p. 1277; para. bridging pp. 3 – 4 of the Supplemental materials) that the microresonator is configured for soliton microcombs with high-speed dynamic modulation (electro-optic modulation in LN).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 2 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong in view of Wang et al (US 2022/0113191 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Gong describes (Fig. S4) that the repetition rate is tuned electro-optically by using electrodes formed on the microresonator in LN. While Gong does not detail typical speeds of electro-optic modulation/tuning in LN microresonators, Wang discloses (Figs. 1, 2, and 4 – 6; para. 0005 and 0053 – 0066) an on-chip high-Q LN microresonator 3 (“chip-scale microresonator fabrication technology, a high-Q low-mode-volume microring” at para. 0003) as a comb resonator, wherein a strong electro-optic Pockels effect is used to dynamically (electro-optically) tune the comb repetition rate, by directly integrating electrooptic tuning and modulation elements (electrodes in Fig. 2) into the comb resonator. Wang exemplifies that the repetition rate can be at a high frequency of tens of MHz (para. 0033 and 0059). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the soliton repetition rate in the microresonator of Gong can be tuned electro-optically at a high speed (at least tens of MHz).
Regarding claim 3, the Gong – Wang combination considers that, by taking advantage of the strong electro-optic Pockels effect of LN (the material used by both Gong and Wang) and by integrating electro-optic tuning and modulation component (electrode(s)) directly into the LN comb resonator (Fig. S4 of Gong; Fig. 2 of Wang), a frequency modulation speed up to tens of MHz (> 107 s-1) can be achieved. Figure 2 of Gong shows that the spectrum of generated solitons extends over at least 5 GHz (> 5*109 Hz). Sweeping/modulating across such spectrum with a frequency modulation speed up to tens of MHz corresponds to a frequency modulation rate up to up 5*1016 Hz/s which at least overlap with the recited range and, hence, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 4, it is noted that the Gong – Wang combination considers a microwave-rate soliton microcomb generator that has essential structural features (a LN microresonator with dispersion engineered for soliton generation) and a principle of operation (the dual functionality of LN microresonator for both soliton generation and elector-optic tuning of the generated soliton comb) that are substantially similar/identical to those of the claimed device. The device of the Gong – Wang combination would be optimized for the same benefit (improved efficiency of soliton generation and electro-optic modulation) as that of the claimed device, while such optimization would be within ordinary skill in the art (which is noted as being high).
Alternatively or additionally, the Examiner takes official notice that it is well known in the art that LN resonators can be driven with low voltages down to about 1V or lower. Such low voltages would correspond to modulation efficiencies at least as high as the recited value.
Regarding claim 5, it is noted that the Gong – Wang combination renders obvious that the microresonator can be configured for a significant bandwidth (up to tens of gigahertz) for feedback locking of the repetition rate to an external reference source (external tunable CW laser), enabling both direct injection locking and feedback locking to the comb resonator itself without involving external modulation (3rd para. on p. 1276; para. bridging pp. 3 – 4 of the Supplemental material of Gong). It is also noted that:
(i) Claim 5 does not detail the structural particulars of Fig. 13 of the instant application.
(ii) In similarity with Fig. 13, Fig. S4 of Gong uses a feedback loop with a photodetector to control the microresonator and stabilize the soliton comb.
Regarding claim 6, Gong shows (Fig. S1(s) that the soliton comb (green trace) has low noise at a level at or below a detector background (black traces) (“The soliton comb exhibited low noise compared with the MI comb, as indicated by the measured relative intensity noise spectra (Fig. S1(e))” at 2nd para. of Section 1 of the Supplemental materials). It is also noted that claim 6 neither quantifies a noise floor nor details what “a reference source” is.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Soliton microcomb generation at 2 µm in zcut lithium niobate microring resonator” by Gong et al, Optics Letters, vol. 44, No. 12, pp. 3182 – 3185, 2019 (hereinafter Gong 2) in view of “Broadband electro-optic frequency comb generation in a lithium niobate microring resonator” by Zhang et al, Nature, vol. 568, pp. 373 – 377, 2019 (hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 1, Gong 2 describes (Figs. 1, 2, and 4; Abstract) a soliton microcomb device comprising an on-chip high-Q lithium niobate (LN) microresonator as a comb resonator whose dispersion is engineered for soliton comb generation (“The microring geometry is engineered to exhibit anomalous dispersion around 2 μm [Fig. 1(d)], allowing for soliton comb generation” at para. bridging pp. 3182 - 3183). While Gong 2 tunes a laser wavelength to adjust the generated soliton comb, Zhang describes (Figs. 1 – 4; Abstract) an optical microcomb device comprising an on-chip high-Q lithium niobate (LN) microresonator as a comb resonator and expressly teaches that a strong electro-optic Pockels effect (in LN) is used to dynamically tune the repetition rate of the generated comb (Fig. 4), by directly integrating electrooptic tuning and modulation elements (electrodes, as shown in Fig. 2a) into the comb resonator.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the microresonator of Gong 2 can be modified, in accordance with the teachings of Zhang, to directly integrate electrooptic tuning and modulation elements (electrodes) into the comb resonator in order to take advantage of the electro-optic effect and tune the parameters of the microresonator as fast speeds.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11,537,026 B2
US 12,174,016 B2
US 10,268,100 B2
US 2021/0242654 A1
“Slow light, induced dispersion, enhanced nonlinearity, and optical solitons in a resonator-array waveguide” by Heebner et al, PHYSICAL REVIEW E, vol. 65, paper 036619, 2002.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT TAVLYKAEV whose telephone number is (571)270-5634. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am - 6:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, William Kraig can be reached on (571)272-8660. 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.
/ROBERT TAVLYKAEV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896