The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show labels on the boxes of Figure 2 as described in the specification, only numbers are listed. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
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, 7, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doerr (US 7043123 B2) in view of Kaname Jinguji et al. (Journal of Lightwave Technology, Vol 18, No 2, February 2000).Regarding claim 1, Doerr teaches that( A band filter is a device that is able to separate an incoming optical spectrum into bands (i.e., when used as a demultiplexer) or combine separate optical bands into an output optical spectrum (i.e., when used as a multiplexer), ideally with sharp passband corners. Each band includes one or more optical channels from a multiplexed signal having a plurality of separate optical channels. Band filters are useful in both dense (D) and coarse (C) wavelength-division multiplexed (WDM) systems. In DWDM systems, band filters are typically used for de/multiplexing with a high spectral efficiency or for permitting the use of narrowband optical amplifiers, dispersion compensators, add-drop filters, etc. In CWDM systems, band filters are typically used for de/multiplexing without transmitter temperature control. Col. 1 lines 20-35)An optical frequency-division demultiplexer (Fig. 5A, , 5B) comprising: a plurality of cascaded (Col 8, lines25-30, FIGS. 5a and 5b show different exemplary band filters or de/multiplexers from experimental practice. In FIG. 5a, the filter includes three similar waveguide gratings in cascade; in FIG. 5b the CWDM filter includes a more compact grating connecting the two waveguide grating routers. The filter in FIG. 5a is potentially applicable to the narrower band applications of DWDM, for example.) band filters, each of said cascaded band filters comprising a plurality of stages, wherein each stage comprises a waveguide, (Fig. 1, 115, 177) and a couple (Col. 4, lines 13-20).Doerr does fails to teach wherein phase-shifters are part of the half-band structure. Jinguji teaches a half-band filter (Fig. 3A) in a cascade format (Page 1, col. 1, inite-impulse response (FIR) filters and infinite-impulse response (IIR) filters [12]. FIR filters consist simply of feed forward waveguides, and their impulse responses are limited in finite time. IIR filters include feedback loops such as ring waveguides, and their impulse responses continue for infinite time. A typical 2 2 circuit configuration of FIR optical filters is the lattice form which is composed of cascaded 2 2 Mach–Zehnder interferometers (MZI’s) with a unit path length difference of [13].). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to incorporate Jinguji half-band filters in Doerr’s invention since the Jinguji’s elements use only about half the elements but achieve the power transmittance spectra of conventional filters (Jinguji Page 252, Col. 1 Abstract). Jinguji further describes the half-filter as having the cascade plurality of a first half-band filter of said plurality of cascaded half-band filters is an N-th order filter and a second half-band filter of said plurality of cascaded half-band filter is an M-th order filter, wherein N is unequal to M, and said first half-band filter and said second half-band filter have a same channel spacing. (Jinguji Page 252, Col. 2 , This paper proposes two kinds of novel 2 X2 circuit configu ration for FIR optical half-band filters. They can be transformed into each other by a symmetric transformation which reverses their input and output ports. We confirm that these FIR circuit configurations with M + N . We also dis cuss generalized 2X 2 IIR circuit configurations with ring waveguides for IIR optical half-band filters.Regarding claim 7, the modified invention of Doerr and Jinguji teaches thatThe device according to claim 1, wherein the difference between N and M is an even number. (Jinguji e.g. Table 1, Fig. 3A)
Regarding claim 12, the modified invention of Doerr and Jinguji teaches thatThe device according to claim 7, wherein the difference between N and M is 2. (Jinguji e.g. Table 1, Fig. 3A)Regarding claim 13, the modified invention of Doerr and Jinguji teaches thatThe device according to claim 1, wherein said Nth-order is greater than said Mth-order.(Jinguji e.g. p. 258-259)It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior
art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be
limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied
upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in
the art. See MPEP 2123
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, and 8-11 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gockler US 4,896,320 which teaches a cascaded filter bank.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David C Payne whose telephone number is (571)272-3024. The examiner can normally be reached M-W Teleworking 9:30a -6p.
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.
/DAVID C PAYNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights