DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the calculation of a sampling phase amount and the calculation of a compensation coefficient . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because while the system does output the calculation compensation coefficient to the equalizer, there is no statement as to whether or not the compensation coefficient is used within the equalizer and in what manner such that it is unclear whether or not the coefficient is integrated into a practical application within the system. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all of the components within the claim scope, a skew calculation unit and a compensation coefficient unit are the two components that seem to output calculation results, but do not additionally state how these results are to be used to amount to significantly more within the system.
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the skew of p. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitation seem to further define the calculation but does not recite limitation. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the calculations do not have any effect beyond the abstract idea of calculations being performed.
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) additionally steps of computation, as the skew . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because once . The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the calculations do not seem to have any effect beyond an abstract idea of being performed.
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) "wherein the characteristic information of the devices and the transmission path includes a transfer characteristic of the in-phase component of a polarized wave and a transfer characteristic of the quadrature component". This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because this claim is dependent upon claim 3 and the claim limitation seems to further modify the understand of the characteristic information to include transfer characteristic, but does not have any additional steps as to how the different calculated element. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not add .
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a transfer function estimation unit that calculates an inverse transfer function of the transfer function, and the skew calc p. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the system talked about the calcu. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the system works alongside an optical receiver, which inputs data into the transfer function, but does not add significantly more to the idea such as to implemented a practical application of the calculation, as the calculation is dependent upon the input but does not effectuate any .
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) "calculating a sampling phase amount from a group delay difference" and "calculating the compensation coefficient". This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because while the system . The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all of the components within the claim scope, a skew calculation unit and a compensation coefficient unit are the two components that seem to output calculation results, but do not additionally state how these results are to be used to amount to significantly more within the system
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because while the system does output the calculation compensation coefficient to the equalizer . The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all of the other components within the system, transmitter comprising the equalizer and the DAC, wherein the equalizer of a symbol period interval and a digital to analog converter operation at a symbol period interval sampling rate, are not disclosed within the claim scope to operate in a manner that is clearly new and a useful improvement thereof as to overcome the judicial exception.
Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a transfer function estimation unit to calculating a transfer function of the acquired received signal, such that the calculation is an assessment, which is an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because after the calculation of the transfer function is performed, it does not state that the transfer function is used within the system to be implemented into a practical application and produce a result. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the optical .
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.
Claim 1-3, 5, and 6 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.
Re claim 1 recites the limitation "the sampling phase " in the preamble of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Previous to the phase of “the sampling phase of the DAC” the system states “a digital-to-analog converter (DAC) operating at a symbol period interval sampling rate and having a sampling phase adjustment function”, such that it is unclear whether the phrase “the sampling phase” is meant to refer to the adjustment function or a different component.
Re claim 2, the claim is dependent upon claim 1, and additionally recites “wherein the skew calculation unit removes the group delay difference between the in-phase component and the quadrature component, adds a group delay difference to a transfer function of the in-phase component and the quadrature component in which the phase characteristic of the Nyquist frequency of the DACV is 0 or an integer multiple of p”, wherein the previously claim from which it depends recite “a skew calculation unit configured to calculate a sampling phase amount from a group delay difference”. Considering that the unit is a calculation unit, the phrase “wherein the skew calculation unit removes the group delay difference between the in-phase component and the quadrature component”, it is unclear whether the system initially calculation is sampling phase amount from the group delay difference and then removes the group delay difference of whether the removal is more of a descriptor of the previously calculated phase amount of rather if it is talking about another calculation that is being performed. The second part of the limitation, that states “adds a group delay to a transfer function of in-phase component and the quadrature component in which the phase characteristic of the Nyquist frequency of the DAC is 0 or an integer multiple of p”, wherein the mentioning of a transfer function, as it is not previously recited, seems to suggest a new calculation, but it is unclear what the calculation is. Furthermore, the previous mention of “the phase characteristic of the Nyquist frequency of the frequency of the DAC is 0 or an integer multiple of p” was previously recited within “a compensation coefficient calculation” such that it seems that the skew system could be affecting the compensation coefficient calculation unit, but it is currently unclear if it is doing so.
Re claim 3, the claim recite the limitation of “the skew calculation unit outputs an amplitude characteristic of the transfer function” within the first limitation of claim 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, from which claim 3 is dependent, does not recite “a transfer function”, but claim 2 does recite “a transfer function”, such it is unclear whether the claim is supposed to depend from claim 2 or is referring to a different transfer function.
Re claim 5, the claim is dependent upon claim 1, and additionally recites “a transfer function estimation unit configured to acquire a received signal received from an optical receiver that receives an optical signal, calculate a transfer function of the acquired received signal, and output the calculated transfer function the transfer function estimation unit”. Within the limitation, the term “output” is used as a verb as the Oxford English Dictionary defines verb form of “output” as “to put outside” or “to produce, deliver to supply as output”, such as to suggest the removal of the calculation or product to another element, but since the transfer function estimation unit calculates the transfer function, the output of the calculated transfer function to the transfer function estimation unit”, such that the system that outputs it produce to itself is confusing and indefinite.
Re claim 6 recites the limitation "the sampling phase " in the preamble of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Previous to the phase of “the sampling phase of the DAC” the system states “a digital-to-analog converter (DAC) operating at a symbol period interval sampling rate and having a sampling phase adjustment function”, such that it is unclear whether the phrase “the sampling phase” is meant to refer to the adjustment function or a different component.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANYA MOTSINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-7488. The examiner can normally be reached 9-4.
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, David Payne can be reached at (571)272-3024. 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.
TANYA MOTSINGER
Examiner
Art Unit 2637
/TANYA T MOTSINGER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2635