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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 01/04/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202110002495.1 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Joint Inventors
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.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendment received 02/25/2026 has been considered and entered.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments received 02/25/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds for rejection. Limitations relating to the “input” and “output” of the semiconductor amplifier of amended claim 15 are disclosed by Oe (US 20180294889 A1) [See the 35 USC 103 section of this office action].
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 17-18 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.
With regards to claim 17, the claim recites “…when a specific optical power is incident onto the semiconductor optical amplifier; wherein the specific optical power is less than or equal to an optical power corresponding to a sensitivity point required by the optical receiving assembly, and the specific optical power is greater than or equal to an optical power corresponding to an optimal sensitivity point of the optical receiving assembly…”. The “specific optical power” of claim 17 is only described in terms of the relationship between said power, and two different instances of “optical power”. The first instance of optical power is itself described only in terms of the power’s correspondence with a “sensitivity point”. The second optical power is only described in terms of the power’s correspondence with an “optimal sensitivity point”. Thus, all terms relating to optical power are described in relation to two different instances of “sensitivity point”. The two sensitivity points are both associated with the optical receiving assembly, but there is no further qualifying information relating to the sensitivity points. It is unclear whether the sensitivity in question is sensitivity to power or another parameter and it is unclear in what singular manner or in what different manners the various optical powers correspond to their respective sensitivity points. This lack of clarity in turn extends to the “specific optical power” of claim 17 due to the aforementioned relationships. The claim is indefinite because there is a great deal of confusion regarding the scope of the constituent limitations.
Claim 18 inherits the indefiniteness of claim 17 on which it depends.
Examiners note: Claims 17-18 have not been further treated on the merits because there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claims. This is not an indication that the claims are allowable under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103. The scope of the claim is unclear as discussed above. As a result, a meaningful formulation of art rejections cannot be done at this time. See MPEP § 2173.06 II, 2nd paragraph:
“… where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. … a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
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 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oe (US 20180294889 A1) in view of Garrett (US 20180210151 A1).
With regards to claim 15, Oe discloses a method for controlling an optical receiving assembly, wherein the optical receiving assembly includes
an adjustable assembly (Fig1/Adjustable assembly 11),
a semiconductor optical amplifier (Fig1/Semiconductor optical amplifier 12), and
an optical detector (Fig1/Optical detector 15),
the adjustable optical path deflection assembly is optically coupled to an input of the semiconductor optical amplifier (Fig1/[Input to element 12 indicated by arrow from element 11 to element 12]), and an output of the semiconductor optical amplifier is optically coupled to the optical detector (Fig1/[Output from element 12 indicated by arrow from element 12 to element 13]), the method comprising steps of:
setting an operating voltage and an operating temperature of the semiconductor optical amplifier, and maintaining the operating voltage and the operating temperature respectively at a voltage preset value and a temperature preset value (Paragraph 34);
monitoring an electrical signal strength output by the optical detector, and determining whether or not the electrical signal strength is within a preset range (Paragraph 34); and
when the electrical signal strength is within the preset range (Paragraph 34/[Signal strength defined by PSOA_MAX]), maintaining a state of the adjustable optical path deflection assembly to be unchanged (Paragraph 34), and,
when the electrical signal strength is not within the preset range, controlling the adjustable optical path deflection assembly to adjust an optical signal incident onto the semiconductor optical amplifier according to a change of the electrical signal strength, so as to adjust a coupling efficiency of the optical signal coupled into the semiconductor optical amplifier to make the electrical signal strength output by the optical detector maintaining within the preset range (Paragraph 34).
Oe is silent regarding the adjustable assembly being an adjustable optical path deflection assembly, but does disclose the adjustable assembly as being a VOA. The practice of configuring a VOA to function by adjusting an optical path exists in the art as exemplified by Garett.
Oe and Garret are considered to be analogous in the field of optical assemblies. Oe discloses an optical receiving assembly comprising a VOA and an SOA. Garret discloses a VOA that functions by adjusting an optical path (Garett/Fig2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a VOA which functions via the steering of an optical path as the VOA of Oe as suggested by Garett since doing so would facilitate low power consumption and increased precision of optical functions.
With regards to claim 16, Oe and Garett together disclose the method according to claim 15, wherein, in the step of monitoring the electrical signal strength output by the optical detector, the electrical signal strength is monitored by detecting a received signal strength indication (RSSI) of a trans-impedance amplifier that is electrically connected to the optical detector (Oe/Paragraph 21/ “…transimpedance amplifier…”).
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 Marc E Manheim whose telephone number is (703)756-1873. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30am - 5pm E.T., Monday - Tuesday and Thursday - 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, Thomas A Hollweg can be reached at (571) 270-1739. 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.
/MARC E MANHEIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights