DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to Applicant’s response submitted 03 September 2026.
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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0228943 to Yuan et al.
In regards to claim 1, Yuan recites a system (Figures 4 & 1A) comprising: a memory (406) for storing instructions [0022]; and a processing device (404) operatively coupled with the memory, to: cause coherent light to be coupled into a photonic resonator (102) comprising a ring waveguide (Figure 1A); enable a heater (144) to tune the photonic resonator. But Yuan fails to expressly recite the processing device wherein the instructions, when executed by the processing device, cause the processing device to determine that the photonic resonator has been tuned to a stable operation point corresponding to a resonant wavelength; and responsive to determining that the photonic resonator has been tuned to the stable operation point, disable the heater, wherein, after disabling the heater, the photonic resonator is to operate about the stable operation point based on self-heating of the ring waveguide without external heating. However, an apparatus claim must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and Yuan teaches structural limitations as recited in the claim. Since all of the claimed structural limitations are met by the prior art, it is presumed the device possesses the same claimed properties and the produced properties. Furthermore, memory devices are known for their storage functionality. The storing of the desired instructions to be executed by the processing device and choosing the desired set of instructions would be advantageous in order for the device to achieve the desired result. Since Yuan teaches tuning the photonic resonator by applying a temperature dependent parameter [0015] and monitoring the wavelength to achieve the desired wavelength [0015], it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to operate the processing device to determine that the photonic resonator has been tuned to a stable operation point corresponding to a resonant wavelength; and responsive to determining that the photonic resonator has been tuned to the stable operation point, disable the heater, wherein, after disabling the heater, the photonic resonator is to operate about the stable operation point based on self-heating of the ring waveguide without external heating.
In regards to claim 8, Yuan recites a system (Figures 4 & 1A) comprising: a photonic resonator (102) comprising a ring waveguide (Figure 1A); a heater (144) operatively coupled to the photonic resonator; a photodetector (APD); and at least one processing device (404) operatively coupled to a memory (406) for storing instructions [0022] to: cause coherent light generated by the coherent light source to be coupled into a photonic resonator comprising a ring waveguide; enable the heater to tune the photonic resonator. But Yuan fails to expressly recite a coherent light source. However, the inclusion of a coherent light source is an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use such features such as a coherent light source to provide an input signal to the system. But Yuan fails to expressly recite the processing device wherein the instructions, when executed by the processing device, cause the processing device to determine that the photonic resonator has been tuned to a stable operation point corresponding to a resonant wavelength; and responsive to determining that the photonic resonator has been tuned to the stable operation point, disable the heater, wherein, after disabling the heater, the photonic resonator is to operate about the stable operation point based on self-heating of the ring waveguide without external heating. However, an apparatus claim must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and Yuan teaches structural limitations as recited in the claim. Since all of the claimed structural limitations are met by the prior art, it is presumed the device possesses the same claimed properties and the produced properties. Furthermore, memory devices are known for their storage functionality. The storing of the desired instructions to be executed by the processing device and choosing the desired set of instructions would be advantageous in order for the device to achieve the desired result. Since Yuan teaches tuning the photonic resonator by applying a temperature dependent parameter [0015] and monitoring the wavelength to achieve the desired wavelength [0015], it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to operate the processing device to determine that the photonic resonator has been tuned to a stable operation point corresponding to a resonant wavelength; and responsive to determining that the photonic resonator has been tuned to the stable operation point, disable the heater, wherein, after disabling the heater, the photonic resonator is to operate about the stable operation point based on self-heating of the ring waveguide without external heating.
In regards to claims 2, 3, 9 and 10, modified Yuan recites the instructions, when executed by the processing device, further causes the processing device to identify a voltage to apply to the heater to enable the heater, and wherein the voltage corresponds to a temperature and to enable the heater to tune the photonic resonator, the processing device is further to cause the voltage to be applied to the heater. [0031]
In regards to claims 4 and 11, Yuan recites a photodetector (APD). Although Yuan does not expressly recite to determine that the photonic resonator has been tuned to the stable operation point, the processing device is further to monitor spectral shift using a photodetector, Yuan does teach the structural limitations as recited in the claim. Since all of the claimed structural limitations are met by the prior art, it is presumed the device possesses the same claimed properties and the produced properties. It is further noted that an apparatus claim must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); See MPEP 2114 [R-1]). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); see MPEP 2114 [R-1]). Since all of the claimed structural limitations are met by the prior art, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to determine that the photonic resonator has been tuned to the stable operation point, the processing device is further to monitor spectral shift using a photodetector.
In regards to claims 5 and 12, although Yuan does not expressly recite the stable operation point is approximately 6 decibels (dB), it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges or values through routine experimentation when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art,
it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the stable operation point is approximately 6 decibels (dB) in order to maintain the device at a more optimal state. In re Aller, 105 USPA 233; In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
In regards to claims 6 and 13, Yuan recites a first shift in resonant wavelength in a first direction away from the stable operation point causes a reduction in the coherent light absorbed by the ring waveguide, and wherein the reduction in the coherent light absorbed by the ring waveguide causes a second shift in resonant wavelength in a second direction opposite the first direction to return to the stable operation point. [0016, 0033, 0035]
In regards to claim 7 and 14, Yuan recites the ring waveguide is comprised in a micro-ring modulator. [0015]
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-20 are allowed. The prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest a method, comprising: causing coherent light to be coupled into a photonic resonator comprising a ring waveguide; enabling a heater to tune the photonic resonator; determining that the photonic resonator has been tuned to a stable operation point corresponding to a resonant wavelength; and responsive to determining that the photonic resonator has been tuned to the stable operation point, disabling the heater, wherein, after disabling the heater, the photonic resonator is to operate about the stable operation point based on self-heating of the ring waveguide without external heating in addition to the accompanying features of the independent claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference as currently applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 TINA M WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (571) 272-2397. 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.
/TINA WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights