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 .
Detailed Action.
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-7) and species A claims in response/amendment submitted on is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that that the examiner has not specified why there are different species and that the search and the examination of the entire application can be made without serious burden. This is not found persuasive because as clearly shown in figs. 1 and related figures it is different MZI system than that if Fig. 5A and its related figure having different exclusive characteristics that are detailed in th specification. And that there is a significant burden for both restriction and species requirement. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by Applicant(s) in the information Disclosure Statement(s) have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copy of form(s) PTO-1449).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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.
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 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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Idjadi”; et. al. US 20240329488 A1.
Regarding claims 1, Idjadi teaches a spectral alignment system (see figs. 12-13 and all figs. 1-15 and summary), comprising:
a ring assisted Mach-Zehnder Interferometer (RAMZI) (clearly shown in at least fig. 12) comprising
a Mach-Zehnder Interferometer (MZI) 122 and a ring resonator 124; a drop port operatively coupled to the ring resonator (clearly shown in at least fig. 12),
PNG
media_image1.png
258
545
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
162
542
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the drop port is configured to capture an optical signal (Eout0) indicative of an output power spectrum of the ring resonator 124 (clearly shown in at least fig. 12); and a control circuit 138/136 operatively coupled to the drop port and the RAMZI (clearly shown in at least fig. 12 and at least abstract, parag. 0014),
wherein the control circuit is configured to tune the RAMZI for spectral alignment between the MZI and the ring resonator based on at least the optical signal (see figs 1-14 and at least abstract and summary).
However, though Idjadi teaches the spectrum analysis of the tunable (MZI/RAMZI), see at least figs. 1-4 and parag. 0042-0047), does not explicitly state such analysis as “spectrum alignment”. Though it is arguable that such limitation is inherent as the optical tuning of the spectrum measurement for example as shown in fig. 2-3 is aligning/tuning of the spectrum to a desired output signal, nonetheless, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to tune/align the spectrum output of the MZI/RAMZI based on the received signal to lower frequency noise through frequency noise discrimination (i.e., see fig. 6 parag. 0030).
The statements advanced in rejection of claim 1, above, as to the applicability and disclosure of Idjadi and the motivation are incorporated herein in rejection of the following claims as follows:
2. The spectral alignment system of Claim 1, further comprising: a photodetector operatively coupled to the drop port, wherein the photodetector is configured to transmute the optical signal into an electrical signal (see figs. 4-12 and abstract). .
3. The spectral alignment system of Claim 2, wherein the control circuit is further configured to tune the RAMZI for spectral alignment between the MZI and the ring resonator based on at least the electrical signal (shown in at least figs. 1-4; see at least abstract/summary).
With regard to claim 4, ‘wherein the control circuit is further configured to: determine distinct minimums in the output power spectrum of the ring resonator based on the electrical signal, wherein the distinct minimums correspond to resonant wavelengths associated with the ring resonator; and tune the RAMZI based on at least the distinct minimums’, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the spectrum analyzer of Idjadi to measure/obtain the distinct minimums correspond to resonant wavelengths, see figs. 6-15 showing some minimal wavelength points of MZI and tune the RAMZI to a lower noise with a desired output signal.
With regard to claim 5, ‘wherein the spectral alignment between the MZI and the ring resonator is achieved in an instance in which the distinct minimums align with destructive interference points in an output power spectrum of the MZ’ it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the spectrum analyzer of Idjadi to measure/obtain destructive interference points in an output power spectrum of the MZ, i.e., see figs. 6-15 showing some minimal wavelength points of MZI and tune the RAMZI to a desired signal to noise ratio (par. 0077).
6. The spectral alignment system of Claim 2, wherein the photodetector is an on-chip photodetector (see parag. 0022, 0010).
With regard to claim 7, ‘wherein the drop port has a coupling ratio of around 3% of a total optical power circulating within the ring resonator’, Idjadi states that a small portion of optical power was tapped in drop port of the resonator (see parag. 0071), and thus it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. In accordance with MPEP 707.05 the following references are pertinent in rejection of this application since they provide substantially the same information disclosure as this patent does. These references are:
US 11630369 B2
US 20190049757 A1
US 20240348341 A1
US 20210281048 A1
US 20240329488 A1
US 20240006847 A1
US 20250279141 A1
US 20210203132 A1
US 20220069829 A1
US 20180136400 A1
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAVEH C KIANNI whose telephone number is (571)272-2417. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-19.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Hollweg can be reached on571-270-1739. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAVEH C KIANNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights