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
The office acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s Amendments, remarks, arguments received on 06/22/2026. Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 6. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “substantially” in claim 1 line 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The height in the claim has been rendered indefinite by the use of the term “substantially”.
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 1,4,5,8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Rusu et al.(US 2022/0283387) in view of Cheng(US 6,219,481).
Considering Claim 2 Rusu discloses an optical transmitter in which a chip to which a signal is applied is mounted on a subcarrier on which a transmission line is formed(See Paragraph 36,45, fig. 1a, 3j i.e.an optical transmitter(300-10) in which a chip(322) to which a signal is applied is mounted on a subcarrier(310) on which a transmission line(321) is formed) the optical transmitter comprising: a carrier on which an optical component of a spatial optical system sharing an optical axis with the chip and the subcarrier are mounted(See Paragraph 42,45, fig. 3j i.e. a carrier(305) on which an optical component(328) of a spatial optical system sharing an optical axis with the chip(322) and the subcarrier(310) are mounted); and a ground block that is inserted between the carrier and the subcarrier and allows electrical conduction between the carrier and the subcarrier(See Paragraph 42, fig. 3i i.e. a ground block(309) that is inserted between the carrier(305) and the subcarrier(312) and allows electrical conduction between the carrier(305) and the subcarrier(310)), an optical axis of a waveguide of the chip at substantially a same height as an optical axis of the optical component relative to the carrier(See Paragraph 44, fig. 1a, 3J i.e. an optical axis of a waveguide(321) of the chip(322) at substantially a same height as an optical axis of the optical component(321) relative to the carrier(305)).
Rusu does not explicitly disclose wherein the ground block has a selected thickness.
Cheng teaches wherein the ground block has a selected thickness to achieve optimal coupling(See Col. 3lines 57-62, Col. 4 lines 1-12, Col. 5 lines 7-9, Fig. 3,4 i.e. wherein the ground block which is carrier substrate(34b of fig. 3 or 54b of fig. 4) has a selected thickness to achieve optimal coupling).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Rusu, and the ground block to have a selected thickness, as taught by Cheng, thus improving transmission signal quality by optimizing coupling efficiency between input and output waveguides by selecting the thickness of the substrate, a discussed by Cheng(Col. 2 lines 13-16, Col. 3 lines 57-62).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rusu et al.(US 2022/0283387) in view of Cheng(US 6,219,481) further in view of Sugiyama(US 2012/0114340).
Considering Claim 3 Rusu and Cheng do not explicitly disclose the optical transmitter according to claim 1, wherein the transmission line is a microstrip line or a grounded-coplanar line.
Sugiyama teaches the optical transmitter according to claim 1, wherein the transmission line is a microstrip line or a grounded-coplanar line(See abstract, Paragraph 36, Claims 2-4, fig. 1 i.e. wherein the transmission line is a microstrip line(MSL)(12)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Rusu and Cheng, and have the transmission line to be a microstrip line or a grounded-coplanar line, as taught by Wen, thus providing an efficient transmission system by increasing transmission speed using microstrip line.
Claims 4,5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Rusu et al.(US 2022/0283387) in view of Cheng(US 6,219,481) further in view of in view of Wen et al.(WO 2020/220054 A2).
Considering Claim 4 Rusu and Cheng disclose the optical transmitter according to claim 1, wherein the chip is an electro-absorption modulator integrated with a laser, a Mach-Zehnder interferometer type optical modulator, or a directly modulated laser(See Rusu, Paragraph 30, fig. 1a i.e. the chip(122) is a Mach-Zehnder interferometer type optical modulator).
Rusu and Cheng do not explicitly disclose the laser is a DFB laser.
Wen teaches the laser is a DFB laser(See Paragraph 56, fig. 1 i.e. the laser is a DFB laser integrated with electro-absorption modulator(414), the modulator can also be an MZM modulator ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Rusu and Cheng, and have the laser to be a DFB laser, as taught by Wen, thus improving transmission signal by optimizing stability and tunability using a distributed feedback (DFB) laser.
Considering Claim 5 Rusu, Cheng and Wen disclose the optical transmitter according to claim 4, wherein baud rates of modulation signals of the electro-absorption modulator integrated with a DFB laser and the Mach-Zehnder interferometer type optical modulator are 50 Gbaud or more(See Wen: Paragraph 56,69, fig. 4 i.e. wherein baud rates of modulation signals of the electro-absorption modulator(414) integrated with a DFB laser(Paragraph 56) and the Mach-Zehnder interferometer type optical modulator(414) are 50 Gbaud or more(53.2 Gboud rate(see Table 1, Paragraph 69))).
Claims 6,9,10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rusu et al.(US 2022/0283387) in view of Cheng(US 6,219,481) further in view of Mochida et al.(US 2010/0133582).
Considering Claim 6 Rusu and Cheng do not explicitly disclose the optical transmitter according to claim 1, wherein an InP substrate is used for the chip, and the subcarrier is made of aluminum nitride and has a thickness of 250 μm or less.
Mochida teaches the optical transmitter according to claim 1, wherein an InP substrate is used for the chip, and the subcarrier is made of aluminum nitride and has a thickness of 250 μm or less(See Paragraph 34,52,113, fig. 1 i.e. wherein an InP substrate(10) is used for the chip(40), and the subcarrier is made of aluminum nitride and has a thickness of 250 μm or less(4nm-20nm)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Rusu and Cheng, and have an InP substrate to be used for the chip, and the subcarrier to be made of aluminum nitride and has a thickness of 250 μm or less, as taught by Mochida, thus improving transmission signal by reducing deterioration using aluminum nitride, as discussed by Mochida (Paragraph 8).
Claim 9 is rejected for the same reason as in claim 6.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rusu et al.(US 2022/0283387) in view of Cheng(US 6,219,481) further in view of Sugiyama(US 2012/0114340) further in view of in view of Wen et al.(WO 2020/220054 A2).
Considering Claim 8 Rusu, Cheng and Sugiyama disclose the optical transmitter according to claim 3, wherein the chip is an electro-absorption modulator integrated with a laser, a Mach-Zehnder interferometer type optical modulator, or a directly modulated laser(See Rusu, Paragraph 30, fig. 1a i.e. the chip(122) is a Mach-Zehnder interferometer type optical modulator).
Rusu, Cheng and Sugiyama do not explicitly disclose the laser is a DFB laser.
Wen teaches the laser is a DFB laser(See Paragraph 56, fig. 1 i.e. the laser is a DFB laser integrated with electro-absorption modulator(414), the modulator can also be an MZM modulator ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Rusu, Cheng and Sugiyama, and have the laser to be a DFB laser, as taught by Wen, thus improving transmission signal by optimizing stability and tunability using a distributed feedback (DFB) laser.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rusu et al.(US 2022/0283387) in view of Cheng(US 6,219,481) further in view of Sugiyama(US 2012/0114340) further in view of in view of Mochida et al.(US 2010/0133582).
Considering Claim 10 Rusu, Cheng and Sugiyama do not explicitly disclose the optical transmitter according to claim 3, wherein an InP substrate is used for the chip, and the subcarrier is made of aluminum nitride and has a thickness of 250 μm or less.
Mochida teaches the optical transmitter according to claim 3, wherein an InP substrate is used for the chip, and the subcarrier is made of aluminum nitride and has a thickness of 250 μm or less(See Paragraph 34,52,113, fig. 1 i.e. wherein an InP substrate(10) is used for the chip(40), and the subcarrier is made of aluminum nitride and has a thickness of 250 μm or less(4nm-20nm)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Rusu, Cheng and Sugiyama, and have an InP substrate to be used for the chip, and the subcarrier to be made of aluminum nitride and has a thickness of 250 μm or less, as taught by Mochida, thus improving transmission signal by reducing deterioration using aluminum nitride, as discussed by Mochida (Paragraph 8).
Claims 11,12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Rusu et al.(US 2022/0283387) in view of Cheng(US 6,219,481) further in view of Wen et al.(WO 2020/220054 A2) further in view of Mochida et al.(US 2010/0133582).
Considering Claim 11 Rusu, Cheng and Wen do not explicitly disclose the optical transmitter according to claim 4, wherein an InP substrate is used for the chip, and the subcarrier is made of aluminum nitride and has a thickness of 250 μm or less.
Mochida teaches the optical transmitter according to claim 4, wherein an InP substrate is used for the chip, and the subcarrier is made of aluminum nitride and has a thickness of 250 μm or less(See Paragraph 34,52,113, fig. 1 i.e. wherein an InP substrate(10) is used for the chip(40), and the subcarrier is made of aluminum nitride and has a thickness of 250 μm or less(4nm-20nm)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Rusu, Cheng and Wen, and have an InP substrate to be used for the chip, and the subcarrier to be made of aluminum nitride and has a thickness of 250 μm or less, as taught by Mochida, thus improving transmission signal by reducing deterioration using aluminum nitride, as discussed by Mochida (Paragraph 8).
Considering Claim 12 Rusu, Cheng and Wen do not explicitly disclose the optical transmitter according to claim 5, wherein an InP substrate is used for the chip, and the subcarrier is made of aluminum nitride and has a thickness of 250 μm or less.
Mochida teaches the optical transmitter according to claim 5, wherein an InP substrate is used for the chip, and the subcarrier is made of aluminum nitride and has a thickness of 250 μm or less(See Paragraph 34,52,113, fig. 1 i.e. wherein an InP substrate(10) is used for the chip(40), and the subcarrier is made of aluminum nitride and has a thickness of 250 μm or less(4nm-20nm)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Rusu, Cheng and Wen, and have an InP substrate to be used for the chip, and the subcarrier to be made of aluminum nitride and has a thickness of 250 μm or less, as taught by Mochida, thus improving transmission signal by reducing deterioration using aluminum nitride, as discussed by Mochida (Paragraph 8).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 HIBRET A WOLDEKIDAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5145. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, DAVID C PAYNE can be reached at (571)272-3024. 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.
/HIBRET A WOLDEKIDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
