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 regarding the combination of Pepper and Yap are persuasive. Specifically, applicant points to paragraph 94 of Yap which teaches that different coordinates are being inputted to each MZM modulator. 6.23.26 Remarks p. 10. And this means that Yap does not teach that a common drive signal is not being provided to the multiple modulators as claimed. Therefore, the previous 103 rejection of Pepper in light of Yap is withdrawn, and this new office action is non-final. The previous 6-month time limit until abandonment is cancelled.
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) 1-5, 7-8, 10-14, 16-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pepper (US Pat. 12,080,986) in light of Yap (US Pat. 8,180,183).
Regarding Claim 1, Pepper teaches An apparatus comprising: a modulating retroreflector (FIG. 3, 326, 327, 340; FIG. 4, 200; Col. 11 l. 60-70 to Col. 12 l. 1-7) comprising one or more reflective surfaces (FIG. 3, 326; FIG. 4, 200; Col. 11 l. 60-70 to Col. 12 l. 1-7.); the one or more reflective surfaces configured to receive an optical signal and to provide a reflected optical signal (Id.); the modulating retroreflector further comprising multiple modulators configured to modulate the optical signal and encode data onto the optical signal such that the reflected optical signal represents a reflected and modulated version of the optical signal (FIG. 3, 327, 340); wherein the multiple modulators are electrically connected in series. (Id.)
Pepper does not teach such that a common drive signal is provided to the multiple modulators.
Yap teaches such that a common drive signal is provided to the multiple modulators. (FIG. 4a: 420, 429)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the series of modulators taught in Yap such that they share a common drive signal based on the arrangement taught in Yap. As Yap also teaches multiple modulators configured to modulate a signal, a POSITA would look to Yap to modify Pepper such that a common drive signal is fed to each of the modulators. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. Wherein the predictable result is the arrangement taught in Pepper but with a common drive signal being fed to the multiple modulators.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Pepper and Yap teaches The apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the multiple modulators comprise two or more reflective surfaces of the modulating retroreflector. (Pepper, FIG. 4, 200; Col. 11 l. 60-70 to Col. 12 l. 1-7).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the series of modulators taught in Pepper such that they share a common drive signal based on the arrangement taught in Djordjevic. As Yap also teaches multiple modulators configured to modulate a signal, a POSITA would look to Yap to modify Pepper such that a common drive signal is fed to each of the modulators. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. Wherein the predictable result is the arrangement taught in Pepper but with a common drive signal being fed to the multiple modulators.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Pepper and Yap teaches The apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the multiple modulators comprise two or more layers of optically-transparent material positioned in front of or within the modulating retroreflector. (Pepper, FIG. 4, 200; Col. 11 l. 60-70 to Col. 12 l. 1-7); (Col. 3 l. 30-40).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the series of modulators taught in Pepper such that they share a common drive signal based on the arrangement taught in Djordjevic. As Yap also teaches multiple modulators configured to modulate a signal, a POSITA would look to Yap to modify Pepper such that a common drive signal is fed to each of the modulators. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. Wherein the predictable result is the arrangement taught in Pepper but with a common drive signal being fed to the multiple modulators.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Pepper and Yap teaches The apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the multiple modulators comprise: at least one of the one or more reflective surfaces of the modulating retroreflector; and one or more layers of optically-transparent material positioned in front of or within the modulating retroreflector. (Pepper, FIG. 4, 200; Col. 11 l. 60-70 to Col. 12 l. 1-7); (Col. 3 l. 30-40).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the series of modulators taught in Pepper such that they share a common drive signal based on the arrangement taught in Djordjevic. As Yap also teaches multiple modulators configured to modulate a signal, a POSITA would look to Yap to modify Pepper such that a common drive signal is fed to each of the modulators. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. Wherein the predictable result is the arrangement taught in Pepper but with a common drive signal being fed to the multiple modulators.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Pepper and Yap teaches The apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the multiple modulators comprise at least one of: a ferroelectric ceramic and a dielectric ceramic. (Pepper, Col. 3 l. 30-40).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the series of modulators taught in Pepper such that they share a common drive signal based on the arrangement taught in Djordjevic. As Yap also teaches multiple modulators configured to modulate a signal, a POSITA would look to Yap to modify Pepper such that a common drive signal is fed to each of the modulators. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. Wherein the predictable result is the arrangement taught in Pepper but with a common drive signal being fed to the multiple modulators.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Pepper and Yap teaches The apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the multiple modulators are configured to provide at least one of: phase modulations, amplitude modulations, intensity modulations, and polarization modulations to the optical signal in order to encode the data onto the optical signal. (FIG. 4, 200; Col. 11 l. 60-70 to Col. 12 l. 1-7).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the series of modulators taught in Pepper such that they share a common drive signal based on the arrangement taught in Djordjevic. As Yap also teaches multiple modulators configured to modulate a signal, a POSITA would look to Yap to modify Pepper such that a common drive signal is fed to each of the modulators. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. Wherein the predictable result is the arrangement taught in Pepper but with a common drive signal being fed to the multiple modulators.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Pepper and Yap teaches The apparatus of Claim 1, wherein different ones of the multiple modulators are configured to provide different types of modulations to the optical signal in order to perform multilevel modulations of the optical signal. (Pepper, FIG. 4, 200; Col. 11 l. 60-70 to Col. 12 l. 1-7).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the series of modulators taught in Pepper such that they share a common drive signal based on the arrangement taught in Djordjevic. As Yap also teaches multiple modulators configured to modulate a signal, a POSITA would look to Yap to modify Pepper such that a common drive signal is fed to each of the modulators. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. Wherein the predictable result is the arrangement taught in Pepper but with a common drive signal being fed to the multiple modulators.
Regarding Claim 10, Pepper teaches A system comprising: a modulating retroreflector (FIG. 3, 326, 327, 340; FIG. 4, 200; Col. 11 l. 60-70 to Col. 12 l. 1-7) comprising: one or more reflective surfaces (FIG. 3, 326; FIG. 4, 200; Col. 11 l. 60-70 to Col. 12 l. 1-7), the one or more reflective surfaces configured to receive an optical signal and to provide a reflected optical signal (Id.); and multiple modulators configured to modulate the optical signal and encode data onto the optical signal such that the reflected optical signal represents a reflected and modulated version of the optical signal, (FIG. 3, 327, 340) wherein the multiple modulators are electrically connected in series; (Id.) and a control circuit (FIG. 3: 323)
Pepper does not teach configured to generate a common drive signal and to provide the common drive signal to the multiple modulators in order to control the encoding of the data onto the optical signal.
Yap teaches and a control circuit configured to generate a common drive signal and to provide the common drive signal to the multiple modulators in order to control the encoding of the data onto the optical signal. (FIG. 4a: 420, 429)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the series of modulators taught in Pepper such that they share a common drive signal based on the arrangement taught in Djordjevic. As Yap also teaches multiple modulators configured to modulate a signal, a POSITA would look to Yap to modify Pepper such that a common drive signal is fed to each of the modulators. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. Wherein the predictable result is the arrangement taught in Pepper but with a common drive signal being fed to the multiple modulators.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Pepper and Yap teaches The system of Claim 10, wherein the multiple modulators comprise two or more reflective surfaces of the modulating retroreflector. (Pepper, FIG. 4, 200; Col. 11 l. 60-70 to Col. 12 l. 1-7).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the series of modulators taught in Pepper such that they share a common drive signal based on the arrangement taught in Djordjevic. As Yap also teaches multiple modulators configured to modulate a signal, a POSITA would look to Yap to modify Pepper such that a common drive signal is fed to each of the modulators. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. Wherein the predictable result is the arrangement taught in Pepper but with a common drive signal being fed to the multiple modulators.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Pepper and Yap teaches The system of Claim 10, wherein the multiple modulators comprise two or more layers of optically-transparent material positioned in front of or within the modulating retroreflector. (Pepper, FIG. 4, 200; Col. 11 l. 60-70 to Col. 12 l. 1-7); (Col. 3 l. 30-40).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the series of modulators taught in Pepper such that they share a common drive signal based on the arrangement taught in Djordjevic. As Yap also teaches multiple modulators configured to modulate a signal, a POSITA would look to Yap to modify Pepper such that a common drive signal is fed to each of the modulators. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. Wherein the predictable result is the arrangement taught in Pepper but with a common drive signal being fed to the multiple modulators.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Pepper and Yap teaches The system of Claim 10, wherein the multiple modulators comprise: at least one of the one or more reflective surfaces of the modulating retroreflector; and one or more layers of optically-transparent material positioned in front of or within the modulating retroreflector. (Pepper, FIG. 4, 200; Col. 11 l. 60-70 to Col. 12 l. 1-7); (Col. 3 l. 30-40).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the series of modulators taught in Pepper such that they share a common drive signal based on the arrangement taught in Djordjevic. As Yap also teaches multiple modulators configured to modulate a signal, a POSITA would look to Yap to modify Pepper such that a common drive signal is fed to each of the modulators. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. Wherein the predictable result is the arrangement taught in Pepper but with a common drive signal being fed to the multiple modulators.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Pepper and Yap teaches The system of Claim 10, wherein the multiple modulators comprise at least one of: a ferroelectric ceramic and a dielectric ceramic. (Pepper, Col. 3 l. 30-40).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the series of modulators taught in Pepper such that they share a common drive signal based on the arrangement taught in Djordjevic. As Yap also teaches multiple modulators configured to modulate a signal, a POSITA would look to Yap to modify Pepper such that a common drive signal is fed to each of the modulators. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. Wherein the predictable result is the arrangement taught in Pepper but with a common drive signal being fed to the multiple modulators.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Pepper and Yap teaches The system of Claim 10, wherein the multiple modulators are configured to provide at least one of: phase modulations, amplitude modulations, intensity modulations, and polarization modulations to the optical signal in order to encode the data onto the optical signal. (Pepper, FIG. 4, 200; Col. 11 l. 60-70 to Col. 12 l. 1-7).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the series of modulators taught in Pepper such that they share a common drive signal based on the arrangement taught in Djordjevic. As Yap also teaches multiple modulators configured to modulate a signal, a POSITA would look to Yap to modify Pepper such that a common drive signal is fed to each of the modulators. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. Wherein the predictable result is the arrangement taught in Pepper but with a common drive signal being fed to the multiple modulators.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Pepper and Yap teaches The system of Claim 10, wherein different ones of the multiple modulators are configured to provide different types of modulations to the optical signal in order to perform multilevel modulations of the optical signal. (Pepper, FIG. 4, 200; Col. 11 l. 60-70 to Col. 12 l. 1-7).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the series of modulators taught in Pepper such that they share a common drive signal based on the arrangement taught in Djordjevic. As Yap also teaches multiple modulators configured to modulate a signal, a POSITA would look to Yap to modify Pepper such that a common drive signal is fed to each of the modulators. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. Wherein the predictable result is the arrangement taught in Pepper but with a common drive signal being fed to the multiple modulators.
Regarding Claim 19, Pepper teaches A method comprising: receiving an optical signal at a modulating retroreflector; (FIG. 3, 326, 327, 340; FIG. 4, 200; Col. 11 l. 60-70 to Col. 12 l. 1-7) reflecting the optical signal using the modulating retroreflector (FIG. 3, 326; FIG. 4, 200; Col. 11 l. 60-70 to Col. 12 l. 1-7), the modulating retroreflector comprising one or more reflective surfaces configured to receive the optical signal and to provide a reflected optical signal (Id.); and encoding data onto the optical signal, the modulating retroreflector further comprising multiple modulators configured to modulate the optical signal and encode the data onto the optical signal such that the reflected optical signal represents a reflected and modulated version of the optical signal (FIG. 3, 327, 340), wherein the multiple modulators are electrically connected in series. (Id.)
Pepper does not teach such that a common drive signal is provided to the multiple modulators.
Yap teaches such that a common drive signal is provided to the multiple modulators. (FIG. 2: “Alice multidimensional signal generators,” “Mach-Zehnder Modulators”)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the series of modulators taught in Pepper such that they share a common drive signal based on the arrangement taught in Yap. As Yap also teaches multiple modulators configured to modulate a signal, a POSITA would look to Yap to modify Pepper such that a common drive signal is fed to each of the modulators. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. Wherein the predictable result is the arrangement taught in Pepper but with a common drive signal being fed to the multiple modulators.
Claim(s) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pepper (US Pat. 12,080,986) in light of Djordjevic (US Pat. App. Pub. 2018/0269972 A1) and in further light of Thapliya (R. Thapliya, Y. Okano and S. Nakamura, "Electrooptic characteristics of thin-film PLZT waveguide using ridge-type Mach-Zehnder modulator," in Journal of Lightwave Technology, vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 1820-1827, Aug. 2003).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Pepper and Djordjevic teaches The apparatus of Claim 1,
the combination of Pepper and Djordjevic does not teach wherein the multiple modulators comprise at least one of: lead lanthanum zirconate titanate (PLZT) and barium titanium (BaTi).
Thapliya teaches wherein the multiple modulators comprise at least one of: lead lanthanum zirconate titanate (PLZT) and barium titanium (BaTi). (Sec. I).
Thapliya and Pepper are from the same art with respect to optical communication, and are therefore analogous art.
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the ferroelectric ceramic and dielectric ceramic modulators taught in Thapliya in place of the modulator taught in Pepper. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve the modulator taught in Pepper with the advantages of ferroelectric ceramic and dielectric ceramic.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Pepper and Djordjevic teaches The apparatus of Claim 1,
the combination of Pepper and Djordjevic does not teach wherein the multiple modulators comprise at least one of: lead lanthanum zirconate titanate (PLZT) and barium titanium (BaTi).
Thapliya teaches wherein the multiple modulators comprise at least one of: lead lanthanum zirconate titanate (PLZT) and barium titanium (BaTi). (Sec. I).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the ferroelectric ceramic and dielectric ceramic modulators taught in Thapliya in place of the modulator taught in Pepper. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve the modulator taught in Pepper with the advantages of ferroelectric ceramic and dielectric ceramic.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 18, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 9, 18, and 20 have been amended to further include “multiple modulators are connected in series as capacitors of a control circuit.” None of the prior arts relied upon in the rejections teach this limitation. Pepper and Djordjevic both teach modulators in a series, but the modulators in a series are not “multiple modulators are connected in series as capacitors of a control circuit.” Therefore, these claims are allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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 1, 2026
/KENNETH N VANDERPUYE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights