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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I, claims 6-16 in the reply filed on 4/21/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Detuning effects in Brillouin ring microresonator laser” (Korobko) in view of “Visible light photonic integrated Brillouin laser” (Chauhan).
For claim 6, Korobko teaches a stimulated Brillouin scattering (SBS) laser system (fig. 1), comprising:
a pump laser device, the pump laser device operative to emit a pump light beam (p. 4963, final paragraph, laser source at the frequency ωP);
an optical waveguide pathway, the optical waveguide pathway in optical communication with the pump laser device (fig. 1(a), linear input-output waveguide above ring resonator); and
an optical waveguide resonator, the optical waveguide resonator in optical communication with the pump laser device through the optical waveguide pathway (fig. 1, ring resonator);
wherein the optical waveguide resonator is configured to receive a portion of the pump light beam such that the portion of the pump light beam travels in a first direction in the optical waveguide resonator (fig. 1(a), clock wise, CW wave);
wherein when an optical frequency of the portion of the pump light beam matches a resonance frequency of the optical waveguide resonator (fig. 2, σF includes the value zero), an optical power density within the optical waveguide resonator increases such that beyond a certain threshold power, the portion of the pump light beam produces lasing of a first order Brillouin wave (fig. 3(d)) including a SBS wave having a SBS gain peak (fig. 3(c)), wherein the SBS wave travels in an opposite second direction in the optical waveguide resonator (fig. 1, Brillouin Backward CCW wave);
wherein the optical waveguide resonator has a radius and corresponding round-trip path length such that a free-spectral range (FSR) of the optical waveguide resonator is misaligned with respect to the SBS gain peak (fig. 3, (c, d)).
The additional limitation “such that an SBS gain coefficient has a magnitude to produce a substantially reduced linewidth of the SBS wave” does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. First, limitation appears to be an inherent feature of the claimed device and configuration. Therefore, Korobko’s microresonator is expected to exhibit the same feature. Second, apparatus claims cover what a device is and not what a device does. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. In the instant case, the apparatus is intended to be employed to “reduce linewidth” and Korobko includes all the relevant structural limitations. Third, the claim does not specify to what value the reduced linewidth is being compared and the linewidth may therefore be considered “reduced” compared to an arbitrary larger linewidth.
Korobko does not teach the system includes a photonics chip with the pump laser device, the optical waveguide pathway, and the optical waveguide resonator on the photonics chip. However, Chauhan teaches an integrated stimulated Brillouin scattering laser system similar to Korobko’s where the system includes a photonics chip with the pump laser device, the optical waveguide pathway, and the optical waveguide resonator on the photonics chip (fig. 1) in order to provide wafer scale integration leading to reduced size, cost, and improved stability (page 2, 2nd paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the pump laser device, the optical waveguide pathway, and the optical waveguide resonator of Korobko on a photonics chip as taught by Chauhan in order to provide wafer scale integration leading to reduced size, cost, and improved stability.
For claim 7, Korobko teaches an SBS output in optical communication with the optical waveguide resonator; wherein the SBS output is configured to receive the SBS wave from the optical waveguide resonator (fig. 1(a), PB).
For claim 8, Korobko teaches narrow linewidth is desirable for precision high end application and Brillouin lasers offer sub kHz linewidth down to sub-hertz (p 4962 introduction). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine optimal linewidths in order to achieve spectral purity for precision high end application, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 9, Chauhan teaches the photonics chip comprises a silicon photonics integrated circuit (page 3, second paragraph).
For claim 10, Chauhan teaches the pump laser device comprises a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) laser, or an external cavity diode laser (ECDL) (fig. 1, external cavity pump laser).
For claim 11, Korobko teaches the optical waveguide resonator comprises a waveguide ring resonator (fig. 1, ring microresonator).
For claim 12, Korobko teaches the optical waveguide pathway includes a first optical pathway comprising a first bus waveguide optically coupled to an output of the pump laser device (fig. 1(a), linear input-output waveguide above ring resonator).
For claim 13, Korobko teaches wherein the first bus waveguide is optically coupled to the waveguide ring resonator at a first optical coupler region on a first side of the waveguide ring resonator (fig. 1 coupled at top of resonator).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Detuning effects in Brillouin ring microresonator laser” (Korobko) in view of “Visible light photonic integrated Brillouin laser” (Chauhan) in view of US 10,928,200 (Wu).
For claim 14, the previous combination does not teach the optical waveguide pathway includes a second optical pathway comprising a second bus waveguide optically coupled to the waveguide ring resonator at a second optical coupler region on a second side of the waveguide ring resonator.
However, Wu teaches a SBS laser with an optical waveguide pathway which includes a second optical pathway comprising a second bus waveguide optically coupled to the waveguide ring resonator at a second optical coupler region on a second side of the waveguide ring resonator (fig. 1, 130) which has the advantage of outputting CCW SBS in a direction not toward the pump and also allowing for CW pump output for a control unit (fig. 1).
It would have bee obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the second pathway of Wu with the previous combination in order to output CCW SBS in a direction not toward the pump and also allowing for CW pump output for a control unit.
For claim 15, Korobko teaches the waveguide ring resonator is configured to receive the portion of the pump light beam from the first bus waveguide at the first optical coupler region, such that the portion of the pump light beam travels in the first direction in the waveguide ring resonator as a clockwise (CW) pump beam (fig. 1, CW wave); and
the SBS wave travels in the opposite second direction in the optical waveguide ring resonator as a counterclockwise (CCW) SBS beam (fig. 1, CCW wave).
For claim 16, Wu teaches a portion of the CW pump beam is coupled out of the waveguide ring resonator at the second optical coupler region into the second bus waveguide along a first direction as an output CW pump beam (fig. 1); and
a portion of the CCW SBS beam is coupled out of the waveguide ring resonator at the second optical coupler region into the second bus waveguide along a second direction as an output CCW SBS beam (fig. 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael W Carter whose telephone number is (571)270-1872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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 contact the examiner at the above number.
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.
/Michael Carter/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights