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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The examiner notes that citation B1 on the IDS of July 31, 2025 has been lined through as having not been considered by the examiner. This is because the publication number listed on the IDS is not a complete or correct publication number for a US Patent Publication document. However, this reference will be cited on form PTO-892 given its relevance to the claimed subject matter as will be discussed below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the optical component optically coupled to an output of the second output waveguide that can be a lens and is configured to direct the output of the second waveguide toward the sample must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The reference to claims by number in paragraph 0005 of the specification should be removed from the specification, as, currently, there are no claims 1 or 7 in the application. Additionally, any renumbering that may happen if this application reaches allowance will not provide for a device for heterodyne interferometry measurements in claim 7, as there are no device for heterodyne interferometry measurements in the instant claims of this application. The claims are either directed to a frequency shifter for heterodyne interferometry measurements or an integrated photonic frequency shifting system for heterodyne interferometry.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 18, 20, 21, 31, and 32 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.
Claim 18 recites that the photonic chip is configured to optically couple to a light source. However, this claim is indefinite for two reasons. First, claim 17, the claim on which claim 18 depends, recites that the input waveguide is in direct contact with the light source. It is unclear how the photonic chip, then, is configured to optically couple to a light source when the light source is already coupled directly to the input waveguide. In the best understanding of the examiner, for the chip to be configured to optically couple to a light source, the light source would either need to be off the chip, which cannot be the case in claim 18 as claim 16 states that the chip includes a light source, or the light source would need to spaced apart from the input waveguide, which cannot be the case in claim 18 as a result of claim 17. As a result, it is unclear how the chip is configured to optically couple to a light source when the light source is physically coupled to the chip and also in direct contact with the input waveguide. Additionally, claim 18 recites “a light source”. As discussed above, claim 16, a claim on which claim 18 depends, already recites “a light source”. Therefore, it is unclear if the light source in claim 18 is the same light source as the one found in claim 16, or if these are two different light sources.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the optical component" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What optical component is being referred to here? Claims 13, 14, 16, 17, and 18, the claims on which claim 20 currently depend, are all silent with regard to an optical component. Should this claim be dependent on claim 19, the claim which first sets forth an optical component?
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the optical component" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What optical component is being referred to here? Claims 13, 14, 16, 17, and 18, the claims on which claim 21 currently depend, are all silent with regard to an optical component. Should this claim be dependent on claim 19, the claim which first sets forth an optical component?
Claim 31 recites the limitation "the SOC" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What SOC is being referred to here? Should this limitation be “the SOI chip” such as what is recited in claim 30, the claim on which claim 31 depends?
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the SOC" in line 2 and again in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What SOC is being referred to here? Should this limitation be “the SOI chip” such as what is recited in claim 30, the claim on which claim 32 depends?
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-17, 19, and 22-30 are allowed in view of the prior art.
The examiner notes that claims 18 and 20-21 would be allowable for the reasons given below regarding claim 13 and claims 31-32 would be allowable for the reasons given below regarding claim 30 should the 35 USC 112(b) rejections set forth above be properly overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 13, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a frequency shifter for heterodyne interferometry measurements of a sample, the frequency shifter comprising, among other essential features, a first output waveguide coupled to the output combiner and configured to receive a first portion of the combined output light; a control photodiode arranged to receive the first portion; a second output waveguide coupled to the output combiner and configured to receive a second portion of the combined output light and to direct the second portion to illuminate the sample, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
As to claim 22, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a frequency shifter for heterodyne interferometry measurements, the frequency shifter comprising, among other essential features, a directional coupler disposed on the PIC, coupled to each of the MZIs, and configured to combine outputs from each of the MZIs such that modulated beams having opposite sidebands are provided as a first output and a second output; a first output waveguide configured to receive the first output as a probe beam configured to illuminate a sample; and a second output waveguide configured to receive the second output as a local oscillator beam, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
As to claim 30, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious an integrated photonic frequency shifting system for heterodyne interferometry, the system comprising, among other essential features, an output combiner configured to: receive output of the at least two parallel MZI modulators; and route positively shifted and negatively shifted optical sidebands into separate waveguide outputs; a first waveguide output coupled to the output combiner to provide a positively frequency-shifted beam configured as illumination output of a sample; and a second waveguide output coupled to the output combiner to provide a negatively frequency-shifted beam configured as a local oscillator reference, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
Regarding the above claims, the closest prior art is JPH 06-148708 to Asakawa. Asakawa discloses a frequency shifter for heterodyne interferometry measurements comprising a chip 2, an input waveguide 11 configured to guide a light beam 10 (see paragraph 0017), at least four phase modulators 6A, 6B, 8A, 8B, that are part of a first Mach-Zehnder interferometer 6 and a second Mach-Zehnder interferometer 8, respectively, each being arranged to receive the light beam from the input waveguide (light from the input waveguide 11 is split at coupler 12 into waveguides 13 and 23; that light is again split at couplers 14 and 24, respectively, and passed on to waveguides 15A, 15B, 25A, 25B that lead the light to the phase modulators) and configured to modulate a phase of the light beam (see paragraphs 0022-0023), an output combiner (elements 16, 26, 17, 27, 18) being arranged to let the light beams modulated by each phase modulator interfere (see paragraph 0024, for instance), a first output waveguide 32 coupled to the output combiner and configured to receive the modulated light beams constructively interfering at the output combiner (see paragraph 0010 and the waveform of the first guided light being ωt + φ (t); additionally, see paragraph 0025 and the first waveform φ1 (t)), and a second output waveguide 36 coupled to the output combiner and configured to receive the modulated light beams destructively interfering at the output combiner (see paragraph 0010 and the waveform of the second guided light being ωt−φ (t); additionally, see paragraph 0025 and the second waveform −φ1 (t)), wherein the input waveguide, the phase modulators, the output combiner, the first output waveguide and the second output waveguide are arranged on the chip (see Fig. 3).
However, the frequency shifter of Asakawa outputs three different light beams – a light beam from the first MZI 6 at output waveguide 32, a light beam from the second MZI 8 at output waveguide 36, and a combined light beam featuring lights from both MZIs at output waveguide 19. As a result, Asakawa fails to disclose the specific features set forth above regarding claims 13, 22, and 30, and the use of the different outputs of the frequency shifter for heterodyne interferometry as claimed.
Additionally, US 2013/0315524 to Saida discloses an optical frequency shifter (Fig. 2) where light is input to the frequency shifter 210 at port 211, is split into a pair of Mach-Zehnder modulation units 213a, 213b by an input coupler 212, these modulation units being driven via electrical amps 218a, 218b via electrical signals produced by a signal generator 216, where a π/2 phase shift is input to amp 218a by an electrical delay line 217. The light from the modulators is recombined at a coupler 214 and then output at ports 215a and 215b (see paragraphs 0044-0046). However, similarly to Asakawa, the frequency shifter of Saida fails to disclose or render obvious the specific limitations of the claimed invention found in claims 13, 22, and 30 as set forth above.
Finally, US 2004/0120633 to Gao et al. discloses a planar optical circuit with a plurality of Mach-Zehnder interferometers 100, where the interferometer can include a heating element 110 to change the temperature in an arm of the Mach-Zehnder in order to generate a phase difference between signals in the arms of each interferometer (see paragraph 0004 but also shown in inventive Fig. 1). In Fig. 5, a multi-channel attenuator also includes an integrated photodiode 3 in the scattered light cone of each channel to monitor the optical output power of the attenuator (see paragraphs 0038-0040, for example). However, while Gao appears to disclose the use of a monitoring detector, Gao generally fails to disclose or render obvious the specific limitations of the claimed invention found in claims 13, 22, and 30 as set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2021/0391694 to Hayashi et al. discloses an optical transmission apparatus that is an optical phase modulator to provide quadrature phase-shift keying including a pair of Mach-Zehnder optical phase modulators 12, 13 (see paragraphs 0026-0027 and Fig. 1); US 2011/0170161 to Gill et al. discloses a nested Mach-Zehnder modulator as an electro-optical modulator (see abstract, paragraph 0002, and Fig. 1A), and US Pat. 12,209,861 to Grote is the patent that issued off of patent application 17/757048.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael A. Lyons whose telephone number is (571)272-2420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. 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.
/Michael A Lyons/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 September 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights