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 . By preliminary amendment claims 1, 6, and 8 are amended. Claims 1-13 are pending.
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 1-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2006/0209911 (“Takabayashi”).
Regarding claim 1, Takabayashi discloses in Fig. 1, discussion starting [0057]:
A variable-wavelength laser comprising:
a gain region and a wavelength control region alternately arranged along a propagation direction of light;
a diffraction grating arranged in each of the gain region and the wavelength control region;
The laser has alternatively arranged a gain region under 3A, see 1A, a wavelength control region under 3B, see 1B, and a grating 2 arranged in each region.
and a region located at least one of an end of the gain region and an end of the wavelength control region in a boundary between the gain region and the wavelength control region, the region being without the diffraction grating;
Figs. 9 and 10 further show there may be a boundary region between the regions, i.e. located at an end of the gain and wavelength control regions, without a diffraction grating. [0129], [0136]-[0149].
wherein a length of the region without the diffraction grating is 5% or more and 30% or less of a length of the gain region or the wavelength control region to which the region belongs.
Takabayashi does not explicitly describe that the length of the region without the grating is 5%-30% of the length of the gain region or wavelength control region to which it belongs.
First, it is stated that the length of the boundary region, the region without the grating, may be set by adding an integral multiple of the average of the period of the gratings it is between to a value within 10% of that average value. [0141]-[0142]. An exemplary value is given as around 240 + 240N nm, where N is an integer. Elsewhere we learn that the length of one gain or wavelength control region may be 30 microns. [0116]. At first blush these values would not meet the claim, but there is no limit given as to what the integer in the integer multiple may be. If Takabayashi wanted to limit its disclosure it could have; for example it could have said to choose 1 or 2 or 3 as the integer. But it did not do so, it left the choice open to the designer. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that different integer multiples may be chosen to arrive at different lengths, as instructed by the reference. Essentially what we have here is an overlapping of ranges, and when the claimed range lies within the prior art range a prima facie case of obviousness is made. MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 2, the boundary regions are apparently at each boundary, thus more than 70% of them.
Regarding claim 3, the boundary regions are at a most end of the gain region or the wavelength control region.
Regarding claims 4-5, the particular length of the region without the diffraction grating as compared to the other regions could have been modified to these particular values for the same reasons as discussed above re: claim 1.
Regarding claims 6-8, in the seventh embodiment of Takabayashi, Fig. 21, [0243]-[0250], the laser is used in a WDM communication system, and output goes to a SOA (i.e. meeting claim 8 if parent claim 6 was met). There is not shown an optical modulator as in claim 6 or a VOA as in claim 7. The examiner takes Official Notice that such elements are well known basic building blocks in a communications system. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a modulator as it is used to encode data on the laser beam for the communication, and it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a VOA as it permits more fine control of the output power that will be transmitted, and a person of ordinary skill could have included such elements at whatever appropriate location within the system as needed.
Regarding claim 9, a refractive index of the wavelength control region is controlled by current injection. [0057].
Regarding claims 11-12, the boundary regions are intended to be at each boundary, thus at both ends of any one or both of the gain and wavelength control regions.
Regarding claim 13, the point of the boundary regions is to be between the gain regions and wavelength control regions. So, the boundary region will be at both ends, between these regions, at all of the interfaces in the middle of the device. However, there would not be a boundary region at the very ends of the device. So, the end most gain region would not have a boundary region (for example, in Fig. 1, where the arrowhead of reference number 1 points at the device). So here, the region without the diffraction grating is arranged only at one end of any one of the gain region and wavelength control region, on only the left side of this end most gain region.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takabayashi in view of US 2011/0292955 (“Kaneko”).
Regarding claim 10, as above Takabayashi controls the refractive index of the wavelength control region by current injection, not by a heater. Kaneko shows a similar type of laser and teaches that the refractive index in certain regions may be controlled by using a heater. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a heater as it is an alternative known manner in the art of changing refractive index, and this can be considered the substitution of one known element or technique for another yielding predictable results. MPEP 2143 I.B. The base device is known as in Takabayashi, but the use of a heater to control refractive index is not shown. This is shown in Kaneko. A person of ordinary skill could have implemented this manner of control and the result would have been predictable because we are, generally, doing the same thing—controlling the refractive index of particular areas—it is just done in a different way. But since the ultimate result is the same, the result of the modification would have been predictable.
Conclusion
Kaneko is also similar to claim 1, a variable-wavelength laser having gain regions and wavelength control regions, each having a grating, and regions with no grating between the gratings.
JP 2007-258592 is generally similar, a variable-wavelength laser having gain regions and wavelength control regions, each having a grating. This differs in that instead of spaces between the gratings it uses different gratings in the regions.
JP 2013-93416 is generally similar, a variable-wavelength laser having gain regions and wavelength control regions, each having a grating. Phase shift region 20 is between all the regions and may be considered a region without a grating.
US 2008/0037608 (Fig. 3) looks superficially similar, as it is a laser having multiple grating sections having a space in the grating at the ends of the sections, but they are all gain regions, there is no wavelength control region.
US 2009/0310630 is very generally similar, but has no regions without a grating.
US 2010/0272133 is very generally similar, but the wavelength control regions do not have any grating.
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
Prosecution Insights