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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must
show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features “a transceiver” and “at least one controller connected to the transceiver” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim 12. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
Claims 12-16 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In Claim 12, in lines 3 and 4, the phrases “a transceiver” and “at least one controller operably connected to the transceiver” were not described in the specification.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahara (US Patent No. 8,306,431) in view of Hawryluck et al (US Patent No. 7,936,999).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, referring to Figures 1 and 2, Takahara teaches
a coherent optical reception system (i.e., optical receiver 200, Figs. 1 and 2), comprising:
a coherent optical receiver (i.e., optical receiver 200, Figs. 1 and 2) configured
to receive light from at least two light sources (i.e., first light source 110a and second light source 110b, Figs. 1 and 2);
a local oscillator (LO) (i.e., local oscillator LO 212, Figs. 1 and 2) configured to
transmit first LO light to the coherent optical receiver, and the LO (i.e., local oscillator LO 212, Figs. 1 and 2) is configured to transmit second LO light to the coherent optical receiver (i.e., Figures 1 and 2, col. 3, lines 14-67, col. 4, lines 1-67, col. 5, lines 1-67, col. 6, lines 1-52, and col. 14, lines 8-12).
Takahara differs from claims 1 and 7 in that he fails to specifically teach a polarization controller configured to transmit a signal for polarization control to the LO, wherein the polarization controller is configured to transmit a first control signal to the LO on the basis of a first reception signal, and the LO is configured to transmit second LO light to the coherent optical receiver on the basis of the first control signal. However, Hawryluck et al in US Patent No. 7,936,999 teaches a polarization controller (i.e., control unit 44, Fig. 2b) configured to transmit a signal for polarization control to the LO (i.e., LO 7, Fig. 2b), wherein the polarization controller (i.e., control unit 44, Fig. 2b) is configured to transmit a first control signal (i.e., first control signal to control variable optical attenuator VOA-40x, Fig. 2b) to the LO (i.e., LO 7, Fig. 2b) on the basis of a first reception signal, and the LO is configured to transmit second LO light to the coherent optical receiver on the basis of the first control signal (i.e., Figure 2b, col. 4, lines 43-67). Based on this teaching, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the polarization controller configured to transmit a signal for polarization control to the LO, wherein the polarization controller is configured to transmit a first control signal to the LO on the basis of a first reception signal, and the LO is configured to transmit second LO light to the coherent optical receiver on the basis of the first control signal as taught by Hawryluck et al in the system of Takahara. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this since allowing reducing the error signal and improving the performance of the system.
Regarding claims 4 and 9, the combination of Takahara and Hawryluck et al teaches wherein the LO (i.e., LO 7, Fig. 2b of Hawryluck et al) comprises an optical attenuator (i.e., variable optical attenuator VOA-40x, Fig. 2b of Hawryluck et al) or an interferometer configured to attenuate a control voltage on the basis of the control signal received from the polarization controller (i.e., control unit 44, Fig. 2b of Hawryluck et al), and the LO is configured to transmit the second LO light on the basis of the control voltage attenuated by the optical attenuator or the interferometer.
Regarding claims 5 and 10, the combination of Takahara and Hawryluck et al teaches wherein the first control signal (i.e., first control signal to control variable optical attenuator VOA-40x, Fig. 2b of Hawryluck et al) is a signal for controlling signal quality corresponding to vertically polarized light or horizontally polarized light or both of the second LO light.
Regarding claims 6 and 11, the combination of Takahara and Hawryluck et al teaches wherein the first control signal (i.e., first control signal to control variable optical attenuator VOA-40x, Fig. 2b of Hawryluck et al) is a signal for controlling light intensity corresponding to vertically polarized light or horizontally polarized light or both of the second LO light.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Takahara and Hawryluck et al teaches wherein the first control signal (i.e., first control signal to control variable optical attenuator VOA-40x, Fig. 2b of Hawryluck et al ) is generated by the polarization controller (i.e., control unit 44, Fig. 2b of Hawryluck et al) to maximize intensity or quality or both of the first reception signal.
7. Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehrvar et al (US Patent No. 10,205,534) in view of Hawryluck et al (US Patent No. 7,936,999).
Regarding claim 12, as it is understood in view of the above 112 problem, referring to Figure 1, Mehrvar et al teaches an apparatus (i.e., Fig. 1) for a local oscillator (LO)(i.e., LO 6, Fig. 1) in a coherent optical reception system (i.e., optical receiver 10, Fig. 1), the apparatus comprising:
a transceiver (i.e., transceiver 2, Fig. 1); and
at least one controller (i.e., controller 12, Fig. 1) operably connected to the
transceiver, wherein the at least one controller is configured to transmit first local oscillator (LO) light (i.e., LO 6, Fig. 1) to a coherent optical receiver (i.e., optical receiver 10, Fig. 1), and transmit second LO light (i.e., LO 6, Fig. 1) to the coherent optical receiver (i.e., optical receiver 10, Fig. 1)(i.e., Figure 1, col. 2, lines 50-67, col. 3, lines 1-67, col. 4, lines 1-28, and col. 12, lines 47-55).
Mehrvar et al differs from claim 12 in that he fails to specifically teach receive a first control signal for polarization control from a polarization controller, the first control signal being generated on the basis of a first reception signal corresponding to the first LO light, and transmit second LO light on the basis of the first control signal to the coherent optical receiver. However, Hawryluck et al in US Patent No. 7,936,999 teaches receive (i.e., variable optical attenuator VOA-40x, Fig. 2b) a first control signal for polarization control from a polarization controller (i.e., control unit 44, Fig. 2b) , the first control signal being generated on the basis of a first reception signal corresponding to the first LO light, and transmit (i.e., LO 7, Fig. 2b) second LO light on the basis of the first control signal to the coherent optical receiver (i.e., optical receiver, Fig. 2b)(i.e., Figure 2b, col. 4, lines 43-67). Based on this teaching, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the receive a first control signal for polarization control from a polarization controller, the first control signal being generated on the basis of a first reception signal corresponding to the first LO light, and transmit second LO light on the basis of the first control signal to the coherent optical receiver as taught by Hawryluck et al in the system of Mehrvar et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this since allowing reducing the error signal and improving the performance of the system.
Regarding claim 13, as it is understood in view of the above 112 problem,
the combination of Mehrvar et al and Hawryluck et al teaches wherein the first control signal is generated by the polarization controller (i.e., control unit 44, Fig. 2b) to maximize intensity or quality or both of the first reception signal.
Regarding claim 14, as it is understood in view of the above 112 problem,
the combination of Mehrvar et al and Hawryluck et al teaches wherein the at least one controller (i.e., attenuator 40-x, Fig. 2b of Hawryluck et al) is configured to attenuate a control voltage on the basis of the control signal received from the polarization controller (i.e., control unit 44, Fig. 2b of Hawryluck et al), and transmit (i.e., LO 7, Fig. 2b of Hawrylauck et al) the second LO light on the basis of the attenuated control voltage.
Regarding claim 15, as it is understood in view of the above 112 problem,
the combination of Mehrvar et al and Hawryluck et al teaches wherein the first control signal (i.e., first control signal to control variable optical attenuator VOA-40x, Fig. 2b of Hawryluck et al ) is a signal for controlling signal quality corresponding to vertically polarized light or horizontally polarized light or both of the second LO light.
Regarding claim 16, as it is understood in view of the above 112 problem,
the combination of Mehrvar et al and Hawryluck et al teaches wherein the first control signal (i.e., first control signal to control variable optical attenuator VOA-40x, Fig. 2b of Hawryluck et al) is a signal for controlling light intensity corresponding to vertically polarized light or horizontally polarized light or both of the second LO light.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 3 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
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Suzuki (US Patent No. 10,033,468) discloses coherent optical receiver device and coherent optical receiving method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hanh Phan whose telephone number is (571)272-3035. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful the examiner's supervisor, Kenneth Vanderpuye, can be reached on (571)272-3078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300. Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (703)305-4700.
/HANH PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634