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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 03/14/2024 is/are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims seem to be using unconventional terms for light (e.g. “pieces” of light), are missing indefinite articles (i.e. “a” and “an) for newly introduced limitations, and generally appear to be in non-standard formatting for U.S. patent claims. A proposal for how to rewrite claim 1 in more standard terms is as follows:
“An optical transmitter to split individual continuous wave light signals with N different wavelengths into M signals, where N is an integer equal to or greater than four, and M is an integer which is equal to or greater than two, and is a power of two, the optical transmitter comprising:
a plurality of splitting elements arranged in a plurality of splitting blocks, each splitting block comprising N splitting elements configured to split an input light signal at one of the N different wavelengths into two signals, the plurality of splitting blocks being arranged in j = log2M stages;
N×M external modulators to modulate respective signals obtained via the plurality of splitting elements at a j-th stage of the j = log2M stages; and
M wavelength multiplexers to multiplex input light signals at different wavelengths
wherein the plurality of splitting elements are connected in such a manner that an arranging order of N wavelengths of N lanes that are input to an upstream splitting block and an arranging order of N wavelengths of N lanes that are input to each of downstream splitting blocks are identical.”
This is merely a suggestion and other corrections are possible. The same issues appear throughout the dependent claims so similar corrections consistent with those made to claim 1 should be made.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 4-7, 9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka, U.S. Publication No. 2015/0050020.
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka teaches an optical transmitter to split each of pieces of continuous wave light with N different wavelengths (see Tanaka Figure 3, laser array 11 with signals λ1-λ4) into M (see Figure 3, N sets of signals λ1-λ4 output to multiplexers 18, wherein N in the reference is M in the claims), where N is an integer equal to or greater than four (there are 4 different wavelengths), and M is an integer which is equal to or greater than two, and is a power of two (see Figure 3, wherein M can be designed to be 2), the optical transmitter comprising:
a plurality of splitting elements to each split input light into two, N of the plurality of splitting elements to which the pieces of continuous wave light with N different wavelength are input being (see Figure 3, wherein a 1xN coupler 12 exists for each wavelength, and for the above scenario i.e. M = 2, each coupler would be a 1x2 coupler. See also paragraph [0005]) included in each of a plurality of splitting blocks arranged at j = log2M stages (there is only one stage as log2(2) = 1);
N×M external modulators to modulate respective pieces of the continuous wave light obtained by splitting at splitting elements at a j-th stage of the j = log2M stages (see Figure 3, arrays 17 of four modulators, wherein for the scenario above there would be two arrays of modulators i.e. 4x2 = 8 total modulators. See also paragraph [0048]); and
M wavelength multiplexers to multiplex every N different wavelengths of light after being modulated output from the external modulators (see Figure 3, wherein for the scenario above, there would be 2 multiplexers 18. See also paragraph [0048]),
wherein the plurality of splitting elements are connected in such a manner that arranging order of N wavelengths of N lanes that are input to an upstream splitting block and arranging order of N wavelengths of N lanes that are input to each of downstream splitting blocks are identical (see Figure 3 wherein there is only one splitting block. The order that the light signals are output from couplers 12 to multiplexers 18 are in the same order λ1 to λ4).
Regarding claim 4, Tanaka teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches one or more semiconductor lasers to generate the continuous wave light with N different wavelengths, wherein the one or more semiconductor lasers, the plurality of splitting elements, the N×M external modulators and the M wavelength multiplexers are integrated on one silicon photonics chip on which different types of material are integrated (see Tanaka Figure 3, integrated optical circuit 10 and paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 5, Tanaka teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the plurality of splitting elements, the N×M external modulators and the M wavelength multiplexers are integrated on one silicon photonics chip or one silicon photonics chip on which different type of material are integrated (see Tanaka Figure 3, integrated optical circuit 10 and paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 6, Tanaka teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the plurality of splitting blocks are arranged in such a manner that the number of splitting blocks at an s-th stage is 2s-1 where s is an integer from 1 to j (see Tanaka Figure 3, wherein there is 1 stage and 1 splitting block comprising couplers 12, as 21-1=1).
Regarding claim 7, Tanaka teaches an optical transceiver comprising:
the optical transmitter according to claim 1 (see Tanaka Figure 5 and paragraph [0057]); and
an optical receiver (see Tanaka Figure 5, receiving circuit 20A) including:
M wavelength demultiplexers to each demultiplex an input optical signal with N wavelengths into N signals each with a corresponding one of the N wavelengths (see Tanaka Figure 5 designed to receive signals from the transmitter described above for the rejection of claim 1. Therefore, there would be M = 2 multiplexers 41 each outputting 4 signals. See also paragraph [0058]);
and N×M photodetectors to receive N×M demultiplexed signals (see Tanaka Figure 5, arrays 42 of four photodetectors, wherein for the scenario above there would be two arrays of photodetectors i.e. 4x2 = 8 total photodetectors. See also paragraph [0059]).
Regarding claim 9, Tanaka teaches all the limitations of claim 7, and further teaches wherein the wavelength demultiplexers and the photodetectors are integrated on one silicon photonics (see Tanaka paragraphs [0047] and [0057]).
Regarding claim 11, Tanaka teaches all the limitations of claim 9, and further teaches wherein the optical transmitter and the optical receiver are integrated on one silicon photonics chip (see Tanaka paragraphs [0047] and [0057]).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka, U.S. Publication No. 2015/0050020.
Regarding claim 3, Tanaka teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein N splitting elements in a splitting block at a first stage in the splitting blocks at the j stages are connected with one or more semiconductor lasers to generate the continuous wave light with N different wavelengths (see Tanaka paragraph [0047]).
Tanaka does not expressively teach wherein the splitting block at the first stage is connected with the one or more lasers through N optical fibers. However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of simple substitution to replace the generic connections between the lasers and couplers of Tanaka with fibers as claimed to yield the predictable results of successfully transmitting the light signals.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka, U.S. Publication No. 2015/0050020 in view of Goodwill, U.S. Publication No. 2016/0204878.
Regarding claim 2, Tanaka teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressively teach wherein at least one splitting element of the plurality of splitting elements has a higher splitting rate of continuous wave light to be split to a lane that crosses a greater number of lanes than a splitting rate of continuous wave light to be split to a lane that crosses a smaller number of lanes.
However, Goodwill in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches an optical transmitter with configured to output 4 different wavelength signals (see Goodwill Figure 2, lasers 202 and paragraph [0020]) to a plurality of splitting elements (see Figure 2, splitters 204) configured to split input optical signals at different wavelengths to further optical devices (see Figure 2, optical modulators 206) as taught in Tanaka wherein
at least one splitting element of the plurality of splitting elements has a higher splitting rate of continuous wave light to be split to a lane that crosses a greater number of lanes than a splitting rate of continuous wave light to be split to a lane that crosses a smaller number of lanes (see Figure 2, splitter 204B which has the first output signal crossing 5 lanes and the second output signal crossing 4 lanes and Figure 3, which is an embodiment of splitter 204B, which shows the first output signal is 50% of the input light and the second output is 25% of the input light).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the teaching of splitting light unevenly based on lane crossings as taught in Goodwill with the system taught in Tanaka, the motivation being to ensure sufficient light reaches the intended target for further processing.
Claim(s) 8, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al, U.S. Publication No. 2020/0319409.
Regarding claim 8, Tanaka teaches an optical transceiver comprising:
the optical transmitter according to claim 1 (see Tanaka Figure 5 and paragraph [0035] which indicates that Figure 5 incorporates the transmitter of Figure 3); and
an optical receiver (see Tanaka Figure 5, receiving circuit 50) receiving M input signals with N different wavelengths (see Tanaka Figure 5 as designed to receive signals from a transmitter as explained above in the rejection claim 1).
Tanaka does not expressively teach the optical receiver including: M polarization separation elements to each polarization-separate an input optical signal with N wavelengths into TE-mode optical signals each with the N wavelengths and TM-mode optical signals each with the N wavelengths; M wavelength demultiplexers to receive input of the polarization-separated TE-mode optical signals each with the N wavelengths, and demultiplex the input optical signals into N signals each with a corresponding one of the N wavelengths; M polarization rotation elements to receive input of the polarization-separated TM-mode optical signals each with the N wavelengths, and polarization-rotate each of the input optical signals by 90 degrees; M wavelength demultiplexers to demultiplex the optical signals that have been polarization-rotated by 90 degrees into N signals each with a corresponding one of the N wavelengths; and N×M×2 photodetectors to receive N×M×2 demultiplexed signals.
However, Su in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches an optical receiver (see Su Figure 15) configured to receive one (M = 1) input signal with N different wavelengths (see Figure 15, TE and TM input and four outputs from each WDM 1502) as taught in Tanaka comprising (for M = 1)
one polarization separation element polarization-separate an input optical signal with N wavelengths into TE-mode optical signals each with the N wavelengths and TM-mode optical signals each with the N wavelengths (see Figure 15, output from polarization splitter rotator with TE-TE path and TM-to-TE path and paragraph [0089]);
one wavelength demultiplexer to receive input of the polarization-separated TE-mode optical signals each with the N wavelengths, and demultiplex the input optical signals into N signals each with a corresponding one of the N wavelengths (see Figure 15, WDM 1502A);
one polarization rotation element to receive input of the polarization-separated TM-mode optical signals each with the N wavelengths, and polarization-rotate each of the input optical signals by 90 degrees (see Figure 15, polarization splitter rotator and paragraph [0089]);
one wavelength demultiplexer to demultiplex the optical signals that have been polarization-rotated by 90 degrees into N signals each with a corresponding one of the N wavelengths (see Figure 15, WDM 1502B); and
N×1×2 photodetectors to receive N×1×2 demultiplexed signals (see Figure 15, 8 photodetectors).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the teaching of polarization separating the optical signals as taught in Su with the system taught in Tanaka, the motivation being to mitigate polarization-based imperfections in the fibers and other parts of the transmission system.
Tanaka in view of Su further teaches
M polarization separation elements to each polarization-separate an input optical signal with N wavelengths into TE-mode optical signals each with the N wavelengths and TM-mode optical signals each with the N wavelengths;
M wavelength demultiplexers to receive input of the polarization-separated TE-mode optical signals each with the N wavelengths, and demultiplex the input optical signals into N signals each with a corresponding one of the N wavelengths; M polarization rotation elements to receive input of the polarization-separated TM-mode optical signals each with the N wavelengths, and polarization-rotate each of the input optical signals by 90 degrees;
M wavelength demultiplexers to demultiplex the optical signals that have been polarization-rotated by 90 degrees into N signals each with a corresponding one of the N wavelengths; and N×M×2 photodetectors to receive N×M×2 demultiplexed signals (see Su Figure 15 as applied to an optical receiver of Tanaka Figure 5 receiving two i.e. M = 2 multiplexed signals being sent by the transmitter described above with the rejection of claim 1. Su Figure 15 essentially would be applied to two sets of signal lines 19 of Tanaka Figure 5 thereby creating M = 2 for each element of the claim and NxMx2 photodetectors).
Regarding claim 10, Tanaka in view of Su teaches all the limitations of claim 8, and further teaches wherein the wavelength demultiplexers and the photodetectors are integrated on one silicon photonics (see Tanaka paragraphs [0047] and [0057]).
Regarding claim 12, Tanaka in view of Su teaches all the limitations of claim 10, and further teaches wherein the optical transmitter and the optical receiver are integrated on one silicon photonics chip (see Tanaka paragraphs [0047] and [0057]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY L KRETZER whose telephone number is (571)272-5639. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-7:00 PM Pacific Time.
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.
/CASEY L KRETZER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635