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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizumoto (US Pat. Pub. 2024/0283537 A1) in view of Lutz (US Pat. Pub. 2025/0149964).
Regarding Claim 1, Mizumoto teaches An optical transceiver module (10), comprising: a light transmitting-side circuit (102); (FIG. 24: 30) a light receiving-side circuit (104) (FIG. 24: 37); and a microcontroller (106) electrically connected to the light transmitting-side circuit (102) and the light receiving-side circuit (104) (FIG. 24: 36), wherein the microcontroller (106) is configured to transmit a light transmitting-side start-up signal (S1) to the light transmitting-side circuit (102) to start the light transmitting-side circuit (102) ([0136]), and after the microcontroller (106) transmits the light transmitting-side start-up signal (S1) to the light transmitting-side circuit (102), the microcontroller (106) is configured to transmit a light receiving-side start-up signal (S3) to the light receiving-side circuit (104) (Id.) wherein the light receiving-side circuit (104) comprises: a light receiving-side integrated circuit (112) electrically connected to the microcontroller (106) (FIG. 24: 37); and a light-receiving component (114) electrically connected to the microcontroller (106) and the light receiving-side integrated circuit (112) (FIG. 24: 37), wherein after the microcontroller (106) transmits the light receiving-side start-up signal (S3) to the light receiving-side integrated circuit (112), the microcontroller (106) is configured to transmit a light-receiving component start-up signal (S4) to the light-receiving component (114) ([0136])
Mizumoto does not teach after a first delay duration to start the light receiving-side circuit (104) so that a first peak value (P1) of an inrush current at a first timing point (t1) is lower than a peak threshold value (PT); after a second delay duration to start the light-receiving component (114) so that a second peak value (P2) of the inrush current at a second timing point (t2) is lower than the peak threshold value (PT); wherein the second peak value (P2) is higher than the first peak value (P1).
Lutz teaches after a first delay duration to start the light receiving-side circuit (104) so that a first peak value (P1) of an inrush current at a first timing point (t1) is lower than a peak threshold value (PT); ([92] (In Lutz, if the receivers' startups are being delayed for the purpose of reducing inrush current, it is inherent that Lutz would include a first peak value that is lower than a peak threshold value.) after a second delay duration to start the light-receiving component (114) so that a second peak value (P2) of the inrush current at a second timing point (t2) is lower than the peak threshold value (PT); wherein the second peak value (P2) is higher than the first peak value (P1) (Id.)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of
ordinary skill in the art to look to Lutz to determine that staggering the startup of individual
transmitters and receivers by a delay in time would reduce the inrush current to components of the circuits. The suggestion/motivation would have been to modify the system taught in Mizumoto such that the risk of damaging inrush current during startup could be reduced.
Mizumoto and Lutz are from the same art with respect to transceiver systems and are therefore analogous art.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Mizumoto and Lutz teaches The optical transceiver module (10) of claim 1, wherein the light transmitting-side circuit (102) comprises:
a light source driver (108) electrically connected to the microcontroller (106) (Mizumoto, FIG. 24: 30), wherein the microcontroller (106) is configured to transmit the light transmitting-side start-up signal (S1) to the light source driver (108) to start the light source driver (108) (Mizumoto, [0136]), and after the microcontroller (106) transmits the light transmitting-side start-up signal (S1) to the light source driver (108), the microcontroller (106) is configured to transmit the light receiving-side start-up signal (S3) to the light receiving-side integrated circuit (112) (Id.) after the first delay duration to start the light receiving-side integrated circuit (112). (Lutz, [92]).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of
ordinary skill in the art to look to Lutz to determine that staggering the startup of individual
transmitters and receivers by a delay in time would reduce the inrush current to components of the circuits. The suggestion/motivation would have been to modify the system taught in Mizumoto such that the risk of damaging inrush current during startup could be reduced.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Mizumoto and Lutz teaches the optical transceiver module (10) of claim 2, wherein the light transmitting-side circuit (102) further comprises: a light source component (110) (Mizumoto, FIG. 4, 1121) electrically connected to the light source driver (108) (Id.), wherein after the light source driver (108) is started by the light transmitting-side start-up signal (S1), the light source driver (108) is configured to transmit a light source component start-up signal (S2) to the light source component (110) to start the light source (Lutz, [92])
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to look to Lutz to determine that staggering the startup of individual transmitters and receivers by a delay in time would reduce the inrush current to components of the circuits. The suggestion/motivation would have been to modify the system taught in Mizumoto such that the risk of damaging inrush current during startup could be reduced.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Mizumoto and Lutz teaches The optical transceiver module (10) of claim 2, wherein a total start-up duration (TS) required from a start-up of the light source driver (108) to a start-up completion of the light-receiving component (114) is two seconds; the first delay duration is three hundred milliseconds; the second delay duration is two hundred milliseconds. ([92])
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to look to Lutz to determine that staggering the startup of individual transmitters and receivers by a delay in time would reduce the inrush current to components of the circuits. The suggestion/motivation would have been to modify the system taught in Mizumoto such that the risk of damaging inrush current during startup could be reduced.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Mizumoto and Lutz teaches the optical transceiver module (10) of claim 2, wherein the light source driver (108) (Mizumoto, FIG. 4, 1121) is a laser diode driver (Mizumoto, [0047]); the light receiving-side integrated circuit (112) is a preamplifier (Mizumoto [0148]).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to look to Lutz to determine that staggering the startup of individual transmitters and receivers by a delay in time would reduce the inrush current to components of the circuits. The suggestion/motivation would have been to modify the system taught in Mizumoto such that the risk of damaging inrush current during startup could be reduced.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Mizumoto and Lutz teaches the optical transceiver module (10) of claim 3, wherein the light source component (110) is a laser diode (Mizumoto, [0047]).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to look to Lutz to determine that staggering the startup of individual transmitters and receivers by a delay in time would reduce the inrush current to components of the circuits. The suggestion/motivation would have been to modify the system taught in Mizumoto such that the risk of damaging inrush current during startup could be reduced.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Mizumoto and Lutz teaches The optical transceiver module (10) of claim 1, wherein the light-receiving component (114) is a photodiode (Mizumoto, [0146]).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to look to Lutz to determine that staggering the startup of individual transmitters and receivers by a delay in time would reduce the inrush current to components of the circuits. The suggestion/motivation would have been to modify the system taught in Mizumoto such that the risk of damaging inrush current during startup could be reduced.
Regarding claim 10, Mizumoto teaches An optical transceiver module start-up method comprising: transmitting a light transmitting-side start-up signal (S1) to a light source driver (108) to start the light source driver (108) by a microcontroller (106) (S502) (FIG. 24, 36); transmitting a light source component start-up signal (S2) to a light source component (110) to start the light source component (110) by the light source driver (108) (S504-1) after the light source driver (108) is started by the light transmitting-side start-up signal (S1) (FIG. 24, 36);
Mizumoto does not teach transmitting a light receiving-side start-up signal (S3) to a light receiving-side integrated circuit (112) after a first delay duration (S504-2) to start the light receiving-side integrated circuit (112) by the microcontroller (106) (S506) after the microcontroller (106) transmits the light transmitting-side start-up signal (S1) to the light source driver (108) so that a first peak value (P1) of an inrush current at a first timing point (t1) is lower than a peak threshold value (PT); and transmitting a light-receiving component start-up signal (S4) to a light-receiving component (114) after a second delay duration (S508) to start the light-receiving component (114) by the microcontroller (106) (S510) after the microcontroller (106) transmits the light receiving-side start-up signal (S3) to the light receiving-side integrated circuit (112) so that a second peak value (P2) of an inrush current at a second timing point (t2) is lower than the peak threshold value (PT).
Lutz teaches transmitting a light receiving-side start-up signal (S3) to a light receiving-side integrated circuit (112) after a first delay duration (S504-2) to start the light receiving-side integrated circuit (112) by the microcontroller (106) (S506) after the microcontroller (106) transmits the light transmitting-side start-up signal (S1) to the light source driver (108) so that a first peak value (P1) of an inrush current at a first timing point (t1) is lower than a peak threshold value (PT). (Id.) (In Lutz, if the receivers' startups are being delayed for the purpose of reducing inrush current, it is inherent that Lutz would include a first peak value that is lower than a peak threshold value.); and transmitting a light-receiving component start-up signal (S4) to a light-receiving component (114) after a second delay duration (S508) to start the light-receiving component (114) by the microcontroller (106) (S510) after the microcontroller (106) transmits the light receiving-side start-up signal (S3) to the light receiving-side integrated circuit (112) ([92]) S that a second peak value (P2) of an inrush current at a second timing point (t2) is lower than the peak threshold value (PT) wherein the second peak value (P2) is higher than the first peak value (P1). (Id.) (In Lutz, if the receivers' startups are being delayed for the purpose of reducing inrush current, it is inherent that Lutz would include a second peak value that is lower than the peak threshold value.)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to look to Lutz to determine that staggering the startup of individual transmitters and receivers by a delay in time would reduce the inrush current to components of the circuits. The suggestion/motivation would have been to modify the system taught in Mizumoto such that the risk of damaging inrush current during startup could be reduced.
Response to Arguments
The combination of Mizumoto and Lutz teaches the limitations of the independent claims. Mizumoto teaches a transceiver that is controlled by a microcontroller (FIG. 24) and Lutz teaches that delaying the startup of receivers can protect reduce the threat of inrush current. ([0092]). Combined, these two prior arts teach each limitation of the claims.
Applicant first argues that paragraph 136 of Mizumoto fails to teach the transmitter, receiver, and controller as claimed in claim 1. Remarks 6.14.26 p. 7-8. This argument is unpersuasive, and the current prior art citations for claim 1 is sufficient for rebuttal.
Applicant further argues that paragraph 92 of Lutz fails to teach the technique of staggering the startup of receivers and transmitters as claimed in claim 1. Remarks 6.14.26 p. 8-9. This argument is unpersuasive, and the current prior art citations for claim 1 is sufficient for rebuttal.
Conclusion
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 PAUL M BROCK whose telephone number is (571)272-7257. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30pm.
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 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.
/PAUL MORGAN BROCK/Examiner, Art Unit 2634 July 10, 2026
/KENNETH N VANDERPUYE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights