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 Statement filed on November 30, 2023 have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copy of form PTO-1449).
Drawings
Five (5) sheets of drawings were filed on November 30, 3023 and have been accepted by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I, Species I-A in the reply filed on July 29, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Restriction Requirement fails to:
identify different search queries that would be required for each alleged invention,
explain why prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention, or
iii) explain why the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues.
The examiner disagrees.
First, the examiner has identified the different structures of Invention I (Claims 1-7), Invention II (Claim 8-14), and Invention III (Claims 15-20) by referring to the different devices, different Figures, and different classification areas for each of the devices. The different and divergent search queries necessarily arise from different and divergent classifications and the different structural features illustrated in the Figures and described in the restriction requirement. The examiner notes that Applicant has presented three independent claims directed to the different inventions, Inventions I, II, and III, and has not indicated that these inventions are obvious variants or known alternatives to one another.
Second, the illustrated and identified structural differences between Inventions I, II, and III, and their corresponding species, would not necessarily be taught by references that applied to other Inventions and/or Species identified due to the mutually exclusive structural arrangements. Merely having some elements in common does not mean that the overall structure and/or function is the same or similar enough to be covered by same prior art or same search queries. It would be impossible to outline the specific search queries and prior art that is applicable to one Invention and/or Species and not applicable to another without citing prior art found during a search, and the search is not performed prior to the mailing of a restriction requirement. In fact, the examiner is allotted one hour of time to determine if a restriction requirement is applicable and to issue the restriction requirement. It would be impossible to outline a thorough search and pinpoint prior art references to provide examples in the allotted time.
Third, the different Figures pointed to and different structural features identified for the three inventios and species thereof identify the differences that are likely to raise different prior art issues and to require different search strategies. The examiner is unsure what Applicant means by “non-prior art issues.”
Thus, the restriction requirement meets the requirements set forth in the MPEP as written.
Applicant also argues that the claims overlap significantly.
If applicant is traversing on the grounds that the inventions and/or species are not patentably distinct, then Applicant should clearly admit on the record that the inventions are obvious variants as explained on pages 4-5 of the restriction requirement mailed June 2, 2026. If such an admission is made and the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over prior art, then the admission may be used in a 35 U.S.C. rejection and a further and different and/or divergent search would not be required. Applicant has not made such an admission at this time.
For the above reasons, Applicant’s traversal arguments are not found persuasive because.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 4 and 7-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on July 29, 2026.
Inventorship
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pezeshki et al. (US 2020/0249395 A1), hereafter Pezeshki, in view of Sun et al. (US 2019/0089461 A1), hereafter Sun.
Regarding claims 1-3 and 6; Pezeshki et al. discloses a laser redundancy device (see Figure 3A) comprising:
a plurality of lasers (light sources 315a-h, lasers; see paragraph 38 and Figure 3A) disposed on a common substrate (chip 325); and
a planar lightwave circuit (PLC) (PLC 319, wherein Figure 4L illustrates a possible PIC layout for use in the device of Figures 3A and 3B; see paragraphs 18, 44, and 59) that includes a plurality of input waveguides (input waveguides; see annotated Figure 4L below), a plurality of first couplers (493a, 493b), a plurality of intermediate waveguides (intermediate waveguides; see annotated Figure 4L below), a second coupler (second coupler, 495; see annotated Figure 4L below), and a plurality of output waveguides (output waveguides; see annotated Figure 4L below), wherein:
each first coupler (493a, 493b), of the plurality of first couplers, includes a plurality of first input arms (each coupler includes two input arts formed by input waveguides at an input side of the couplers) and a plurality of first output arms (each coupler includes two output arms coupled to the intermediate waveguides),
the second coupler (495), includes a plurality of second input arms (four input arms coupled to the intermediate waveguides at an input side of the coupler) and a plurality of second output arms (output arts of 495 coupled to output waveguides),
each first coupler is connected to:
two or more input waveguides, of the plurality of input waveguides, via the plurality of first input arms of the first coupler (see Figure 4L), and
the second coupler via the plurality of first output arms of the first coupler, two or more intermediate waveguides of the plurality of intermediate waveguides, and respective second input arms of the second coupler, and
the second coupler is connected to two or more output waveguides, of the plurality of output waveguides, via the plurality of second output arms of the second coupler;
wherein:
the plurality of lasers (315 a-h) are configured to couple a plurality of laser beams into the plurality of input waveguides of the PLC (PLC 319; see Figure 3A of Pezeshki); and
the plurality of output waveguides (see Figure 4L annotated below) are configured to provide a plurality of output laser beams,
wherein each output laser beam includes at least a portion of each laser beam of the plurality of laser beams;
further comprising: an optical component (316a-h; lenses) that that includes one or more optical elements that are configured to facilitate the plurality of lasers coupling a plurality of laser beam into the plurality of input waveguides of the PLC;
wherein an output end of the laser redundancy device is configured to connect to an input end of a fiber array (313 a-d).
PNG
media_image1.png
425
821
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The second coupler (495) disclosed by Pezeshki is a 4 x 4 coupler as opposed to two (i.e. a plurality) of 2 x 2 couplers. Pezeshki, therefore, does not disclose a plurality of second couplers. PICs are known that alternatively include a plurality of 2 x 2 input couplers, intermediate waveguides and a plurality of 2 x 2 output couplers (see Figure 10 of Sun which discloses an optical marshalling module PIC arrangement).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to alternatively provide a PLC having a plurality of two 2 x 2 input couplers and intermediate waveguides with a plurality of 2 x 2 output couplers as second couplers in alternative known PIC arrangement for the purpose of obtaining optimized optical coupling outputs for a desired use, since PICs having this alternative arrangement are known in the prior art, as evidenced by Sun, and would not provide an novel or unexpected results, and one of ordinary skill could have combined the elements by known coupling methods with no change in their respective functions to yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record, which is the most relevant prior art known, does not disclose or render obvious the laser redundancy device of claim 1, wherein each coupler of the plurality of first couplers and the plurality of second couplers is configured to have a tunable split ratio in combination with all of the limitations of base claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE R CONNELLY whose telephone number is (571)272-2345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 AM to 5 PM.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at 571-272-2397. 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.
/MICHELLE R CONNELLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights