DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 through 20 originally filed 14 June 2024. Claims 1 through 20 are addressed by this 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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5).
The description includes the reference characters "3", "103", "104", "105", "116", "152", "153", "157", "171", and "175" which do not appear in the drawings. Reference characters mentioned in the description must appear in the drawings.
In the present case, these reference characters or similar numbers appear in the following locations: "3" is mentioned in ¶24, "103" is mentioned in ¶25, ¶26, ¶28, ¶29, ¶30, ¶31, ¶32, ¶35, ¶36, ¶41, ¶42, ¶43, ¶44, ¶45, ¶47, ¶48, ¶50, ¶51, ¶55, ¶56, ¶57, ¶58, ¶63, ¶66, ¶67, ¶68, ¶70, ¶71, ¶72, ¶74, ¶75, ¶76, and ¶78, "104" is mentioned in ¶25, ¶28, ¶29, ¶31, ¶33, ¶34, ¶35, ¶67, and ¶76, "105" is mentioned in ¶26, ¶32, ¶43, ¶44, ¶45, ¶49, ¶50, and ¶72, "116" is mentioned in ¶28 and ¶31, "152" is mentioned in ¶48, ¶49, ¶50, ¶58, ¶65, and ¶75, "153" is mentioned in ¶49, "157" is mentioned in ¶56, "171" is mentioned in ¶66, ¶69, and ¶71, and "175" is mentioned in ¶72, ¶73, ¶75, ¶76, ¶77, and ¶78.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 5 and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 5, this claim requires "Wherein a beat frequency of the one pair of optical signals input to the MMI multiplexer is twice or more as high as a modulation frequency." However, the claimed device is not claimed as being modulated in any way other than by the claimed production of a "beat frequency". In this manner, the only "modulation frequency" directly related to the claimed invention is the "beat frequency". This interpretation cannot be correct since it is directly contradicted by the text of this claim. Accordingly, it is unclear what comparison is being required by this claim since it is unclear what is being referred to by the term "modulation frequency". As such, this claim is 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. For the remainder of this action, this claim will be interpreted as meaning that light from at least two laser devices is modulated with a "modulation frequency" and that the phase of modulation of these optical signals is offset so as to produce a "beat frequency" when these optical signals are combined that has a frequency at least twice that of the original "modulation frequency" that was applied to the original optical signals.
Regarding claim 13, this claim requires "Wherein a beat frequency of the one pair of optical signals input to the MMI multiplexer is twice or more as high as a modulation frequency." However, the claimed device is not claimed as being modulated in any way other than by the claimed production of a "beat frequency". In this manner, the only "modulation frequency" directly related to the claimed invention is the "beat frequency". This interpretation cannot be correct since it is directly contradicted by the text of this claim. Accordingly, it is unclear what comparison is being required by this claim since it is unclear what is being referred to by the term "modulation frequency". As such, this claim is 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. For the remainder of this action, this claim will be interpreted as meaning that light from at least two laser devices is modulated with a "modulation frequency" and that the phase of modulation of these optical signals is offset so as to produce a "beat frequency" when these optical signals are combined that has a frequency at least twice that of the original "modulation frequency" that was applied to the original optical signals.
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 through 3, 6, 7, 9 through 11, 14, 15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arimoto (US Pub. 2006/0203858) in view of Welch et al. (Welch, US Pub. 2008/0013881).
Regarding claim 1, Arimoto discloses, "A plurality of mesa stripes" (p. [0064] and Fig. 11A, pts. 115, 116, 117, and 118). "[The plurality of mesa stripes] are arranged side by side on a semiconductor substrate" (p. [0064] and Fig. 11A, pts. 115, 116, 117, and 118). "Each of [the plurality of mesa stripes] includes an active layer and a diffraction grating" (p. [0060] and Fig. 11B, pt. 132). "A plurality of electrodes" (p. [0065] and Fig. 11A, pt. 162). "Each of [the plurality of electrodes] is electrically connected to an upper surface of a corresponding one of the plurality of mesa stripes" (p. [0065] and Fig. 11A, pts. 115, 116, 117, 118, and 162). "[The plurality of electrodes] having a pad portion for wire bonding" (p. [0004], [0065], and Fig. 11A, pts. 101, 102, 103, 104, and 162). "A plurality of waveguides" (p. [0064] and Fig. 11A, pt. 141). "Each of [the plurality of waveguides] is optically connected to the active layer of a corresponding one of the plurality of mesa stripes" (p. [0060], [0062], [0064], and Figs. 11A and 11B, pts. 132, 137, and 141). "A reflective film provided at back end surfaces of the plurality of mesa stripes" (p. [0070] and Fig. 13A, pts. 145 and 201). "A multi-mode interference (MMI) multiplexer that is configured to multiplex a pair of optical signals from at least one pair of waveguides of the plurality of waveguides" (p. [0005] and Fig. 11A, pt. 113). Arimoto does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein at least two mesa stripes, of the plurality of mesa stripes, are configured to be driven at the same time." Welch discloses, "Wherein at least two mesa stripes, of the plurality of mesa stripes, are configured to be driven at the same time" (p. [0213]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Arimoto with the teachings of Welch. In view of the teachings of Arimoto regarding an optical module in which plural lasers are coupled to a single emission waveguide, the additional inclusion of modulators associated with each laser and the alternate operation of the lasers simultaneously as taught by Welch would enhance the teachings of Arimoto by allowing the lasers to be separately modulated and simultaneous emission of the modulated light.
Regarding claim 2, Arimoto discloses, "Wherein the MMI multiplexer is provided in front of the at least one pair of waveguides" (p. [0005] and Fig. 11A, pt. 113).
Regarding claim 3, Arimoto does not explicitly disclose, "An optical absorber provided along a waveguide of the at least one pair of waveguides." Welch discloses, "An optical absorber provided along a waveguide of the at least one pair of waveguides" (p. [0152] and Fig. 7A, pts. 12 and 14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Arimoto with the teachings of Welch for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Arimoto discloses, "Wherein a distance between the at least one pair of waveguides is shorter towards the MMI multiplexer than towards an end surface of the at least two mesa stripes" (p. [0064] and Fig. 11A, pt. 141).
Regarding claim 7, Arimoto discloses, "Wherein the at least one pair of waveguides extend linearly from the at least two mesa stripes" (p. [0064] and Fig. 11A, pt. 141).
Regarding claim 9, Arimoto discloses, "A plurality of mesa stripes" (p. [0064] and Fig. 11A, pts. 115, 116, 117, and 118). "[The plurality of mesa stripes] are arranged side by side on a semiconductor substrate" (p. [0064] and Fig. 11A, pts. 115, 116, 117, and 118). "Each of [the plurality of mesa stripes] includes an active layer and a diffraction grating" (p. [0060] and Fig. 11B, pt. 132). "A plurality of electrodes" (p. [0065] and Fig. 11A, pt. 162). "Each of [the plurality of electrodes] is electrically connected to an upper surface of a corresponding one of the plurality of mesa stripes" (p. [0065] and Fig. 11A, pts. 115, 116, 117, 118, and 162). "[The plurality of electrodes] having a pad portion for wire bonding" (p. [0004], [0065], and Fig. 11A, pts. 101, 102, 103, 104, and 162). "A plurality of waveguides" (p. [0064] and Fig. 11A, pt. 141). "Each of [the plurality of waveguides] is optically connected to the active layer of a corresponding one of the plurality of mesa stripes" (p. [0060], [0062], [0064], and Figs. 11A and 11B, pts. 132, 137, and 141). "A reflective film provided at back end surfaces of the plurality of mesa stripes" (p. [0070] and Fig. 13A, pts. 145 and 201). "A multi-mode interference (MMI) multiplexer that is configured to multiplex a pair of optical signals from at least one pair of waveguides of the plurality of waveguides" (p. [0005] and Fig. 11A, pt. 113). "A driver configured to output an electric signal for driving the optical sub-assembly" (p. [0059], where a driver of some form is necessary to perform the described current injection). Arimoto does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein at least two mesa stripes, of the plurality of mesa stripes, are configured to be driven at the same time." Welch discloses, "Wherein at least two mesa stripes, of the plurality of mesa stripes, are configured to be driven at the same time" (p. [0213]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Arimoto with the teachings of Welch for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Arimoto discloses, "Wherein the MMI multiplexer is provided in front of the at least one pair of waveguides" (p. [0005] and Fig. 11A, pt. 113).
Regarding claim 11, Arimoto does not explicitly disclose, "An optical absorber provided along a waveguide of the at least one pair of waveguides." Welch discloses, "An optical absorber provided along a waveguide of the at least one pair of waveguides" (p. [0152] and Fig. 7A, pts. 12 and 14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Arimoto with the teachings of Welch for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Arimoto discloses, "Wherein a distance between the at least one pair of waveguides is shorter towards the MMI multiplexer than towards an end surface of the at least two mesa stripes" (p. [0064] and Fig. 11A, pt. 141).
Regarding claim 15, Arimoto discloses, "Wherein the at least one pair of waveguides extend linearly from the at least two mesa stripes" (p. [0064] and Fig. 11A, pt. 141).
Regarding claim 17, Arimoto discloses, "A plurality of mesa stripes" (p. [0064] and Fig. 11A, pts. 115, 116, 117, and 118). "[The plurality of mesa stripes] are arranged side by side on a semiconductor substrate" (p. [0064] and Fig. 11A, pts. 115, 116, 117, and 118). "Each of [the plurality of mesa stripes] includes an active layer and a diffraction grating" (p. [0060] and Fig. 11B, pt. 132). "A plurality of electrodes" (p. [0065] and Fig. 11A, pt. 162). "Each of [the plurality of electrodes] is electrically connected to an upper surface of a corresponding one of the plurality of mesa stripes" (p. [0065] and Fig. 11A, pts. 115, 116, 117, 118, and 162). "[The plurality of electrodes] having a pad portion for wire bonding" (p. [0004], [0065], and Fig. 11A, pts. 101, 102, 103, 104, and 162). "A plurality of waveguides" (p. [0064] and Fig. 11A, pt. 141). "Each of [the plurality of waveguides] is optically connected to the active layer of a corresponding one of the plurality of mesa stripes" (p. [0060], [0062], [0064], and Figs. 11A and 11B, pts. 132, 137, and 141). "A reflective film provided at back end surfaces of the plurality of mesa stripes" (p. [0070] and Fig. 13A, pts. 145 and 201). "A multi-mode interference (MMI) multiplexer that is configured to multiplex a pair of optical signals from at least one pair of waveguides of the plurality of waveguides" (p. [0005] and Fig. 11A, pt. 113). Arimoto does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein at least two mesa stripes, of the plurality of mesa stripes, are configured to be driven at the same time." Welch discloses, "Wherein at least two mesa stripes, of the plurality of mesa stripes, are configured to be driven at the same time" (p. [0213]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Arimoto with the teachings of Welch for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, Arimoto does not explicitly disclose, "An optical absorber provided along a waveguide of the at least one pair of waveguides." Welch discloses, "An optical absorber provided along a waveguide of the at least one pair of waveguides" (p. [0152] and Fig. 7A, pts. 12 and 14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Arimoto with the teachings of Welch for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Claims 4, 5, 12, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arimoto, in view of Welch, and further in view of Hui et al. (Hui, US Patent 6,438,148).
Regarding claim 4, Arimoto discloses, "Wherein a pair of mesa stripes of the plurality of mesa stripes, each of which is optically connected to a corresponding one of the at least one pair of waveguides" (p. [0060], [0062], [0064], and Figs. 11A and 11B, pts. 132, 137, and 141). "[The pair of mesa stripes] is configured to emit beams having wavelengths different from each other" (p. [0061] and Fig. 11A, pts. 116 and 117).
The combination of Arimoto and Welch does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the pair of optical signals input to the MMI multiplexer have amplitudes different from each other." Hui discloses, "Wherein the pair of optical signals input to the MMI multiplexer have amplitudes different from each other" (col. 7, lines 29-50 and Fig. 1, pts. 12, 14, and 40, where the different phases of modulation cause the optical signals to have instantaneously different amplitudes). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Arimoto and Welch with the teachings of Hui. In view of the teachings of Arimoto regarding an optical module in which plural lasers are coupled to a single emission waveguide and the teachings of Welch regarding the additional inclusion of modulators associated with each laser, the alternate configuration of the lasers and modulators to perform beat frequency modulation as taught by Hui would enhance the teachings of Arimoto and Welch by allowing the effective modulation frequency to be increased.
Regarding claim 5, The combination of Arimoto and Welch does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a beat frequency of the one pair of optical signals input to the MMI multiplexer is twice or more as high as a modulation frequency." Hui discloses, "Wherein a beat frequency of the one pair of optical signals input to the MMI multiplexer is twice or more as high as a modulation frequency" (col. 7, lines 29-50 and Fig. 1, pts. 12, 14, and 40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Arimoto and Welch with the teachings of Hui for the reasons provided above regarding claim 4.
Regarding claim 12, Arimoto discloses, "Wherein a pair of mesa stripes of the plurality of mesa stripes, each of which is optically connected to a corresponding one of the at least one pair of waveguides" (p. [0060], [0062], [0064], and Figs. 11A and 11B, pts. 132, 137, and 141). "[The pair of mesa stripes] is configured to emit beams having wavelengths different from each other" (p. [0061] and Fig. 11A, pts. 116 and 117).
The combination of Arimoto and Welch does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the pair of optical signals input to the MMI multiplexer have amplitudes different from each other." Hui discloses, "Wherein the pair of optical signals input to the MMI multiplexer have amplitudes different from each other" (col. 7, lines 29-50 and Fig. 1, pts. 12, 14, and 40, where the different phases of modulation cause the optical signals to have instantaneously different amplitudes). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Arimoto and Welch with the teachings of Hui for the reasons provided above regarding claim 4.
Regarding claim 13, The combination of Arimoto and Welch does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a beat frequency of the one pair of optical signals input to the MMI multiplexer is twice or more as high as a modulation frequency." Hui discloses, "Wherein a beat frequency of the one pair of optical signals input to the MMI multiplexer is twice or more as high as a modulation frequency" (col. 7, lines 29-50 and Fig. 1, pts. 12, 14, and 40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Arimoto and Welch with the teachings of Hui for the reasons provided above regarding claim 4.
Regarding claim 20, Arimoto discloses, "Wherein a pair of mesa stripes of the plurality of mesa stripes, each of which is optically connected to a corresponding one of the at least one pair of waveguides" (p. [0060], [0062], [0064], and Figs. 11A and 11B, pts. 132, 137, and 141). "[The pair of mesa stripes] is configured to emit beams having wavelengths different from each other" (p. [0061] and Fig. 11A, pts. 116 and 117).
The combination of Arimoto and Welch does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the pair of optical signals input to the MMI multiplexer have amplitudes different from each other." Hui discloses, "Wherein the pair of optical signals input to the MMI multiplexer have amplitudes different from each other" (col. 7, lines 29-50 and Fig. 1, pts. 12, 14, and 40, where the different phases of modulation cause the optical signals to have instantaneously different amplitudes). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Arimoto and Welch with the teachings of Hui for the reasons provided above regarding claim 4.
Claims 8, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arimoto, in view of Welch, and further in view of Fishman et al. (Fishman, US Pub. 2004/0170351).
Regarding claim 8, Arimoto discloses, "Wherein the at least one pair of waveguides comprise a straight portion and a slant portion" (p. [0064] and Fig. 11A, pt. 141).
The combination of Arimoto and Welch does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the slant portion is connected to the MMI multiplexer directly." Fishman discloses, "Wherein the slant portion is connected to the MMI multiplexer directly" (Fig. 10, pt. 120, where waveguides enter MMI 120 at an angle). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Arimoto and Welch with the teachings of Fishman. In view of the teachings of Arimoto regarding an optical module in which plural lasers are coupled to a single emission waveguide by an MMI, the alternate configuration of the waveguides and MMI such that the waveguides enter the MMI at an angle as taught by Fishman would enhance the teachings of Arimoto and Welch by allowing the length of the waveguides transmitting light to the MMI to be reduced and thereby allowing for a reduction in overall size.
Regarding claim 16, Arimoto discloses, "Wherein the at least one pair of waveguides comprise a straight portion and a slant portion" (p. [0064] and Fig. 11A, pt. 141).
The combination of Arimoto and Welch does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the slant portion is connected to the MMI multiplexer directly." Fishman discloses, "Wherein the slant portion is connected to the MMI multiplexer directly" (Fig. 10, pt. 120, where waveguides enter MMI 120 at an angle). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Arimoto and Welch with the teachings of Fishman for the reasons provided above regarding claim 8.
Regarding claim 18, Arimoto discloses, "Wherein the at least one pair of waveguides comprise a straight portion and a slant portion" (p. [0064] and Fig. 11A, pt. 141).
The combination of Arimoto and Welch does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the slant portion is connected to the MMI multiplexer directly." Fishman discloses, "Wherein the slant portion is connected to the MMI multiplexer directly" (Fig. 10, pt. 120, where waveguides enter MMI 120 at an angle). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Arimoto and Welch with the teachings of Fishman for the reasons provided above regarding claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gevorgian et al. (Gevorgian, US Pub. 2001/0014106) is cited for teaching a laser assembly related to beat frequency production in which undesired beat signals are removed with a filter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean P Hagan whose telephone number is (571)270-1242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at 571-272-1835. 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.
/SEAN P HAGAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2828