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 08/20/2025 is/are being considered by the examiner.
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 “common transmit clock” wherein the first and second polarizations originate from must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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
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.
Claim 27 is 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.
Regarding claim 27, the claim recites “wherein the first polarization and the second polarization originate from a common transmit clock.” However, it is unclear how polarizations of light would originate from a clock. Polarization is a well-known feature of coherent light which can be manipulated with optical components but one of ordinary skill in the art would not readily recognize how and/or why a clock, which is generally electrical in nature, would be needed for such manipulations. The only paragraph in the Specification of the published application which mentions this clock is paragraph [0003] but it merely repeats the claim language; in addition, the application does not show a transmit clock performing such features in the Drawings as noted above. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would find the meets and bounds of the claim to be unclear.
For the purposes of prior art rejections, the claim will be interpreted as using a common transmit clock for the data related to the first and second polarizations, which seems to be in line with the Specification referring to clock and data recovery at a receiver receiving the first and second polarizations.
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) 21-23, 26, 28 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al, U.S. Patent No. 11,387,929.
Regarding claim 21, Zhang teaches an apparatus, comprising:
a transmitter (see Zhang Figure 9, Tx 902) configured to support dual-polarization transmissions using a first polarization and a second polarization (see column 15, “FIG. 10A-B are graphical illustrations depicting experimental phase estimation measurement plots 1000, 1002, respectively, obtained according to test architecture 900, FIG. 9. More particularly, plots 1000, 1002 illustrate phase estimation results for both polarizations of a multi-symbol dual-polarization signal, as well as the comparative differences between the conventional approach”), wherein the transmitter is configured to transmit a data segment (see Figure 24) toward a receiver (see Figure 9, receiver end 904), wherein the transmitter is configured to transmit a first portion of the data segment toward the receiver using the first polarization (see Figure 24, portion of SP-B 2408 exclusively in the X polarization) and to transmit a second portion of the data segment toward the receiver using the first polarization and the second polarization (see Figure 24, SP-C 2410).
Method claim 30 recites similar limitations as claim 21, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 22, Zhang teaches all the limitations of claim 21, and further teaches wherein the transmitter is configured to transmit the data segment toward the receiver using a burst mode transmission (see Zhang column 35, “FIG. 24 depicts an exemplary preamble architecture 2400 for a coherent burst-mode passive optical network”).
Regarding claim 23, Zhang teaches all the limitations of claim 22, and further teaches wherein the data segment is a preamble for the burst mode transmission (see Zhang column 35, “In an exemplary embodiment, preamble architecture 2400 includes a first preamble processing SP 2406 (SP-A), a second preamble processing SP 2408 (SP-B), and a third preamble processing SP 2410 (SP-C)”).
Regarding claim 26, Zhang teaches all the limitations of claim 21, and further teaches wherein the transmitter is configured to transmit the first portion of the data segment and the second portion of the data segment toward the receiver using a common wavelength (see Zhang Figure 9, single laser 914 and column 40, “Each ONU 2610 further included a respective tunable DFB laser 2616, each tuned to a 1550-nm wavelength with a linewidth of approximately 1 MHz as the laser source of that ONU 2610”. While this recitation is specifically for the ONU of Figure 26, it implies that the laser of Figure 9 sending a signal as shown in Figure 24 is a single wavelength source).
Regarding claim 28, Zhang teaches all the limitations of claim 21, and further teaches wherein transmission of the first portion of the data segment begins before transmission of the second portion of the data segment begins (see Zhang Figure 24, portion of SP-B 2408 exclusively in the X polarization occurs before SP-C 2410 along the time axis).
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) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al, U.S. Patent No. 11,387,929 in view of Zhu et al, U.S. Publication No. 2019/0280778.
Regarding claim 24, Zhang teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressively teach wherein the transmitter is configured to transmit the data segment toward the receiver using a continuous mode transmission.
However, Zhu in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a transmitter (see Zhu Figure 1) configured to send a data segment toward a receiver (see Figure 4, optical receiver 430 and paragraph [0023], “The coherent optical receiver includes a receiver DPS subsystem 210 uses pilot symbols transmitted by the coherent optical transmitter to aid in demodulating the data sequence optically transmitted thereto by the coherent optical receiver. The pilots may include a continuous preamble”) on dual-polarization transmission (see paragraph [0037]) as taught in Zhang wherein
the transmitter is configured to transmit the data segment toward the receiver using a continuous mode transmission (see paragraph [0021]).
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 transmission mode of Zhang with continuous mode transmission taught in Zhu to yield the predictable results of successfully sending and receiving the data segment.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al, U.S. Patent No. 11,387,929 in view of Zhu et al, U.S. Publication No. 2019/0280778 and Krishnan et al, U.S. Patent No. 9,806,814.
Regarding claim 25¸ Zhang in view of Zhu teaches all the limitations of claim 24, but does not expressively teach wherein the data segment is a polarization alignment data segment.
However, Krishnan in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a transmitter (see Krishnan Figure 1, optical transmitter 102) configured to send a data segment toward a receiver (see Figure 2, optical receiver 104 and Figure 4) on dual-polarization transmission (see Abstract) as taught in Zhang in view of Zhu wherein the data segment is a polarization alignment data segment (see claim 10).
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 a data segment being used for polarization alignment as taught in Krishnan with the system taught in Zhang in view of Zhu, the motivation being to ensure data is properly demodulated by ensuring the proper alignment of the polarizations.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al, U.S. Patent No. 11,387,929 in view of Napier et al, U.S. Patent No. 6,771,910.
Regarding claim 27, Zhang teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressively teach wherein the first polarization and the second polarization originate from a common transmit clock.
However, Napier in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a transmitter (see Napier Figure 1) configured to send a data signal (see Figure 1, data into modulators 12) on a first and second polarization (see Abstract) as taught in Zhang wherein the first polarization and the second polarization originate from a common transmit clock (see Figure 2, clock 120 and columns 3-4, “FIG. 1 shows plane polarised light emitted by a cw or pulsed optical source 10 being divided by a state of polarisation (SOP) maintaining (SOP-maintaining) beam splitter 11 into two substantially equal amplitude components fed respectively to two SOP-maintaining modulators 12a and 12b whose timing is controlled by a common clock 120 so as to maintain a constant timing relationship between their outputs”).
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 using a common transmit clock for dual polarization signals as taught in Napier with the system taught in Zhang, the motivation being to allow easier synchronization in the system at the receiver.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al, U.S. Patent No. 11,387,929 in view of Baehr-Jones, U.S. Publication No. 2020/0153514.
Regarding claim 29, Zhang teaches all the limitations of claim 21, but does not expressively teach wherein the transmitter includes: a laser source; a first modulator configured to modulate the data segment with the first polarization to form a first optical signal; a second modulator configured to modulate the data segment with the second polarization to form a second optical signal; and a combiner configured to combine the first optical signal and the second optical signal to form a combined optical signal for transmission toward the receiver.
However, Baehr-Jones in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a transmitter (see Baehr-Jones Figure 1, transmitter 10) configured to send a signal toward a receiver (see Figure 1, receiver 30) on dual-polarization transmission (see paragraph [0011]) as taught in Zhang wherein the transmitter includes:
a laser source (see Figure 6, which is an embodiment of a modulator in transmitter 10 of Figure 1, input light 501 and paragraph [0057], “Input light 501 from a coherent light source, such as a suitable single-frequency semiconductor laser (not shown), is fed into a polarization beam splitter (PBS) 511”);
a first modulator configured to modulate the data segment with the first polarization to form a first optical signal; a second modulator configured to modulate the data segment with the second polarization to form a second optical signal (see Figure 6, modulators 510 and paragraph [0057], “For example PBS 511 may split input light 101 into TE mode (X-light) and TM mode (Y-light), and then converting the Y light from the TM to the TE mode. The X and Y lights are then separately modulated by two QM optical modulators 510”); and
a combiner configured to combine the first optical signal and the second optical signal to form a combined optical signal for transmission toward the receiver (see Figure 6, PBC 513).
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 transmitter components generating and modulating light taught tin Zhang with those taught in Baehr-Jones to yield the predictable results of successfully transmitting data on a dual polarized signal.
Claim(s) 31-33, 35, 37, 38, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al, U.S. Patent No. 11,387,929 in view of Krishnan et al, U.S. Patent No. 9,806,814.
Regarding claim 31, Zhang teaches an apparatus, comprising:
a receiver (see Zhang Figure 9, receiver end 904) configured to support reception of dual-polarization communications based on a pair of dual polarizations including a first polarization and a second polarization (see column 15, “FIG. 10A-B are graphical illustrations depicting experimental phase estimation measurement plots 1000, 1002, respectively, obtained according to test architecture 900, FIG. 9. More particularly, plots 1000, 1002 illustrate phase estimation results for both polarizations of a multi-symbol dual-polarization signal, as well as the comparative differences between the conventional approach”), wherein the receiver is configured to receive a first portion of a data segment communicated using the first polarization (see Figure 24, portion of SP-B 2408 exclusively in the X polarization) and receive a second portion of the data segment communicated using the first polarization and the second polarization (see Figure 24, SP-C 2410).
Zhang does not expressively teach wherein the receiver is configured to align to the dual polarizations based on the data segment.
However, Krishnan in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a transmitter (see Krishnan Figure 1, optical transmitter 102) configured to send a data segment toward a receiver (see Figure 2, optical receiver 104 and Figure 4) on dual-polarization transmission (see Abstract) as taught in Zhang wherein the receiver is configured to align to the dual polarizations based on the data segment (see claim 10).
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 a data segment being used for polarization alignment as taught in Krishnan with the system taught in Zhang, the motivation being to ensure data is properly demodulated by ensuring the proper alignment of the polarizations.
Regarding claim 32, Zhang in view of Krishnan teaches all the limitations of claim 31, and further teaches wherein the receiver is configured to initiate an alignment to the dual polarizations based on reception of the first portion of the data segment communicated using the first polarization (see Zhang Figure 24, section of SP-B 2408 first sent by the X polarization as combined with Krishnan claim 10).
Zhang in view of Krishnan does not expressively teach to further refine the alignment to the dual polarizations based on reception of the second portion of the data segment communicated using the first polarization and the second polarization.
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 design choice to further refine an alignment with subsequent preambles in Zhang in view of Krishnan, thereby allowing more accurate demodulating and decoding of received data signals.
Regarding claim 33, Zhang in view of Krishnan teaches all the limitations of claim 31, and further teaches wherein the receiver is configured to initiate an alignment to the dual polarizations based on reception of the first portion of the data segment communicated using the first polarization (see Zhang Figure 24, section of SP-B 2408 first sent by the X polarization as combined with Krishnan claim 10).
Zhang in view of Krishnan does not expressively teach to maintain the alignment to the dual polarizations based on reception of the second portion of the data segment communicated using the first polarization and the second polarization.
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 design choice to further maintain alignment with subsequent preambles in Zhang in view of Krishnan, thereby allowing more accurate demodulating and decoding of received data signals.
Regarding claim 35, Zhang in view of Krishnan teaches all the limitations of claim 31, and further teaches wherein the data segment is received as part of a burst mode transmission, wherein the data segment is a preamble for the burst mode transmission (see Zhang column 35, “FIG. 24 depicts an exemplary preamble architecture 2400 for a coherent burst-mode passive optical network…In an exemplary embodiment, preamble architecture 2400 includes a first preamble processing SP 2406 (SP-A), a second preamble processing SP 2408 (SP-B), and a third preamble processing SP 2410 (SP-C”).
Regarding claim 37, Zhang in view of Krishnan teaches all the limitations of claim 31, and further teaches wherein the first portion of the data segment and the second portion of the data segment are received on a common wavelength (see Zhang Figure 9, single laser 914 and column 40, “Each ONU 2610 further included a respective tunable DFB laser 2616, each tuned to a 1550-nm wavelength with a linewidth of approximately 1 MHz as the laser source of that ONU 2610”. While this recitation is specifically for the ONU of Figure 26, it implies that the laser of Figure 9 sending a signal as shown in Figure 24 is a single wavelength source).
Regarding claim 38, Zhang in view of Krishnan teaches all the limitations of claim 31, and further teaches wherein the first portion of the data segment is received before the second portion of the data segment is received (see Zhang Figure 24, portion of SP-B 2408 exclusively in the X polarization occurs before SP-C 2410 along the time axis).
Regarding claim 40, Zhang teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, by a receiver (see Zhang Figure 9, receiver end 904) configured to support dual-polarization communications based on a pair of dual polarizations including a first polarization and a second polarization (see column 15, “FIG. 10A-B are graphical illustrations depicting experimental phase estimation measurement plots 1000, 1002, respectively, obtained according to test architecture 900, FIG. 9. More particularly, plots 1000, 1002 illustrate phase estimation results for both polarizations of a multi-symbol dual-polarization signal, as well as the comparative differences between the conventional approach”), a first portion of a data segment communicated using the first polarization (see Figure 24, portion of SP-B 2408 exclusively in the X polarization) and a second portion of the data segment communicated using the first polarization and the second polarization (see Figure 24, SP-C 2410); and
Zhang does not expressively teach
aligning, by the receiver, to the dual polarizations based on reception of the first portion of the data segment communicated using the first polarization and based on reception of the second portion of the data segment communicated using the first polarization and the second polarization.
However, Krishnan in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a method involving a transmitter (see Krishnan Figure 1, optical transmitter 102) configured to send a data segment toward a receiver (see Figure 2, optical receiver 104 and Figure 4) on dual-polarization transmission (see Abstract) as taught in Zhang comprising
aligning, by the receiver, to the dual polarizations based on reception the data segment (see claim 10).
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 a data segment being used for polarization alignment as taught in Krishnan with the method of sending the data segment through two polarizations as taught in Zhang, the motivation being to ensure data is properly demodulated by ensuring the proper alignment of the polarizations.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al, U.S. Patent No. 11,387,929 in view of Krishnan et al, U.S. Patent No. 9,806,814 and Kodama et al, “Dual-Carrier-Paired Point-to-Multipoint Transmission Over ROADM Systems: Frequency-Polarization Coding and Frequency Collaborative Control” (published in IEEE PHOTONICS JOURNAL, VOL. 14, NO. 3, JUNE 2022).
Regarding claim 34, Zhang in view of Krishnan teaches all the limitations of claim 31, but does not expressively teach wherein the receiver is configured to begin tracking of the dual polarizations during reception of the second portion of the data segment communicated using the first polarization and the second polarization.
Zhang in view of Krishnan does teach that the preamble has a pilot signal (see Zhang column 32, “Some recent proposals attempt to address these additional challenges through techniques such as: (i) designed preambles and fast DSPs to achieve fast polarization separation, which fit pilot sequences into the burst-mode detection of a 100G PDM-QPSK coherent TDM-PON”).
Furthermore, Kodama in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a receiver configured to receive a data segment on dual polarizations (see Kodama Figure 7), the data segment comprising a pilot signal (see page 5, column 2, “Each SC signal is encoded into an FC, PC, or FPCC by the frequency and/or polarization domain in the encoder. The pilot symbol is inserted after coding. Therefore, the 4QAM pilot symbol is uncoded”) as taught Zhang in view of Krishnan wherein
the receiver is configured to begin tracking of the dual polarizations during reception of the data segment communicated using the first polarization and the second polarization (see page 6, column 1, “The adaptive equalizer uses a 4QAM pilot to track the polarization state of the transmitted signal”).
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 tracking polarizations with a pilot signal as taught in Kodama with the system having a preamble with a pilot signal sent on both polarizations as taught in Zhang in view of Krishnan, the motivation being to ensure data is properly demodulated by ensuring the proper alignment of the polarizations.
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al, U.S. Patent No. 11,387,929 in view of Krishnan et al, U.S. Patent No. 9,806,814 and Zhu et al, U.S. Publication No. 2019/0280778.
Regarding claim 36, Zhang in view of Krishnan teaches all the limitations of claim 31, and further teaches wherein the data segment is a polarization alignment data segment (see Krishnan claim 10).
Zhang in view of Krishnan does not expressively teach wherein the data segment is received as part of a continuous mode transmission.
However, Zhu in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a transmitter (see Zhu Figure 1) configured to send a data segment toward a receiver (see Figure 4, optical receiver 430 and paragraph [0023], “The coherent optical receiver includes a receiver DPS subsystem 210 uses pilot symbols transmitted by the coherent optical transmitter to aid in demodulating the data sequence optically transmitted thereto by the coherent optical receiver. The pilots may include a continuous preamble”) on dual-polarization transmission (see paragraph [0037]) as taught in Zhang in v view of Krishnan wherein
he data segment is received as part of a continuous mode transmission (see paragraph [0021]).
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 transmission mode of Zhang with continuous mode transmission taught in Zhu to yield the predictable results of successfully sending and receiving the data segment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 39 is 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 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