Non-Final Rejection
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claims 17-18 are 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. The claim refers to “The method according to claim 1” which lacks antecedent basis. The claim is clearly supposed to depend from claim 11. Claim 18 is also rejected as it depends from claim 17 and thus has the same problem.
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 1-2, 6-7, 11-12, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0336718 (“Takabayashi”) in view of US 2008/0232409 (“Yamazaki”).
Regarding claim 1, Takabayashi discloses in Fig. 7, discussion starting at [0074] though earlier parts for background are also relevant:
1. An optoelectronic device, comprising:
a gain medium configured to amplify laser radiation within a given gain band;
a resonant optical cavity containing the gain medium and comprising:
a first reflector disposed on a first side of the gain medium;
a second reflector disposed on a second side of the gain medium, opposite the first side;
The entire device is an optoelectronic device. The gain medium 40 is in a cavity formed by first and second reflectors 50,34 on opposing sides of the gain medium. [0075].
a comb filter, disposed between the first and second reflectors and configured to pass a set of distinct wavelength sub-bands within the gain band, the set of distinct wavelength sub-bands defining a comb; and
Ring resonator 275 is between the reflectors and is a comb filter that passes a distinct set of wavelength sub-bands defining a comb. See Fig. 8, [0076]-[0079].
a plurality of optical ring resonators, disposed between the first and second reflectors in series with the comb filter and having tunable resonant wavelengths in proximity to different, respective wavelength sub-bands of the comb; and
Plural ring resonators 271 to 274 are between the reflectors and in series with the filter 275 and have tunable wavelengths (tunable by heaters 28) to different wavelengths of the comb. See Fig. 8, [0076]-[0079].
a control circuit coupled to apply respective control voltages to the optical ring resonators so as to tune the respective resonant wavelengths relative to the respective wavelength sub-bands, thereby modulating the sub-bands in the laser radiation that is output from the device.
Takabayashi uses heaters 28 on the ring resonators to tune the resonant wavelengths to the sub-bands, thereby modulating the sub-bands in the laser radiation that is output. [0076]. There will necessarily be some sort of control circuit to control the heaters. It is not said that there is any voltage applied.
Yamazaki explains that the way such heaters work is by controlling a voltage to the heater, changing the refractive index of the ring resonator. [0040], [0014]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to control a voltage as Yamazaki explains this is how tuning is done with a heater like that of Takabayashi.
Regarding claim 2, everything is formed on a substrate 20. See [0049]. The gain medium 40 is connected to the other elements by waveguides 24,33.
Regarding claim 6, Takabayashi shows there also may be phase tuners 30 between the reflectors to tune a phase of the cavity. [0076].
Regarding claim 7, the ring resonators are resonant rings and they are tuned by heaters as discussed above re: claim 1. A person skilled in the art would understand that the heaters change the refractive index of the ring to provide the tuning. Yamazaki explains that this is how heaters on ring resonators provide tuning. See [0014], [0040].
Claims 11-12 and 16-17 are method claims corresponding to claims 1-2 and 6-7 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 3-4 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takabayashi and Yamazaki as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Zhao et al., Hybrid dual-gain tunable integrated…, Optics Express (Mar. 2021) (“Zhao”) (see full citation on 4/20/2025 IDS).
Regarding claims 3-4 and 13-14, the gain medium 40 and reflector 50 of Takabayashi form an RSOA, and the waveguides and second reflector 34 define an optical cavity. The gain medium may be III-V and the whole thing is a silicon PIC. See [0046]-[0049] (discussing first embodiment, but equally applicable to this embodiment). It is not disclosed that the active chip is external to the cavity, i.e. they are all on the same chip. Zhao teaches that in such a device the gain chip may be fully monolithically integrated, which seems like the case in Takabayashi, or the chips may be separately made and then edge coupled together. See Introduction p. 1. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make them separate and edge coupled as this has better thermal performance and also better yields, as taught by Zhao.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takabayashi and Yamazaki as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US 2019/0181612 (“Zhang”).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Takabayashi does not have an additional bandpass filter in the resonator in series with the comb filter. Zhang is a similar system with SOA coupled to a chip to form an external cavity laser and ring resonators select the wavelength. See Fig. 23. Zhang further teaches that there may be several filters included, such as 430b. [0177]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include additional filters as this permits additional peaks for tuning of the wavelengths, as taught by Zhang. The filter will have a passband encompassing a subset of the wavelength sub-bands in the comb, or else it would be pointless as it would not allow the wavelengths selected by the ring resonators to lase.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takabayashi and Yamazaki as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US 10,714,894 (“Doerr”).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Takabayashi does not say the ring resonators have a semiconductor junction that provide the tuning. Doerr explains that heaters may be used to tune ring resonators, like in Takabayashi, but that alternatively they can be tuned by varying a voltage across a p-i-n junction. Col. 5 lines 9-33. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a junction instead as Doerr recognizes that these are equivalent alternatives. See MPEP 2144.06 (obvious to use art recognized equivalents).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takabayashi and Yamazaki as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US 10,038,301 (“Eggleston”).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Takabayashi does not switch sub-bands on and off as claimed. Eggleston is a similar system, with RSOA and ring resonators that select wavelengths from a comb, and Eggleston teaches that the ring resonators may be used to turn particular wavelengths on and off. Col. 5 line 29 to col. 6 line 10; col. 6 lines 31-64. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to do so depending on what output is desired.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takabayashi and Yamazaki as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US 2015/0323743 (“Nicholson”).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Takabayashi does not control intensity by tuning as claimed. Nicholson is a similar system, with a laser coupled to a PIC with ring resonators filtering and selecting particular wavelengths. Nicholson further teaches that the ring resonators may be modulated in ways that may change the optical power. [0056]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to do so depending on what kind of output is desired, as control of the power may be desirable in many applications.
Conclusion
Other references are cited having a gain medium coupled to PIC having ring resonators.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Menefee whose telephone number is (571)272-1944. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 applications may be obtained from Patent Center. See: 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.
/JAMES A MENEFEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
