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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed 05/28/2026 have all been considered and made of record.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendment filed 05/11/2026 has been considered and entered.
The objection to claims set forth in the office action received 02/10/2026 is withdrawn in view of the applicant’s amendments.
The rejections under 35 USC 112 set forth in the office action received 02/10/2026 is withdrawn in view of the applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments filed 05/11/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of modified grounds for rejection. Limitations such as those relating to the cladding layers and offsets of claims 1, 12, and 19 are disclosed by Ensher and Takeuchi.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “…a degree from each other, and wherein the degree is equal to 360…” should instead read “…a number of degrees from each other, and wherein the number of degrees is equal to 360…”.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ensher (US 12278461 B1) in view of Takeuchi (US 20080056311 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Ensher discloses a photonic molecule configured as a programmable tunable dispersion engineering system, the photonic molecule comprising:
a first ring resonator (Ensher/Fig4/First ring resonator 27) optically coupled to a first waveguide (Fig4/Element 38; Paragraph 33/ First waveguide [“…primary path…”]), wherein the first ring resonator is tunable by a first piezoelectric actuator (Column 6/Lines 30-32; Fig 4 [Portion of MRR completely beneath element 27]), and wherein a center of the first ring resonator is offset from an inner surface of the first piezoelectric actuator (Fig4; Column 6/Lines 30-32/ “…on the surface of the MRR…” [Vertical offset]);
a second ring resonator (Fig4/Second ring resonator 25) optically coupled to a second waveguide (Fig4/Element 38; Paragraph 33/Second waveguide [reference path), wherein the second ring resonator is tunable by a second piezoelectric actuator (Column 6/Lines 30-32; Fig 4 [Portion of MRR completely beneath element 25]), and wherein a center of the second ring resonator is offset from an inner surface of the second piezoelectric actuator (Fig4; Column 6/Lines 30-32/ “…on the surface of the MRR…” [Vertical offset]); and
a third ring resonator (Fig4/Third ring resonator 30) optically coupled to a third waveguide (Fig4/Third waveguide 12), wherein the third ring resonator is tunable by a third piezoelectric actuator (Column 6/Lines 30-32; Fig 4 [Portion of MRR completely beneath element 30]), and wherein a center of the third ring resonator is offset from an inner surface of the third piezoelectric actuator (Fig4; Column 6/Lines 30-32/ “…on the surface of the MRR…” [Vertical offset]);
wherein the third ring resonator is optically coupled to the first ring resonator and the second ring resonator (Fig4), wherein the second ring resonator is optically coupled to the first ring resonator and the third ring resonator (Fig4), and wherein the first ring resonator is optically coupled to the second ring resonator and the third ring resonator (Fig4).
Ensher is silent regarding the first, second, and third ring resonators and the first, second, and third piezoelectric actuator as being respectively separated by first, second and third cladding layers. However, the practice of configuring a waveguiding layer and piezoelectric actuator such that the two are separated by a layer of cladding exists in the art as exemplified by Takeuchi.
Ensher and Takeuchi are considered to be analogous in the field of photonic molecules. Ensher disclose a photonic molecule comprising three optical ring resonators each vertically coupled to a respective piezoelectric actuator. Takeuchi discloses a waveguiding layer and respective piezoelectric actuator as being separated by a cladding layer (Takeuchi/Fig9/Waveguiding layer 12, cladding layer 11, and piezoelectric actuator 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the photonic molecule of Ensher such that ring resonators and piezoelectric actuator are separated by cladding as suggested by Takeuchi since doing so would facilitate reduction of light loss within the resonators.
With regards to claim 2, Ensher and Takeuchi together disclose the photonic molecule of claim 1. Ensher and Takeuchi do not explicitly recite that each of the first, second, and third ring resonators are independently controllable by separately applying a first voltage to the first piezoelectric actuator, a second voltage to the second piezoelectric actuator and a third voltage to the third piezoelectric actuator, but do disclose 3 separate piezoelectric actuators (See rejection of claim 1 above) and it has been held that the recitation that an element is capable of performing a function (e.g., “…are independently controllable…”) is not a positive limitation, but only requires the ability to perform said function (In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138).
With regards to claim 5, Ensher and Takeuchi together disclose the photonic molecule of claim 1. Ensher and Takeuchi do not explicitly recite that the first piezoelectric actuator, second piezoelectric actuator, and third piezoelectric actuator all allow DC bias resonance tuning of the first ring resonator, second ring resonator, and third ring resonator respectively, but does disclose a plurality of individual piezoelectric actuators and associated ring resonators (Fig4) and it has been held that the recitation that an element is capable of performing a function (e.g., “…allow DC bias resonance…”) is not a positive limitation, but only requires the ability to perform said function (In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138).
With regards to claim 6, Ensher and Takeuchi together disclose the photonic molecule of claim 1. Ensher and Takeuchi do not explicitly state that the first piezoelectric actuator allows radio frequency modulation of the first ring resonator, the second piezoelectric actuator allows radiofrequency modulation of the second ring resonator, and the first piezoelectric actuator allows radiofrequency modulation of the third ring resonator but does disclose a plurality of individual piezoelectric actuators (Fig4) and it has been held that the recitation that an element is capable of performing a function (e.g., “…allows radio frequency modulation…”) is not a positive limitation, but only requires the ability to perform said function (In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138).
With regards to claims 7 and 8, Ensher and Takeuchi together disclose the photonic molecule of claim 6. Ensher and Takeuchi do not explicitly state that there is a fixed phase relationship between the modulation of the first ring resonator, the second ring resonator, and the third ring resonator. However, the limitations "…wherein there is a fixed phase relationship between the modulation of the first ring resonator, the second ring resonator, and the third ring resonator…" and "…wherein the fixed phase relationship is an around 120 degree phase shift between each pair of ring resonators…" are intended uses of the photonic molecule. It has been held that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)); that 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 of the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)); and that if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). See MPEP § 2111.02, II and MPEP § 2114, II.
With regards to claim 11, Ensher and Takeuchi together disclose the photonic molecule of claim 1. Ensher and Takeuchi do not explicitly recite that a radiofrequency (RF) modulation can be applied to all three piezoelectric actuators to produce a modulation of the ring resonators that is decoupled from physical dimensions of each ring resonator, but it has been held that the recitation that an element is capable of performing a function (e.g., “…can be applied…”) is not a positive limitation, but only requires the ability to perform said function (In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138).
With regards to claim 19, Ensher discloses a self-isolating laser, the self-isolating laser comprising:
a laser source (Fig4/Laser source [Output of element 12]) connected to a first port on a first waveguide (Fig4/Element 38; Paragraph 33/ First waveguide [“…primary path…”]), the first waveguide comprising the first port and a second port (Fig4/First port and second port [Input and output of element 38 respectively]);
a first ring resonator (Ensher/Fig4/First ring resonator 27) optically coupled to the first waveguide (Fig4), wherein the first ring resonator is tunable by a first piezoelectric actuator (Column 6/Lines 30-32; Fig 4 [Portion of MRR completely beneath element 27]), and wherein a center of the first ring resonator is offset from an inner surface of the first piezoelectric actuator (Fig4); Column 6/Lines 30-32/ “…on the surface of the MRR…” [Vertical offset]);
a second ring resonator (Fig4/Second ring resonator 25) optically coupled to a second waveguide (Fig4/Element 38; Paragraph 33/Second waveguide [reference path), wherein the second ring resonator is tunable by a second piezoelectric actuator (Column 6/Lines 30-32; Fig 4 [Portion of MRR completely beneath element 25]), and wherein a center of the second ring resonator is offset from an inner surface of the second piezoelectric actuator (Fig4; Column 6/Lines 30-32/ “…on the surface of the MRR…” [Vertical offset]); and
a third ring resonator (Fig4/Third ring resonator 30) optically coupled to a third waveguide (Fig4/Third waveguide 12), wherein the third ring resonator is tunable by a third piezoelectric actuator (Column 6/Lines 30-32; Fig 4 [Portion of MRR completely beneath element 30]), and wherein a center of the third ring resonator is offset from an inner surface of the third piezoelectric actuator (Fig4; Column 6/Lines 30-32/ “…on the surface of the MRR…” [Vertical offset]);
wherein the third ring resonator is optically coupled to the first ring resonator and the second ring resonator, wherein the second ring resonator is optically coupled to the first ring resonator and the first ring resonator, and wherein the first ring resonator is optically coupled to the second ring resonator and the third ring (Fig4).
Ensher is silent regarding the first, second, and third ring resonators and the first, second, and third piezoelectric actuator as being respectively separated by first, second and third cladding layers. However, the practice of configuring a waveguiding layer and piezoelectric actuator such that the two are separated by a layer of cladding exists in the art as exemplified by Takeuchi.
Ensher and Takeuchi are considered to be analogous in the field of optical devices. Ensher disclose a device comprising three optical ring resonators each vertically coupled to a respective piezoelectric actuator. Takeuchi discloses a waveguiding layer and respective piezoelectric actuator as being separated by a cladding layer (Takeuchi/Fig9/Waveguiding layer 12, cladding layer 11, and piezoelectric actuator 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the laser of Ensher such that ring resonators and piezoelectric actuator are separated by cladding as suggested by Takeuchi since doing so would facilitate reduction of light loss within the resonators.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ensher (US 12278461 B1) and Takeuchi (US 20080056311 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Strandjord (US 9459101 B1).
With regards to claim 3, Ensher and Takeuchi together disclose the photonic molecule of claim 1 wherein at least one of the piezoelectric actuators is a stress-optic actuator (Ensher/Fig4; Column 6/Lines 27-32), but is silent regarding said piezoelectric actuator being made of lead zirconate titanate. However, the practice of selecting lead zirconate titanate as a piezoelectric material exists in the art as exemplified by Strandjord.
Ensher, Takeuchi, and Strandjord are considered to be analogous in the field of optical resonator devices. Ensher and Takeuchi disclose a piezoelectric stress-optic actuator. Strandjord discloses the use of lead zirconate titanate as a piezoelectric material (Strandjord/Column 3/Lines 28-33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select lead zirconate titanate as the piezoelectric material of the stress-optic actuator disclosed by Ensher and Takeuchi as suggested by Strandjord since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 4 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ensher (US 12278461 B1) and Takeuchi (US 20080056311 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 19 above respectively, in further view of Paolella (US 20170363858 A1).
With regards to claim 4, Ensher and Takeuchi together disclose the photonic molecule of claim 1, but do not teach the first, second, and third ring resonators as being positioned at a regular spacing of 120 degrees. However, the practice of configuring a photonic molecule such that three ring resonators are positioned at a regular spacing of 120 degrees exists in the art as exemplified by Paoella.
Ensher, Takeuchi, and Paoella are considered to be analogous in the field of photonic molecules. Ensher and Takeuchi together disclose three ring resonators in optical communication with one another. Paoella discloses three ring resonators positioned at a regular spacing of 120 degrees (Paoella/Fig1/Ring resonators 35 and 36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to Configure the photonic molecule of Ensher and Takeuchi such that the three ring resonators positioned at a regular spacing of 120 degrees as suggested by Paoella since doing so would allow every individual ring resonator within the set to optically communicate with any other individual ring resonator within the set without intermediately communication with another ring resonator within the set.
With regards to claim 20, Ensher and Takeuchi together disclose the self-isolating laser of claim 19. Ensher and Takeuchi are silent regarding whether or not the first ring resonator, second ring resonator, and third ring resonator are modulated by a radiofrequency. However, the practice of modulating resonators via radiofrequency exists in the art as exemplified by Paolella.
Ensher, Takeuchi, and Paolella are considered to be analogous in the field of optical resonator devices. Ensher and Takeuchi disclose three ring resonators that can be modulated. Paolella teaches three ring resonators (Paolella/Fig1/Ring resonators 35-36) that are modulated via radiofrequency inputs (Paolella/Fig1; Paragraph 21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the ring resonators of Ensher and Takeuchi to be modulated by a radiofrequency as suggested by Paolella since doing so would facilitate precise control over the activity of the resonators.
Ensher, Takeuchi, and Paoella do net explicitly state that there is a fixed phase relationship between the modulation of the first ring resonator, the second ring resonator, and the third ring resonator. However, the limitations "…there is a fixed phase relationship between the modulation of the first ring resonator, the second ring resonator, and the third ring resonator…" and "…wherein the fixed phase relationship is an around 120 degree phase shift between each pair of ring resonators…" are intended uses of a device. It has been held that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)); that 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 of the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)); and that if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). See MPEP § 2111.02, II and MPEP § 2114, II.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ensher (US 12278461 B1) and Takeuchi (US 20080056311 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Lu (US 20100085573 A1).
With regards to claim 9, Ensher and Takeuchi together disclose the photonic molecule of claim 1. Ensher and Takeuchi are silent regarding the resonators having a Q greater than around 8 million. However, the practice of forming optical resonators to have a Q greater than around 8 million exits in the art as exemplified by Lu.
Ensher, Takeuchi, and Lu are considered to be analogous in the field of optical ring resonator devices. Ensher and Takeuchi disclose a plurality of optical ring resonators. Lu discloses an optical resonator with a Q greater than around 8 million (Lu/Fig2; Paragraph 18). 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 ring resonators of Ensher and Takeuchi such that they had Q values greater around 8 million as suggested by Lu since doing so would reduce light losses in the resonators.
Claims 12, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ensher (US 12278461 B1) in view of Takeuchi (US 20080056311 A1) and Baehr-Jones (US 20170149508 A1).
With regards to claim 12, Ensher discloses a non-magnetic waveguide integrated optical isolator and circulator, the optical isolator circulator comprising:
a set of ring resonators (Ensher/Fig4/Ring resonators 25, 27, and 30), wherein each ring resonator from the set of ring resonators is optically coupled to a waveguide (Fig4/Element 38; Paragraph 33/ First waveguide [“…primary path…”]) and each ring resonator is optically coupled to at least two other ring resonators from the set of ring resonators (Fig4), and wherein the set of ring resonators comprises at least a first ring resonator, a second ring resonator, and a third ring resonator (Ensher/Fig4/First, second, and third ring resonators 27, 25, and 30 respectively);
a set of piezoelectric actuators, wherein each ring resonator in the set of ring resonators corresponds to a piezoelectric actuator from the set of piezoelectric actuators on a one-to-on basis, and wherein the set of piezoelectric actuators is configured to tune each of the ring resonators from the set of ring resonators independently (Column 6/Lines 30-32; Fig 4 [Portions of MRR completely beneath elements 25, 27, and 30 respectively]), and wherein a center of each of the set of ring resonators is offset from an inner surface of each of the set of piezoelectric actuators (Fig4; Column 6/Lines 30-32/ “…on the surface of the MRR…” [Vertical offset]).
Ensher is silent regarding each of the set of ring resonators and each of the set of piezoelectric actuators being separated by a cladding layer and regarding a signal source configured to provide a modulating radio frequency input to each piezoelectric actuator in the set of piezoelectric actuators such that a first piezoelectric actuator receives a first modulating radio frequency input, the second piezoelectric actuator receives a second modulating radio frequency input, and the third piezoelectric actuator receives a third modulating radio frequency input. However, the above practices both exist in the art as exemplified by Takeuchi and Baehr-Jones respectively.
Ensher and Takeuchi are considered to be analogous in the field of optical circuits. Ensher disclose a photonic molecule comprising three optical ring resonators each vertically coupled to a respective piezoelectric actuator. Takeuchi discloses a waveguiding layer and respective piezoelectric actuator as being separated by a cladding layer (Takeuchi/Fig9/Waveguiding layer 12, cladding layer 11, and piezoelectric actuator 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the photonic molecule of Ensher such that ring resonators and piezoelectric actuator are separated by cladding since doing so would facilitate reduction of light loss within the resonators.
Ensher, Takeuchi and Baehr-Jones are considered to be analogous in the field of optical circuits. Ensher and Takeuchi disclose a set of piezoelectric actuators. Baehr-Jones discloses a signal source configured to provide a modulating radio frequency input to a set of piezoelectric actuators such that individual piezoelectric actuators amongst the set receive respective modulating radio frequency inputs (Baehr-Jones/Paragraph 39/Lines 1-3). 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 electrical signal source of Ensher and Takeuchi such that it was configured to provide a modulating radio frequency input to each piezoelectric actuator in the set of piezoelectric actuators such that a first piezoelectric actuator receives a first modulating radio frequency input, the second piezoelectric actuator receives a second modulating radio frequency input, and the third piezoelectric actuator receives a third modulating radio frequency input as suggested by Baehr-Jones since doing so would facilitate precise control over the activity of the actuators.
Ensher, Takeuchi and Baehr-Jones do not explicitly teach that a second modulating radio frequency input is offset from a first modulating radio frequency input by a first amount, a third modulating radio frequency input is offset from the first modulating radio frequency by a second amount, and the second amount is around double the first amount or that the first amount is equal to around 360 degrees divided by a total number of ring resonators in the set of ring resonators. However, the limitations “…wherein the second modulating radio frequency input is offset from the first modulating radio frequency input by a first amount, the third modulating radio frequency input is offset from the first modulating radio frequency by a second amount, and the second amount is around double the first amount; and wherein the first amount is equal to 360 degrees divided by a total number of ring resonators in the set of ring resonators…” are an intended use of the optical isolator circulator. It has been held that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)); that 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 of the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)); and that if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). See MPEP § 2111.02, II and MPEP § 2114, II.
With regards to claim 14, Ensher, Takeuchi and Baehr-Jones together disclose the optical isolator of claim 12. Ensher, Takeuchi and Baehr-Jones do not explicitly recite that each of the ring resonators is configured to be DC bias resonance tuned but does disclose a plurality of individual ring resonators coupled to piezoelectric actuators (Fig5b) and it has been held that the recitation that an element is capable of performing a function (e.g., “…configured to be DC bias resonance tuned…”) is not a positive limitation, but only requires the ability to perform said function (In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138).
With regards to claim 18, Ensher, Takeuchi and Baehr-Jones together disclose the optical isolator of claim 12, wherein the first waveguide, the first ring resonator, the second ring resonator, the third ring resonator, and the second waveguide are mounted in a fully planar platform (Ensher/Fig4).
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ensher (US 12278461 B1), Takeuchi (US 20080056311 A1) and Baehr-Jones (US 20170149508 A1) as applied to claim 12 above, in further view of Paolella (US 20170363858 A1).
With regards to claim 13, Ensher, Takeuchi and Baehr-Jones together disclose the optical isolator of claim 12, but are silent regarding the ring resonators being positioned at a degree from each other, and wherein the degree is equal to 360 degrees divided by the total number of ring resonators in the set of ring resonators. However, the practice of configuring a set of ring resonators such that individual ring resonators are positioned at a regular spacing equal to around 360 degrees divided by the total number of ring resonators in the set of ring resonators exists in the art as exemplified by Paoella.
Ensher, Takeuchi, Baehr-Jones, and Paoella are considered to be analogous in the field of optical circuits. Ensher, Takeuchi, and Baehr-Jones together disclose three ring resonators in optical communication with one another. Paoella discloses three ring resonators positioned a degree from each other, and wherein the degree is equal to 360 degrees divided by the total number of ring resonators in the set of ring resonators (Paoella/Fig1/Ring resonators 35, and 36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to Configure the photonic molecule of Ensher and Takeuchi such that the three ring resonators positioned a degree from each other wherein the degree is equal to 360 degrees divided by the total number of ring resonators in the set of ring resonators as suggested by Paoella since doing so would allow every individual ring resonator within the set to optically communicate with any other individual ring resonator within the set without intermediately communication with another ring resonator within the set.
With regards to claim 16, Ensher, Takeuchi and Baehr-Jones together disclose the optical isolator of claim 12, but are silent regarding the first, second, and third ring resonators are positioned at a regular spacing of around 120 degrees. However, the practice of configuring an optical isolator such that three ring resonators are positioned at a regular spacing of 120 degrees exists in the art as exemplified by Paoella.
Ensher, Takeuchi, Baehr-Jones, and Paoella are considered to be analogous in the field of photonic molecules. Ensher and Takeuchi together disclose three ring resonators in optical communication with one another. Paoella discloses three ring resonators positioned at a regular spacing of 120 degrees (Paoella/Fig1/Ring resonators 35 and 36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the photonic molecule of Ensher and Takeuchi such that the three ring resonators positioned at a regular spacing of 120 degrees as suggested by Paoella since doing so would allow every individual ring resonator within the set to optically communicate with any other individual ring resonator within the set without intermediately communication with another ring resonator within the set.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ensher (US 12278461 B1), Takeuchi (US 20080056311 A1), and Baehr-Jones (US 20170149508 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, in further view of Strandjord (US 9459101 B1).
With regards to claim 15, Ensher, Takeuchi, and Baehr-Jones together disclose the optical isolator of claim 14, but is silent regarding the piezoelectric actuators being made of lead zirconate titanate. However, the practice of selecting lead zirconate titanate as a piezoelectric material exists in the art as exemplified by Strandjord.
Ensher, Takeuchi, Baehr-Jones, and Strandjord are considered to be analogous in the field of optical resonator devices. Ensher, Takeuchi, and Baehr-Jones disclose a set of piezoelectric actuators. Strandjord discloses the use of lead zirconate titanate as a piezoelectric material (Strandjord/Column 3/Lines 28-33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select lead zirconate titanate as the piezoelectric material of the actuators disclosed by Ensher, Takeuchi, and Baehr-Jones as suggested by Strandjord since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ensher (US 12278461 B1), Takeuchi (US 20080056311 A1) and Baehr-Jones (US 20170149508 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, in further view of Paolella (US 20170363858 A1).
With regards to claim 17, Ensher, Takeuchi and Baehr-Jones together disclose together disclose the optical isolator of claim 14, but are silent regarding whether or not the ring resonators are modulated by radiofrequency. However, the practice of modulating resonators via radiofrequency exists in the art as exemplified by Paolella.
Ensher, Takeuchi, Baehr-Jones, and Paolella are considered to be analogous in the field of optical resonator devices. Ensher, Takeuchi and Baehr-Jones disclose three ring resonators that can be modulated. Paolella teaches three ring resonators (Paolella/Fig1/Ring resonators 35-36) that are modulated via radiofrequency inputs (Paolella/Fig1; Paragraph 21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the ring resonators of Ensher, Takeuchi, and Baehr-Jones to be modulated by a radiofrequency as suggested by Paolella since doing so would facilitate precise control over the activity of the resonators.
Ensher, Takeuchi, Baehr-Jones, and Paolella do not specifically state that a modulation of the ring resonators is decoupled from physical dimensions of each ring resonator, However, the limitations “…modulation of the ring resonators is decoupled from physical dimensions of each ring resonator…” are an intended use of the device. It has been held that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)); that 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 of the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)); and that if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). See MPEP § 2111.02, II and MPEP § 2114, II.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is 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.
With regards to claim 10, The prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest the photonic molecule of claim 1, wherein each of the ring resonators are equally spaced from each other, and wherein the spacing between each waveguide and each ring resonator is a same amount in addition to the accompanying features of the independent claim. The instant claim 1 establishes that certain components are connected or coupled to one another, (I.E; “…a first ring resonator optically coupled to a first waveguide…”) but by itself does not limit the placement of said components within the claimed device beyond the components existing within the same system. As such, the limitations of claim 10 relating to spacing provide boundaries that narrow the scope of the structure of claim 1 to a degree where the device is not reasonably suggested by the closest prior art (relied upon in the rejection set forth above).
Examiner’s note: Examiner notes that elements of the content of claim 10 could be of particular relevance to the allowability independent claims 12 and 19 for similar reasons to those discussed above.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc E Manheim whose telephone number is (703)756-1873. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30am - 5pm E.T., Monday - Tuesday and Thursday - Friday.
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, Thomas A Hollweg can be reached at (571) 270-1739. 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.
/MARC E MANHEIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights