CTNF 18/716,474 CTNF 84479 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 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. 07-34-03 AIA The term “ high ” in claim 1 lines 1and 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ high ” 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 frequency in the claim has been rendered indefinite by the use of the term “high” . Similarly in claim 3, the term “high” in line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” 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 frequency in the claim has been rendered indefinite by the use of the term “high” . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim 1,3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 ( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Hirayama(US 2020/0333639) . Considering Claim 1 Hirayama discloses an optical transmitter in which a chip to which a high frequency signal is applied is mounted on a subcarrier on which a high frequency wire is formed (See Paragraph 4,43,111, fig. 27 i.e. an optical transmitter(high-speed optical communication) in which a chip(laser chip)(EML chip)(31 of fig. 27) to which a high frequency signal is applied is mounted on a subcarrier(39g,39e of fig. 27) on which a high frequency wire(41 of fig. 27) 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 60,111,fig. 3,27 i.e. a carrier(39a,c,d,f of fig. 27) on which an optical component(33 of fig. 3)(via optical chip(31)) of a spatial optical system sharing an optical axis with the chip(31 of fig. 3) and the subcarrier(42 of fig. 27) 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 96,111,112,fig. 27 i.e. a ground block(39) that is inserted between the carrier(39a,c,d,f) and the subcarrier(39g,39e) and allows electrical conduction between the carrier(39a,c,d,f) and the subcarrier(39g,39e) via inductance(34,35)) . Considering Claim 3 Hirayama discloses the optical transmitter according to claim 1, wherein the high frequency wire is a microstrip line or a grounded-coplanar line (See fig. 66, fig. 3,4 i.e. wherein the high frequency wire is a microstrip line or a grounded-coplanar line(coplaner line 32b) ) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4,5,8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirayama(US 2020/0333639) in view of Wen et al.(WO 2020/220054 A2). Considering Claim 4 Hirayama discloses 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 fig. 66, fig. 3 i.e. the chip(31) is an electro-absorption modulator integrated with a laser(EML)) . Hirayama does 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 Hirayama, 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 Hirayama 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))) . Considering Claim 8 Hirayama discloses 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 fig. 66, fig. 3 i.e. the chip(31) is an electro-absorption modulator integrated with a laser(EML)) . Hirayama does 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 Hirayama, 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 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6,10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirayama(US 2020/0333639) in view of Mochida et al.(US 2010/0133582) . Considering Claim 6 Hirayama does 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 Hirayama, 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 10 Hirayama does 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 Hirayama, 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) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 11,12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirayama(US 2020/0333639) in view of Wen et al.(WO 2020/220054 A2) further in view of Mochida et al.(US 2010/0133582). Considering Claim 11 Hirayama 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 Hirayama 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 Hirayama 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 Hirayama 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 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 Application/Control Number: 18/716,474 Page 2 Art Unit: 2635 Application/Control Number: 18/716,474 Page 3 Art Unit: 2635 Application/Control Number: 18/716,474 Page 4 Art Unit: 2635 Application/Control Number: 18/716,474 Page 5 Art Unit: 2635 Application/Control Number: 18/716,474 Page 6 Art Unit: 2635 Application/Control Number: 18/716,474 Page 7 Art Unit: 2635 Application/Control Number: 18/716,474 Page 8 Art Unit: 2635
Prosecution Insights