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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 3, line 7, θw should read θwg. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zilkie et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2019/0310496 A1) in view of Shindo et al. (WIPO Pub. WO2021059447 A1), Skogen (U.S. Patent 12,355,209 B1) and Ishizaka (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2010/0086255 A1). In the following explanation, U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2010/0086255 A1 is used as an English translation of Shindo et al.
Regarding claim 1, Zilkie et al. teaches in FIG. 3B an optical transmitter, comprising: a distributed feedback (DFB) laser 201 having an active region formed as a multiple quantum well (see paragraph [0030]); an electro-absorption (EA) modulator (EAM) having an absorption region formed as a multiple quantum well; a semiconductor amplifier (SOA); a bent waveguide that rotates a light propagation direction by an angle θwg (the waveguide in FIG. 3B rotates the light propagation by an angle of 180°); and wherein the DFB laser, the EA modulator, the SOA, the bent waveguide, are monolithically integrated on one substrate.
The differences between Zilkie et al. and the claimed invention are (a) Zilkie et al. does not teach that the laser generates an optical gain by current injection and a diffraction grating, (b) Zilkie et al. does not teach that the EAM has composition different from a composition of the DFB laser and the SOA has an active region having a same composition as the composition of the DFB laser, (c) a passive waveguide having a tapered region and a narrow waveguide region, the tapered region converts a width W1 of the passive waveguide connected to the SOA into a width W2 of the narrow waveguide region, where W1 > W2 is satisfied, and the passive waveguide forms the angle θwg with respect to a normal line to an end surface of the substrate and is in contact with the end surface of the substrate.
Shindo et al. teaches in FIG. 2 an optical transmitter comprising a DFB laser, an EAM and a SOA. Shindo et al. teaches in paragraph [0004] the DFB laser has a driving current and a diffraction grating. Shindo et al. teaches in paragraph [0004] that the EAM has a composition different from that of the DFB laser and in paragraph [0009] that the SOA has an active region with an identical composition as the active region of the DFB laser. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Shindo et al. with the optical transmitter of Zilkie et al. because Shindo et al. provides the details of implementation that are missing from Zilkie et al. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use current injection and include a diffraction grating in the DFB laser, use the same composition as the DFB laser active region for the SOA and use different composition as the DFB laser for the EAM, as taught by Shindo et al., in the optical transmitter of Zilkie et al.
The combination of Zilkie et al. and Shindo et al. still fails to teach a passive waveguide with a tapered region and a narrow waveguide region. Skogen teaches in FIG. 1 a SOA with a spot-size converter region 180 so that the output optical mode has a good overlap with an output optical fiber. Ishizaka teaches in FIG. 11 that a spot-size converter has a taper region 14 and a linear region 13. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Skogen and Ishizaka with the modified system of Zilkie et al. and Shindo et al. because a spot-size converter provides an output optical mode that has a good overlap with an output fiber. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a spot-size converter at the output of the transmitter, as taught by Skogen and Ishizaka, in the modified system of Zilkie et al. and Shindo et al. The Examiner notes that Zilkie et al. teaches the passive waveguide forms an angle of 180° with respect to a normal line to the end surface (the bottom surface of FIG. 3B of Zilkie et al.).
Regarding claim 2, Zilkie et al. teaches in FIG. 6 that a plurality of optoelectronic devices can be disposed on a single wafer or chip.
Regarding claim 3, Zilkie et al. teaches that the substrate is an InP substrate (see paragraph [0030]), the DFB laser, the EA modulator, and the SOA are formed on a (100) surface of the InP substrate, the DFB laser has an optical axis in a direction of a substrate crystal orientation [011], and the passive waveguide forms an angle of 180° with respect to the substrate crystal orientation [011] and is in contact with the end surface of the substrate (see FIG. 3B).
Regarding claim 10, Zilkie et al. teaches in paragraph [0043] that the pitch (the distance between the output waveguide in device 200a and the respective output waveguide in device 200b) is less than 250 μm. Even though Zilkie et al. does not teach the exact value as claimed. However, the Examiner recognizes that the claimed difference exists not as a result of an attempt by applicant to solve a problem but merely amounts to selection of expedients known to the artisan of ordinary skill as design choices.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHI K LI whose telephone number is (571)272-3031. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:53 a.m. -3:23 p.m.
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 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.
/SHI K LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights