Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 03/27/2026 has beenconsidered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Applicants’ arguments are rendered moot in view of the present Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “an optical distribution network coupled to the plurality of antenna-modulator apparatuses and configured to route optical carriers to the electro-optic modulators and to route modulated optical signals away from the apparatuses” in Lines 9-11. From the published specification, Figures 8 and 10-15 and paragraph 0054 disclose modulated sidebands signals exiting the MZM. However, the cited portions and the rest of the specification do not mention an “optical distribution network” nor resemble one. It is unclear from the specifications how or where an optical distribution network is coupled to the plurality of antenna-modulator apparatuses.
Claims 23-25 depend from Claim 22 and are therefore rejected for the reason(s) of indefiniteness as indicated above.
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.
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozlov (US 11594851) and further in view of Jalali (US 7450790).
Consider Claim 21, Kozlov discloses an electro-optic modulator configured to up-convert the received radio-frequency signal to an optical signal without amplification by a front-end low-noise amplifier (Column 11, Lines 37-40 where RF signal is upconverted to optical signal without amplifier) resonantly enhancing an optical carrier within an optical resonator including at least a portion of an optical waveguide of the electro-optic modulator (Column 3, Lines 64-67 and Column 4, Lines 1-9, where power of optical signal inside resonator is enhanced and propagates along waveguide element 110) and d) an optical output configured to receive modulation sidebands corresponding to the received radio-frequency signal (Figure 1, where element 98 is a sideband signal that is being output to element 140), and wherein resonant enhancement of at least one of the radio-frequency signal by the resonant RF antenna element and the optical carrier by the optical resonator is configured to drive direct RF-to-optical conversion without a front-end low-noise amplifier (Column 11, Lines 37-40 where RF signal is upconverted to optical signal without amplifier) but does not disclose an RF-photonic antenna-modulator apparatus comprising: a) a resonant RF antenna element configured to receive an incident radio-frequency signal; b) an electro-optic modulator electrically coupled to the resonant RF antenna element.
However, Jalali discloses an RF-photonic antenna-modulator apparatus comprising: a) a resonant RF antenna element configured to receive an incident radio-frequency signal (Figure 2, element 14 receives signal element 20); b) an electro-optic modulator electrically coupled to the resonant RF antenna element (Figure 2, element 12 is coupled to element 14; Claim 1, Lines 23-24, where modulator receives RF signal from antenna)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Jalali into Kozlov to enhance power to keep the standing wave ratio low.
Claim(s) 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Jalali in view of Kozlov and in further view of Ilchenko (US 7389053).
Consider Claim 26, Jalali discloses a method for converting a radio-frequency signal to an optical signal, the method comprising: a) receiving a radio-frequency signal using a resonant RF antenna element (Figure 2, element 14 receives signal element 20), b) coupling the received radio-frequency signal from the antenna element to an electro-optic modulator (Figure 2, element 12 is coupled to element 14;Claim 1, Lines 23-24, where modulator receives RF signal from antenna) formed as a pattern of a film of electro-optic material (Claim 3, where resonator consists of lithium niobate), and d) modulating the optical carrier with the received radio-frequency signal to generate modulation sidebands (Column 5, Lines 30-33, where element 20 modulates resonator, creating intensity modulation on carrier and Column 10, Lines 2-3, where modulation generates sidebands) but does not disclose c) resonantly enhancing an optical carrier within an optical resonator including at least a portion of an optical waveguide of the electro-optic modulator and e) extracting the modulation sidebands from the optical resonator while retaining the optical carrier within the resonator.
However, Kozlov discloses c) resonantly enhancing an optical carrier within an optical resonator including at least a portion of an optical waveguide of the electro-optic modulator (Column 3, Lines 64-67 and Column 4, Lines 1-9, where power of optical signal inside resonator is enhanced and propagates along waveguide element 110).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Kozlov into Jalali to enhance power within the resonator.
However, Ilchenko discloses e) extracting the modulation sidebands from the optical resonator while retaining the optical carrier within the resonator (Column 4, Lines 50-54 where sideband is extracted while rejecting components of optical frequency).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Ilchenko into Jalali and Kozlov to ensure information encoded in sidebands reaches destination.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 allowed.
Claims 22-25 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Jalali discloses an RF-photonic antenna-modulator apparatus comprising: a) an RF antenna element configured to receive an incident radio-frequency signal (Figure 20, element 14 receives signal element 20), the antenna element exhibiting a resonant RF response within a predetermined frequency band (Column 10, Lines 11-14, where array of resonators correspond with different RF frequency bands), b) an electro-optic modulator coupled to the antenna element ((Figure 2, element 12 is coupled to element 14; Claim 1, Lines 23-24, where modulator receives RF signal from antenna)
Kozlov discloses a second optical waveguide forming an optical resonator configured to resonantly enhance optical-carrier power within an interaction region of the electro-optic modulator (Column 3, Lines 64-67 and Column 4, Lines 1-9, where power of optical signal inside resonator is enhanced and propagates along waveguide element 110).
Ilchenko discloses d) an optical output coupled to the interaction region and configured to receive modulation sidebands generated by the electro-optic modulation while the optical carrier is retained within the optical resonator (Column 4, Lines 50-54 where sideband is extracted while rejecting components of optical frequency).
Gleason (US 10686523) discloses wherein the RF-photonic antenna-modulator apparatus is formed as a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) (Claim 1, Lines 64-65, where PIC is positioned within RF antenna array)
Matsko (US 8331008) discloses comprising a plurality of integrated layers that are stacked together, the layers including a substrate (Column 7, Lines 24, where resonator element 501 is on a substrate), a layer comprising the film of electro-optic material (Column 7, Line 25, where resonator has lithium tantalate) and a conductive layer comprising the first electrode (Figure 5, element 502 is on element 501).
However, Jalali, Kozlov, the other cited references, and a thorough search in the art fail to disclose the following:
Claim 1: the electro-optic modulator comprising: i) a first optical waveguide formed as a pattern in a film of electro-optic material exhibiting a second-order nonlinear optical response, and ii) a first electrode electrically coupled to the antenna element to receive the radio-frequency signal and positioned adjacent to the first optical waveguide to drive electro-optic modulation of an optical carrier propagating in the optical waveguide;
Kozlof discloses an RF-photonic antenna-modulator system comprising: a) a plurality of RF-photonic antenna-modulator apparatuses (Figure 8 and Column 8, Lines 1-4, where array of resonators have corresponding antennas; Column 5, Line 10-11, where resonator has information encoded by modulated signal element 91)) each apparatus comprising:, ii) an electro-optic modulator formed in a film of electro-optic material (Column 10, Line 27, where resonator has lithium niobate) and electrically coupled to the antenna element, and iii) an optical resonator configured to enhance optical-carrier power during modulation (Column 3, Lines 64-67 and Column 4, Lines 1-9, where power of optical signal inside resonator is enhanced and propagates along waveguide element 110); wherein the system is configured to receive radio-frequency signals using the plurality of antenna-modulator apparatuses and generate a corresponding plurality of modulated optical outputs (Column 8, Lines 5-9, where each resonator in array has RF signal and outputs sidebands and Figure 1, where element 98 is a sideband signal that is being output to element 140).
Jalali discloses i) a resonant RF antenna element (Figure 2, element 14; Figure 1, element 12 and Claim 1, Lines 23-24, where modulator receives RF signal from antenna) and an electro-optic modulator electrically coupled to the antenna element (Figure 2, element 12 is coupled to element 14; Claim 1, Lines 23-24, where modulator receives RF signal from antenna).
However, Kozlof, Jalali, and a thorugh search in the art fail to disclose the following:
Claim 22: an optical distribution network coupled to the plurality of antenna-modulator apparatuses and configured to route optical carriers to the electro-optic modulators and to route modulated optical signals away from the apparatuses
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 ASIF SHAMEEM whose telephone number is (571)272-6576. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM EST-5:00 PM EST.
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, KENNETH VANDERPUYE can be reached at (571) 272-3078. 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.
/ASIF SHAMEEM/Examiner, Art Unit 2634
/KENNETH N VANDERPUYE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights