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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 3/2/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 15 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Prosyk et al. (U.S. Patent # 6,650,458 B1) in view of Ghidini et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2009/0003841 A1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 21 and 22 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 prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a variable optical splitter having a phase division multiplexer as claimed.
The closest prior art of record, Prosyk et al. (U.S. Patent # 6,650,458 B1), fails to teach or suggest such a configuration.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6 – 12 are 15 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prosyk et al. (U.S. Patent # 6,650,458 B1) in view of Ghidini et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2009/0003841 A1).
In Re claims 1, 15 and 20 ‘458 teaches a multi-channel optical communication system including: a plurality of optical modulators (100) configured to generate modulated optical signals at respective center wavelengths, each optical modulator configured to impart a corresponding chirp (col. 3, lines 32 – 43) associated with a respective power loss minimum wavelength at the respective center wavelength, each optical modulator including
a variable optical splitter (31), the variable optical splitter configured to split a respective input optical signal at a respective wavelength into a first optical signal portion at a first input signal level and a second optical signal portion at a second input signal level that is different from the first input signal level, the variable optical splitter having i) a first splitter arm (31i) including a variable phase modulator, and ii) a second splitter arm (31j), wherein the variable phase modulator is configured to control the split (col. 15, lines 30 – 36) of the respective input optical signal at the respective wavelength into the first optical signal portion at the first input signal level and the second optical signal portion at the second input signal level,
a first modulator arm (upper path, fig. 2) and coupled to the variable optical splitter to receive the first optical signal portion, the first modulator arm configured to modulate the first optical signal portion,
a second modulator arm (lower path, fig. 2) and coupled to the variable optical splitter to receive the second optical signal portion, the second modulator arm configured to modulate the second optical signal portion, and
an optical combiner (33) configured to combine the first optical signal portion and the second optical signal portion to impart a respective target chirp onto a respective recombined optical signal (@ 12, col. 14, lines 38 – 67), the target chirp being based on a signal level difference between a first output signal level of the first optical portion and a second output signal level of the second optical portion, wherein the signal level difference is determined at least in part by an imbalance of signal intensity between the first modulator arm and the second modulator arm, wherein the imbalance of signal intensity is controlled to cause the target chirp (col. 14, lines 38 – 67);
‘458 is silent to a photonic substrate as claimed and a wavelength-division multiplexer configured to multiplex outputs of the plurality of optical modulators for transmission via an optical fiber, wherein the optical fiber is configured to carry multiple optical channels of the multi-channel optical communication system.
‘841 teaches a wavelength-division multiplexer (WDM) (51, par. 0213) configured to multiplex outputs of a plurality of optical modulators for transmission via an optical fiber, wherein the optical fiber is configured to carry multiple optical channels of the multi-channel optical communication system (par. 0214).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of ‘458 to duplicate the modulators (100) on a photonic substrate and attach those modulators to a WDM as taught by ‘841 and fabricating those devices on all on the same photonic substrate, so as to allow for a robust communication systems that allows for a multitude of signals being modulated on a photonic substrate and transmitted along a fiber thus creating a more versatile system.
In Re claim 4, ‘458 teaches wherein the variable optical splitter is configured to adjust the split of the power level in response to an operator input and/or a feedback signal (col. 25, lines 23 – 27).
In Re claim 6, ‘841 teaches wherein, for each optical modulator, driver circuitry is configured to generate a swing voltage level difference between a first electrical-domain signal applied across the first modulator arm and a second electrical-domain signal applied across the second modulator arm to cause the signal level difference (col. 25, lines 18 – 26).
In Re claim 7, ‘841 teaches differing lengths as claimed (col. 12, lines 15 – 20 an4 col. 8, lines 13 – 15 as 41 adds a length of waveguide).
In Re claim 8, ‘841 teaches wherein, for each optical modulator, an optical attenuator (41 is inherently an attenuator as it adds extra length to the waveguide thus increasing the loss through absorption in the waveguide) is disposed on the first modulator arm or the second modulator arm to cause the signal level difference.
In Re claims 9 and 16, ‘841 teaches wherein the optical combiner is configured to asymmetrically combine the first optical signal portion and the second optical signal portion to combine the first optical signal portion at the first signal level and the second optical signal portion at the second signal level to impart the target chirp (col. 14, lines 33 – 67, col. 15, lines 1 – 11).
In Re claims 10 and 17, ‘841 teaches wherein the optical combiner is configured to symmetrically combine the first optical signal portion and the second optical signal portion to combine the first optical signal portion at the first signal level and the second optical signal portion at the second signal level to impart the target chirp (col. 14, lines 33 – 67, col. 15, lines 1 – 11).
In Re claims 11 and 18, ‘841 teaches wherein, for each optical modulator, the signal level difference includes: a respective power level difference; and/or a respective modulation depth difference (col. 14, lines 33 – 67, col. 15, lines 1 – 11).
In Re claim 12, ‘The patentability of an apparatus depends only on the claimed structural limitations. The previous combination teaches a structure that is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention, therefore the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The burden is on the applicant to show that the device of previous combination does not possess these functional characteristics. See MPEP 2112.01.
In Re claim 19, the previous combination teaches the method of claim 15, but is silent to wherein imparting the target chirp includes shifting a dispersion power penalty valley of an optical fiber in accord with the target chirp.
However, it is well known in the art to couple an output of a modulator such as that of ‘458 through the optical fiber to down stream communication to other telecom equipment and to shift a dispersion power penalty valley (DPPV) in accord with the target chirp.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modulate the modulator to adjust the chirp to shift the DPPV to ensure negligible loss of the signals to down stream communication to other telecom equipment as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1294. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at 1-571-272-2397. 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.
/CHAD H SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874