DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to the amendment filed 3/1/2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
Election/Restrictions
In the response from applicant on the restriction requirement on 2/5/2026, applicant agrees to withdraw inventions of group 2 (claims 13-15) and elects group 1 (claims 1-12). Hence Claims 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/1/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, cited terms of “…to modulate the wave at ω1….” (line 6) and “…to combine the two optical waves….” (line 8-9) are indefinite and lack antecedent, as nowhere in claim 1 specifies “a wave at ω1” and “an optical wave/optical waves”.
Further, cited term of “a wavelength division multiplexer (WDM MUX) adapted to combine the two optical waves at ω1 and ω2” (line 8-9) is vague and renders the claim indefinite. Claim cites two laser waves, wave at ω1 (line 4) and modulated wave at ω1 (line 6-7). It is unclear that in claim, which one of the two laser waves of ω1 is used to combine the two optical waves. According to instant disclosure, see fig. 1, appears that the claim term should be “a wavelength division multiplexer (WDM MUX) adapted to combine the modulated wave at ω1 and the optical wave ω2”.
More, cited term of “…having a modulation efficiency comparable to a modulation efficiency of the wave at ω1” (line 13-14) is vague and renders the claim indefinite. The term of “comparable” does not define a range/scope of a modulation efficiency. It is not defined in instant specification disclosure and does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, further one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2-12 are rejected as containing the deficiencies of claim 1 through their dependency from claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, cited terms of “…the input laser source ….” (line 1) is indefinite and lack antecedent. Claim 11 depends on claim 1, but nowhere in claim 1 or claim 11 cites “an input laser source”.
Therefore proper amendments are required in order to clarify the scopes of the claims and overcome the rejections.
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 of this title, 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 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giguere, “Difference frequency generation makes tunable mid-IR lasers possible”; SPIE News, 24 October 2013.
Regarding Claim 1, Giguere teaches an electro-optic modulator device (fig. 2; page 1, line 33 –page 2, line 10), comprising:
a device platform adapted to functionally support at least one of the following components (fig. 2, “optical” section):
an input propagation path for a first laser at frequency, ω1 (fig. 2, pulse generator –Programmable Laser);
an input propagation path for a second laser at frequency, ω2 (fig. 2, pulse generator –MOPA);
(page 1, line 33 –page 2, line 10, Our SL system (see Figure 2) consists of two fiber-based laser sources. the first source isa picosecond programmable laser (PL) whose emitted wavelength can be tuned continuously….; The second part of the SL is composed of a picosecond master oscillator power amplifier (MOPA) electronically synchronized to the PL),
an electro-optic modulator (EOM) adapted to modulate the wave at ω1 via an input control signal (page 1, line 33 –page 2, line 10, The main features of the PL come from the combination of a dispersive element inside the laser cavity and an electro-optic modulator (EOM) acting as an active mode-locker. Since the laser cavity length is different for each wavelength, fast tuning is achieved by changing the driving frequency of the EOM);
a wavelength division multiplexer (WDM MUX) adapted to combine the two optical waves at ω1 and ω2 (fig. 2, WDM -- Wavelength division multiplexer);
a difference frequency generator (DFG) adapted to down-convert the combined waves at ω1 and ω2 to a wave at a third frequency, ωs, where ωs = |ω1–ω2|, further wherein ωs is less than ω2 and ω1 (fig. 2, DFG Crystal; page 2, line 10-22. We have demonstrated a widely tunable mid-IR source using a PL based on a tunable thulium-doped silica fiber (1905–1990nm) (-- ω1 around 154100 GHz) along with a MOPA based on erbium-doped silica fiber (1530–1585nm) (--ω2 around 192200 GHz). The resulting source is tunable from 6.62μm up to 9.43μm (--ωs around 38100 GHz));
whereby an output from the device at ωs is a modulated signal (page 2, line 15-22, a widely tunable mid-IR source using a PL).
But Giguere does not specifically disclose that wherein ωs having a modulation efficiency comparable to a modulation efficiency of the wave at ω1. (Note: this portion has 112 issue, see above).
However, Giguere teaches that “AGSE provided fairly good efficiency (>10mW)”; and “we used OP-GaAs: a quasi-phase-matching crystal. We found it had the best conversion efficiency (>40mW)” (page 2, line 17-31). Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Giguere to have ωs having a modulation efficiency comparable to a modulation efficiency of the wave at ω1, for a purpose of fast tunability of the programmable laser and to rapidly tune the laser frequency over a specified range in either a sequential or arbitrary manner (page 3, line 8-13).
Further, claim portion of “wherein ωs having a modulation efficiency comparable to a modulation efficiency of the wave at ω1” is of a functional claim. In product and apparatus claims –when the structure and composition recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, see MPEP § 2112.01. As the structure and materials provided by Giguere are same to that recited in the claim, then it is expected that the function of modulation efficiency provided by Giguere has same results as claimed. Since where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)).
Regarding Claim 2, Giguere teaches the electro-optic modulator device of claim 1, further comprising a wavelength division demultiplexer (WDM DEMUX) adapted to separate two launched inputs at ω1 and ω2 into the input propagation path for the first laser at frequency, ω1, and the input propagation path for the second laser at frequency, ω2, respectively (fig. 2, WDM -- Wavelength division multiplexer).
Regarding Claim 3, Giguere teaches the electro-optic modulator device of claim 1, wherein the device platform is one of a lithium niobate (LiNbO3), lithium tantalate (LiTaO3), potassium niobate (KNbO3), III-V semiconductors (AlN, GaN, GaP, GaAs, AlGaAs, InP), barium titanate (BaTiO3), electro-optic polymer, silicon, or a composite medium formed by integrating one of these materials with a dielectric material such as silicon nitride or silicon dioxide (fig. 2, “optical” section; page 2, line 15-31, a PL based on a tunable thulium-doped silica fiber; a MOPA based on erbium-doped silica fiber).
Regarding Claim 4, Giguere teaches the electro-optic modulator device of claim 1, wherein the EOM is made from the device platform material (page 1, line 33 –page 2, line 10, The main features of the PL come from the combination of a dispersive element inside the laser cavity and an electro-optic modulator (EOM) acting as an active mode-locker; ---the electro-optic modulator (EOM) can be made from material of silica, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 146).
Regarding Claim 5, Giguere teaches the electro-optic modulator device of claim 1, wherein the DFG is one of a DFG nonlinear waveguide and a DFG nonlinear microresonator (fig. 2, DFG Crystal and Focusing Lenses; page 2, line 10-14, combining two high-peak-power lasers (red, blue) into a nonlinear DFG crystal…).
Regarding Claim 6, Giguere teaches the electro-optic modulator device of claim 5, further comprising an input laser source for ω1 and ω2 integrally disposed on the device platform (fig. 2, “optical” section; pulse generator –Programmable Laser; pulse generator –MOPA).
Regarding Claim 8, Giguere teaches the electro-optic modulator device of claim 6, wherein the DFG device is physically disposed in the laser cavity (fig. 2, DFG Crystal; --- the DFG can be in the laser cavity, since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Claims 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giguere, “Difference frequency generation makes tunable mid-IR lasers possible”; SPIE News, 24 October 2013, in a view of Mehuys et al (US 5537432).
Regarding Claim 7, Giguere discloses as set forth above and further teaches that the electro-optic modulator device of claim 6, wherein the input laser source comprises: a first laser operating at frequency ω1, a second laser operating at frequency ω2 (page 1, line 33 –page 2, line 10, Our SL system (see Figure 2) consists of two fiber-based laser sources; page 3, line 1-7, combining an ytterbium-doped fiber laser (1030–1090nm) with one that is erbium-doped (1530–1585nm) within a periodically poled lithium niobate crystal), a phase shifter, and optical amplifiers (fig. 2, MOPA; page 2, line 1-9, a dispersive element inside the laser cavity; a picosecond master oscillator power amplifier (MOPA); SL is electronically controlled; phase dithering; wavelength tuning).
But Giguere does not specifically disclose that wherein lasers formed by an external cavity on the device platform and a III-V gain element, an electro-optically or thermo-optically tunable distributed Bragg reflector (DBR), an electro-optic or thermo-optic phase shifter and a III-V reflective semiconductor optical amplifier (RSOA) having a gain spectrum.
However, Mehuys et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a semiconductor laser (abstract; figs. 1-12), wherein lasers formed by an external cavity on the device platform and a III-V gain element, an electro-optically or thermo-optically tunable distributed Bragg reflector (DBR), an electro-optic or thermo-optic phase shifter and a III-V reflective semiconductor optical amplifier (RSOA) having a gain spectrum (col. 6, line 1-25, several possible amplifier chip embodiments for use in the external-cavity configuration; light amplifying diode heterostructures; light amplifying chips; such as GaAs/AlGaAs, InGaAs/AlGaAs, InP/lnGaAsP and the like, could be used; col. 12, line 60-65, by using a single quantum well strained layer InGaAs/InAlGaAs laser; col. 11, line 8-67, electro-optic birefringent modulator can be placed in external cavities for wavelength tuning; ensures high power, single spatial mode outputs as the frequency is tuned or modulated; Frequency selective feedback is provided by a Bragg grating reflector 228 integrated into the optical fiber 222; the grating could also be tuned; col. 12, line 1-5, a volume hologram 231 fabricated to act as a Bragg reflector element; col. 16, line 10-21, This fine adjustment may be accomplished using independent current or voltage contacts on the amplifier chip 322 to vary the phase of light propagating therein, adjusting the phase with electro-optic phase modulators).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Giguere by the semiconductor laser of Mehuys for a purpose to provide a high power, external cavity, semiconductor laser with a stable, single frequency (wavelength), narrow linewidth light output (col. 2, line 51-54).
Regarding Claim 12, Giguere – Mehuys combination teaches that the electro-optic modulator device of claim 7, wherein the input laser source is heterogeneously integrated on a surface of the device platform (col. 6, line 1-10, FIGS. 3-12 are light amplifying diode heterostructures with their front and rear facets suitably coated to prevent self-oscillation, as disclosed in Mehuys).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giguere, “Difference frequency generation makes tunable mid-IR lasers possible”; SPIE News, 24 October 2013. In a view of Hawkins, II et al (US 5050948).
Regarding Claim 9, Giguere discloses as set forth above but does not specifically disclose that the electro-optic modulator device of claim 6, wherein the EOM is a push-pull phase modulator.
However, Hawkins, II in the same field of endeavor teaches an electro-optic device (abstract; figs. 1-5), wherein the EOM is a push-pull phase modulator (col. 3, line 1-30, a push-pull electro-optic modulator; The electric field that must interact with the optical modes propagating in the waveguide branches of a push-pull electro-optic modulator in order to induce a 180° phase difference…).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Giguere by the electro-optic device of Hawkins, II for a purpose of that allows electro-optic modulators to be realized with both high characteristic impedance and improved electro-optic interaction (col. 5, line 63-68).
Regarding Claim 10, Giguere - Hawkins, II combination teaches that the electro-optic modulator device of claim 6, wherein the DBR is push-pull modulated DBR structure (col. 3, line 1-30, a push-pull electro-optic modulator; The electric field that must interact with the optical modes propagating in the waveguide branches of a push-pull electro-optic modulator in order to induce a 180° phase difference, as disclosed in Hawkins, II).
Claim11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giguere, “Difference frequency generation makes tunable mid-IR lasers possible”; SPIE News, 24 October 2013; in a view of Zheng et al (US 9780528).
Regarding Claim 11, Giguere discloses as set forth above but does not specifically disclose that the electro-optic modulator device of claim 1, wherein the input laser source is edge-coupled to the device platform.
However, Zheng in the same field of endeavor teaches a tunable laser (abstract; fig. 2), wherein the input laser source is edge-coupled to the device platform (fig. 2A_B, 219, 202, 204; 200; col. 5, line 39-48, The input of this modified demultiplexer is connected through an input waveguide 219 to an RSOA 204 located on a separate III-V gain chip 202, which is connected (e.g., via edge or surface-normal coupling) to the SOI chip 210 that includes the other components of tunable laser 200).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Giguere by the tunable laser of Zheng for a purpose of fast wavelength tuning (col. 4, line 56-64).
Examiner’s Note
Regarding the references, the Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the reference(s), as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the reference(s) or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Jie Lei whose telephone number is (571) 272 7231. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Thurs. 8:00 am to 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by the telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Thomas Pham can be reached on (571) 272 3689.The Fax number for the organization where this application 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 application 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 Services Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199(In USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/JIE LEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights