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 new drawings were received on April 3, 2026. These drawings are acceptable. The previous objection to the drawings is withdrawn.
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(s) 1, 3-7, 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki (US Pat. App. Pub. 2002/0048071).
Regarding Claim 1, Suzuki teaches An optical transmitter system for receiving and converting a radio frequency (RF) signal into an optical signal (FIG. 3), the optical transmitter system comprising: an RF receiver circuit configured to receive an RF signal (FIG. 3: 17); and at least two signal manipulation paths connected with the RF receiver circuit, respectively, such that the at least two signal manipulation paths receive the RF signal from the RF receiver circuit (FIG. 3: 12A-1, 12A-2), wherein the RF receiver circuit is configured to split the RF signal into the at least two signal manipulation paths such that the same RF signal is forwarded to each of the at least two signal manipulation paths (Id.), wherein the at least two signal manipulation paths are each configured to process the received RF signal (Id.), thereby obtaining a manipulated optical signal (Id.), respectively, wherein each of the at least two signal manipulation paths comprises an electro-optical convertor (FIG. 3: 13A-1, 13A-2), wherein the electro-optical convertor is configured to convert RF signals into a corresponding converted optical signal (Id.), and wherein at least one of the at least two signal manipulation paths comprises a signal manipulation unit (FIG. 3: 12A-1, 12A-2), the signal manipulation unit being configured to adapt a signal processed by the respective signal manipulation path based on at least one operation to obtain a manipulated signal (Id.).
Regarding Claim 3, Suzuki teaches The optical transmitter system of claim 1, wherein the signal manipulation unit is provided downstream of the electro-optical convertor. (FIG. 6: 14A)
Regarding Claim 4, Suzuki teaches The optical transmitter system according to claim 1, wherein the RF signal comprises a first symbol sequence, and wherein each of the manipulated optical signals comprises a symbol sequence being associated with the first symbol sequence. (FIG. 6: 17); ([0078])
Regarding Claim 5, Suzuki teaches The optical transmitter system according to claim 1, wherein the optical transmitter system comprises an optical combiner module (FIG. 6, 14A)., wherein the optical combiner module is connected with the signal manipulation paths, respectively, so as to receive the manipulated optical signals from the signal manipulation paths, and wherein the optical combiner module is configured to combine the manipulated optical signals so as to obtain a combined manipulated optical signal. (Id.)
Regarding Claim 6, Suzuki teaches The optical transmitter system according to claim 1, wherein the electro-optical convertors are configured to convert RF signals such that the converted optical signals are associated with different optical channels. (FIG. 6, 13A-1,2,N)
Regarding Claim 7, Suzuki teaches The optical transmitter system of claim 6, wherein the different optical channels are independent of each other. (FIG. 6)
Regarding Claim 15, Suzuki teaches The optical transmitter system according to claim 1, wherein the electro-optical convertors are configured to generate the manipulated optical signals by an amplitude modulation, by a phase modulation, and/or by a frequency modulation, respectively. (FIG. 6, 13A)
Regarding Claim 16, Suzuki teaches The optical transmitter system according to claim 1, wherein the electro-optical convertors are configured to generate the manipulated optical signals by an amplitude modulation, by a phase modulation, and/or by a frequency modulation, respectively. (FIG. 6, 13A)
Regarding Claim 17, Suzuki teaches The optical transmitter system according to claim 1, further comprising an optical receiver module, wherein the optical receiver module is configured to receive the manipulated optical signals, and wherein the optical receiver module is configured to convert the manipulated optical signals into RF signals. (FIG. 5, 30-21)
Regarding Claim 18, Suzuki teaches The optical transmitter system of claim 17, wherein the optical receiver module is configured to digitize the RF signals. (FIG. 5, 30-21)
Regarding Claim 19, Suzuki teaches A signal transmission method, the signal transmission method comprising: receiving, by an RF receiver circuit (FIG. 3), an RF signal; forwarding the received RF signals to at least two signal manipulation paths (FIG. 3: 12A-1, 12A-2), wherein the RF receiver circuit splits the RF signal into the at least two signal manipulation paths, such that the same RF signal is forwarded to each of the at least two signal manipulation paths (Id.); and processing the received RF signals by the at least two signal manipulation paths (Id.), thereby obtaining at least two manipulated optical signals; wherein processing the received RF signals comprises adapting, by a signal manipulation unit, a signal processed by the respective signal manipulation path based on at least one operation to obtain a manipulated signal (Id.), and wherein processing the received RF signals comprises converting, by an electro-optical convertor (FIG. 3: 13A-1, 13A-2), a signal processed by the respective signal manipulation path into a corresponding converted optical signal (Id.).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US Pat. App. Pub. 2002/0048071) and Uyeno (US Pat. App. Pub 2023/0110986).
Regarding Claim 2, Suzuki teaches The optical transmitter system of claim 1,
Suzuki does not teach wherein the signal manipulation unit is provided upstream of the electro-optical convertor.
Uyeno teaches wherein the signal manipulation unit is provided upstream of the electro-optical convertor. (FIG. 1, 122, 126)
Suzuki and Uyeno are both optical communication systems that convert RF signals into optical signals and are therefore analogous art.
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to swap the positions of the manipulation unit and electro-optical converter in Suzuki in light of Uyeno teaching that a manipulation unit can be placed after the electro-optical converter. The suggestion/motivation would have been to allow for the signal to be manipulated after it was converted into an optical state.
Regarding Claim 8, Suzuki teaches The optical transmitter system according to claim 1,
Suzuki does not teach wherein the at least one operation is a linear operation, and wherein the linear operation comprises applying a linear factor to the signal processed by the respective signal manipulation path.
Uyeno teaches wherein the at least one operation is a linear operation, and wherein the linear operation comprises applying a linear factor to the signal processed by the respective signal manipulation path. ([0041])
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the linear operations taught in Uyeno to the system taught in Suzuki. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve the signal to noise ratio of the signal in Suzuki.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Suzuki and Uyeno teach The optical transmitter system according to claim 8, wherein the linear factor is different for each of the signal manipulation paths. ([0041])
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the linear operations taught in Uyeno to the system taught in Suzuki. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve the signal to noise ratio of the signal in Suzuki.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Suzuki and Uyeno teache The optical transmitter system of claim 9, wherein the linear factor increases exponentially between different signal manipulation paths. ([0041])
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the linear operations taught in Uyeno to the system taught in Suzuki. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve the signal to noise ratio of the signal in Suzuki.
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US Pat. App. Pub. 2002/0048071) in light of Kaushal (US Pat. App. Pub. 2025/ 0015892).
Regarding Claim 11, Suzuki teaches The optical transmitter system according to claim 1,
Suzuki does not teach wherein the at least one operation is a non-linear operation, and wherein the non-linear operation comprises a modulo operation and/or applying a sawtooth function to the signal processed by the respective signal manipulation path.
Kaushal teaches wherein the at least one operation is a non-linear operation, and wherein the non-linear operation comprises a modulo operation and/or applying a sawtooth function to the signal processed by the respective signal manipulation path. ([0102])
Suzuki and Kaushal are both optical transmitters and are therefore analogous art.
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the non-linear functions taught in Kaushal with the system taught in Suzuki. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve the signal to noise ratio.
Regarding Claim 12, Suzuki teaches The optical transmitter system according to claim 1,
Suzuki does not teach wherein the at least one operation is a non-linear operation, and wherein the non-linear operation comprises applying a non-linear function to the signal processed by the respective signal manipulation path.
Kaushal teaches wherein the at least one operation is a non-linear operation, and wherein the non-linear operation comprises applying a non-linear function to the signal processed by the respective signal manipulation path. ([102])
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the non-linear functions taught in Kaushal with the system taught in Suzuki. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve the signal to noise ratio.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Suzuki and Kaushal teaches The optical transmitter system according to claim 12, wherein the non-linear function corresponds to a mapping of the signal processed by the respective signal manipulation path to a spiral. ([0099]).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the non-linear functions taught in Kaushal with the system taught in Suzuki. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve the signal to noise ratio.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Suzuki and Kaushal teaches The optical transmitter system of claim 13, wherein signals processed by different signal manipulation paths are mapped to different spirals or to different spiral arms. ([0099]).
Response to Arguments
Suzuki anticipated the independent claims as previously written as well as the claims as amended. The independent claims have been further amended to state, inter alia, that “the same RF signal” is sent to the two “manipulation paths.” Applicant argues that Suzuki is processing different signals using the different paths. (“Amendment and Response After Non-Final Rejection (April 3, 2026)” (Hereinafter “OA 4.3.26”), p. 8). Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive, and while FIG. 6 of Suzuki does show one signal being split and passed to the different paths, (17, 11A), FIG. 3 better illustrates that the same signal is being split and sent to different manipulation paths. (17, 12A-1, 12A-2). It is for this reason that the claim map’s citations have been changed to FIG. 3 even though the same embodiment is being illustrated. Thus, Suzuki anticipates that claims as amended.
Applicant further argues that the “electro-optical convertors” are not “signal manipulation units” as claimed. (“OA 4.3.26”) Applicant is correct, but appears to have misunderstood the previous claim map. While an electro-optical convertor could normally qualify as a “signal manipulation unit” under BRI, the fact that the claim sets out a converter and a signal manipulation unit suggests that the manipulation unit is something other than a converter. The multiplexers (FIG. 6: 12A) taught in Suzuki, however, are another type of signal manipulation unit as claimed. Thus, Suzuki does anticipate the signal manipulation unit as claimed.
For the 103 rejections, applicant argues that the other prior arts “fail to correct the deficiencies of Suzuki.” Because the other prior arts are not being relied on at this time to teach anything covered by Suzuki and the Suzuki rejections are proper, this argument is moot.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL M BROCK whose telephone number is (571)272-7257. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30pm.
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.
/PAUL MORGAN BROCK/Examiner, Art Unit 2634 May 14, 2026
/KENNETH N VANDERPUYE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights