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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the comparing including aligning the captured first waveform to the calibration waveform” in lines 13-14 of the claim. The Examiner fails to find support of this limitation in instant application and the limitation is considered new subject matter.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “when comparing the first calibration waveform to the captured first waveform, the calibration system is operable to align the captured first waveform to the calibration waveform” in lines 12-14 of the claim. The Examiner fails to find support of this limitation in instant application and the limitation is considered new subject matter.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 11-14 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2010/0303472 A1) in view of Takamuku et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2019/0074903 A1), Pupalaikis (U.S. Patent RE40802 E) and Jain et al. (U.S. Patent 9,088,472 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Miller et al. teaches a method comprising:
selecting, by circuitry of a calibration system (Miller et al. teaches in paragraph [0028] that the procedure of FIG. 3 is performed when the transceiver of FIG. 3 is powered up and when the transceiver is re-enabled after being disabled. Therefore, the procedure comprises a calibration or training stage. Miller et al. teaches in FIG. 3 circuitry comprising controller 150, configurable filter 130, error function block 140 and monitor photodiode 112.), a first calibration waveform for input to a digital predistortion circuit of a transmitter (Miller et al. teaches in paragraph [0020] selecting waveforms that have particular desired impulse responses);
capturing, by the circuitry of the calibration system, a first waveform output by the transmitter in response to the first calibration waveform (the photodiode 112 captures the output of the transmitter and the multiplexer 203 is selected such that the captured signal is fed to the configurable filter 130);
comparing, by the circuitry of the calibration system, the first calibration waveform to the captured first waveform (step 311 of FIG. 4 teaches that the error function block compares the measured waveform with a reference waveform, i.e. the preselected impulse response, and generates the difference between them);
selecting, by the circuitry of the calibration system, a first one of a plurality of mapping circuit configurations for the digital predistortion circuit based on a result of the comparing, (paragraph [0023] teaches that the controller block 150 selecting tap weights of the filter 110 based on the output of the error function block); and
storing, by the circuitry of the calibration system, the first one of the mapping circuit configurations in nonvolatile memory associated with the transmitter (Miller et al. teaches in paragraph [0037] storing the modified settings in non-volatile memory (NVM)).
The differences between Miller et al. and the claimed invention are (a) Miller et al. does not teach estimating an initial predistortion coefficient, (b) Miller et al. does not teach that the first calibration waveform is selected for at least one of: to reduce a frequency of an overall response of the transmitter, or to adjust a range of operation of the transmitter, and (c) wherein the mapping circuit is configured to map outputs of a plurality of delay circuits among inputs of a plurality of filter taps. Takamuku et al. teaches in FIG. 2 and claim 1 a tap coefficient initial value calculator for calculating an initial value of a coefficient of the second adaptive compensator by comparing the expected value with its true value. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Takamuku et al. with the system of Miller et al. because such initial setting minimizes the error according to the calculation based on the reference signal. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate the initial coefficient setting based on the comparison of the first known signal with its true value, as taught by Takamuku et al., in the system of Miller et al.
The combination of Miller et al. and Takamuku et al. still fails to teach that the first calibration waveform is selected to reduce a frequency of an overall response of the transmitter, or to adjust a range of operation of the transmitter. Pupalaikis teaches in FIG. 2 compensation stage 30 for reducing the frequency of the overall response of the system and compensation stage 31 for adjust a range of operation. Pupalaikis teaches in col. 11, lines 63-66 averaging enough acquisitions to reduce noise. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Pupalaikis with the modified system of Miller et al. and Takamuku et al. because the compensators reduce noise and interference. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose calibration waveform to reduce a frequency of an overall response of the transmitter, or to adjust a range of operation of the transmitter, and to average enough acquisitions to reduce noise, as taught by Pupalaikis, in the modified system of Miller et al. and Takamuku et al.
The combination of Miller et al., Takamuku et al. and Pupalaikis still fails to teach that the mapping circuit is configured to map outputs of a plurality of delay circuits among inputs of a plurality of filter taps. Jain et al. teaches in FIG. 3 a predistortion circuit comprising filter modules 304a and 304b. Jain et al. teaches in FIG. 4 the details of the filter module comprising filter taps 402a to 402h, delays 404a to 404h and muxes (selectors) 406a to 406g. The selectors selects whether a direct input or a delayed input is fed to a filter tap based on the control register 302a. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Jain et al. with the modified system of Miller et al., Takamuku et al. and Pupalaikis because the approach allows fine tuning the effect of the filter on the waveform. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the time for applying the feedback correction to the filter taps, as taught by Jain et al., in the modified system of Miller et al., Takamuku et al. and Pupalaikis.
Regarding claim 2, Miller et al. teaches in FIG. 4 and paragraph [0031] determining tap weights of the adaptive filter, and in paragraph [0037] storing the setting in NVM of the microcontroller 160.
Regarding claim 3, Jain et al. teaches in col. 8, lines 27-29 storing the tap coefficient in a lookup table.
Regarding claim 4, Miller et al. teaches in paragraph [0020] to select waveforms that have particular desired impulse responses.
Regarding claim 6, Miller et al. teaches in FIG. 2 laser diode 104 and in claim 6 that the driver circuit determines the modulation current and bias current of the laser.
Regarding claim 7, Jain et al. teaches in FIG. 4 that different configurations of the register 302a connect different delay paths to the filter taps.
Regarding claim 11, Miller et al. further teaches the apparatus for performing the method of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Miller et al. teaches in FIG. 4 and paragraph [0031] determining tap weights of the adaptive filter, and in paragraph [0037] storing the setting in NVM of the microcontroller 160.
Regarding claim 13, Jain et al. teaches in col. 8, lines 27-29 storing the tap coefficient in a lookup table.
Regarding claim 14, Miller et al. teaches in paragraph [0020] to select waveforms that have particular desired impulse responses.
Regarding claim 16, Miller et al. teaches in FIG. 2 laser diode 104 and in claim 6 that the driver circuit determines the modulation current and bias current of the laser.
Regarding claim 17, Jain et al. teaches in FIG. 4 that different configurations of the register 302a connect different delay paths to the filter taps.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al., Takamuku et al., Pupalaikis and Jain et al. as applied to claims 1-4, 6-7, 11-14 and 16-17 above, and further in view of Negus (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2017/0318589 A1).
Miller et al., Takamuku et al., Pupalaikis and Jain et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 1-4, 6-7, 11-14 and 16-17. The difference between Miller et al., Takamuku et al., Pupalaikis and Jain et al. and the claimed invention is that Miller et al., Takamuku et al., Pupalaikis and Jain et al. do not teach that the desired characteristic is an amount of peak to average power ratio expansion introduced by the transmitter. Negus teaches calibration. Negus teaches in paragraph [0186] that calibration for pre-distortion can be used to account for non-linearities, peak-to-average power ratio (PAPR) reduction etc. These correspond to the plurality of mapping circuit configurations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Negus with the modified system of Miller et al., Takamuku et al., Pupalaikis and Jain et al. because reducing PARP prevent signal distortion due to power saturation. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reduce PARP, as taught by Negus, in the modified system of Miller et al., Takamuku et al., Pupalaikis and Jain et al.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al., Takamuku et al., Pupalaikis and Jain et al. as applied to claims 1-4, 6-7, 11-14 and 16-17 above, and further in view of Carlsson (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2015/0326327 A1).
Miller et al., Takamuku et al., Pupalaikis and Jain et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 1-4, 6-7, 11-14 and 16-17. The difference between Miller et al., Takamuku et al., Pupalaikis and Jain et al. and the claimed invention is that Miller et al., Takamuku et al., Pupalaikis and Jain et al. do not teach repeating the process for another calibration waveform. Carlsson teaches transmitter calibration. In particular, Carlsson teaches in paragraph [0029] using test signals with different parameters to obtain corresponding circuit parameters which are stored in lookup tables (LUTs) to be used during operation (see paragraph [0033]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Carlsson with the modified system of Miller et al., Takamuku et al., Pupalaikis and Jain et al. because this optimizes the transmitter under various operating conditions. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calibrate the transmitter using different calibration waveforms, as taught by Carlsson, in the modified system of Miller et al., Takamuku et al., Pupalaikis and Jain et al.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al., Takamuku et al., Pupalaikis and Jain et al. as applied to claims 1-4, 6-7, 11-14 and 16-17 above, and further in view of Castro et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2018/0109318 A1).
Miller et al., Takamuku et al., Pupalaikis and Jain et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 1-4, 6-7, 11-14 and 16-17. The difference between Miller et al., Takamuku et al., Pupalaikis and Jain et al. and the claimed invention is that Miller et al., Takamuku et al., Pupalaikis and Jain et al. do not teach performing calibration for a plurality of calibration temperatures. Castro et al. teaches in FIG. 6 and paragraph [0065] to calibrate and store parameters for operating the transmitter under various environment temperature. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Castro et al. with the modified system of Miller et al., Takamuku et al., Pupalaikis and Jain et al. because the transmitter may be operated under different environmental conditions. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calibrate and store parameters for operating the transmitter under various environment temperature, as taught by Castro et al., in the modified system of Miller et al., Takamuku et al., Pupalaikis and Jain et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
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 SHI K LI whose telephone number is (571)272-3031. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:53 a.m. -3:23 p.m.
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, David Payne can be reached at 571 272-3024. 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.
skl20 January 2026
/SHI K LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635