DETAILED ACTION
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
1. 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 1-20 is/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.
Claims 1 and 11 recite the limitation "the first component of the mixed signal can be removed…", however, the phrase "can be" renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if the first component of the mixed signal is being removed or not. Appropriate correction is required for clarification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7, 10-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caplan et al (US Pub 20170214472) in view of Jimenez (US Pat 6553158).
Regarding Claim 1. Caplan discloses an optical demodulator comprising:
a ring resonator having a ring with a ring length Δτ and comprising an input region, a coupling region and an output region (Fig 1, where an optical receiver (100) comprises a filter bank (102) with a ring resonator (120) having a ring with a ring length Δτ and comprises an input region (Input), a coupling region (i.e. between input waveguide 110 and ring resonator 120) and an output region (Thru) (e.g. as shown in Fig 2B)), wherein the ring resonator is configured to:
receive, at the input region over time, a modulated optical signal, wherein the modulated optical signal comprises a carrier laser signal in which one or more symbols have been encoded as phase or frequency modulations of the carrier laser signal (Fig 1, Fig 2B, where the ring resonator (120) is configured to receive, at the input region (Input) over time, a modulated optical signal (e.g. 8-ary FSK), wherein the modulated optical signal (e.g. 8-ary FSK) comprises a carrier laser signal (e.g. λ) in which one or more symbols (e.g. bits) have been encoded as phase or frequency modulations of the carrier laser signal (e.g. λ));
split, at the coupling region, the modulated optical signal into a first portion to be routed through the ring and a second portion passed to the output region of the ring resonator (Fig 1, Fig 2B, where the ring resonator (120) is configured to split, at the coupling region (i.e. between input waveguide 110 and ring resonator 120), the modulated optical signal (e.g. 8-ary FSK) into a first portion to be routed through the ring and a second portion passed to the output region (Thru) of the ring resonator (120)); and
mix, at the coupling region, previously-received first portions of the modulated optical signal in the ring resonator with the second portion of a currently received portion of the modulated optical signal to obtain, at the output region of the ring resonator, a mixed signal (Fig 1, Fig 2B, where the ring resonator (120) is configured to mix, at the coupling region (i.e. between input waveguide 110 and ring resonator 120), previously-received first portions of the modulated optical signal (e.g. 8-ary FSK) in the ring resonator (120) with the second portion of a currently received portion of the modulated optical signal (e.g. 8-ary FSK) to obtain, at the output region (Thru) of the ring resonator (120), a mixed signal), wherein a measured energy of the mixed signal as a function of time comprises a first component associated with the carrier laser signal, and a second component associated with the phase or frequency modulations of the carrier laser signal, a detuning of the ring resonator and a coupling coefficient k.sup.2 of the ring resonator (Fig 1, Fig 2B, where a measured energy (e.g. via 134a, 134b, 136) of the mixed signal as a function of time comprises a first component (e.g. a wavelength) associated with the carrier laser signal (e.g. λ) and a second component (e.g. data) associated with the phase or frequency modulations of the carrier laser signal (e.g. λ), a detuning of the ring resonator (120) (para [39]) and a split ratio (coupling coefficient k.sup.2) of the ring resonator (120) (para [38])); and
a photodetector configured to receive the mixed signal, wherein the first component of the mixed signal can be removed based on a detuning to obtain the second component (Fig 1, Fig 2B, where a photodetector (e.g. 134a, 134b, 136) is configured to receive the mixed signal, wherein the first component (e.g. wavelength) of the mixed signal can be removed based on a detuning at the ring resonator (120) (para [39]) to obtain the second component (e.g. data));
wherein the one or more symbols have a symbol length (Fig 1, Fig 2B, where the one or more symbols (e.g. bits) have a symbol length (e.g. for bit 1 and bit 0)); and
wherein the coupling coefficient k.sup.2 expresses a ratio of a power of light energy routed to the ring relative to a power of light energy routed to the output region of the ring resonator, and has a value of less than 50% (Fig 1, Fig 2B, where the split ratio (coupling coefficient k.sup.2) expresses a ratio of a power of light energy routed to the ring relative to a power of light energy routed to the output region (Thru) of the ring resonator (120), and has a value of less than 50% (e.g. 1/3) (paras [38][39])).
Caplan fails to explicitly disclose the detuning comprises a detuning-based phase change.
However, Jimenez discloses
a detuning comprises a detuning-based phase change (Fig 1, where a detuning at a ring resonator (13) comprises a detuning-based phase change (i.e. because the ring resonator (13) is tuned/detuned based on a phase shifter that varies the resonator resonance wavelength)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ring resonator (120) as described in Caplan, with the teachings of the ring resonator (13) as described in Jimenez. The motivation being is that as shown a detuning at a ring resonator (13) can comprise a detuning-based phase change (i.e. because the ring resonator (13) is tuned/detuned based on a phase shifter that varies the resonator resonance wavelength) and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the ring resonator (120) as described in Caplan and have the detuning at the ring resonator (120) comprise a detuning-based phase change (i.e. because the ring resonator (120) is tuned/detuned based on a phase shifter that varies the resonator resonance wavelength) i.e. as an alternative so as to have the ring resonator (120) with a known technique of a known ring resonator (13) for the purpose of optimally tuning/ detuning the ring resonator (120) via a known phase shifter and which modification optimally increases the ring resonator’s wavelength tuning/detuning range by at least one order of magnitude and which modification is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. optical ring resonators) and which modification is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known ring resonator (13) into another similar ring resonator (120), namely, for its improvement and for optimization and which modification yields predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2. Caplan as modified by Jimenez also discloses the optical demodulator, wherein the modulated optical signal is received via a multi-mode fiber (Caplan Fig 1, Fig 2B, where the modulated optical signal (e.g. 8-ary FSK) is received via a multi-mode input fiber (para [45])).
Regarding Claim 3. Caplan as modified by Jimenez also discloses the optical demodulator, wherein a ratio of ring length to symbol length is less than one (Caplan Fig 1, Fig 2B, where a ring length is for example 6.283um (this is because ring length = diameter x π and diameter = 2um) (para [48]) and a symbol length (e.g. for bit 1 and bit 0) is for example 160 Gigabit per second (Gbps) (para [45]) and thus a ratio of ring length (6.283um) to symbol length (160Gbps) is less than one).
Regarding Claim 4. Caplan as modified by Jimenez also discloses the optical demodulator, wherein the coupling coefficient k.sup.2 is less than 40% (Caplan Fig 1, Fig 2B, where the split ratio (coupling coefficient k.sup.2) is less than 40% (e.g. 1/3) (para [38])).
Regarding Claim 5. Caplan as modified by Jimenez also discloses the optical demodulator, wherein the coupling coefficient k.sup.2 is less than 30% (Caplan Fig 1, Fig 2B, Fig 6, where the split ratio (coupling coefficient k.sup.2) is less than 30% (e.g. 1/4) (as shown in Fig 6)).
Regarding Claim 6. Caplan as modified by Jimenez also discloses the optical demodulator, wherein the ratio of ring length to symbol length is less than 0.8 (Caplan Fig 1, Fig 2B, where a ring length is for example 6.283um (this is because ring length = diameter x π and diameter = 2um) (para [48]) and a symbol length (e.g. for bit 1 and bit 0) is for example 160 Gigabit per second (Gbps) (para [45]) and thus a ratio of ring length (6.283um) to symbol length (160Gbps) is less than 0.8).
Regarding Claim 7. Caplan as modified by Jimenez also discloses the optical demodulator, wherein the ratio of ring length to symbol length is less than 0.6 (Caplan Fig 1, Fig 2B, where a ring length is for example 6.283um (this is because ring length = diameter x π and diameter = 2um) (para [48]) and a symbol length (e.g. for bit 1 and bit 0) is for example 160 Gigabit per second (Gbps) (para [45]) and thus a ratio of ring length (6.283um) to symbol length (160Gbps) is less than 0.6).
Regarding Claim 10. Caplan as modified by Jimenez also discloses the optical demodulator, wherein the ring resonator comprises a circular cavity formed in at least one of a silicon substrate or a silicon nitride substrate (Caplan Fig 1, Fig 2B, where the ring resonator (120) comprises a circular cavity (e.g. as shown in Fig 2B) and is formed in at least one of a silicon substrate or a silicon nitride substrate (para [50])).
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 is similar to claim 1, therefore, claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 12 is similar to claim 2, therefore, claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 13 is similar to claim 3, therefore, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 is similar to claim 4, therefore, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 is similar to claim 5, therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16 is similar to claim 6, therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 is similar to claim 7, therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 7.
Regarding Claim 20, Claim 20 is similar to claim 10, therefore, claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 and 18-19 is/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 and if the claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b) as stated above are overcome
Conclusion
The additional prior art considered to the Applicant’s disclosure and not relied upon is the following.
Fini et al (US Pub 20200326480) and more specially Fig 1A.
Puleri et al (US Pub 20170163351) and more specially Fig 6.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIBSON J SANCHEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0868. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 10:00-6:00.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, Kenneth Vanderpuye can be reached on 5712723078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DIBSON J SANCHEZ/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2636
Prosecution Insights