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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1,2,3,9,16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21,22,24-26 of copending Application No. 18/570,182. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 21,22,24-26 of the present application are an obvious subset of the limitations presented in claims 21,22,24-26 of copending Application No. 18/570,182.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
The following table illustrates the conflicting claim pairs:
Present Application
1
2
3
9
16
App. No. 18/570,182
21
21
22
24,25
26
The following table illustrates a mapping of the limitations of claim 1 of the present application when compared against the limitations of claim 21 of copending Application No. 18/570,182. The differences have been bolded for purposes of clarity.
Claim 1 of Present Application
Claim 21 of copending Application No. 18/570,182
An equalization apparatus, comprising:
An equalization apparatus, comprising:
a processing unit configured to perform a process associated with a signal using a transfer function with a coefficient, the signal propagating through each of a plurality of channels;
and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to cause the equalization apparatus to: a process associated with a signal using a transfer function with a coefficient, the signal propagating through each of at least three channels;
and at least one memory configured to store instructions;
at least one memory configured to store instructions;
and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to generate the coefficient based on channel quality information on each of the plurality of channels.
and generate the coefficient based on channel quality information on each of the at least three channels,
process first data and second data into a first processed signal and a second processed signal using a first transfer matrix as the transfer function, wherein a coefficient of the first transfer matrix is a coefficient that gives more signal power to a channel with a lowest channel quality among the channels selected, in such a way to reduce a difference of quality between the channel with the lowest channel quality and the channel with a highest channel quality, wherein the first processed signal is to be transmitted through a first channel of the at least three channels, wherein the second processed signal is to be transmitted through a second channel of the at least three channels, and wherein one of the first channel and the second channel is the channel with the lowest channel quality, and the other is the channel with the highest channel quality.
As the table above illustrates, all the limitations of claim 1 of the present application are taught by claim 21 of copending Application No. 18/570,182.
Thus, claim 1 of the present application would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in view of claim 21 of copending Application No. 18/570,182, as anticipation of all limitations is tantamount to obviousness.
The following table illustrates a mapping of the limitations of claim 9 of the present application when compared against the limitations of claim 24,25 of copending Application No. 18/570,182. The differences have been bolded for purposes of clarity.
Claim 9 of Present Application
Claims 24,25 of copending Application No. 18/570,182
9. An optical transmission system, comprising:
24. (Currently Amended): An equalization apparatus, comprising:
a transmitting processing unit configured to receive input of data to be transmitted through a plurality of channels, and converting the data into a signal using a first transfer matrix with a coefficient in such a way as to give more signal power to a channel with lower channel quality;
and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to cause the equalization apparatus to: perform a process associated with a signal using a transfer function with a coefficient, the signal propagating through each of at least three channels; generate the coefficient based on channel quality information on each of the at least three channels; process first data and second data into a first processed signal and a second processed signal using a first transfer matrix as the transfer function, wherein a coefficient of the first transfer matrix is a coefficient that gives more signal power to a channel with a lowest channel quality among the channels selected, in such a way to reduce a difference of quality between the channel with the lowest channel quality and the channel with a highest channel quality,
a receiving processing unit configured to receive input of the signal after propagating through the plurality of channels, and restoring the signal after the propagating to the data using a second transfer matrix that is an inverse matrix of the first transfer matrix;
25. The equalization apparatus according to claim 24, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to cause the equalization apparatus to: the first processed signal after propagating through the first channel and the second processed signal after propagating through the second channel, restore the first processed signal and the second processed signal selected to the first data and the second data, using a second transfer matrix as the transfer function, and wherein the second transfer matrix is an inverse matrix of the first transfer matrix.
and at least one memory configured to store instructions;
at least one memory configured to store instructions;
and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to generate the coefficient based on channel quality information on each of the plurality of channels.
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to cause the equalization apparatus to: select the first processed signal for a first channel of the at least three channels, and select the second processed signal for a second channel of the at least three channels, and wherein one of the first channel and the second channel is the channel with the lowest channel quality.
As the table above illustrates, all the limitations of claim 9 of the present application are taught by claim 24,25 of copending Application No. 18/570,182.
Thus, claim 9 of the present application would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in view of claim 24,25 of copending Application No. 18/570,182, as anticipation of all limitations is tantamount to obviousness.
The following table illustrates a mapping of the limitations of claim 16 of the present application when compared against the limitations of claim 26 of copending Application No. 18/570,182. The differences have been bolded for purposes of clarity.
Claim 16 of Present Application
Claim 26 of copending Application No. 18/570,182
An equalization method, comprising:
An equalization method, comprising:
performing a process associated with a signal using a transfer function with a coefficient, the signal propagating through each of a plurality of channels;
performing a process associated with a signal using a transfer function with a coefficient, the signal propagating through each of at least three channels;
and generating the coefficient based on channel quality information on each of the plurality of channels.
and generating the coefficient based on channel quality information on each of the at least three channels,
wherein the generating of the coefficient includes measuring channel quality of each of the at least three channels, and wherein a coefficient of the transfer function is a coefficient that gives more signal power to a channel with a lowest channel quality among the channels selected, in such a way to reduce a difference of quality between the channel with the lowest channel quality and the channel with a highest channel quality, and wherein the performing of the process associated with the signal includes processing data to be transmitted through channels having a difference in the channel quality between the channel with the lowest channel quality and the channel with the highest channel quality in such a way as to give more signal power to the channel with lowest channel quality.
As the table above illustrates, all the limitations of claim 16 of the present application are taught by claim 26 of copending Application No. 18/570,182.
Thus, claim 16 of the present application would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in view of claim 26 of copending Application No. 18/570,182, as anticipation of all limitations is tantamount to obviousness.
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.
Claim 1,6,8,16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Renaudier et al.(US 2015/0037034).
Considering claim 1 Renaudier disclose an equalization apparatus, comprising: a processing unit configured to perform a process associated with a signal using a transfer function with a coefficient, the signal propagating through each of a plurality of channels(See Paragraph 32,34,44, fig. 2a i.e. a processing unit(218) configured to perform a process associated with a signal using a transfer function with a coefficient via pulse shaping (FIR filter(212) coefficients), the signal propagating through each of a plurality of channels(sequence of symbols)(211)); and at least one memory configured to store instructions(See Paragraph 19,34,54, fig. 2a i.e. at least one memory which is LUT(213) configured to store instructions); and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to generate the coefficient based on channel quality information on each of the plurality of channels(See Paragraph 42, 44,47, fig. 2a i.e. at least one processor(212) configured to execute the instructions to generate the coefficient based on channel quality information(signal to noise ratio)(received from filtering profile(217)) on each of the plurality of channels(211)).
Considering Claim 6 Renaudier discloses the equalization apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the channel quality information includes one of a noise power level, a signal to noise ratio, and a bit error rate, with regard to each of the plurality of channels(See Paragraph 47, fig. 2a i.e. the channel quality information includes one of a noise power level, a signal to noise ratio(SNR), and a bit error rate, with regard to each of the plurality of channels).
Considering Claim 8 Renaudier discloses the equalization apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of channels are different wavelengths in a wavelength division multiplexing on which the signal propagates(See Paragraph 32, fig. 1 i.e. wherein the plurality of channels(110) are different wavelengths(111,112) in a wavelength division multiplexing on which the signal propagates).
Claim 16 rejected for claim the same reason as in claim 1.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 2,17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renaudier et al.(US 2015/0037034) in view of Afkhami et al.(US 2015/0103751)
Considering Claim 2 Renaudier discloses the equalization apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit includes a transmitting processing unit, and the transmitting processing unit is configured to receive input of data to be transmitted through the plurality of channels(See abstract, Paragraph 34, fig. 2a i.e. wherein the processing unit(218) includes a transmitting processing unit(216), and the transmitting processing unit(216) is configured to receive input of data to be transmitted through the plurality of channels to be transmitted over transmission path(250)), and convert the data into the signal using a first transfer matrix as the transfer function(See abstract, Paragraph 14,34, fig. 2a i.e. transmitting processing unit(216) to convert the data into optical signal).
Renaudier does not explicitly disclose give more signal power to a channel with lower channel quality.
Afkhami teaches give more signal power to a channel with lower channel quality(See Paragraph 95 i.e. give more signal power(increase power) to a channel with lower channel quality(low signal to noise ratio(SNR) or poor channel conditions)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Renaudier, and have more signal power to be given to a channel with lower channel quality, as taught by Afkhami, thus improving transmission signal quality by optimizing SNR by increasing power allocation for poor quality channels, as discussed by Afkhami (Paragraph 95).
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reason as in claim 2.
Claims 4,5,19,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renaudier et al.(US 2015/0037034) in view of Kitamura et al.(US 2016/0273915).
Considering Claim 4 Renaudier does not explicitly disclose the equalization apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the transfer function includes a square matrix having the same number of columns as the number of the plurality of channels, and the square matrix is expressed as an element-wise product of a coefficient matrix and an orthogonal matrix.
Kitamura teaches the equalization apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the transfer function includes a square matrix having the same number of columns as the number of the plurality of channels, and the square matrix is expressed as an element-wise product of a coefficient matrix and an orthogonal matrix(See Paragraph 117,134 i.e. wherein the transfer function includes a square matrix(correction coefficient) having the same number of columns(n) as the number of the plurality of channels, and the square matrix is expressed as an element-wise product of a coefficient matrix and an orthogonal matrix ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Renaudier, and have the transfer function to include a square matrix having the same number of columns as the number of the plurality of channels, and the square matrix is expressed as an element-wise product of a coefficient matrix and an orthogonal matrix, as taught by Afkhami, thus improving transmission signal quality by allowing linear transformation using a square matrix.
Considering Claim 5 Renaudier and Kitamura disclose the equalization apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the at least one processor determines matrix elements of the coefficient matrix(See Kitamura: Paragraph 117,118, fig. 3,4 i.e. the at least one processor which is a correction coefficient computing unit(13 of fig. 3) determines matrix elements of the coefficient matrix(correction coefficient(24 of fig. 4)) ).
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reason as in claim 4.
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reason as in claim 5.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renaudier et al.(US 2015/0037034) in view of Ryf et al.(US 2015/0086199).
Considering Claim 7 Renaudier does not explicitly disclose the equalization apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of channels are different cores of a multi-core fiber through which the signal propagates.
Ryf teaches the equalization apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of channels are different cores of a multi-core fiber through which the signal propagates(See Paragraph 22,23, fig. 1 i.e. wherein the plurality of channels are different cores of a multi-core fiber(110) through which the signal propagates).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Renaudier, and have the transfer function to include a square matrix having the same number of columns as the number of the plurality of channels, and the square matrix is expressed as an element-wise product of a coefficient matrix and an orthogonal matrix, as taught by Ryf, thus providing an efficient transmission system by optimizing transmission capacity using a multi core fiber.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-15,18 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIBRET A WOLDEKIDAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5145. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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 C 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.
/HIBRET A WOLDEKIDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635