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 .
Election/Restrictions
The Applicant's election with traverse in the reply filed on 6/15/2026 is acknowledged. In view of Applicant’s response/amendment the requirement for restriction/election is withdrawn. Consequently, claims 1-16 are currently pending in the instant application.
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 and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US Pat 6480309) in view of Suemura et al (US Pat 6243178).
Regarding Claim 1. Lee discloses an optical transmitter, comprising:
a plurality of light sources in a number of L x n, including n light sources with different signals, wherein each light source with a certain signal has a number of L, both L and n are positive integers (Fig 2, where an optical transmitter comprises a plurality of light sources (e.g. IP1 to IPM) in a number of L x n (1 x 4 = 4), including n=4 light sources (e.g. IP1 to IPM) with different signals, wherein each light source (e.g. IP1 to IPM) with a certain signal has a number of L=1, both L=1 and n=4 are positive integers);
m levels of beam splitting section, including m levels of beam splitter section and m levels of waveguide crossing section, wherein each level of the waveguide crossing section includes a plurality of channels in a number of L x n x 2m, a k-th level beam splitter section includes a plurality of beam splitters in a number of L x n x 2k-1, m is a positive integer, and a value range of k is from 1 to m, the m levels of beam splitting section are able to be expanded as needed (Fig 2, where the optical transmitter comprises m=2 levels of beam splitting section, including m=2 levels of beam splitter section (e.g. 211 to 21M and 231 to 23M) and m=2 levels of waveguide crossing section (e.g. between 231 to 23M and 251 to 25N), wherein each level of the waveguide crossing section (e.g. between 231 to 23M and 251 to 25N) includes a plurality of channels in a number of L x n x 2m (1x4x22 =16), a k(1)-th level beam splitter section (e.g. 211 to 21M) includes a plurality of beam splitters in a number of L x n x 2k-1 (1x4x21-1=4), m=2 is a positive integer, and a value range of k(1) is from 1 to m=2, the m=2 levels of beam splitting section (e.g. 211 to 21M and 231 to 23M) are able to be expanded as needed);
a first level beam splitter section divides an optical signal from the light sources in the number of L x n into an L x n x 21-channel output signal (Fig 2, where a first level beam splitter section (e.g. 211 to 21M) divides an optical signal from the light sources (e.g. IP1 to IPM) in the number of L x n (1x4=4) into an L x n x 21 (1x4x21=8) channel output signal);
a k+1-th level beam splitter section divides an L x n x 2k-channel output signal coming from a k-th level beam splitter section into an L x n x 2k+1-channel output signal, an output signal of each channel has one output power (Fig 2, where a k+1 (1+1=2)-th level beam splitter section (e.g. 231 to 23M) divides an L x n x 2k (1x4x21=8) channel output signal coming from a k(1)-th level beam splitter section (e.g. 211 to 21M) into an L x n x 2k+1 (1x4x21+1=16) channel output signal, an output signal of each channel has one output power); and
a plurality of function blocks in a number of L x n x 2m and a plurality of multiplexers in a number of L x 2m, wherein a 2m-channel output signal split and generated by an m-th level beam splitting section connects to m levels of waveguide crossing section and then the multiplexers sequentially, while each multiplexer is configured to combine n output signals with different signals coming from n channels (Fig 2, where the optical transmitter comprises a plurality of function blocks (e.g. 241 to 24M) in a number of L x n x 2m (1x4x22=16) and a plurality of multiplexers (e.g. 251 to 25N) in a number of L x 2m (1x22=4), wherein a 2m (22=4) channel output signal split and generated by an m(2)-th level beam splitting section (e.g. 231 to 23M) connects to m(2) levels of waveguide crossing section (e.g. between 231 to 23M and 251 to 25N) and then the multiplexers (e.g. 251 to 25N) sequentially, while each multiplexer (e.g. 251 to 25N) is configured to combine n(4) output signals with different signals coming from n(4) channels).
Lee fails to explicitly disclose the signals being wavelengths.
However, Suemura discloses
signals being wavelengths (Fig 5, where signals (e.g. from light sources 79(0) to 79(3)) are wavelengths).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the signals (e.g. from light sources IP1 to IPM) as described in Lee, with the teachings of the signals (e.g. from light sources 79(0) to 79(3)) as described in Suemura. The motivation being is that as shown signals (e.g. from light sources 79(0) to 79(3)) are wavelengths and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the signals (e.g. from light sources IP1 to IPM) as described in Lee and better show and illustrate that the signals (e.g. from light sources IP1 to IPM) are wavelengths i.e. because the light sources IP1 to IPM use wavelengths as signals in order to optimally transmit communication data and where such wavelengths are used to enable high communication capacity, long transmission reach, and maximize bandwidth utilization and which combination is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. optical splitters, optical gates, optical couplers/ multiplexers, …) and which combination is a simple implementation of a known concept of known signals (e.g. from light sources 79(0) to 79(3)) into other similar signals (e.g. from light sources IP1 to IPM), namely, for better clarifying their operation/configuration and which combination yields predictable results. Furthermore, since Lee Fig 2 teaches the function blocks (e.g. 241 to 24M), the m(2) levels of waveguide crossing section (e.g. between 231 to 23M and 251 to 25N) and the multiplexers (e.g. 251 to 25N) being sequentially, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to modify the position of the function blocks (e.g. 241 to 24M) so that the function blocks (e.g. 241 to 24M) are located between the m(2) levels of waveguide crossing section (e.g. between 231 to 23M and 251 to 25N) and the multiplexers (e.g. 251 to 25N) i.e. as an alternative. This modification requires only ordinary skilled in the art to perform and yields predictable results. Here, it is noted that after the modification the function blocks (e.g. 241 to 24M) and the multiplexers (e.g. 251 to 25N) can be fabricated together thus reducing the number of parts and cost. Furthermore, the courts found that mere rearranging (moving) the location of parts (e.g. the function blocks (e.g. 241 to 24M)), without changing the operation of the prior art system is obvious and is not patentable. See for details MPEP 2144.04 Section VI "Rearrangement of Parts".
Regarding Claim 4. Lee as modified by Suemura also discloses the optical transmitter, wherein the beam splitter includes at least one of a Y-shaped branch, a trident shaped branch, a multi-mode interferometer, a directional coupler, an adiabatic coupler, a bending coupler, a photonic crystal splitter, and a sub-wavelength splitter (Lee Fig 2, where the beam splitter (e.g. 211 to 21M and 231 to 23M) includes a Y-shaped branch).
Regarding Claim 5. Lee as modified by Suemura also discloses the optical transmitter, wherein the multiplexer includes at least one of an arrayed waveguide grating, an Echelle grating, a cascaded Mach-Zender interferometer, a cascaded microring, a cascaded Mach-Zended interferometer and a microring, a Fabry Perot interferometer (Suemura Fig 5, where a multiplexer (e.g. 99(0) to 99(3)) includes an arrayed waveguide grating (i.e. as shown in Fig 6)).
Regarding Claim 6. Lee as modified by Suemura also discloses the optical transmitter, wherein the light source includes at least one of an external light source, an on-chip hybrid integrated or a heterojunction integrated light source; an integrated material includes at least one of an III-V/silicon light source, an III-V/silicon nitride light source, and an III-V/thin film lithium niobate (Suemura Fig 5, where the light source (e.g. 79(0) to 79(3)) includes an external light source (i.e. for generating wavelengths λ0 to λ3)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 7-16 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.
Conclusion
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 2634
Prosecution Insights