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 .
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.
Claim 3 (and claims 4-6 via dependency) is 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the plurality of filtering filters" in line 28. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim making the scope unclear.
For purposes of examination, the limitation will be read as “the plurality of ring filters”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen et al. (US 2019/0199057) in view of Van Rees et al. (US 2022/0131342).
With respect to claim 1, Wen teaches a multiwavelength laser device (fig.1) comprising: an external resonator to amplify light (fig.1 from back facet to #120), and a first output waveguide path to output the light amplified by the external resonator (fig.1 see “transmission”), the multiwavelength laser device comprising: a semiconductor gain chip (fig.1 #104(s), [0035]); a first coupler (fig.1 #114) having a first input port (fig.1 #114-1), a second input port (fig.1 #114-4), a first output port (fig.1 #114-2), a second output port (fig.1 #114-3), a first waveguide path optically coupling the first input port and the first output port ([0043]), and a second waveguide path optically coupling the second input port and the second output port ([0045]), the first input port optically coupled to the semiconductor gain chip (fig.1 #1 connected to #104(s)), and the second input port optically coupled to the first output waveguide path (fig.1 #114-4 coupled to “transmission”); a cyclic wavelength mirror of a ring resonator type (fig.1 #120) to output multiwavelength light having cyclic peak wavelengths ([0042-43]) to the first coupler by partially reflecting light input from the first coupler ([0045]), the cyclic wavelength mirror optically coupled to the first output port and the second output port of the first coupler ([0045]); and a reflector (fig.1 #104(s) with HR coat) to reflect light having passed through the semiconductor gain chip toward the semiconductor gain chip ([0037]), the reflector forming the external resonator together with the semiconductor gain chip and the cyclic wavelength mirror by being disposed on a side opposite to a side of the first coupler with respect to the semiconductor gain chip (as seen in fig.1). Wen does not teach a first Mach-Zehnder switch, wherein the first Mach-Zehnder switch is capable of adjusting an output branching ratio between multiwavelength light output from the first input port to the semiconductor gain chip and multiwavelength light output from the second input port to the first output waveguide path, by changing a phase difference between multiwavelength light passing through the first waveguide path and multiwavelength light passing through the second waveguide path. Van Rees teaches a related external cavity laser device (fig.6) which includes a Mach-Zehnder switch (fig.6 tunable coupler, [0084]), wherein the Mach-Zehnder switch is capable of adjusting an output branching ratio between light output from the an input port (fig.6 top left of coupler) to a semiconductor gain chip (fig.6 optical amplifier) and light output from a second input port (fig.6 bottom left of coupler) to a first output waveguide path (fig.6 laser output), by changing a phase difference ([0085, 87]) between light passing through a first waveguide (fig.6 top of coupler) path and light passing through a second waveguide path (fig.6 bottom of coupler). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to replace the 2x2 coupler of Wen with the Mach-Zehnder switch with operation of Van Rees in order to have control over coupling ratios (Van Rees, [0052, 60, 87]) as well as to make use of the variable spectral dependence (Van Rees, [0089]).
With respect to claim 2, Wen, as modified, teaches a phase controller (fig.6 #108(s)) to control a phase of multiwavelength light that passes through the phase controller ([0036]), the phase controller disposed between the semiconductor gain chip and the first Mach-Zehnder switch (fig.6, when the coupler is replaced by the MZ element of Van Rees).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen and Van Rees in view of Zhang et al. (US 2015/0180201).
With respect to claim 7, Wen, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach the semiconductor gain chip includes a quantum dot gain medium. Zhang teaches a related external cavity laser device (fig.1) and further teaches using quantum dot gain media ([0154-155]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to replace the gain medium of Wen with a QD gain medium such as taught by Zhang in order to make use of lower threshold current and thermal sensitivity (Zhang, [0154]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 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.
Claim 3 outlines a further monitoring structure for the laser making use of an additional MZ element and ring resonators not found to be obvious in view of the prior art.
Claims 4-6 are found to inherit the limitations of claim 3 and are allowable, pending the 112b correction, for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see the included pto892 form for a list of related art.
Note US 9780528, 9653882, 12542424, 11489313, 2002/0085609 and JP 2018/085475 were found to be close in structure to at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOD THOMAS VAN ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8447. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8AM-430PM.
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.
/TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights