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 .
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11-12, 15, 17-22, 24, 27-28, and 31-32 are pending.
Claims 1, 8, 17, and 24 have been amended.
This action is Non-Final.
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.
Claim 8 is 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.
Claim 8 previously cited two different alternative embodiments (1. the optical waveguide used to transmit the optical clock signal is used exclusively for the optical clock signal and a further optical waveguide is used for a data signal; or 2. an optical carrier used for the optical clock signal shares an optical waveguide with a further optical carrier used for a data signal), but claim 1 has been amended to include one of the embodiments and dependent claim 8 recites the other embodiment. However, this renders claim 8 unclear because the different embodiments are not combinable. Claim 1 now requires clock and data signals to have separate waveguides, whereas claim 8 requires clock and data signals to share a waveguide. They appear to be conflicting limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8-9, 11, 17, 19-22, 24, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelekhaty et al. (hereinafter as Pelekhaty) PGPUB 2015/0172040, and further in view of Ware PGPUB 2012/0239898.
As per claim 1, Pelekhaty teaches a clock signal distribution method, comprising:
transmitting an optical clock signal at a clock frequency via an optical waveguide [FIG. 2, 0021, and 0027: (link between MUX and DEMUX may be fiber optic cables; clock transmitter generates and transmits an optical clock via link 42 (optical waveguide))],
wherein the optical clock signal is transmitted separately from optical data transmissions [0027: (a separate wavelength channel is used for clock forwarding between clock transmitter and clock receiver; it is a separate channel than the data transmission performed using data transmitters and data receivers)];
receiving the optical clock signal at the same clock frequency using a photodetector [FIG. 2, 0005, and 0026: (clock receiver 32b and use of photodetector to receive signals transmitted over link 42)];
converting the optical clock signal into an electrical clock signal using the photodetector [0031: (photodetector is implicit with the reception of the optical signal and conversion to an electrical signal)], wherein the electrical clock signal has the same clock frequency as the optical clock signal [0029 and 0032: (receiver clock has the same frequency as the transmitter clock; thus there is no difference between the transmitter clock, i.e. optical clock, and receiver clock, i.e. electrical clock)]; and
transmitting the electrical clock signal at the clock frequency via an electrical connection [0031: (electrical clock signal is sent to a clock distribution and data recovery circuit to be distributed to each of the optical transceivers; optical clock signal is retrieved using photodetector and converted into an electrical signal that is provided to clock distribution and data recovery circuit 48, which is used to recover data from the other data receivers)].
Pelekhaty does not explicitly teach wherein the optical waveguide used to transmit the optical clock signal is used exclusively for the optical clock signal and a further optical waveguide is used for a data signal. Pelekhaty describes a single shared connection of an optical waveguide to communicate both data and clock signals, but does not describe having separate connections for clock and data signals.
Ware teaches using serializer and deserializer to communicate data between two different components [FIG. 2B and 0034-0036: (serializer1 222 converts 16-bit wide data into a serialized 1 bit wide data and transmits it over connection 226 to deserializer D1 to recover the 16 bits)]. Ware is thus similar to Pelekhaty because they both utilize SerDes for communication. Ware further teaches wherein the waveguide used to transmit the clock signal is used exclusively for the clock signal and a further waveguide is used for a data signal [FIG. 2B and 0035 and 0039: (a separate connection is used to provide the clock signals while separate SerDes connections are used to communicate the data signals)]. In summary, Ware teaches having data signals and clock signal being transmitted and received over separate connections.
The combination of Pelekhaty with Ware therefore allows Pelekhaty to provide a optical waveguide channel 42 for the transmission of data using SerDes, as well as a separate optical waveguide channel for the transmission of the clock signal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Ware’s teachings of providing a connection for data and a separate connection for the clock in Pelekhaty to yield two separate optical waveguide connections for the clock and data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide separate connections for the clock and data signals in Pelekhaty because it improves the availability of a high speed clock and improves reliability. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use optical waveguides for the separate data and clock connections because Pelekhaty already describes using a fiber optic link between the transmitting and receiving components, and it would be logical to also use a fiber optic link again between the components because the signals need to travel through the same space, which would help maintain synchronization.
As per claim 3, Pelekhaty and Ware teach the method of claim 1, wherein the electrical clock signal is used by an electronic component at the clock frequency [Pelekhaty FIG. 2: (received clock signal is used by clock distribution and data recovery circuit 48)].
As per claim 4, Pelekhaty and Ware teach the method of claim 3, wherein the electronic component is a serializer/deserializer, SerDes [Pelekhaty FIG. 2: (receivers on the right side recover the data tributaries which are equivalent to the data tributaries as input on the left side using Mux and Demux for serialization and deserialization)].
As per claim 5, Pelekhaty and Ware teach the method of claim 1, wherein the optical clock signal is transmitted via the optical waveguide over a distance that is at least 10 times larger than the distance over which the electrical clock signal is transmitted via the electrical connection [Pelekhaty FIG. 2: (the length of link 42 is much longer (more than 10 times) than the small distance between clock 32b and clock distribution data recovery 48)].
As per claim 6, Pelekhaty and Ware teach the method of claim 1, wherein the optical clock signal is transmitted and received within an integrated circuit, or wherein the optical clock signal is transmitted and received on a single circuit board, or wherein the optical clock signal is transmitted on a first circuit board and received on a second circuit board [Pelekhaty claim 3: (may be photonically integrated; e.g. may be integrated) and 0036: (disclosed invention may be used in chip to chip or board to board applications; thus optical clock may be transmitted from one board and received on a second board, or from one chip to another chip on a single board)].
As per claim 8, Pelekhaty and Ware teach the method of claim 1, wherein an optical carrier used for the optical clock signal shares an optical waveguide with a further optical carrier used for a data signal, the optical carrier and further optical carrier having different wavelengths [Pelekhaty 0031, 0037, and FIG. 2: (data signal and clock signals share the link 42 for transmission].
As per claim 9, Pelekhaty and Ware teach the method of claim 8, wherein a further photodetector, different to the photodetector that receives the optical clock signal, is used to receive the data signal [Pelekhaty 0026 and 0033: (photodetector for each receiver of data, which would be different from a clock photodetector)].
As per claim 11, Pelekhaty and Ware teach the method of claim 1 wherein the frequency of the optical clock signal is between 20 GHz and 200 GHz [Pelekhaty 0002: (rates of 20G or 25G) or 0050]
Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 1 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 3 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 4 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 21 is similar in scope to claim 5 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 22 is similar in scope to claim 6 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 24 is similar in scope to claim 8 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 27 is similar in scope to claim 11 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 2, 12, 18, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelekhaty et al. (hereinafter as Pelekhaty) PGPUB 2015/0172040 in view of Ware PGPUB 2012/0239898, and further in view of Kato et al. (hereinafter as Kato) USPAT 5,394,490.
As per claim 2, Pelekhaty and Ware teach the method of claim 1.
Pelekhaty and Ware does not teach wherein the optical clock signal is transmitted to a plurality of photodetectors. Pelekhaty shows sending optical clock signal from one circuit to another circuit, and not from one circuit to a plurality of circuits.
Kato teaches providing optical clock signals through an optical waveguide to receiver circuits that retrieve the clock signal using a photodetector, and that separately receive data. Kato is thus similar to Pelekhaty and Ware since they teach the transmission of an optical clock signal and recovery of the clock. Kato further teaches wherein the optical clock signal is transmitted to a plurality of photodetectors [FIG. 11, FIG. 13, col. 11 lines 60-62, and col. 12 lines 12-14: (optical clock signal is provided to a plurality of destinations 1009 that each have an optical receiver 1004; each optical receiver has a photodetector 1031 for receiving the clock signal)].
The combination of Pelekhaty and Ware with Kato leads to Pelekhaty transmitting the optical clock signals from one circuit to a plurality of circuits, where each has a photodetector for clock recovery.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Kato’s teachings of transmitting the optical clock signal to a plurality of circuits in Pelekhaty and Ware. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to transmit the optical clock signal in Pelekhaty to a plurality of circuits having their own clock photodetector because it allows for communication of clock and data with a plurality of circuits, thereby improving overall functionality and/or adding redundancy.
As per claim 12, Pelekhaty and Ware teaches the method of claim 11.
Pelekhaty and Ware do not teach wherein the frequency of the optical clock signal is between 90 GHz and 110 GHz.
Kato teaches providing optical clock signals through an optical waveguide to receiver circuits that retrieve the clock signal using a photodetector, and that separately receive data. Kato is thus similar to Pelekhaty and Ware since they teach the transmission of an optical clock signal and recovery of the clock. Kato further teaches wherein the frequency of the optical clock signal is between 90 GHz and 110 GHz [col. 11 line 66: frequency of 100GHz or higher].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Kato’s teachings of operating at 100GHz or higher in Pelekhaty and Ware’s link. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to operate at 100GHz or higher in Pelekhaty and Ware because it is a general frequency used by transmitters and receivers that considers propagation loss [Kato col. 11 lines 63 – col. 12 line 4].
As per claim 18, Pelekhaty and Ware teach the clock signal distribution system of claim 17.
Pelekhaty and Ware does not teach comprising a further optical clock signal receiver wherein the optical clock signal transmitter is configured to transmit the optical clock signal to a photodetector in the further optical clock signal receiver. Pelekhaty shows sending optical clock signal from one circuit to another circuit, and not from one circuit to a plurality of circuits.
Kato teaches providing optical clock signals through an optical waveguide to receiver circuits that retrieve the clock signal using a photodetector, and that separately receive data. Kato is thus similar to Pelekhaty and Ware since they teach the transmission of an optical clock signal and recovery of the clock. Kato further teaches transmit the optical clock signal to a photodetector in the further optical clock signal receiver [FIG. 11, FIG. 13, col. 11 lines 60-62, and col. 12 lines 12-14: (optical clock signal is provided to a plurality of destinations 1009 that each have an optical receiver 1004; each optical receiver has a photodetector 1031 for receiving the clock signal; thus there is optical signal receiver and a further optical signal receiver)].
The combination of Pelekhaty and Ware with Kato leads to Pelekhaty transmitting the optical clock signals from one circuit to a plurality of circuits each having optical signal receiver, where each has a photodetector for clock recovery.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Kato’s teachings of transmitting the optical clock signal to a plurality of circuits in Pelekhaty and Ware. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to transmit the optical clock signal in Pelekhaty to a plurality of circuits having their own clock photodetector because it allows for communication of clock and data with a plurality of circuits, thereby improving overall functionality and/or adding redundancy.
Claim 28 is similar in scope to claim 12 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 15, 31, and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelekhaty et al. (hereinafter as Pelekhaty) PGPUB 2015/0172040 in view of Ware PGPUB 2012/0239898, and further in view of Loh PGPUB 2012/0224613.
As per claim 15, Pelekhaty and Ware teach the method of claim 1.
Pelekhaty and Ware do not explicitly teach wherein the method is implemented in an Extremely High Frequency, EHF, radio signal generation system.
Loh teaches using a multiplexer and a demultiplexer with a transmission line interconnect 10 to transmit signals for a device. Loh is thus similar to Pelekhaty and Ware and have the same structure. Loh further teaches wherein the method is implemented in an Extremely High Frequency, EHF, radio signal generation system [0006: (coaxial interconnect is designed and used for extremely high frequency inter-chip communication in the 30-300GHz range)]. Loh indicates that the transmission line interconnect operates in the extremely high frequency range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Loh’s teachings of the interconnect operating in the extremely high frequency range in Pelekhaty and Ware’s link. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to operate Pelekhaty’s link in the extremely high frequency range because it allows for millimeter wave communication to be implemented with microCoax, which provides a low-cost chip wire-bonding [Loh 0006].
Claim 31 is similar in scope to claim 15 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 32, Pelekhaty, Ware, and Loh teach a node in a telecommunications network comprising the EHF radio signal generation system of claim 31 [Pelekhaty 0001 and Loh 0004 and FIG. 2: (described circuitry are nodes of a telecommunication network)].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 1/08/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 17 under U.S.C. 102(a)(1) 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 newly found prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is reminded that in amending in response to a rejection of claims, the patentable novelty must be clearly shown in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited and the objections made. Applicant must also show how the amendments avoid such references and objections. See 37 CFR §1.111(c).
Wadhwa (USPAT 11,695,400) shows a clock signal that is separately transmitted from a data channel [FIG. 2].
Cahill et al. (PGPUB 2017/0052559) teaches multiple SERDES connection which sends optical clock over another optical cable [claim 4 and FIG. 4].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANNY CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-7 EST.
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, Andrew J. Jung can be reached at 5712703779. 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.
/DANNY CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175