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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 11, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
The claims are directed to the abstract idea of monitoring, detecting, and controlling a signal condition using feedback, including detecting a multi-mode optical condition, generating an error or deviation signal, and adjusting a phase shifter or other control element until a desired single-mode or locked condition is achieved.
The claims further recite, in some instances, generating a radio-frequency signal based on optical beating or distributed oscillator output.
The recited elements, including a laser, optical resonator, photodiode, mixer, comparator, control path, controller, modulation unit, and injection-locked detector, are recited at a high level of functional abstraction and are used for their ordinary functions.
The claims do not recite a specific technological improvement to optical hardware, oscillator hardware, or communication circuitry itself, but instead recite using known components to achieve a desired result.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 11, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for lack of written description and enablement.
The specification describes a particular feedback-based optical stabilization arrangement including a laser, optical resonator, photodiode, mixer, comparator, filter, and phase shifter. However, the claims are broader in scope than the disclosed embodiments and recite broad functional language such as:
“multi-mode mitigation circuitry,”
“configured to adjust,”
“single-mode signal,”
“control path,”
“injection-locked detector,”
“configured to determine whether,”
without adequate disclosure of the full scope of the claimed subject matter.
The specification does not reasonably convey to those of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor was in possession of the full breadth of the claimed genus. Nor does the specification enable the full scope of the claims without undue experimentation, particularly as to:
how the claimed circuitry converges across the full scope of optical resonator and laser configurations;
how the control loop is tuned over varying operating conditions;
how the claimed lock-detection or mode-mitigation circuitry is implemented in all claimed embodiments;
how the claimed functions are achieved across the full breadth of the recited communication circuitry.
Therefore, the claims fail to comply with § 112(a).
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite.
Claims 1, 11, 16, 19, and 20 recite terms such as “multi-mode condition,” “single-mode condition,” “single peak,” and “multi-mode mitigation circuitry” without providing clear objective boundaries for the scope of these terms. For example:
“multi-mode condition” does not clearly specify how many modes are required;
“single-mode condition” does not clearly define whether the condition is determined spectrally, temporally, or otherwise;
“single peak” is not clearly limited to a particular measurement location or bandwidth;
“multi-mode mitigation circuitry” is recited functionally without sufficient structural demarcation.
Thus, the metes and bounds of the claims are not reasonably certain.
Claim 17 recites that the photodiode is configured to generate an electrical signal at a third frequency equal to a difference between the first frequency and the second frequency. The phrase “a difference between the first frequency and the second frequency” is ambiguous, because it is unclear whether the third frequency is intended to be:
f1−f2,
f2−f1, or
∣f1−f2∣.
Accordingly, the scope of the claim is not reasonably certain.
Other claims are rejected because of their dependency.
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, 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 1-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over HISAI (US 2025/0123595 A1) in view of LILIENFEIN et al. (US 2023/0246409 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, HISAI teaches communication circuitry including a laser, an optical resonator having first and second ports, a first optical path coupling the laser to the resonator, an optical phase shifter on the optical path, a photodiode, a second optical path coupling the resonator to the photodiode, a comparator, a mixer coupled between the photodiode and the comparator, and a control path coupling the comparator output to the optical phase shifter. See, e.g., paragraphs [0051]-[0069]. LILIENFEIN et al. teaches stabilizing electromagnetic radiation using a first controller, modulation and demodulation, and a second controller to control a manipulated variable and improve stabilization. See, e.g., paragraphs [0018]-[0023], [0101]-[0104], and [0162]-[0175]. It would have been obvious to incorporate the multi-stage stabilization architecture of LILIENFEIN et al. into the optical feedback arrangement of HISAI to improve control robustness, convergence, and dynamic range.
Regarding Claim 2, HISAI further teaches an electrical path coupling the photodiode to first and second inputs of the mixer.
Regarding Claim 3, HISAI further teaches the laser emitting an optical signal, the photodiode generating an electrical signal based on the optical signal, and the mixer generating an error voltage by self-mixing the electrical signal.
Regarding Claim 4, HISAI further teaches a comparator having an additional input receiving a reference potential and generating a control signal based on the error voltage and the reference potential.
Regarding Claim 5, HISAI further teaches the optical phase shifter applying an optical phase shift to the optical signal and the control signal adjusting the optical phase shift.
Regarding Claim 6, HISAI further teaches adjusting the optical phase shift until the error voltage is reduced below a threshold or reference potential.
Regarding Claim 7, HISAI further teaches an optical output path coupled to a third port of the optical resonator and outputting an optical local oscillator signal used in communications.
Regarding Claim 8, HISAI further teaches optical beating between two optical local oscillator signals to generate a radio-frequency signal via a photodiode. To the extent an antenna arm is recited, such RF output would have been an obvious signal source for an antenna in a communication system.
Regarding Claim 9, HISAI further teaches a low-pass filter disposed on the control path.
Regarding Claim 10, HISAI further teaches an optical resonator comprising an optical ring.
Regarding Claim 11, HISAI teaches generating an optical signal as a multi-mode signal while a laser is injection-locked to an optical resonator and converting the optical signal into a single-mode signal using circuitry coupled in a loop between the resonator and an optical phase shifter. See, e.g., paragraphs [0045]-[0069]. LILIENFEIN et al. teaches the use of control loops, modulation, and demodulation to stabilize optical output. See, e.g., paragraphs [0018]-[0023], [0101]-[0104]. It would have been obvious to use the control teachings of LILIENFEIN et al. to improve the optical phase-shift feedback loop of HISAI.
Claim 12 depends from claim 11 and further recites that the multi-mode signal comprises a plurality of signal peaks at respective frequencies and that the single-mode signal comprises a single signal peak from the plurality of signal peaks. HISAI teaches that, while a laser is in a multi-mode condition, the optical signal includes multiple resonant peaks at corresponding frequencies, and that after multi-mode mitigation the optical signal includes only a single resonant peak corresponding to a single-mode condition. See, for example, paragraphs [0048]-[0049] and [0060]-[0069].
Claim 13 depends from claim 11 and further recites that converting the optical signal comprises generating, using a photodiode, an electrical signal based on the multi-mode signal. HISAI teaches that the optical signal output from the resonator is incident on a photodiode, and that the photodiode generates an electrical signal based on the received optical signal. See, for example, paragraphs [0056]-[0063].
Claim 14 depends from claim 13 and further recites mixing, using a mixer, the electrical signal with itself to produce an error voltage. HISAI teaches that the electrical signal from the photodiode is supplied to both inputs of a mixer, and that the mixer self-mixes the electrical signal to produce an error voltage. See, for example, paragraphs [0064]-[0065].
Claim 15 depends from claim 14 and further recites generating, using a comparator, a control signal by comparing the error voltage to a reference potential, and adjusting, using the optical phase shifter, an optical phase shift imparted to the optical signal based on the control signal. HISAI teaches a comparator receiving the error voltage and a reference potential, and generating a control signal that is used to adjust the optical phase shifter until the optical signal reaches a single-mode condition. See, for example, paragraphs [0066]-[0068].
Regarding Claim 16, HISAI teaches a first laser coupled to an optical resonator, an optical phase shifter on the optical path, and multi-mode mitigation circuitry coupled in a loop between a resonator port and the optical phase shifter. See, e.g., paragraphs [0051]-[0069]. LILIENFEIN et al. teaches multi-controller stabilization of an optical oscillator and related modulation/demodulation control. See, e.g., paragraphs [0018]-[0023], [0101]-[0104]. It would have been obvious to combine these teachings to improve feedback control of the optical stabilization loop.
Regarding Claim 19, HISAI further expressly teaches a photodiode optically coupled to the resonator output, a mixer receiving the photodiode signal at both inputs, a comparator receiving the mixer output and a reference potential, and an output coupled to the optical phase shifter. See, e.g., paragraphs [0056]-[0067].
Regarding Claim 20, HISAI further expressly teaches an optical resonator comprising an optical ring and describes multi-mode operation with multiple peaks and single-mode operation with a single peak after mitigation. See, e.g., paragraphs [0042]-[0049], [0060]-[0069].
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over HIASAI (US 2025/0123595 A1) in view of LILIENFEIN et al. (US 2023/0246409 A1), and further in view of Jain et al. (US 2020/0119742 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, HISAI further teaches multiple laser modules, optical coupling/combining, and a photodiode generating an electrical radio-frequency signal based on the frequency difference of two optical signals. See, e.g., paragraphs [0078]-[0087]. HISAI and LILIENFEIN et al. do not teach an injection-locked oscillator distribution system including a master clock generator. However, Jain et al. teaches an injection-locked oscillator distribution system including a master clock generator, an injection-locked oscillator distribution circuit, and an injection-locked detector for determining whether an oscillator is locked or unlocked. See, e.g., paragraphs [0004]-[0009], [0156]-[0176], [0183]-[0230]. It would have been obvious to combine these teachings with the system of HISAI and LILIENFEIN et al. to provide stable high-frequency signal generation and oscillator monitoring in a communication system.
Regarding Claim 18, HISAI further teaches multiple optical modules and resonators in a communication system. HISAI and LILIENFEIN et al. do not teach distributed oscillator architecture with multiple oscillators providing reference signals to mixers. However, Jain et al. teaches distributed oscillator architecture with multiple oscillators providing reference signals to mixers. It would have been obvious to provide a second optical resonator for the second laser to the system of the system of HISAI and LILIENFEIN et al. to achieve a separate stabilized optical source in a distributed communication architecture.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUAN ZHEN WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
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.
/QUAN ZHEN WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights