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 § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McKinzie et al. (McKinzie et al., “Heterogeneously Integrated InP Widely Tunable Laser and SiN Microring Resonator for Integrated Comb Generation”, 2018 Conference on Lasers and Electro-Optics (CLEO), OSA, 2018).
Regarding claim 1, McKinzie et al. teaches in FIG. 1 an optical device comprising: an input port (the output of PH05) configured to receive pumping light; an optical splitter (the splitter between PH05 and PH01-PH04) configured to split the pumping light into a plurality of waveguides; and a plurality of semiconductor optical amplifiers (SOAs) implemented on a single III-V die (McKinzie et al. teaches in FIG. 1 InP chip; InP is III-V material), wherein each SOA is configured to be optically pumped by receiving a portion of the pumping light from a respective one of the plurality of waveguides.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKinzie et al. (McKinzie et al., “Heterogeneously Integrated InP Widely Tunable Laser and SiN Microring Resonator for Integrated Comb Generation”, 2018 Conference on Lasers and Electro-Optics (CLEO), OSA, 2018) in view of Pfeifle et al. (Pfeifle et al., “Coherent terabit communications with microresonator Kerr frequency combs”, Nature Photonics, 2014).
McKinzie et al. has been discussed above in regard to claim 1. The difference between McKinzie et al. and the claimed invention is that McKinzie et al. does not teach at least one of an optical transmitter or an optical receiver. Pfeifle et al. teaches in FIG. 1 a transmitter using a frequency comb source. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Pfeifle et al. with the system of McKinzie et al. and use the tunable laser and microring resonator of McKinzie et al. as the Kerr frequency comb source because it is suggested by McKinzie et al. (see first paragraph of McKinzie et al.). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the tunable laser and microring resonator of McKinzie et al. in coherent transmitting system of FIG. 1 of Pfeifle et al.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKinzie et al. (McKinzie et al., “Heterogeneously Integrated InP Widely Tunable Laser and SiN Microring Resonator for Integrated Comb Generation”, 2018 Conference on Lasers and Electro-Optics (CLEO), OSA, 2018) in view of Osinski et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2021/0151953 A1).
McKinzie et al. has been discussed above in regard to claim 1. The difference between McKinzie et al. and the claimed invention is that McKinzie et al. does not teach that the laser is electrically pumped. Osinski et al. teaches in FIG. 5 a laser. Osinski et al. teaches in paragraph [0028] that the laser is electrically pumped. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teaching of Osinski et al. with the system of McKinzie et al. because it is a simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an electrically pump laser, as taught by Osinski et al., as the pump laser in the system of McKinzie et al.
Regarding claim 4, McKinzie et al. teaches in FIG. 1 that the input port, the optical splitter, the plurality of waveguides, the plurality of SOAs, and the single III-V die are implemented on a photonic die. McKinzie et al. also teaches in the first paragraph that the pump laser can be externally coupled to the photonic die.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKinzie et al. (McKinzie et al., “Heterogeneously Integrated InP Widely Tunable Laser and SiN Microring Resonator for Integrated Comb Generation”, 2018 Conference on Lasers and Electro-Optics (CLEO), OSA, 2018) in view of Ezra et al. (Ezra et al., “Semiconductor Optical Amplifier Based on a Quantum Dot-in-a-Well (QDWELL) Structure Under Optical Pumping”, IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics Vol. 50, No. 5, May 2014).
McKinzie et al. has been discussed above in regard to claim 1. The difference between McKinzie et al. and the claimed invention is that McKinzie et al. does not teach that each SOA comprises: an optical cavity configured to receive light from a waveguide among the plurality of waveguides; and an optical gain medium in the optical cavity configured to amplify light that propagates through the SOA. Ezra et al. teaches in FIG. 1 a structure of an optically pump SOA comprising an active region which is a cavity where light is amplified. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Ezra et al. with the system of McKinzie et al. because Ezra et al. provides the details of implementation that are missing from McKinzie et al. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in each SOA an active region, as taught by Ezra et al., in the system of McKinzie et al.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKinzie et al. (McKinzie et al., “Heterogeneously Integrated InP Widely Tunable Laser and SiN Microring Resonator for Integrated Comb Generation”, 2018 Conference on Lasers and Electro-Optics (CLEO), OSA, 2018) in view of Skirlo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2019/0265574 A1).
McKinzie et al. has been discussed above in regard to claim 1. The difference between McKinzie et al. and the claimed invention is that McKinzie et al. does not teach that one or more of the plurality of SOAs on the single III-V die have a center-to-center spacing less than or equal to 100 μm or 50 μm. Skirlo et al. teaches in FIG. 8 a SOA array 812. Skirlo et al. teaches in paragraph [0098] that the array of 100 SOAs has a footprint of 1 mm × 1 mm which suggests that the center-to-center spacing is in the order of 10 μm. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Skirlo et al. with the system of McKinzie et al. because Skirlo et al. teaches the details of implementation that are missing from McKinzie et al. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the SOA array such that the center-to-center spacing is less than 100 μm or 50 μm, as suggested by Skirlo et al., in the system of McKinzie et al.
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKinzie et al. (McKinzie et al., “Heterogeneously Integrated InP Widely Tunable Laser and SiN Microring Resonator for Integrated Comb Generation”, 2018 Conference on Lasers and Electro-Optics (CLEO), OSA, 2018) in view of Schares et al. (Schares et al., “Etched-Facet Semiconductor Optical Amplifiers for Gain-Integrated Photonic Switch Fabrics”, 2015 European Conference on Optical Communication (ECOC), IEEE, 2015).
McKinzie et al. has been discussed above in regard to claim 1. The difference between McKinzie et al. and the claimed invention is that McKinzie et al. does not teach that each of the plurality of SOAs comprises etched facets. Schares et al. teaches in FIG. 3 etched facet and in the first paragraph of right col. of page 1 the advantages of etched facets. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Schares et al. with the system of McKinzie et al. and use etched facets because of their advantages. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use etched facets, as taught by Schares et al., in the system of McKinzie et al.
Regarding claim 9, Schares et al. teaches on page 2, left col., second paragraph that the etched facets have antireflection coatings.
Regarding claim 10, Schares et al. teaches on page 1, left col., last paragraph that the SOA is arranged according to a trench.
Regarding claim 11, Schares et al. teaches in FIG. 2 that the SOAs are attached with solder.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKinzie et al. and Schares et al. as applied to claims 8-11 above, and further in view of Doany et al. (Doany et al., “A four-channel silicon photonic carrier with flip-chip integrated semiconductor optical amplifier (SOA) array providing >10-dB gain”, IEEE 66th Electronic Components and Technology Conference, 2016).
McKinzie et al. and Schares et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 8-11. The difference between McKinzie et al. and Schares et al. and the claimed invention is that McKinzie et al. and Schares et al. do not teach that the SOAs are epoxied upside down in a trench in the silicon-photonics die. Doany et al. teaches a similar system as Schares et al. (e.g. compare FIG. 1 of Doany et al. with FIG. 1 of Schares et al.). Doany et al. further teaches in FIG. 12 that the SOA is epoxied upside down in a trench in a silicon-photonics die. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Doany et al. with the modified system of McKinzie et al. and Schares et al. because Doany et al. provides further details of implementation that are missing from McKinzie et al. and Schares et al. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to epoxy the SOA array upside down in a trench in a silicon-photonics die, as taught by Doany et al., in the modified system of McKinzie et al. and Schares et al.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKinzie et al. (McKinzie et al., “Heterogeneously Integrated InP Widely Tunable Laser and SiN Microring Resonator for Integrated Comb Generation”, 2018 Conference on Lasers and Electro-Optics (CLEO), OSA, 2018) in view of Vogirala et al. (Vogirala et al., “Efficient Optically-Pumped Semiconductor Optical Amplifier in a Coupled-Waveguide Configuration: A Novel Proposal”, IEEE Photonics Journal, Vol. 13, No. 6, 2021).
McKinzie et al. has been discussed above in regard to claim 1. The difference between McKinzie et al. and the claimed invention is that McKinzie et al. does not teach that for each SOA, there is no intentional p-type doping of semiconductor material near an active region of the SOA. Vogirala et al. teaches optically pumped SOA (OP-SOA). Vogirala et al. teaches on page 1, right col., last paragraph that the OP-SOA does not require doped semiconductor medium. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Vogirala et al. with the system of McKinzie et al. because Vogirala et al. teaches details of implementation that are missing from McKinzie et al. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to understand that no doped semiconductor is required for the OP-SOA, as taught by Vogirala et al., in the system of McKinzie et al.
Regarding claim 14, Vogirala et al. teaches on page 1, right col., last paragraph that the OP-SOA does not require doped semiconductor forming p-n junctions.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKinzie et al. (McKinzie et al., “Heterogeneously Integrated InP Widely Tunable Laser and SiN Microring Resonator for Integrated Comb Generation”, 2018 Conference on Lasers and Electro-Optics (CLEO), OSA, 2018) in view of Parker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2024/0079849 A1).
McKinzie et al. has been discussed above in regard to claim 1. The difference between McKinzie et al. and the claimed invention is that McKinzie et al. does not teach an electrically controllable heater in close proximity to the plurality of SOAs. Parker et al. teaches in FIG. 1 heater 120 and heater 125 next to the SOA 110 and SOA 115 and a controller 135 to control the heating of the heater (see paragraph [0019]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teaching of Parker et al. with the system of McKinzie et al. because the heaters of Parker et al. simply replace the phase shifters of McKinzie et al. to obtain the same results. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use controllable heaters as phase shifters, as taught by Parker et al., in the system of McKinzie et al.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogirala et al. (Vogirala et al., “Efficient Optically-Pumped Semiconductor Optical Amplifier in a Coupled-Waveguide Configuration: A Novel Proposal”, IEEE Photonics Journal, Vol. 13, No. 6, 2021) in view of Schares et al. (Schares et al., “Etched-Facet Semiconductor Optical Amplifiers for Gain-Integrated Photonic Switch Fabrics”, 2015 European Conference on Optical Communication (ECOC), IEEE, 2015).
Regarding claim 24, Vogirala et al. teaches in FIG. 1 a photonics die comprising a semiconductor optical amplifier (SOA) implemented on a single semiconductor die with no used electrical contacts to the SOA (Vogirala et al. teaches on page 3, right col., second paragraph that the device does not require the fabrication steps of metallization and provision of electrical contacts to power the device). The difference between Vogirala et al. and the claimed invention is that Vogirala et al. only teach a single SOA instead of an array of SOAs. Schares et al. teaches in FIG. 2 a SOA array comprising 4 channels. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Schares et al. with the system of Vogirala et al. because a SOA array provides multiple channels with reduced footprint comparing to multiple individual SOAs. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use SOA arrays for multiple-channel applications, as taught by Schares et al., in the system of Vogirala et al.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogirala et al. and Schares et al. as applied to claims 24 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2024/0168131 A1).
Vogirala et al. and Schares et al. have been discussed above in regard to claim 24. The difference between Vogirala et al. and Schares et al. and the claimed invention is that Vogirala et al. and Schares et al. do not teach an electrical heater on the array of SOAs. Kim et al. teaches in FIG. 9 and paragraph [0056] that heaters 111 may be disposed adjacent to SOAs. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Kim et al. with the modified system of Vogirala et al. and Schares et al. because controlling the operational temperature of the SOA ensures optimal performance. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include heaters to control the operational temperature of the SOA, as taught by Kim et al., in the modified system of Vogirala et al. and Schares et al.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogirala et al. and Schares et al. as applied to claims 24 above, and further in view of Osinski et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2021/0151953 A1).
Vogirala et al. and Schares et al. have been discussed above in regard to claim 24. The difference between Vogirala et al. and Schares et al. and the claimed invention is that Vogirala et al. and Schares et al. do not teach an electrically pumped laser configured to provide pumping light for optically pumping the array of SOAs. However, it is clear from Vogirala et al. that a light source is needed to optically pump the SOA array. Osinski et al. teaches such a light source. Osinski et al. teaches in FIG. 6 a light source comprising laser 601 which is electrically pumped (see paragraph [0076]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Osinski et al. with the modified system of Vogirala et al. and Schares et al. because the OP-SOA of Vogirala et al. and Schares et al. need a light source as a pump. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an electrically pumped laser, as taught by Osinski et al., as the pump light source in the modified system of Vogirala et al. and Schares et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-19 and 21-23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHI K LI whose telephone number is (571)272-3031. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:53 a.m. -3:23 p.m.
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, David Payne can be reached at 571 272-3024. 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.
skl30 June 2026
/SHI K LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights