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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2008/0043784 (Wilcox).
For claim 1, Wilcox teaches a system (fig. 2) comprising:
a first optical source configured to generate a first optical signal (fig. 2, 230);
a second optical source configured to generate a second optical signal (fig. 2, 205);
a first optical mixer (fig. 2, coupler directly below coupler 220) configured to generate a first beat signal based on an optical frequency comb (fig. 2, ML1; [0042]) and the first optical signal (fig. 2, signal from 230);
a second optical mixer (fig. 2, 220) configured to generate a second beat signal based on the optical frequency comb (fig. 2, ML1; [0042]) and the second optical signal (fig. 2, signal from 205);
a first detector configured to output a first measurement signal based on the first and second beat signals (fig. 2, first detector directly below 222; note the signal is based on the second beat signal as the second beat signal is used to control ML1 which produces a comb directly contributing to the first beat signal);
a second detector (fig. 2, 222 and 225) configured to output a second measurement signal based on the second beat signal (fig. 2, beat from mixer 220) and a reference signal (fig. 2, 20MHz coupled to 225); and
a signal processor configured to generate one or more control signals based on the first and second measurement signals for adjusting one or more of the first optical source and the second optical source to maintain a phase relationship between the first optical signal, the second optical signal, and the optical frequency comb (fig. 2, control signal to 215 and control signal to 230).
For claim 2, Wilcox teaches the first optical signal has a first frequency (fig. 2, λ2);
the second optical signal has a second frequency (fig. 2, λ1);
the first optical mixer is configured to generate the first beat signal based on the first optical signal and a first comb tooth of the optical frequency comb nearest to the first frequency ([0043]); and
the second optical mixer is configured to generate the second beat signal based on the second optical signal and a second comb tooth of the optical frequency comb nearest to the second frequency ([0042]).
For claim 8, Wilcox does not explicitly state the first beat signal and second beat signal each comprise a primary beat and a plurality of secondary beats at frequencies greater than the primary beat.
However, the limitation recites what the claimed invention does, and apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114. Wilcox, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.
Further, as the structure of the device is substantially similar, it will inherently include first beat signal and second beat signal each comprise a primary beat and a plurality of secondary beats at frequencies greater than the primary beat.
For claim 9, Wilcox teaches the reference signal is one of a radio-frequency reference signal and a microwave reference signal (fig. 2, 20MHz coupled to 225).
For claim 10, Wilcox teaches a method (fig. 2) comprising:
generating a first beat signal (fig. 2, from coupler directly below coupler 220) based on an optical frequency comb (fig. 2, ML1; [0042]) and a first optical signal (fig. 2, signal from 230);
generating a second beat signal (fig. 2, from coupler 220) based on the optical frequency comb (fig. 2, ML1; [0042]) and a second optical signal (fig. 2, signal from 205);
measuring the phase of the first beat signal with respect to the second beat signal to produce a first phase measurement signal (fig. 2, first detector directly below 222 measures the first beat signal, and it is with respect to the first beat signal as the first beat signal is used to control ML1);
measuring the phase of the second beat signal (fig. 2, beat from mixer 220) with respect to a reference signal to produce a second phase measurement signal (fig. 2, 20MHz coupled to 225); and
controlling one or more of the first optical signal and the second optical signal based on the first and second phase measurement signals to maintain a phase relationship between the first optical signal, the second optical signal, and the optical frequency comb (fig. 2, control signal to 215 and control signal to 230).
For claim 11, Wilcox teaches the first optical signal has a first frequency (fig. 2, λ2);
the second optical signal has a second frequency (fig. 2, λ1);
the generating of the first beat signal is based on the first optical signal and a first comb tooth of the optical frequency comb nearest to the first frequency ([0043]); and
the generating of the second beat signal is based on the second optical signal and a second comb tooth of the optical frequency comb nearest to the second frequency ([0042]).
For claim 12, Wilcox teaches generating the optical frequency comb such that it is symmetric about a central frequency (fig. 1, master clock comb is symmetric about center frequency).
For claim 13, Wilcox teaches the phase relationship is such that the average of the first frequency f1 and the second frequency f₂ is substantially equal to the comb source frequency (fig. 1, 112 and 114 average to the comb source frequency, i.e. the center frequency).
The combination does not explicitly state the first optical signal has a first phase Φ₁ given by Φ₁ = 2πft + φ1, where f1 is a first frequency, t represents time, and φ₁ is a first phase offset; the second optical signal has a second phase Φ₂ given by Φ₂ = 2πf2t + φ2, where f2 is a second frequency, t represents time, and φ2 is a second phase offset. However, the recited equations appear to be inherent in the combination based on the structural similarities of the claimed invention and the applied prior art.
For claim 14, Wilcox does not explicitly state the phase relationship is at least partially resilient to noise induced by the modulator. However, this is an inherent feature of the device based on structural similarities to the claimed invention as well as the wavelengths being tied to the wavelength reference (Wilcox, fig. 2, 210).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2008/0043784 (Wilcox) in view of US 2015/0159990 (Plusquellic).
For claim 3, Wilcox teaches the frequency comb is symmetric about a comb source frequency (fig. 1, master clock comb is symmetric about center frequency).
Wilcox does not teach the frequency comb includes a modulator configured to generate the frequency comb.
However, Plusquellic teaches a frequency comb (fig. 3) may be generated a modulator configured to generate the frequency comb (fig. 1, 6, [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the frequency comb of Plusquellic including a modulator configured to generate the frequency comb as a simple substitution for the frequency comb generator of Wilcox as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art and the substitution would have yielded predictable results. In the present case, the substituted component provides an alternative means to generate a frequency comb. See MPEP 2143 I.B.
For claim 4, Wilcox teaches the phase relationship is such that the average of the first frequency f1 and the second frequency f₂ is substantially equal to the comb source frequency (fig. 1, 112 and 114 average to the comb source frequency, i.e. the center frequency).
The combination does not explicitly state the first optical signal has a first phase Φ₁ given by Φ₁ = 2πft + φ1, where f1 is a first frequency, t represents time, and φ₁ is a first phase offset; the second optical signal has a second phase Φ₂ given by Φ₂ = 2πf2t + φ2, where f2 is a second frequency, t represents time, and φ2 is a second phase offset. However, the recited equation appear to be inherent in the combination based on the structural similarities of the claimed invention and the applied prior art.
For claim 5, the combination does not explicitly state the phase relationship is at least partially resilient to noise induced by the modulator. However, this is an inherent feature of the device based on structural similarities to the claimed invention as well as the wavelengths being tied to the wavelength reference (Wilcox, fig. 2, 210).
For claim 6, Plusquellic teaches the frequency comb is generated based on a local oscillator signal (fig. 1, 4), and the comb source frequency is a local oscillator frequency (inherent based on the combination of Wilcox and Plusquellic and the structural similarity between the claimed invention and the applied prior art).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2008/0043784 (Wilcox).
For claim 7, Wilcox does not teach the first optical mixer comprises a 50:50 beamsplitter and the second optical mixer comprises a 50:50 beamsplitter.
However, the examiner takes official notice that 50:50 beamsplitters used as optical mixers were well-known in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the a well know 50:50 beam splitter as a simple substitution for the first and second optical mixer of Wilcox as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art and the substitution would have yielded predictable results. In the present case, the substituted component provides an alternative means to mix the frequency comb and the first and second optical signals. See MPEP 2143 I.B.
Claim 15 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2008/0043784 (Wilcox) in view of US 2003/0185255 (Ye).
For claim 15, Wilcox does not teach filtering one or more of the first beat signal and the second beat signal to remove high-frequency beats.
However, Ye teaches filtering beat signals to remove high-frequency components ([0012]) in order to provide a stable phase lock using the largest unambiguous temporal range ([0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the filtering of Ye with the beat signals of Wilcox in order to provide a stable phase lock using the largest unambiguous temporal range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael W Carter whose telephone number is (571)270-1872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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 contact the examiner at the above number.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MinSun Harvey can be reached at 571-272-1835. 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.
/Michael Carter/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights