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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1, FIG. 1, Claims 1-6, 8-25, and 27-36 in the reply filed on 04/28/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 7, 16-18, 26, and 35-36 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/28/26.
Claims 16-18 and 35-36 are also withdrawn from further consideration as they are also being drawn to the nonelected species 2, FIG. 3. In particular, claims 16 and 35 reciting “measuring an autocorrelation of the pulse trains” are directed to the system 50 of the nonelected FIG. 3 disclosing “system 50 can also be used to measure the pulse width and pulse shape of the optical pulses generated by a given laser, without requiring high-speed detectors or electronics, by means of measuring the auto-correlation function” ([0045] of US PG Pub of the present application). In addition, claims 17-18 and 36 reciting “sensing an amplitude variation of the electrical beat signal while a phase of the first optical pulse train shifts relative to the second optical pulse train” are directed to the controller 38 of the system 50 of the nonelected FIG. 3 disclosing “controller 38 senses the average amplitude variation of the electrical beat signal as the phase of one of the optical pulse trains is shifted relative to the other” ([0045] of US PG Pub of the present application).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 8-9 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.
Claims 8-9 recite the limitation "the optical mixer" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner believes “the optical mixer” in claims 8-9 refers to an optical mixer of the intradyne coherent receiver in claim 3; therefore, the Examiner suggests amending claims 8-9 to depend on claim 3 and clarify that the intradyne coherent receiver further comprises an optical mixer in order to overcome the 112 rejections. For purposes of examination, claims 8-9 are examined according to the Examiner’s suggestion.
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 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Chen et al. (“Attosecond Synchronization of Passive Mode-locked Lasers Using Optical Heterodyne Techniques,” CLEO: Science and Innovations 2017).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses optical apparatus (Fig. 2a), comprising: a laser (Laser2, Fig. 2a), which is configured to output a first optical pulse train at a controllable pulse repetition rate (PRR) (PRR of Laser2 is controllable via PZT of In-loop PLL, Fig. 2a); an optical coupler (BS 50:50, Fig. 2a), which is configured to combine the first optical pulse train with a second optical pulse train received from a reference source (Laser1, Fig. 2a) at a reference PRR; an optical detector (PDs, Fig. 2a) coupled to output an electrical beat signal in response to constructive interference between the combined first and second optical pulse trains; and control circuitry (control circuitry of the In-loop PLL, Fig. 2a) configured to adjust the PRR of the laser responsively to the electrical beat signal (see second paragraph on page 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
496
850
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Chen discloses the laser is mode-locked (Laser2 is a Er:fiber Mode-locked laser, Fig. 2a).
Regarding claim 19, Chen discloses the control circuitry is configured to measure a carrier-envelope offset (CEO) frequency difference between the first and second optical pulse trains (“The resulting heterodyne beats are mixed in a phase detector to remove the frequency components (Δfceo) resulting from the difference in the carrier-envelope-offset frequency between the two lasers,” paragraph under 2. Scheme and experiment on page 1).
Regarding claims 20-21, same rejections as applied to claims 1-2 are maintained since the method claims 20-21 contain substantially the same limitations as the product claims 1-2.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, 11, 20, 22-24, 27-28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by KEMAL et al. ("Multi-wavelength coherent transmission using an optical frequency comb as a local oscillator," Optics Express, volume 24, number 22, pages 25432-25445, October 21, 2016) (08/15/24 IDS).
Regarding claim 1, KEMAL discloses optical apparatus (Figs. 2, 4a-b, and 6), comprising: a laser (LO comb, Fig. 6), which is configured to output a first optical pulse train at a controllable pulse repetition rate (PRR) (PRR of LO comb is controllable via TEC, Fig. 2); an optical coupler (SPOH1/SPOH2, Fig. 4b), which is configured to combine the first optical pulse train with a second optical pulse train received from a reference source (Tx comb, Fig. 6) at a reference PRR; an optical detector (X-pol BD/Y-pol DB, Fig. 4b) coupled to output an electrical beat signal in response to constructive interference between the combined first and second optical pulse trains; and control circuitry (PID controller, Fig. 4a) configured to adjust the PRR of the laser responsively to the electrical beat signal.
PNG
media_image2.png
292
772
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
566
946
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
488
912
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, KEMAL discloses an intradyne coherent receiver (PDOH with balanced detectors, Fig. 4b), which comprises the optical coupler and the optical detector.
Regarding claim 4, KEMAL discloses the intradyne coherent receiver is coupled to receive a pulsed optical information signal over an optical communication link (10 km fiber link, Fig. 6) and to extract data from the pulsed optical information signal by mixing the pulsed optical information signal with the first optical pulse train (via SPOH1/SPOH2, Fig. 4b).
Regarding claim 5, KEMAL discloses the laser generating the first optical pulse train is a local laser (LO comb, Fig. 6), and the reference source comprises a remote laser (Tx comb, Fig. 6), which generates the pulsed optical information signal, and wherein the control circuitry is configured to synchronize the PRR of the local laser with the remote laser (paragraphs under 4.1 Implementation using DSP, p. 25438).
Regarding claim 8, KEMAL discloses the optical mixer comprises an optical hybrid, which is configured to generate in-phase (I) and quadrature (Q) outputs, and wherein the optical detector is configured to sense both the I and Q outputs (Figs. 4a-b).
Regarding claim 9, KEMAL discloses the optical mixer comprises at least a first mixer (X-pol BD, Fig. 4b) coupled to receive a first polarization of the first and second optical pulse trains and a second mixer (Y-pol BD, Fig. 4b) coupled to receive a second polarization of the first and second optical pulse trains, and wherein the optical detector is configured to output the electrical beat signal in response to the constructive interference in both the first and second polarizations (paragraphs under 4.1 Implementation using DSP, p. 25438).
Regarding claim 11, KEMAL discloses the control circuitry is configured to drive the PRR of the laser, based on the electrical beat signal, to maximize an overlap between the first and second optical pulse trains (Figs. 4a-b, paragraphs under 4.1 Implementation using DSP, p. 25438).
Regarding claims 20, 22-24, 27-28, and 30, same rejections as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, and 11 are maintained since the method claims 20, 22-24, 27-28, and 30 contain substantially the same limitations as the product claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, and 11.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KEMAL et al. in view of SADOT et al. (US PG Pub 2022/0360337, 08/15/24 IDS).
Regarding claim 6, KEMAL has disclosed the control circuitry outlined in the rejection to claim 5 except the control circuitry is configured to synchronize the PRR of the local laser with the remote laser under conditions of negative optical signal/noise ratio on the optical communication link. SADOT discloses the control circuitry (Fig. 1) is configured to synchronize the PRR of the local laser with the remote laser under conditions of negative optical signal/noise ratio on the optical communication link ([0045]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control circuitry of KEMAL with being configured to synchronize the PRR of the local laser with the remote laser under conditions of negative optical signal/noise ratio on the optical communication link as taught by SADOT in order to provide an encryption method that is immune to traffic analysis, provides a stealthy transmission and enables scalable higher key change rates and low cost implementation ([0012] of SADOT).
Regarding claim 25, same rejection as applied to claim 6 is maintained since the method claim 25 contains substantially the same limitations as the product claim 6.
Claims 10, 13-15, and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KEMAL et al.
Regarding claims 10 and 13-15, KEMAL has disclosed the control circuitry outlined in the rejection to claims 1, 9, and 11 except:
the control circuitry is configured to adjust a polarization of the laser responsively to the electrical beat signal;
the control circuitry is configured to detect an average envelope of the electrical beat signal as an indicator of the overlap between the first and second optical pulse trains;
the control circuitry is configured to adjust a pulse amplitude of the laser responsively to the electrical beat signal; or
the control circuitry is configured to adjust a phase of the first optical pulse train responsively to the electrical beat signal.
However, it’s known in the art to configure the control circuitry to adjust a polarization of the laser, detect an average envelope of the electrical beat signal, adjust a pulse amplitude of the laser, or adjust a phase of the first optical pulse train in order to maximize synchronization of the laser and the reference source.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the control circuitry of KEMAL with adjusting a polarization of the laser, detecting an average envelope of the electrical beat signal, adjusting a pulse amplitude of the laser, or adjusting a phase of the first optical pulse train in order to maximize synchronization of the laser and the reference source.
Regarding claim 32-34, same rejections as applied to claim 13-15 are maintained since the method claims 32-34 contain substantially the same limitations as the product claims 13-15.
Claims 12 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KEMAL et al. in view of SAKAI et al. (US PG Pub 2022/0109504 A1).
Regarding claim 12, KEMAL has disclosed the control circuitry outlined in the rejection to claim 11 except the control circuitry comprises a peak detector, which is configured to detect the overlap between the first and second optical pulse trains. SAKAI discloses the control circuitry comprises a peak detector (116a-116d, FIG. 2, [0038]), which is configured to detect the overlap between the first and second optical pulse trains. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control circuitry of KEMAL with the peak detectors as taught by SAKAI in order to ensure the electrical beat signals being within an appropriate range.
Regarding claim 31, same rejection as applied to claim 12 is maintained since the method claim 31 contains substantially the same limitations as the product claim 12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wilcox (US PG Pub 2008/0043784 A1) and Ye et al. (US PG Pub 2003/0185255 A1) both disclose an optical synchronization system comprising mode-locked lasers similar to the claimed invention (see FIG. 2 of Wilcox and Ye).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUANDA ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1439. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 AM - 6:30 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, 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.
/YUANDA ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights