DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 2, 11 and 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Each of claims 2, 11 and 20 recites that the parameters are to be applied to a pre-compensator or post-compensator. However, while the disclosure enables the generator training to generate data that approximates the ground truth data of the training data set, there is no direction or working examples provided by the Applicant for how parameters of that generative training are then translated into pre- or post-compensation functions. There is only specified a desired result, i.e., that generative training parameters can be applied for pre- or post-compensation, such that one skilled in the art would not be enabled by the disclosure to make and/or use the invention without undue experimentation. The one skilled in the art would have to unduly experiment to translate generative training parameters that reflect the architecture of the learning model (e.g., that reflect layers and/or weights, per the architecture shown in Applicant’s fig. 6), to pre- or post-compensation functionality that requires manipulating a temporal transmission signal.
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.
Claim 3 is 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 3 recites “generating an inverse signal of distortion included in the optical transmission signal based on the second transmission symbol sequence, and generating the training dataset that includes… the distortion as the ground truth data.” However, the disclosed generation of the inverse signal of distortion (i.e., equation 1), for the disclosed example of λ “typically set to 1”, appears to be simply: Inverse Signal = µ * Output Signal. This “inverse” signal is the scaled output signal itself, not an inverse of distortion. It’s not clear what the scope of “inverse signal of distortion” is intended to be.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 9 recites that the second transmission symbol sequence is generated by inputting the first transmission sequence into a mathematical model of the transmission unit. However, parent claim 1 recites that the second transmission symbol sequence is acquired by demodulating the optical transmission signal. Thus, claim 9 is attempting to replace the subject matter of the parent claim, redefining the second transmission symbol sequence from the actually received sequence to a mathematically modeled sequence. This replacement of subject matter by the dependent claim is a failure to further limit the subject matter of the parent claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4-8, 10, 12-15, 19, 21-23 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reason for the allowance of the claims is the inclusion, in the independent claims, of generate a training dataset including input data and ground truth data, based on transmitted and received symbol sequences, executing a training of a generator and a discriminator using the training dataset, the generator trained to generate a data that is determined as being the ground truth data by the discriminator, the discriminator trained to distinguish the ground truth data and the generated data. This was not anticipated by, or obvious in view of, the prior art. The closest prior art is noted below.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
B. Karanov, M. Chagnon, V. Aref, D. Lavery, P. Bayvel and L. Schmalen, "Concept and Experimental Demonstration of Optical IM/DD End-to-End System Optimization using a Generative Model," 2020 Optical Fiber Communications Conference and Exhibition (OFC), San Diego, CA, USA, 2020, pp. 1-3. – Uses transmitted and received sequences for GAN training, with receiver side discriminator and transceiver optimization, but does not generate a training data set of input data and ground truth data based on the transmitted sequence and a demodulated sequence, where the training data set is used for generator and discriminator with the generator trained toward the ground truth data, and the discriminator distinguishing between the ground truth data and the data generated by the generator.
Zhang, S., Yaman, F., Nakamura, K. et al. Field and lab experimental demonstration of nonlinear impairment compensation using neural networks. Nat Commun 10, 3033 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-10911-9. – A GAN is for modeling the transfer function of fiber transmission and a digital back propagation algorithm is used for post-compensation.
US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0343176 – Predicting optical link design margins based on the output of a trained machine learning model, teaching GANs for predicting or detecting features.
US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0131613 – Optical transmission with a degradation prediction algorithm that uses artificial intelligence and data analysis to monitor the transmission path.
US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0028973 – Using machine learning to identify problematic components of an optical network.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN M CORS whose telephone number is (571)272-3028. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
/NATHAN M CORS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634