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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/23/26 has been entered.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inagaki et al, US Pub. 2010/0272445, in view of Ghera et al, US Pub. 2002/0141695.
Inagaki et al disclose a gain and signal level adjustment of cascaded optical amplifiers comprising: (paragraph [0119]; and figure 13): receiving, by a first optical amplifier, light (receiving, by a second optical amplifier, the light amplified by the first optical amplifier; and amplifying the received light with a gain of the second optical amplifier (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 1, Inagaki et al fail to specifically disclose the feature of "dynamically adjusting a gain of the input light signal based on feedback monitoring of an output light signal". However, the feature would be easily derived from the disclosure of Inagaki et al (see claim 1: "a gain adjustor which, in accordance with the detected power levels, detects a deviation in gain of the first optical amplifier from a target gain, and adjusts the gain of the second optical
amplifier to compensate for the detected deviation"). Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by Inagaki et al.
Inagaki et al fail to expressly disclose that the adjustment is performed in response to feedback monitoring of the output of the second amplifier, that is a per channel attenuation which varies across the plurality of channels.
Ghera et al disclose a method and apparatus for dynamic gain equalizer for an erbium doped fiber amplifier comprising: EDFA gain equalization; dynamic gain equalizer, wavelength-dependent absorption, and adjustment of attenuation according to channel power (see par. 0042-0045).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Inagaki et al using the feedback control technique of Ghera et al in order to maintain gain flatness across the VDM channels, compensate for spectral variation, and to improve amplifier performance. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, the additional feature would be easily derived from the disclosure of Inagaki et al (see claim 1: "detectors detecting a power level of the light received by the first optical amplifier, a power level of the light amplified by the first optical amplifier, a power level of the light received by the second optical amplifier, and a power level of the light amplified by the second optical amplifier; and a gain adjustor which, in accordance with the detected power levels, detects a deviation in gain of the first optical amplifier from a target gain, and adjusts the gain of the second optical amplifier to compensate for the detected deviation").
Regarding claim 7, these features would be easily derived from the disclosure of Inagaki et al (see claim 2: "a first gain controller controlling the gain of the first optical amplifier to be constant; and a second gain controller controlling the gain of the second optical amplifier to be constant").
Regarding claims 9-10, the additional features would be easily derived from the disclosure of Inagaki et al (see paragraph [0063]; and figure 3: "Optical amplifier 6' is provided with a feedback loop 12 for automatic gain control (AGC), and optical amplifier 8' is provided with a feedback loop 14 for AGC").
Regarding claim 11, these features would be easily derived from the disclosure of Inagaki et al (see paragraph [0062]: "the output level of each optical amplifier has an optimum range. Accordingly, by controlling the output level of each optical amplifier so that it always falls within the optimum range irrespective of the input level of each
optical amplifier, the input dynamic range can be widened").
Regarding claim 12, these features would be easily derived from the disclosure of Inagaki et al (see claim 1: "a second optical amplifier receiving the light amplified by the first optical amplifier, and amplifying the received light with a gain of the second optical amplifier").
Regarding claim 13, the additional feature would be easily derived from the disclosure of Inagaki et al (see paragraph [0131]: "In these optical amplification devices, WDM signal light obtained by multiplexing a plurality of optical signals having different wavelengths is subjected to batch amplification by two-stage amplifier sections each employing, for example, an erbium doped fiber (EDF)").
Regarding claim 14, the additional feature would be easily derived from the disclosure of Inagaki et al (see paragraph [0062]; and figure 1: "in this kind of system, it is greatly effective in increasing a transmission distance to perform a control such that the gain tilt in each optical amplifier becomes flat").
Regarding claim 15, Inagaki et al, discloses an optical amplifying device comprising (see claim 19): a first optical amplifier receiving light and amplifying the received light with a gain of the first optical amplifier (see claim 19); and a second optical amplifier receiving the light amplified by the first optical amplifier, and amplifying the received light with a gain of the second optical amplifier (see claim 19).
Inagaki et al fail to disclose a gain control module coupled to the first stage and the second stage, the gain control module for receiving the light signal from the first stage for output to the second stage, and further configured to dynamically adjust a gain based on feedback monitoring of the output boosted light signal". However, the different feature would be easily derived from the disclosure of Inagaki et al (see claim 1: "a gain adjustor which, in accordance with the detected power levels, detects a deviation in gain of the first optical amplifier from a target gain, and adjusts the gain of the second optical amplifier to compensate for the detected
deviation", and see paragraph [0063]; and figure 3: "optical amplifier 8' is provided with a feedback loop 14 for AGC"). Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by Inagaki et al.
Inagaki et al fail to expressly disclose that the adjustment is performed in response to feedback monitoring of the output of the second amplifier, that is a per channel attenuation which varies across the plurality of channels.
Ghera et al disclose a method and apparatus for dynamic gain equalizer for an erbium doped fiber amplifier comprising: EDFA gain equalization; dynamic gain equalizer, wavelength-dependent absorption, and adjustment of attenuation according to channel power (see par. 0042-0045).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Inagaki et al using the feedback control technique of Ghera et al in order to maintain gain flatness across the VDM channels, compensate for spectral variation, and to improve amplifier performance. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Regarding claim 16, the additional features would be easily derived from the disclosure of Inagaki et al (see paragraph [0063]; and figure 3: "Optical amplifier 6' is provided with a feedback loop 12 for automatic gain control (AGC), and optical amplifier 8' is provided with a feedback loop 14 for AGC") and the disclosure of D2 (see paragraph [0036]; and figure 2: "A fully balanced gain setting between the first and second gain setting circuits may well provide optimal results").
Regarding claim 18, the additional feature would be easily derived from the disclosure of Inagaki et al (see paragraph [0131]: "In these optical amplification devices, WDM signal light obtained by multiplexing a plurality of optical citations and explanations supporting such statement signals having different wavelengths is subjected to batch amplification by two-stage amplifier sections each employing, for example, an erbium doped fiber (EDF)").
Regarding claim 19, the additional feature would be easily derived from the disclosure of Inagaki et al (see paragraph [0062]; and figure 1: "in this kind of system, it is greatly effective in increasing a transmission distance to perform a control such that the gain tilt in each optical amplifier becomes flat").
It is al noted that CN1014731, CN104604051, and CN1692295, from international also render the claims obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 8, 17, and 20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the applicant teaches an optical amplifier module and a method thereof which includes dynamically adjusting a gain of the light signal based on feedback monitoring output from a second amplifier by adjusting a per channel attenuation, wherein the per channel attenuation varies across the plurality of channels, including determining a target output power spectrum, wherein dynamically adjusting the gain is based on meeting a threshold error between the target output power spectrum and an output power spectrum of the light signal from the second amplifier, etc. These limitations and others in conjunction with other limitations in the claims were not shown by the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/24/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See examiner remarks.
Remarks:
In response to the applicant’s argument that the prior art (Inagaki) does not dynamically control distribution of gain or attenuation across individual channels of the signal, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art dynamically controls the power level of the signal, when the signal is adjusted upward or downward, each individual channel will be adjusted accordingly. The amendment (i.e. a per channel attenuation which varies across the channels), the new prior art (Ghera et al) which modifies Inagaki et al to render the claims obvious. Furthermore, setting a specific threshold (i.e. feedback signal) for adjusting the overall signal or individual channels, such limitation is a matter of choice for meeting specific requirements. The structure of the prior art can performs all these method steps. The applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Refer to the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL ST CYR whose telephone number is (571)272-2407. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:00-8:00.
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, Pham Thomas can be reached at 571-272-3689. 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.
DANIEL ST CYR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2876
/DANIEL ST CYR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights