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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/7/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to claim 1, Applicant argues Marandi et al. fails to disclose the claimed invention, as resonator 600 is a main resonator that is a part of the OPO. More specifically, Applicant argues Marandi et al. fails to disclose “at least one of a source for the pump, an external injection locking input, or an auxiliary resonator coupled to the OPO.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Marandi et al. discloses an OPO with a main resonator 600 for receiving a pump signal, and a source for the pump signal. This is sufficient to anticipate the claim. That is, the claim does not require an auxiliary resonator coupled to the OPO, as the auxiliary resonator is recited in the alternative with a source and an external injection locking input.
In response to claim 27, Applicant states Marandi et al. fails to disclose “at least one of a tuning circuit or a mode-locking circuit coupled to the OPO operable to tune or mode-lock the pump, wherein the tuning circuit or the mode-locking circuit comprises a gain medium for the pump.” Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
For these reasons, Applicant’s arguments filed 4/7/26 are unpersuasive. This Action is Final.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 18, 23, 26, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marandi et al. (US 2020/0285131 A1).
Re. Claim 1, Marandi et al. discloses a device, comprising: a photonic integrated circuit comprising: an optical parametric oscillator (OPO) comprising a main resonator 600 and outputting at least one of a signal or an idler 102 in response to a pump 100 (Fig. 6; [0091]-[0092]); and at least one of a source for the pump, an external injection locking input, or an auxiliary resonator coupled to the OPO, more specifically a source for the pump 100 ([0115] and [0177]).
Re. Claim 2, Marandi et al. discloses the photonic integrated circuit further comprises an edge coupler 612 , a grating coupler, or an evanescent coupler positioned to couple the source to the OPO (Fig. 6; [0093]).
Re. Claim 3, Marandi et al. discloses the source comprises a gain medium and/or a cavity to form a laser comprising the gain medium ([0115] and [0177]).
Re. Claim 18, Marandi et al. discloses the OPO comprises the main resonator 600 coupled to at least one parametric gain region 602 and the actuators comprise: one or more electro-optic modulators 608 coupled to at least one of the main resonator 600, the at least one parametric gain region 602, or the auxiliary resonator and actuatable to tune a gain and/or frequency of oscillation of pump, the signal, and/or the idler in the resonators, or a heater thermally coupled to the parametric gain region so that heat output is actuatable to tune a gain and/or center frequency of at least one of the pump, the idler, or the signal outputted from the parametric gain region (Fig. 6; [0091]).
Re. Claim 23, Marandi et al. discloses a waveguide 612 coupling the gain medium 602 to an input of the OPO, wherein the waveguide is configured to match a mode of the pump with a mode of the OPO (Fig. 6; [0090]-[0091] and [0093]).
Re. Claim 26, Marandi et al. discloses the circuit further comprises at least one nonlinear section designed for up and/or down conversion of the signal, and/or the idler, through second-harmonic generation, and/or sum-frequency generation or difference-frequency generation, which can involve the pump or an auxiliary input to the circuit for the up and/or down conversion (Fig. 6; [0091]-[0092]).
Re. Claim 27, Marandi et al. discloses a device, comprising: a photonic integrated circuit comprising: an optical parametric oscillator (OPO) comprising a main resonator 600 coupled to a parametric gain region 602 outputting a signal and an idler 102 in response to a pump 100 using a parametric nonlinear process (Fig. 6; [0090]-[0092]); and at least one of a tuning circuit or a mode-locking circuit coupled to the OPO operable to tune or mode-lock the pump, wherein the tuning circuit or the mode-locking circuit comprises a gain medium for the pump ([0115] and [0177]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-17, 19-22, and 24-25 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.
Re. Claims 4-10, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed invention, specifically wherein at least a portion of the laser cavity is in the photonic integrated circuit coupled to the gain medium, including a configuration in which the laser cavity is positioned to receive feedback from the photonic integrated circuit into the laser cavity.
Re. Claims 11-13, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed invention, specifically wherein: the photonic integrated circuit comprises an auxiliary nonlinear region coupled between an output of the OPO and the gain medium, and the auxiliary nonlinear region is configured to up convert a frequency of the signal and/or the idler to form feedback outputted to the gain medium and/or the laser cavity.
Re. Claim 14, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed invention, specifically wherein the auxiliary resonator is coupled in the photonic integrated circuit so as to at least: tune a frequency of the pump, filter the frequency of the pump, or self-injection lock the pump of the OPO.
Re. Claim 15, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed invention, specifically wherein the auxiliary resonator is: resonant at a wavelength of the pump and is coupled to an additional parametric gain region or shares a parametric gain region with the OPO, or tuned to filter or modulate a frequency of the modes in the OPO.
Re. Claim 16, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed invention, specifically wherein the auxiliary resonator comprises: a pump resonator pumped by the pump and having at least some overlapping modes with the main OPO resonator so that at least some of the overlapping modes are enhanced and recycled in the pump resonator; and an electro-optical modulator coupled to the pump resonator for locking the modes of the pump resonator to the modes of the pump.
Re. Claim 17, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed invention, specifically wherein the auxiliary resonator is configured in the photonic integrated circuit so as to at least: tune a frequency of at least one of the signal or the idler, filter the frequency, or self-injection lock at least one of the signal or the idler to the OPO.
Re. Claim 19, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed invention, further comprising one or more of the external injection locking inputs positioned to couple a seed signal configured for injection locking the signal and/or the idler.
Re. Claim 20, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed invention, specifically wherein the photonic integrated circuit further comprises additional OPOs and a switch for switching the pump to different ones of the OPOs.
Re. Claim 21, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed invention, and further comprising a plurality of the auxiliary resonators configurable to control a frequency of the signal and/or idler in a range such that the OPO can be operated free of mode-hops.
Re. Claim 22, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed invention, specifically wherein the OPO resonator is coupled to one or more of the auxiliary resonators having a different free spectral range, such that a combination of the modes of the main resonator and the auxiliary resonators selects a single mode or a set of modes that oscillate in the main resonators.
Re. Claims 24-25, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed invention, specifically comprising a plurality of the OPOs comprising parametric gain regions with different spectral responses.
The most applicable prior art, Marandi et al. (US 2020/0285131 A1), addressed
above, fails to disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed invention, specifically those
portions highlighted above in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to R. PEACE whose telephone number is (571)272-8580. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 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.
/RHONDA S PEACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 5/3/26
Prosecution Insights