DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application and claims filed on January 19, 2024. Claims 1-8 are pending, with claims 1 and 7 in independent claim form.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by Applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on January 19, 2024, have been considered and made of record (note attached copy of forms PTO-1449).
Drawings
The original drawings (twelve (12) pages) were received on January 19, 2024. These drawings are acknowledged.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the abstract reads akin to the confusing language in independent claims 1 and 7, for example “which generates phase conjugate light of the optical signal whose frequency is within a first band in a second band different from the first band.” Such language is awkward and confusing based on the following explanation in 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections below.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 7 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 2-6 and 8 are also rejected herein at least as being dependent from independent claim 1.
The following rejection pertains to the phrase “which generates phase conjugate light of the optical signal whose frequency is within a first band in a second band different from the first band.” Claims 1 and 7 recite the limitation "whose frequency" in this phrase. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What is “whose” referring to, is it referring to the generated “phase conjugate light” or the “optical signal?” It is unclear from this reading and should be re-drafted. Second, the “first band” is in a “second band” which is also different from the “first band?” It is not immediately clear what such claim scope defines for metes-and-bounds. Are these 1st / 2nd bands pertaining to the phase conjugate generation or the optical signal? Finally, in the final paragraph of claim 1 (later section of claim 7), the term “the frequency bands” also lacks proper antecedent basis, because there are many “bands” recited in the claim. Also, how can the “first band” be within the “second band”, but in conclusion the “second band is a higher or lower frequency band than the first band?” For these combined reasons, claims 1 and 7 lack proper antecedent basis and lack clarity based on the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and are rejected herein.
Additionally, regarding dependent claim 8, it is unclear how a “computer” can function as the transmission system. Based on the context of the drawings and specification, there is no clear disclosure what is meant by a computer functioning as the overall structural features (and optical elements) necessary to be a transmission system. How can a computer be a transmission system? Such disclosure is not clearly outlined anywhere in the original application. Further, Applicant appears to be improperly mixing statutory classes into one claim. Claim 1 is a system / device / apparatus claim, but added dependent claim 8 is defined as a “non-transitory computer readable medium” which stores a program. Accordingly, claim features from two distinct types of statutory classes are included in one claim. A single claim that includes both (1) an apparatus and a (distinct) (2) “non-transitory computer readable medium” for storing a program, is indefinite (see MPEP 2173.05(p)(II)). It may be unclear if infringement occurs when the program to run a computer is performed, or if just having the structure of the device / apparatus is enough for infringement. For these reasons, claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The rejection may be overcome by deleting the “non-transitory computer readable medium”, or having the preamble begin with “The transmission system of claim 1…” For examination purposes, the non-transitory computer readable medium limitation will be treated as an storage type limitation and rejected if the structure of the prior art device is capable of such storage for running a computer control.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazama et al. JP 2019-161476 A (note the paragraphs and text is taken from the US Patent Publication 2021/0044358 A1, because this document is in English).
Regarding independent claim 1, and the same method of performing in independent claim 7, Kazama et al. JP 2019-161476 A (ABS; Fig. 4; corresponding text, in particular paragraphs [0002] – [0005], [0015] – [0022] (based on the English translation in US ‘358); Claims) a transmission system 400 which transmits an optical signal (Fig. 4), and inherent method of using same (for independent claim 7), comprising: a phase conjugate light generator (part of element 401, at 406) which generates phase conjugate light 423 (the idler formation is a phase conjugate of the main signal light) of the optical signal 405, whose frequency is within a first band in a second band different from the first band (see 421 and 423, separated bands by 422 in section 420 of Fig. 4); and an optical phase-sensitive amplifier 420 (para [0016]) which is capable of phase-sensitively amplifying the optical signal (at 421) and the phase conjugate light (at 423), within feature 420, wherein the first band is a frequency band in which the sensitivity can be received by a receiver (at 428 and/or at output 445, where a photo-receiver is not shown in Fig. 4), and in which the sensitivity of light reception of a receiver has different frequency bands of light at predetermined levels (based on features of 421 / 423 separated by dashed line 422).
Regarding independent claims 1 and 7, Kazama JP ‘476 does not expressly and exactly teach a single embodiment in which the transmission system includes the optical phase-sensitive amplifier (PSA) is to satisfy the entirety of the “wherein” clause at the conclusion of claim 1 (or near the end of method claim 7), in a receiver “receives the optical signal” at a “predetermined level or more among the frequency bands in which a transmitter which outputs the optical signal is able to output the optical signal with a predetermined intensity or more and the second band is a higher or lower frequency band than the first band.” However, notably, the first and second bands as noted above in Kazama are different frequency bands (Fig. 4), and therefore those bands would be higher or lower in relation to each other.
Further, and notably in Kazama paragraphs [0002] – [0005], features are discussed in which a PSA can be used and incorporated in similar transmission systems in which worsening features of signal to noise ratios (S/N) are recognized due to amplifications. Therefore, using the PSA features in order to address these S/N degradations would have been known based on Kazama’s own teachings in these paragraphs which pertain to the “wherein” clause. Keeping the S/N ratio from degrading due to having intensity issues after the PSA, to the photodetector, would have been an easily recognized problem. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the current application would have recognized employing such a similar configuration (as alluded to by Kazama paras [0002] – [0005]) for having a the predetermined level or more among the frequency bands and in which “a transmitter which outputs the optical signal is able to output the optical signal with a predetermined intensity or more and the second band is a higher or lower frequency band than the first band.” For these reasons, the features that are not exactly and expressly recited in one single combination of Kazama are nonetheless obvious over Kazama’s own teaching. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). Independent claims 1 and 7 are therefore rejected herein as being obvious in view of the tenets of KSR. Features of independent claim 1 are noted as COMBO for the following rejection of dependent claim.
Regarding further dependent claim 2, and based on the hypothetical COMBO references above for claim 1, the phase conjugate light generator can generate the phase conjugate light of the input optical signal through an optical parametric amplification process using a non-linear optical medium having an amplification band center between the first band and the second band. Using optical parametric processes are obvious design choices for the creation of the first and second band, and at least notably Kazama itself teaches DFG for the nonlinear conversion. Therefore, claim 2 is found obvious over Kazama. KSR.
Regarding further dependent claim 3, and based on the COMBO reference above for claim 1, the optical phase sensitive amplifier could perform phase sensitive amplification through interaction among three light waves of the input optical signal, the phase conjugate light, and the excitation light through an optical parametric amplification process using a non-linear optical medium having an amplification band center between the first band and the second band, because three wave interaction is a commonly chosen non-linear reaction in the art. Therefore, creating the first and second bands would have been recognized with three wave interaction. KSR. Therefore, claim 3 is found obvious over Kazama.
Regarding further dependent claim 4, and based on the COMBO reference above for claim 1, the features of having an optical power adjuster which adjusts the power of the optical signal and the phase conjugate light is an obvious implementation to increase power features of the signal(s). KSR. Therefore, claim 4 is found obvious over Kazama.
Regarding further dependent claim 5, and based on the COMBO reference above for claim 4 and claim 1, having the optical power adjuster reduce a difference in power between the optical signal and the phase conjugate light caused by a difference in transmission loss caused due to a difference in transmission band between the optical signal and the phase conjugate light, would have been an obvious design choice because transmission loss differences would immediately have been recognizable and used as feedback to improve output performance. KSR. Therefore, claim 5 is found obvious over Kazama.
Regarding further dependent claim 6, and based on the COMBO reference above for claim 1, using a signal source which has a control function, would have been an obvious selection of variability of components, because having the source/signal be variable (controllable) would have been recognized by a skilled artisan to be able to specifically direction LD signals as desired in the system of Kazama Fig. 4. Such features improve tunability of the output. KSR. Therefore, claim 6 is found obvious over Kazama.
Regarding further dependent claim 8, and based on the COMBO reference above for claim 6 and claim 1, the overall control / circuitry usage which is functionally performed by a computer and using a non-transitory computer readable medium, would have been an obvious implementation because having “control system” programmed into the overall transmission system of Kazama merely requires common skill. Having program code to cause functionality does not distinguish form the COMBO features. KSR. Therefore, claim 8 is obvious found over Kazama.
Inventorship
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: PTO-892 form reference A-C and U, which pertain to the state of the art of optical transmission systems that incorporate both phase conjugate lights (idlers due to non-linear processes, etc.) and in combination with phase-sensitive amplification structure / steps.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Petkovsek whose telephone number is (571) 272-4174. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 6 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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (571) 272-2397. 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.
/DANIEL PETKOVSEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 March 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights