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 filed Jan 12, 2026 regarding claims 1-6 and 8. The rejections of claims 1-6 are withdrawn in light of the amendments to claims 1 and 6. The rejection of claim 8 is withdrawn in light of the cancellation of that claim.
The claim interpretation under 112(f) for claim 7 is withdrawn in light of the amendments to claim 7.
In light of the amendments, new rejections are presented below.
In the paragraph at the bottom of page 6, Applicant states “Claim interpretation is a question of law for the court and claim terms are properly construed in accordance with relevant caselaw of the Federal Circuit.” If Applicant is arguing that it is improper for the Examiner to interpret the claims, then the Examiner disagrees. Claim interpretation is a necessary and unavoidable part of examining a patent application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 – Scope of Enablement
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a limited scope based on the teachings in the application, does not reasonably provide enablement for the full scope recited in the claims. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
MPEP 2164.08 states: “The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that ‘the specification must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without ‘undue experimentation’.” In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The Examiner notes that this claim was previously indicated as allowable because it was written in step plus function form. However, Applicant has amended the claim and changed the scope, necessitating this rejection.
Teachings of the Application.
The application teaches a reception device and corresponding method that performs correlation calculation between a reception signal spectrum and a detection pattern. See:
[0037] The reception device according to the present embodiment performs correlation calculation between a reception signal spectrum and a detection pattern in order to detect a spectrum edge or a spectrum gap. As the detection pattern, a pattern that specifically reacts only to the spectrum edge and the spectrum gap needs to be prepared in advance.
The application also teaches the detection pattern and correlation pattern used in Eqns. (1) and (2). See:
[0038] As the detection pattern for detecting the spectrum edge, for example, a pattern based on second differentiation of the expected value of the reception signal spectrum can be used. Here, the reception signal spectrum is I.sub.sig(D) and the detection pattern is R(f). In a case were the detection pattern is configured by second differentiation of the reception signal spectrum I.sub.sig(f), the detection pattern R(f) can be expressed as Equation (1) below.
PNG
media_image1.png
64
444
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[0039] The reception device can obtain the correlation pattern K(δ) expressed by Equation (2) below by calculating the correlation between the reception signal spectrum I.sub.sig(I) and the detection pattern R(f).
PNG
media_image2.png
62
442
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[0040] Since the correlation pattern K(δ) has a sharp peak at the position of the frequency offset, the reception device can estimate that δ giving the maximum value of the correlation pattern K(δ) is the value of the frequency offset amount.
The application also teaches an alternative detection pattern R(f):
[0041] The reception device may use the expected value of the reception signal spectrum itself as the detection pattern R(f). However, when the value of the second differentiation is used rather than the expected value of the reception signal spectrum itself, the steep spectrum edge can be obtained, so that the occurrence of an error is further suppressed.
The application at FIG. 10 illustrates a reception device with a structure that performs the correlation calculation. This device includes coherent detection circuitry and a frequency offset estimation unit 50 that outputs the peak position of the correlation pattern.
PNG
media_image3.png
596
964
media_image3.png
Greyscale
See:
[0053] Hereinafter, a functional configuration of the reception device 1 will be described. FIG. 10 is a block diagram illustrating an example of a functional configuration of the reception device 1 according to an embodiment of the present invention. As illustrated in FIG. 10, the reception device 1 includes an LO laser 10, a coherent optical to electrical (OE) conversion unit 20, ADCs 30-1 to 30-4, and a frequency offset estimation unit 50.
The coherent detection circuitry receives a reception optical signal that is processed by a coherent O/E conversion unit 20, an LO 10, ADCs 30, and imaginary unit multiplication units j1, j2 at the outputs of the ADCs 30. See:
[0054] The LO laser 10 is a local oscillation laser, and outputs local oscillation light whose phase matches the frequency of the reception optical signal. The coherent OE conversion unit 20 performs coherent detection on the reception optical signal using the local oscillation light output from the LO laser 10 and converts the reception optical signal into a 4-lane baseband electric signal.
[0055] Each of four analog to digital converters (ADCs) 30-1 to 30-4 takes in an electric signal of four lanes output from the coherent OE conversion unit 20 and converts the electric signal into a digital signal. The 4-lane digital signals are in-phase and quadrature components of horizontal polarization and in-phase and quadrature components of vertical polarization of the reception optical signal. An imaginary unit multiplication unit j1 and an imaginary unit multiplication unit j2 are connected to the ADC 30-2 and the ADC 30-4 that output quadrature components, respectively.
[0056] The imaginary unit multiplication unit j1 advances the phase of the quadrature component output from the ADC 30-2 by 90 degrees on the complex plane and outputs the phase. The output of the ADC 30-1 and the output of the imaginary unit multiplication unit j1 are combined to generate a horizontally polarized reception signal having an in-phase component output from the ADC 30-1 as a real component and a quadrature component output from the imaginary unit multiplication unit j1 as an imaginary component. In addition, the imaginary unit multiplication unit j2 advances the phase of the quadrature component output from the ADC 30-4 by 90 degrees on the complex plane and outputs the phase. The output of the ADC 30-3 and the output of the imaginary unit multiplication unit j2 are combined to generate a vertically polarized reception signal having an in-phase component output from the ADC 30-3 as a real component and a quadrature component output from the imaginary unit multiplication unit j2 as an imaginary component.
[0058] In addition, the horizontally polarized reception signal and the vertically polarized reception signal which are converted into the digital signals and are represented by the complex number are branched and also input to the frequency offset estimation unit 50. As illustrated in FIG. 10, the frequency offset estimation unit 50 includes FFT operation units 51-1 to 51-2, absolute value operation units 52-1 to 52-2, a frame integration unit 53, a correlation processing unit 54, a detection pattern storage unit 55, and a peak detection unit 56.
In other words, the coherent detection circuitry processes received optical signals in a particular way and produces complex numbers in the form of horizontally X and vertically Y polarized digital signals which are provided to the frequency offset estimation unit 50.
The frequency offset estimation unit 50 includes FFT operation units 51, absolute value operation units 52, frame integration unit 53, correlation processing unit 54, detection pattern storage unit 55, and peak detection unit 56. See:
[0058] In addition, the horizontally polarized reception signal and the vertically polarized reception signal which are converted into the digital signals and are represented by the complex number are branched and also input to the frequency offset estimation unit 50. As illustrated in FIG. 10, the frequency offset estimation unit 50 includes FFT operation units 51-1 to 51-2, absolute value operation units 52-1 to 52-2, a frame integration unit 53, a correlation processing unit 54, a detection pattern storage unit 55, and a peak detection unit 56.
[0059] The FFT operation units 51-1 to 51-2 acquire the reception signal for each polarization branched and input. The FFT operation units 51-1 to 51-2 convert the reception signal for each polarization into a frequency domain by FFT. The FFT operation unit 51-1 outputs the reception signal converted into the frequency domain to the absolute value operation unit 52-1, and the FFT operation unit 51-2 outputs the reception signal converted into the frequency domain to the absolute value operation unit 52-2.
[0060] The absolute value operation unit 52-1 acquires the reception signal converted into the frequency domain output from the FFT operation unit 51-1. In addition, the absolute value operation unit 52-2 acquires the reception signal converted into the frequency domain output from the FFT operation unit 51-2. The absolute value operation units 52-1 to 52-2 square the absolute value of the reception signal converted into the frequency domain to generate a power spectrum.
[0061] Note that the absolute value operation units 52-1 to 52-2 may generate the amplitude spectrum only by taking absolute values for the reception signals converted into the frequency domain. The absolute value operation units 52-1 to 52-2 output the generated power spectrum (or amplitude spectrum) to the frame integration unit 53.
[0062] The frame integration unit 53 acquires the power spectrum (or the amplitude spectrum) output from the absolute value operation units 52-1 to 52-2. The frame integration unit 53 performs averaging by integrating the power spectrum (or the amplitude spectrum) over a plurality of FFT frames. This is to avoid the instantaneous fluctuation of the power spectrum (or the amplitude spectrum) of the reception signal from affecting the estimation accuracy of the frequency offset amount. The frame integration unit 53 outputs the integrated power spectrum (or absolute value spectrum) to the correlation processing unit 54.
[0063] The correlation processing unit 54 acquires the integrated power spectrum (or absolute value spectrum) output from the frame integration unit 53. In addition, the correlation processing unit 54 acquires the detection pattern stored in the detection pattern storage unit 55. The correlation processing unit 54 performs correlation calculation between the integrated power spectrum (or absolute value spectrum) and the detection pattern to obtain a correlation pattern. The correlation processing unit 54 outputs the correlation pattern to the peak detection unit 56.
[0064] The detection pattern storage unit 55 stores the detection pattern in advance. As described above, the detection pattern is a predetermined waveform pattern for detecting the spectrum edge or the spectrum gap of the reception signal spectrum.
[0065] The detection pattern storage unit 55 includes, for example, a storage medium such as a random access memory (RAM), a read only memory (ROM), a hard disk drive (HDD), or a solid state drive (SSD), or a combination of these storage media. Note that, for example, the detection pattern storage unit 55 may be provided in an external device instead of being provided in the reception device 1, and the reception device 1 may acquire the detection pattern from the external device.
In other words, the frequency offset estimation unit 50 performs particular signal processing on the signals from the coherent detection circuitry and the data from the detection pattern storage unit 55 to produce the correlation pattern. This correlation pattern is sent to the peak detection unit 56 that processes the correlation pattern in a particular way to produce the frequency offset estimation. See:
[0066] The peak detection unit 56 acquires the correlation pattern output from the correlation processing unit 54. The peak detection unit 56 detects a peak position of the correlation pattern. The peak detection unit 56 assumes that the detected peak position is the center position of the power spectrum, and estimates a deviation between the peak position and the DC position as the frequency offset amount. The peak detection unit 56 outputs information indicating the estimated frequency offset amount to a compensation unit (not illustrated) that compensates for the frequency offset at a subsequent stage in the reception device 1. A compensation unit (not illustrated) compensates for the frequency offset based on the acquired information.
In other words, the peak detection unit 56 estimates the frequency offset amount by assuming that the detected peak position is the center position of the power spectrum, and estimates a deviation between the peak position and the DC position as the frequency offset amount.
FIG. 11 illustrates an embodiment that is similar embodiment that of FIG. 10 except that it moves the FFT operation units 40/51 from within the frequency offset estimation unit 50a to outside of the frequency offset estimation unit 50a and before the signals are split and sent to the frequency offset estimation unit 50a.
PNG
media_image4.png
608
964
media_image4.png
Greyscale
See also:
[0067] Note that the functional configuration of the reception device in the present embodiment may be, for example, the functional configuration of a reception device 1a illustrated in FIG. 11. The reception device 1a includes an LO laser 10, a coherent OE conversion unit 20, ADCs 30-1 to 30-4, FFT operation units 40-1 to 40-2, and a frequency offset estimation unit 50a. In addition, the frequency offset estimation unit 50a includes absolute value operation units 52-1 to 52-2, a frame integration unit 53, a correlation processing unit 54, a detection pattern storage unit 55, and a peak detection unit 56.
[0068] As illustrated in the drawing, the functional configuration of the reception device 1a in the present modification example is different from the functional configuration of the reception device 1 in that the frequency offset estimation unit 50a does not include the FFT operation unit, and instead, the FFT operation units 40-1 to 40-2 included in the reception signal processing function of the reception device 1a are used.
[0069] In general, a reception device of a coherent optical communication system often includes a wavelength dispersion compensator. In general, the wavelength dispersion compensator performs signal processing in a frequency domain. Therefore, the reception device of the coherent optical communication system often includes the FFT operation unit in advance. The reception device 1a of the present modification example is configured not to include the FFT operation unit in the frequency offset estimation unit 50a, but to share the FFT operation units 40-1 to 40-2 provided in advance in the reception device 1a to be used in the signal processing of the main signal in the frequency offset estimation processing.
In other words, the embodiment of FIG. 11 appears to be essentially the same as the embodiment of FIG. 10.
Scope of the Claim.
Claim 7 recites a “frequency offset estimation method comprising obtaining a correlation pattern” and an “estimating a frequency offset amount”. As will be discussed in more detail below, claim 7 has a broad scope that recites desired results without reciting the particular steps taught in the application to achieve those results. In contrast, the application teaches a frequency offset estimation unit (see FIGS. 10 and 11) which performs particular correlation calculations between a reception signal spectrum and a detection pattern, as well as the detection pattern and correlation pattern (see the application at [0037]-[0041] and Eqns. (1) and (2); reproduce and discussed in more detail above). This is not recited in the claim.
More specifically, FIG. 10 illustrates a reception device including coherent detection circuitry and a frequency offset estimation unit 50 that outputs the peak position of the correlation pattern.
PNG
media_image3.png
596
964
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This frequency offset estimation unit 50 outputs the peak position of the correlation pattern through a series of steps represented by the operations of the absolute value operation units 52, the frame integration unit 53, and correlation processing unit 54, the detection pattern storage unit 55, and the peak detection unit 56. See also FIG. 11 illustrates another embodiment.
Each of these units are discussed in more detail above in the “Teachings of the Application” section.
Referring back to the claim, the “estimating” step (the final step) produces “a frequency offset amount based on a peak position”. This is broad and has a scope that can include any use of the peak position to estimate the frequency offset (e.g., the presence of absence of the peak position at a predetermined frequency, the peak position relative to some other reference, the amplitude, frequency, or other characteristic of the value of the peak position, etc.). In contrast, the application teaches a particular relationship in the operation of the peak detection unit 56:
[0066] The peak detection unit 56 acquires the correlation pattern output from the correlation processing unit 54. The peak detection unit 56 detects a peak position of the correlation pattern. The peak detection unit 56 assumes that the detected peak position is the center position of the power spectrum, and estimates a deviation between the peak position and the DC position as the frequency offset amount. The peak detection unit 56 outputs information indicating the estimated frequency offset amount to a compensation unit (not illustrated) that compensates for the frequency offset at a subsequent stage in the reception device 1. A compensation unit (not illustrated) compensates for the frequency offset based on the acquired information.
In other words, the ”estimating” step has a scope that is much broader than the teachings of the application. The “estimating” step builds on the results produced by the “obtaining” step, which also recites desired results without corresponding method steps.
For example, “obtaining a correlation pattern” appears to recite the results from the operation of the correlation processing unit 54, without requiring the corresponding method steps performed by that unit (e.g., see [0063], reproduced above in “Teachings of the Application”). The “power spectrum of the reception signal or the reception signal spectrum” are the results of the absolute value operations unit 52, without requiring the corresponding method steps (see [0060], [0061], above). The “detection pattern that is a predetermined waveform pattern” language appears to be the results of the detection pattern storage unit 55, without requiring the corresponding method steps (see [0064] above).
Furthermore, the application teaches to use the frame integration unit 53 to average the power spectrum (or the amplitude spectrum) output from the absolute value operation units by integrating over a plurality of FFT frames, and outputting the results to the correlation processing unit (see [0062]). This claim, however, does not appear to require this functionality/method step, and the application does not appear to teach an embodiment that does not require this functionality (e.g., see FIGS. 10 and 11).
In summary, the claim broadly recites the results of the frequency offset estimation unit, but does not require the operations/method steps taught in the application to produce the results of the estimation unit 50. In other words, the scope of the claim does not appear to be commensurate with the teachings.
When considering the teachings of the application and the scope of the claims discussed above, see MPEP 2173.05(g), 4th paragraph:
… Further, without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim. Ariad Pharmaceuticals., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Unlimited functional claim limitations that extend to all means or methods of resolving a problem may not be adequately supported by the written description or may not be commensurate in scope with the enabling disclosure, both of which are required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714, 218 USPQ 195, 197 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1340, 94 USPQ2d at 1167. …
This supports a finding that the broad scope of the claims is not commensurate with the teachings in the disclosure.
The Examiner notes that claims 1 and 6 have been amended to include the absolute value operations unit 52, the frame integration unit 53, the correlation processing unit 54, the detection pattern storage unit 55, and the peak detection unit 56. Claim 7, which appears to be intended as a corresponding method claim, does not require the method steps corresponding to these units in claims 1 and 6.
No Teaching of a General Case for the Full Scope of the Claims.
The Examiner also notes that there is no teaching of an apparatus and/or method with the broad scope recited in the claims. For example, there is no teaching of a general case that can estimate a frequency offset based on a peak position of the correlation pattern without performing method steps corresponding to the operation of FIGS. 10 and 11.
If such a general case were contemplated or discovered by the inventors, its disclosure and a description of its operation would be expected as part of the application in order to support broad claims. This is particularly true because, as discussed above, the embodiments that are disclosed in the application require fairly complex and particular structures performing particular combinations of functions in a particular order. These structures and combinations of method steps would be unnecessary if a general case had been known by the inventors, and yet the application does not include a disclosure of a general case that is not limited to these particular teachings. This supports a conclusion that the scope of the claims is not commensurate with the teachings of the application.
Other Considerations.
The direction and examples provided by the inventor(s) appear to be enabling for a limited scope of the invention (i.e., the embodiments of FIGS. 10 and 11), but not for the full scope of the claims.
The nature of the invention is optical reception apparatuses and methods. The components used in the various embodiments were known to one of ordinary skill. For example, one or ordinary skill would be familiar with components such as LO lasers, coherent O/E converters, ADCs, multiplication units, FFT operation units, absolute value generators, and signal processors in the context of the invention.
However, these and other elements can be arranged in a practically infinite number of combinations. Fortunately, the application teaches how to arrange these elements with other elements in particular combinations in order to achieve the desired results (e.g., see FIGS. 10 and 11). One or ordinary skill would know how to make and use the disclosed embodiments of the invention from the teachings of the application. Furthermore, it would have been obvious that some elements may be modified or replaced with other elements known to have the same or similar functionality, and to make some modifications to the particular structures disclosed.
Similarly, one of ordinary skill would also know how to perform other tasks in the present technological area and related to the invention, such as providing power to components (although power supplies and power specifications are not explicitly taught in the application), and splicing and coupling the electrical and optical components together in a way that limits losses to a commercially acceptable level (although this is not explicitly taught in the application), and managing the temperature of electrical and optical components which are susceptible to performance degradation and undesirable operational variations based on temperature (although this is not explicitly taught in the application), and shielding components from EM interference because commercial systems routinely operate in the RF spectrum and would generate interference to electrical components within the system and outside of the system (although this is not explicitly taught).
However, these modifications do not address the issues raised above regarding the scope of the claims and the teachings of the application.
Inoperative Embodiments.
As discussed above, the claims have a broad scope that is not limited to particular structures, programming steps, and method steps. As a result, there are a practically unlimited number of different combinations, and not all combinations and not all arrangements of combinations perform the desired functionality, thereby resulting in a very large number of inoperative embodiments within the scope of the claim. In addition, the specification does not identify the inoperative embodiments or otherwise limit the scope of the claim to be commensurate with the teachings. As a result, the scope of the claims has a practically infinite number of embodiments that would need to be tested or otherwise evaluated (i.e., infinite experimentation) to determine which embodiments are operative. This supports a finding that undue experimentation would be required.
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation and Opportunity to Amend.
During prosecution, Applicant has an opportunity to amend the claims to the desired scope. See MPEP 2111, 4th paragraph:
Because applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.”); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969) … See also In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The court held that the PTO is not required, in the course of prosecution, to interpret claims in applications in the same manner as a court would interpret claims in an infringement suit. Rather, the “PTO applies to verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in applicant’s specification.”).
Therefore, if Applicant intends the claims to have a scope that is narrower than the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims should be amended during prosecution to more clearly provide the intended scope.
Conclusion.
The claims have a broad scope, while the direction and examples provided by the inventor(s) are enabling for a limited scope (e.g., the embodiments of FIGS. 10 and 11). Although elements used to make the invention were known, the particular way in which they are arranged is complex and the number of possible arrangements of the elements is practically unlimited. While one of ordinary skill would know how to make some modifications, this has a limited scope that is far less than the full scope of the claims. The Examiner is not aware of knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that would bridge the gap between the broad scope of the claims and the much more limited teachings of particular structures using particular elements as disclosed in the application.
After careful consideration of the factors, the Examiner has concluded that the claims are not commensurate with the teachings in the application, and undue experimentation would be required to make and use the full scope of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 - Indefinite
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 1-5 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.
Claim 1 does not have a preamble and begins with “absolute value operation units ...” This is clearly an inadvertent typographical error when making the amendments. However, it is not clear what preamble (and perhaps other language) should still be in the claim. This rejection will be withdrawn if Applicant amends the claim to add the preamble that was deleted.
Claims 2-5 are rejected because they depend from claim 1 and they fail to further limit the scope in a manner to overcome the rejections.
Claim Interpretation - Means Plus Function
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “absolute value operation units”, “frame integration unit”, “detection pattern storage unit”, correlation processing unit”, and “peak detection unit”, all in claims 1 and 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance. The prior art teaches the general subject matter of the claimed reception device, including using a computer to perform functionality including obtaining a correlation between a received signal spectrum and a reference, and estimating an offset, and compensating for that offset with a feedback loop. See, for example, US 2010/0209121 (Tanimura), which is discussed in more detail below. However, the prior art of record does not appear to teach the particular embodiments within the scope of the claim (see the discussion of the teachings of the application in the 112(a) rejection).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2010/0209121 (Tanimura) teaches known coherent optical receiver designs. FIG. 1 illustrates an optical hybrid 2, LO 2a, O/E converters 3, ADCs 5, and a DSP 6.
PNG
media_image5.png
216
452
media_image5.png
Greyscale
FIG. 3 illustrates more details of the DSP 6, including a signal processor 17 receiving feedback on signal quality at Q-monitor 17a and determining phase control at unit 17b to control the phase of phase controllers 6c.
PNG
media_image6.png
668
984
media_image6.png
Greyscale
FIG. 6 illustrates the operation of the receiver and compensation of skew by the determining unit 17b.
PNG
media_image7.png
646
706
media_image7.png
Greyscale
See, for example, [0081]-[0091] which discusses a feedback loop monitoring the Q value and adjusting the phase controllers 6c.
US 2011/0097085 (Oda) at FIG. 6 illustrates a coherent receiver.
PNG
media_image8.png
299
500
media_image8.png
Greyscale
This embodiment includes a first PBS 41 to split the input light, and a second PBS 42 to split the LO light. The split signals are sent through 90 degree hybrids 43 and the resultant output to PDs 44 producing I and Q signals for orthogonal polarization components.
US 2012/0069854 (Suzuki) at FIG. 1 illustrates a coherent optical receiver.
PNG
media_image9.png
375
552
media_image9.png
Greyscale
This embodiment includes a PBS 110 for separating polarization components of the multiplexed signal, a LO 130, 90 degree hybrid 120, O/E converters 140, ADCs 150, and signal processor 160 (e.g., see FIG. 1). This is the general structure taught in the present application.
US 7,522,842 (McNicol) at FIG. 3 teaches a coherent optical receiver.
PNG
media_image10.png
326
523
media_image10.png
Greyscale
This embodiment includes a PBS for the received signal and a PBS for the LO, 90 degree optical hybrids, O/E/ converters, ADCs, and signal processing.
US 2012/0213532 (Hironishi) at FIG. 22 teaches a coherent optical receiver.
PNG
media_image11.png
795
471
media_image11.png
Greyscale
This embodiment includes a PBS 211 splitting the input signal, a PBS 215 splitting the LO 212 signal, optical hybrid circuits 221, 222, PDs 231-234, ADC 240, DSP 280, and a feedback loop used for compensation 273.
US 2012/0288286 (Houtsma) at FIG. 1 teaches a coherent optical receiver.
PNG
media_image12.png
845
476
media_image12.png
Greyscale
This embodiment includes a mixer (collectively the mixers 130) with more than two input ports (left side) receiving the modulated signal 102 and a LO 110, and four output ports (right side), and four photodiodes 134 connected to the output ports for converting the optical signals to electrical signals. It also teaches splitters (left side before the mixers).
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 DARREN WOLF whose telephone number is (571)270-3378. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM.
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, KENNETH N. VANDERPUYE can be reached at 571-272-3078. 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.
/DARREN E WOLF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634