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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 23rd, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-16 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.
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 recites the limitation “if it is determined that the amount of power used in applying the first biasing condition is excessive, …” The term excessive as used in this claim lacks a definite boundary that would allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine whether a given amount of power is or is not “excessive”, therefore the claim is indefinite. The examiner turned to the specification for clarity, which provides only two alternative descriptions of “excessive” at [0065]: that the power is higher than a threshold value, or that a local temperature of an optical resonant device is outside the allowed temperature range. However, neither the claims or specification provide any objective standard, numerical value, or physical criterion by which a person of ordinary skill in the art could determine what threshold value or what temperature range constitutes the boundary between excessive and non-excessive power. Therefore the specification does not remedy the indefiniteness.
Regarding Claims 2-7, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as incorporating the indefiniteness of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 recites the limitation “if it is determined that the amount of power used in applying the first biasing condition is excessive, …” The term excessive as used in this claim lacks a definite boundary that would allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine whether a given amount of power is or is not “excessive”, therefore the claim is indefinite. The examiner turned to the specification for clarity, which provides only two alternative descriptions of “excessive” at [0065]: that the power is higher than a threshold value, or that a local temperature of an optical resonant device is outside the allowed temperature range. However, neither the claims or specification provide any objective standard, numerical value, or physical criterion by which a person of ordinary skill in the art could determine what threshold value or what temperature range constitutes the boundary between excessive and non-excessive power. Therefore the specification does not remedy the indefiniteness.
Regarding Claims 9-16, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as incorporating the indefiniteness of Claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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)(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.
(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.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zheng et al. (US8204385 B2).
Regarding Claim 17, Zheng et al. expressly discloses a method for controlling a plurality of optical resonant devices (114) (Col. 5, 25-35; Fig. 1A) comprising:
aligning the optical resonant devices to respective wavelengths of a plurality of wavelengths (Col. 6, 14-39; Col. 9, 54-64; Fig. 4)
wherein the aligning comprises mapping a first wavelength of the plurality of wavelengths to a first resonance associated with the plurality of optical resonant devices and mapping a first wavelength of the plurality of wavelengths to a first resonance associated with the plurality of optical resonant devices and mapping a second wavelength of the plurality of wavelengths to a second resonance associated with the plurality of optical resonant devices
wherein the first and second resonances are of different resonant orders (Col. 10, 1-9; Col. 11, 4-25)
Regarding Claim 18, Zheng et al. further discloses the plurality of optical resonant devices comprises micro-ring modulators (Col. 5, 36-61).
Regarding Claim 19, Zheng et al. further discloses the plurality of optical resonant devices comprises resonant add/drop filters (122) (Col. 5, 20-35).
Regarding Claim 20, Zheng et al. further discloses the aligning further comprises shifting the first resonance by an amount equal to a spacing between adjacent wavelengths of the plurality of wavelengths (Col. 9, 38-50, Col. 11, 6-25).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-11, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (US8204385 B2) in view of Knights et al. (US 9831360 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Zheng et al. discloses a method for controlling a plurality of optical resonant devices (114) coupled to a light source (112) configured to emit light at a plurality of wavelengths (Col. 6, 14-39; Col. 9, 54-64; Fig. 4), the method comprising:
applying a first biasing condition (126) to the optical resonant devices resulting in each optical resonant device being aligned to a respective wavelength of the plurality of wavelengths in accordance with a first mapping (Col. 6, 8-45; Fig. 5)
Zheng et al. does not expressly disclose sensing an amount of power used in applying the biasing condition, nor applying a second biasing condition if the power of the first biasing condition is determined to be excessive. Knights et al. teaches a method for aligning optical resonant devices, the method comprising sensing an amount of power used in applying a biasing condition, and applying a second biasing condition if the amount of power is determined to be excessive, resulting in each optical resonant device being aligned to a respective wavelength of the plurality of wavelengths in accordance with a second mapping (Col. 6; Col. 9, 42-57; Fig 6A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the multi-mapping alignment method of Zheng et al. with the power sensing mechanism as taught by Knights et al. as the combination uses known techniques to achieve the predictable result of reduced heater power consumption in a ring modulator type device.
Regarding Claim 2, Zheng et al. further teaches shifting a resonant wavelength associated with a first optical resonant device of the plurality of optical resonant devices by an amount equal to a spacing between adjacent wavelengths of the plurality of wavelengths (Col. 9, 38-50, Col. 11, 6-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to apply the spacing shift taught by Zheng et al. with the application of the second biasing condition taught by the combination of Zheng et al. and Knights et al.
Regarding Claim 3, Zheng et al. further teaches that shifting the resonant wavelength associated with the first optical resonant device comprises varying a current applied to a heater (218) embedded in the first optical resonant device.
Regarding Claim 4, Knights et al. further teaches that determining that the amount of power is excessive comprises determining that the amount of power is higher than a threshold value (Col. 7, 32-45; Claim 16).
Regarding Claim 7, Knights et al. further teaches sensing an amount of power used in applying the second biasing condition and if it is determined that the amount of power used in applying the second biasing condition is excessive, applying a third biasing condition to the optical resonant devices resulting in each optical resonant device being aligned to a respective wavelength of the plurality of wavelengths in accordance with a third mapping (Claim 1; Col. 1, 55-67; Col. 9, 42-57; Fig 6A).
Regarding Claim 8, Zheng et al. teaches an optical system comprising:
a plurality of optical resonant devices (114) optically coupled to a light source (112) configured to emit light at a plurality of wavelengths (Figs. 4-5)
a controller (126) configured to apply a first biasing condition to the optical resonant devices resulting in each optical resonant device being aligned to a respective wavelength of the plurality of wavelengths in accordance with a first mapping (Col. 6, 8-45; Fig. 5; Claim 1)
Zheng et al. does not expressly teach that the controller is configured to sense an amount of power used in applying the first biasing condition nor to apply a second biasing condition in accordance with a second mapping if the power is determined to be excessive. Knights et al. expressly teaches a controller (330) configured to sense an amount of power used in applying the first biasing condition, as well as to apply a second biasing condition to the optical resonant devices resulting in each optical resonant device being aligned to a respective wavelength of the plurality of wavelengths in accordance with a second mapping (Claims 1, 3; Col. 6; Col. 9, 42-57; Fig 6A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the multi-mapping alignment method of Zheng et al. with the power sensing mechanism as taught by Knights et al. as the combination uses known techniques to achieve the predictable result of reduced heater power consumption in a ring modulator type device.
Regarding Claim 9, Zheng et al. further teaches shifting a resonant wavelength associated with a first optical resonant device of the plurality of optical resonant devices by an amount equal to a spacing between adjacent wavelengths of the plurality of wavelengths (Col. 9, 38-50, Col. 11, 6-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to apply the spacing shift taught by Zheng et al. with the application of the second biasing condition taught by the combination of Zheng and Knights et al.
Regarding Claim 10, Zheng et al. further teaches that shifting the resonant wavelength associated with the first optical resonant device comprises varying a current applied to a heater (218) embedded in the first optical resonant device.
Regarding Claim 11, Knights et al. further teaches that determining that the amount of power is excessive comprises determining that the amount of power is higher than a threshold value (Col. 7, 32-45; Claim 16).
Regarding Claim 14, Knights et al. further teaches that the controller (330) is further configured to sense an amount of power used in applying the second biasing condition and if it is determined that the amount of power used in applying the second biasing condition is excessive, applying a third biasing condition to the optical resonant devices resulting in each optical resonant device being aligned to a respective wavelength of the plurality of wavelengths in accordance with a third mapping (Claim 1; Col. 1, 55-67; Col. 9, 42-57; Fig 6A).
Regarding Claim 15, Zheng et al. further teaches a bus waveguide (118) coupling the light source to the plurality of optical resonant devices (Fig. 1; Col. 6, 61-67 & Col. 7, 1-4).
Regarding Claim 16, Zheng et al. further teaches that the optical resonant devices comprise optical ring resonators evanescently coupled to the bus waveguide (118) (Fig. 2; Claim 1).
Claims 5-6, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (US8204385 B2) in view of Knights et al. (US 9831360 B2) and Hayakawa (US20150316794 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Zheng et al. and Knights et al. teach all the limitations of the parent claim. Neither reference expressly teaches that determining that the amount of power is excessive comprises determining that the amount of power is higher than a threshold value. Hayakawa teaches that determining that the amount of power is excessive comprises determining that a local temperature of an optical resonant device is outside an allowed temperature range (paragraph 0094). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to implement the determination of excessive power as taught by Hayakawa into the method of Zheng et al. and Knights et al. as a determination that a local temperature of an optical resonant device is outside an allowed temperature range, as a local temperature exceeding the maximum allowed operating temperature of the optical resonant devices constitutes an unacceptable and reliability-threatening operating condition that warrants selecting a lower-power assignment.
Regarding Claim 6, Zheng et al. and Knights et al. teach all the limitations of the parent claim. Zheng et al. further teaches applying a biasing condition to optical resonant devices using heater elements (218) (Col. 6, 8-28). Neither reference expressly teaches that sensing the amount of power used in applying the first biasing condition comprises sensing a current flowing through a heater. Hayakawa expressly teaches that sensing the amount of power used in applying the first biasing condition comprises sensing a current flowing through a heater (8X/17) (paragraph 0070, 0095). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to implement the method of Hayakawa into the heater elements of the combination of Zheng et al. and Knights et al. as a predictable and efficient procedure of evaluating power consumption of an optical resonant device biasing condition.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Zheng et al. and Knights et al. teach all the limitations of Claim 8. Neither reference expressly teaches that determining that the amount of power is excessive comprises determining that the amount of power is higher than a threshold value. Hayakawa teaches that determining that the amount of power is excessive comprises determining that a local temperature of an optical resonant device is outside an allowed temperature range (paragraph 0094). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to implement the determination of excessive power as taught by Hayakawa into the method of Zheng et al. and Knights et al. as a determination that a local temperature of an optical resonant device is outside an allowed temperature range, as a local temperature exceeding the maximum allowed operating temperature of the optical resonant devices constitutes an unacceptable and reliability-threatening operating condition that warrants selecting a lower-power assignment.
Regarding Claim 13, Zheng et al. and Knights et al. teach all the limitations of Claim 8. Zheng et al. teaches applying a biasing condition to optical resonant devices using heater elements (218) (Col. 6, 8-28). Neither reference expressly teaches that sensing the amount of power used in applying the first biasing condition comprises sensing a current flowing through a heater. Hayakawa expressly teaches that sensing the amount of power used in applying the first biasing condition comprises sensing a current flowing through a heater (8X/17) (paragraph 0070, 0095). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to implement the method of Hayakawa into the heater elements of the combination of Zheng et al. and Knights et al. as a predictable and efficient procedure of evaluating power consumption of an optical resonant device biasing condition.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NASIM KAIRI COOPER whose telephone number is (571)272-9685. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00.
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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached at 5712701739. 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.
/NASIM KAIRI COOPER/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights