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 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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 states “a plurality of optoelectronic transmitters using a traveling wave modulator and driver biasing, wherein each transmitter further comprises: a traveling wave Mach-Zehnder modulator configured to modulate both amplitude and phase of optical signals to be transmitted”. Is the sentence stating that all the plurality of transmitters use the same traveling wave modulator? Furthermore, the transmitters already use this traveling wave modulator and somehow “each transmitter further comprises: a traveling wave MZM”? How many traveling wave modulators are being used in the transmitters? Claim 1 also states in line 2 “transmit and receive optical signals” and further states in line 7 “phase of optical signals to be transmitted”. Are the transmitted optical signals in line 7 the same as the ones in line 2? Line 18 states “a polarization beam combiner configured to combine the optical signals for transmission”. Which “the optical signals” are being combined?
There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the transmitted polarization channels”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the received signals”. Line 27 states “a hybrid configured to add”. This limitation is vague as it is unclear what “a hybrid” is. The line further states “in a proper relative phase”. This limitation is also vague and confusing as it isn’t clear what comprises “proper”. The claim further states “extract polarization marker tones from the transmitted signals”. Where are these transmitted signals coming from? Is it from the transmitter limitations of claim 1 or another transmitter outside the network switch of claim 1?
Claims 9 and 15 suffer from similar issues as listed in claim 1.
Claim 2 states “larger than a modulator impedance to simultaneously reduce power dissipation and minimize impedance mismatch penalty”. This part of the limitation is unclear. The claim states “larger than a modulator impedance”. Which and what modulator impedance is being referred to i.e. any generic one? Furthermore, where is this power dissipation occurring and where is the impedance mismatch penalty reduced?
Claim 4 states “wherein the input signal and local oscillator signal are transmitted and co-propagate on orthogonal polarizations on an optical fiber”. Claim 4 depends on claim 1 which states “one or more electrical amplifiers configured to amplify input data signals”. Which “the input signal” is being referenced in claim 4? Furthermore, claim 1 outlines a network switch comprising optoelectronic transmitter and separate coherent receivers. The input data signals to the optical transmitter are in a separate module than the local oscillator signal which is part of the coherent receiver. It is confusing to the examiner how these two separate signals on separate modules are somehow being transmitted on the same optical fiber in orthogonal polarizations.
Claim 5 suffers from similar issues as claim 4.
Claim 6 states “wherein the received signal and local oscillator signal are transmitted and co-propagate on orthogonal polarizations on an optical fiber, wherein one polarization channel is used for data transmission, and the other polarization channel is used for local oscillator transmission”. Which “the received signal” is being referred to in the claim? Furthermore, the received signal is already arriving with a polarization, it is confusing how the local oscillator signal is somehow being transmitted with another polarization. The received signals are already comprising the orthogonal polarizations.
Claim 7 suffers from the same issues as in claim 6.
Claim 10 suffers from similar issues as in claim 2.
Claim 12 suffers from the same issues as in claim 4. Furthermore, claim 12 which depends on claim 9, doesn’t mention any local oscillator in order for the limitations of claim 12 to depend from claim 9.
Claim 13 also suffers from similar issues as in claim 12. Furthermore, claim 9 claims a polarization beam combiner and claim 13 states “two parallel optical fibers”. It is unclear how the PBC is coupled to the two parallel optical fibers.
Claims 18 and 19 suffer from the same issues as within claims 6 and 7 above.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahn (US 2019/0081724) in view of Mamyshev (US 2012/0033964).
Regarding claim 9, Rahn teaches an optoelectronic transmitter using traveling wave modulator and driver biasing (Fig. 1A comprising ICs and Tx PIC module) comprising: a traveling wave Mach-Zehnder modulator configured to modulate both amplitude and phase of optical signals to be transmitted (Fig. 1C shows the phase and amplitude adjusters 107-a and 107-c); a set of one or more drivers configured to drive the modulator (paragraph [0029], A driver circuit, which may be provided in an integrated circuit (such as one of ICs IC1 to IC8), which may include an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) or a digital signal processor (DSP) may provide radio frequency (RF) drive signals corresponding to the transmitted data);
a set of one or more optical amplifiers configured to amplify modulated signals (Fig. 1A, SOAs within Tx PIC module); a set of one or more optical wavelength multiplexers configured to multiplex optical signals of a plurality of polarizations (Fig. 1A, set of PBCs within Tx PIC module); and a polarization beam combiner configured to combine the optical signals for transmission (Fig. 1A, “Multiplexer or Combiner” shown).
Although Rahn teaches “MZ modulator control may be achieved by further modulating optical signals output from the modulators with a low frequency tone and detecting those tones to isolate the modulation of an optical signal having a particular wavelength. Based on such tone monitoring, the modulators bias point, for example, may be adjusted or controlled. Such control may be achieved on a per wavelength or per optical signal basis” in paragraph [0066], Rahn doesn’t explicitly teach a set of one or more phase shifters within the modulator configured to add low-frequency marker tones to specific polarizations and in-phase or quadrature data channels and a set of one or more electrical amplifiers configured to amplify input data signals.
Mamyshev teaches a set of one or more phase shifters within the modulator configured to add low-frequency marker tones to specific polarizations and in-phase or quadrature data channels (paragraph [0051], Voltage peak detector 69 obtains an input from photodiode 61, which converts optical signals to electrical signals in the feedback loop. Voltage peak detector 69 produces an indication of the output optical signal peak intensity, which is, used by bias control 65 to control phase shifter 67 to minimize signal peak intensity. In practice, bias control 65 may produce a dither tone to be applied to phase shifter 67) and a set of one or more electrical amplifiers configured to amplify input data signals (Fig. 5 shows electrical amplifiers for the input data signals at data1 and data2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the modulator control of the transmitter taught by Rahn and incorporate the marker tone addition by a corresponding phase shifter as taught by Mamyshev in order to obtain improved phase difference stability (Mamyshev: paragraph [0010]).
Regarding claim 14, Rahn in view of Mamyshev teaches the transmitter of claim 9, where Rahn teaches the transmitter is implemented on a separate electronic and photonic integrated circuit (Fig. 1A shows this layout).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahn (US 2019/0081724) in view of Mamyshev (US 2012/0033964) in further view of Prosyk (US 2011/0135242).
Regarding claim 11, Rahn teaches the transmitter of claim 9.
Rahn doesn’t teach wherein the traveling wave modulator includes a set of one or more distributed junction bias decoupling capacitors.
Prosyk teaches wherein the traveling wave modulator includes a set of one or more distributed junction bias decoupling capacitors (Fig. 4, capacitors 26; paragraph [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the transmitter taught by Rahn in view of Mamyshev and incorporate the capacitors taught by Prosyk in order to restore equal division of the modulation voltage across the modulation electrode pairs (Prosyk: paragraph [0032]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the notice of reference cited (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRANESH K BARUA whose telephone number is (571)270-1017. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Sat: 11-8pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Payne can be reached on 5712723024. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PRANESH K BARUA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635