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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-15, and 17-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,2,6,7,5,4,13,1,2,6,1,7,5,22,23,27, and 30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,973,539 B2 to Fathololoumi et al. (‘539) Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are anticipated by the ‘539 patent.
Claims 1-8 and 10-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,2,3,5,6,7,10,11,1,2,3,4,5,6, and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,015,446 B2 to Fathololoumi et al (‘446). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are anticipated by the ‘446 patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7-10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0208473 A1 to Jackel et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Jackel discloses an optical transceiver (Fig. 4, 1400), comprising:
a plurality of lasers including a first laser and a second laser (Fig. 4, 1st laser (1410) and 2nd laser (1411));
multiplexer circuitry (Fig. 4, beam combiner (1440)); and
switching circuitry coupled between the plurality of lasers and the multiplexer circuitry (Fig. 4, switch (1415) between lasers (1410 and 1411) and mux (1440)),
wherein the switching circuitry is to couple an output of the first laser to the multiplexer circuitry or an output of the second laser to the multiplexer circuitry (Fig. 4, switch (1415) selects output of lasers (1410 and 1411); ¶ 335.)
Regarding Claim 7, Jackel discloses a photodetector (¶ 298, fiber is tapped for detectors.)
Regarding Claim 8, Jackel discloses a fiber optic cable connector (¶ 340, elements connected with optical fiber connections.)
Regarding Claim 9, Jackel discloses wherein the optical transceiver is co-packaged with a plurality of other optical transceivers (¶ 282, lasers are aggregated into arrays.)
Regarding Claim 10, Jackel discloses an optical transceiver (Fig. 4, 1400), comprising:
a first laser (Fig. 4, 1st laser (1410));
a second laser (Fig. 4, 2nd laser (1411));
modulator circuitry (Fig. 4, modulators (1450)); and
switching circuitry to couple an output of the first laser to the modulator circuitry or an output of the second laser to the modulator circuitry (Fig. 4, switch (1415) selects between lasers.)
Regarding Claim 13, Jackel discloses wherein the modulator includes multiplexer circuitry (Fig. 4, beam combiner (1440)).
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.
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2020/0249395 A1 to Pezeshki et al. and United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0208473 A1 to Jackel et al.
Regarding Claim 17, Pezeshki discloses an integrated circuit device, comprising:
a die (Fig. 4A, all sources are integrated on same die; ¶ 38), comprising:
an optical output path (Fig. 4A, output path at right), and
switch circuitry, comprising one or more multiplexers, to couple an output of a first laser, an output of a second laser, an output of a third laser, an output of a fourth laser to the optical output path (Fig. 4A, circuitry controlling lasers, waveguides, and splitters couple the signal from the lasers to the output on the right.)
Pezeshki does not expressly disclose the switching circuitry couples one of the lasers to the output.
Jackel discloses a system where a switch couples one of the laser outputs to the optical output path.
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the switch disclosed by Jackel in place of the coupler used by Pezeshki. The proposed modification represents the simple substitution one component for another that performs the same function with predictable results.
Jackel and Pezeshki are from the same art with respect to optical communication, and are therefore analogous art.
Regarding Claim 18, Pezeshki discloses wherein the output path is a first optical output path, the switching circuitry is first switching circuitry (Fig. 4C, 1st output path at right and 1st switching circuitry), and the die further includes:
a second optical output path (Fig. 4C, 2nd output path at right); and
second switching circuitry, to couple the output of the third laser to the second optical output path or the output of the fourth laser to the second optical output path (Fig. 4C, 2nd switching circuitry for 3rd and 4th lasers).
Claim(s) 2,5,11, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0208473 A1 to Jackel et al. and United States Patent Application Publication 2020/0249395 A1 to Pezeshki et al.
Regarding Claim 2, Jackel does not expressly disclose wherein the first laser includes indium and phosphorous.
Pezeshki discloses wherein the first laser includes indium and phosphorous (¶ 38.)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a first laser including indium and phosphorous (as disclosed by Pezeshki) in the system disclosed by Jackel. The proposed modification represents the simple substitution one component for another that performs the same function with predictable results.
Jackel and Pezeshki are from the same art with respect to optical communication, and are therefore analogous art.
Regarding Claim 5, Jackel does not expressly disclose wherein the switching circuitry includes multiple switches.
Pezeshki discloses a system where a 4x4 device is realized as a cascade of 1x2 devices (Fig. 4H.)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a cascade of 1X2 devices as disclosed by Pezeshki in the system disclosed by Jackel. The suggestion/motivation would have been to use smaller count components where port-to-port uniformity is easier the realize.
Regarding Claim 11, Jackel does not expressly disclose wherein the first laser includes indium and phosphorous.
Pezeshki discloses wherein the first laser includes indium and phosphorous (¶ 38.)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a first laser including indium and phosphorous (as disclosed by Pezeshki) in the system disclosed by Jackel. The proposed modification represents the simple substitution one component for another that performs the same function with predictable results.
Regarding Claim 15, Jackel does not expressly disclose wherein the switching circuitry includes multiple switches.
Pezeshki discloses a system where a 4x4 device is realized as a cascade of 1x2 devices (Fig. 4H.)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a cascade of 1X2 devices as disclosed by Pezeshki in the system disclosed by Jackel. The suggestion/motivation would have been to use smaller count components where port-to-port uniformity is easier the realize.
Claim(s) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0208473 A1 to Jackel et al. and United States Patent Application Publication 2018/0294621 A1 to Schrans et al.
Regarding Claim 3, Jackel does not expressly disclose wherein the switching circuitry is to couple the output of the first laser to the multiplexer circuitry and, upon detection of a power of the first laser being below a threshold, to couple the output to the second laser to the multiplexer circuitry.
Schrans discloses wherein the switching circuitry is to couple the output of the first laser to the multiplexer circuitry and, upon detection of a power of the first laser being below a threshold, to couple the output to the second laser to the multiplexer circuitry (Fig. 2, ¶ 30, monitor photodiode is used in bias current setting loop detects failure, upon failure the other lasers are activated.)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to use wherein the switching circuitry to couple the output of the first laser to the multiplexer circuitry and, upon detection of a power of the first laser being below a threshold, to couple the output to the second laser to the multiplexer circuitry (as disclosed by Schrans) in the system disclosed by Jackel. The suggestion/motivation would have been to allow the system to overcome a laser failure or degradation.
Jackel and Schrans are from the same art with respect to optical communications are therefore analogous art.
Regarding Claim 12, Jackel does not expressly disclose wherein the switching circuitry is to couple the output of the first laser to the multiplexer circuitry and, upon detection of a power of the first laser being below a threshold, to couple the output to the second laser to the multiplexer circuitry.
Schrans discloses wherein the switching circuitry is to couple the output of the first laser to the multiplexer circuitry and, upon detection of a power of the first laser being below a threshold, to couple the output to the second laser to the multiplexer circuitry (Fig. 2, ¶ 30, monitor photodiode is used in bias current setting loop detects failure, upon failure the other lasers are activated.)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to use wherein the switching circuitry to couple the output of the first laser to the multiplexer circuitry and, upon detection of a power of the first laser being below a threshold, to couple the output to the second laser to the multiplexer circuitry (as disclosed by Schrans) in the system disclosed by Jackel. The suggestion/motivation would have been to allow the system to overcome a laser failure or degradation.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2020/0249395 A1 to Pezeshki et al. and United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0208473 A1 to Jackel et al., and United States Patent Application Publication 2018/0294621 A1 to Schrans et al.
Regarding Claim 19, Jackel does not expressly disclose wherein the switching circuitry is to couple the output of the first laser to the multiplexer circuitry and, upon detection of a power of the first laser being below a threshold, to couple the output to the second laser to the multiplexer circuitry.
Schrans discloses wherein the switching circuitry is to couple the output of the first laser to the multiplexer circuitry and, upon detection of a power of the first laser being below a threshold, to couple the output to the second laser to the multiplexer circuitry (Fig. 2, ¶ 30, monitor photodiode is used in bias current setting loop detects failure, upon failure the other lasers are activated.)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to use wherein the switching circuitry to couple the output of the first laser to the multiplexer circuitry and, upon detection of a power of the first laser being below a threshold, to couple the output to the second laser to the multiplexer circuitry (as disclosed by Schrans) in the system disclosed by Jackel. The suggestion/motivation would have been to allow the system to overcome a laser failure or degradation.
Jackel, Pezeshki, and Schrans are from the same art with respect to optical communication, and are therefore analogous art.
Regarding Claim 20, Jackel does not expressly disclose wherein the switching circuitry is to couple the output of the first laser to the multiplexer circuitry and, upon detection of a power of the first laser being below a threshold, to couple the output to the second laser to the multiplexer circuitry.
Schrans discloses wherein the switching circuitry is to couple the output of the first laser to the multiplexer circuitry and, upon detection of a power of the first laser being below a threshold, to couple the output to the second laser to the multiplexer circuitry (Fig. 2, ¶ 30, monitor photodiode is used in bias current setting loop detects failure, upon failure the other lasers are activated.)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to use wherein the switching circuitry to couple the output of the first laser to the multiplexer circuitry and, upon detection of a power of the first laser being below a threshold, to couple the output to the second laser to the multiplexer circuitry (as disclosed by Schrans) in the system disclosed by Jackel. The suggestion/motivation would have been to allow the system to overcome a laser failure or degradation.
Jackel, Pezeshki, and Schrans are from the same art with respect to optical communication, and are therefore analogous art.
Claim(s) 4,6, 14, and 16 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0208473 A1 to Jackel et al. and United States Patent Application Publication 2019/0205285 A1 to Nagarajan et al.
Regarding Claim 4, Jackel does not expressly disclose wherein the switching circuitry includes a Mach-Zehnder switch.
Nagarajan discloses wherein the switching circuitry includes a MZ switch (Fig. 10, MZ switch.)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to use an MZ switch in place of the switch disclosed by Jackel. The suggestion/motivation would have been to use a solid-state switch with fast switching time.
Jackel and Nagarajan are from the same art with respect to optical communication, and are therefore analogous art.
Regarding Claim 6, Jackel does not expressly disclose wherein the first laser is a hybrid silicon laser.
Nagarajan discloses wherein the first laser is a hybrid silicon laser (Fig. 2A, ¶¶ 46-48, laser with silicon layer and type III-V active layer.)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a hybrid silicon laser (as disclosed by Nagarajan) in the system disclosed by Jackel. The proposed modification represents the simple substitution of one component for another component that performs the same function with predictable results.
Jackel and Nagarajan are from the same art with respect to optical communication, and are therefore analogous art.
Regarding Claim 14, Jackel does not expressly disclose wherein the switching circuitry includes a Mach-Zehnder switch.
Nagarajan discloses wherein the switching circuitry includes a MZ switch (Fig. 10, MZ switch.)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to use an MZ switch in place of the switch disclosed by Jackel. The suggestion/motivation would have been to use a solid-state switch with fast switching time.
Jackel and Nagarajan are from the same art with respect to optical communication, and are therefore analogous art.
Regarding Claim 6, Jackel does not expressly disclose wherein the first laser is a hybrid silicon laser.
Nagarajan discloses wherein the first laser is a hybrid silicon laser (Fig. 2A, ¶¶ 46-48, laser with silicon layer and type III-V active layer.)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a hybrid silicon laser (as disclosed by Nagarajan) in the system disclosed by Jackel. The proposed modification represents the simple substitution of one component for another component that performs the same function with predictable results.
Jackel and Nagarajan are from the same art with respect to optical communication, and are therefore analogous art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL G DOBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9781. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Kenneth Vanderpuye can be reached at 5712723078. 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.
/DANIEL G DOBSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634
02/07/2026