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 .
Response to Amendment
In the Reply filed 04/28/2026, Applicant has amended claims 21 and 30 to include claim 24 and argues that this/those limitation(s) was/were not taught with the reference(s) cited in the previous action dated 01/28/2026. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons laid out below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/28/2026 with respect to the prior limitations of independent claims 21 and 30 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Starting on page 7 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that prior reference Zhang does not teach previous independent claims 21 and 30, specifically wherein the transmitter is configured to transmit a second portion of the data segment toward the receiver using the first polarization and the second polarization. Applicant contends that Zhang allegedly teaches sending preamble structures on one polarization at a time with zeroes being sent on the other polarization, which Applicant does not consider to be “using” of the other polarization. However, the Examiner never considered a collection of zeroes being sent by a polarization as the polarization being “used” to transmit portions of data segments. When looking to page 7 of the previous action, the Examiner cited half of header section SP-B 2408 in Zhang Figure 24 as sending a first portion of a data segment using only one polarization (the office action cited the first half of SP-B 2408 which sends symbols on the X polarization while the Y polarization sends zeroes) and then cited header section SP-C 2410, which does not exclusively send zeroes for either of the X and Y polarizations, as sending a second portion of the data segment using two polarizations. Considering the entire preamble 2400 as being a data segment, the first half of SP-B 4208 to be the first portion of the data segment, and SP-C to be the second portion of the data segment (as was done in the previous action), Zhang meets this claim limitation.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/28/2026 with respect to the new limitations of independent claims 21 and 30 (i.e. of previous claim 24) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Continuing on page 8 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that the combination of Zhang in view of Zhu does not render obvious the new limitations of independent claims 21 and 30. First, Applicant contents that Zhu only teaches sending “segmented data frames including a pilot preamble and distributed pilot symbols to facilitate receiver-side DSP processing.” However, this is not persuasive because Zhu in paragraph [0021] specifically teaches a preamble which can be implemented in continuous mode, which was then combined with the preamble of Zhang. Applicant then argues that the combination does not specifically teach “transmitting different portions of a data segment using different polarizations (namely, using the first polarization for the first portion of the data segment and the first and second polarizations for the second portion of the data segment) in a continuous mode transmission.” In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As noted above, Zhang teaches sending of portions of a preamble with one polarization then two polarizations and the teaching of continuous preambles taught in Zhu was combined with Zhang, thus meeting the claims.
Applicant’s arguments on page 9 of the Remarks with respect to independent claim 31 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn. NOTE: Similarly, the previous rejection against claim 25 will also be withdrawn. However, claim 25 merely mentions “polarization alignment” but does not specify that the receiver is aligned to the dual polarizations as required in claim 31. Therefore, a new ground of rejection for claim 25 in view of Li et al, U.S. Publication No. 2013/0058649 will be entered below.
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 22 and 23 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.
Regarding claims 22 and 23, both recite that the data segment is transmitted using “a burst mode transmission”. However, claim 21 on which both claims 22 and 23 depend has been amended to state the first data segment is sent using continuous mode transmission, leading to a contradiction as a data segment cannot be simultaneously sent in both modes.
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.
Claim(s) 21, 26, 28 and 30 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 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).
Zhang 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.
Method claim 30 recites similar limitations as claim 21, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 26, Zhang in view of Zhu 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 in view of Zhu 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(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 Li et al, U.S. Publication No. 2013/0058649.
Regarding claim 25¸ Zhang in view of Zhu teaches all the limitations of claim 21, but does not expressively teach wherein the data segment is a polarization alignment data segment.
However, Li in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a receiver (see Li Figure 1) configured to receive a data segment on dual-polarization transmission (see Figure 1, training sequence to synchronizer 110 and paragraph [0029]) as taught in Zhang in view of Zhu wherein
the data segment is a polarization alignment data segment (see paragraphs [0033]-[0034]).
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 Li with the system taught in Zhang in view of Zhu, the motivation being to ensure data is properly demodulated.
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 Zhu et al, U.S. Publication No. 2019/0280778 and Baehr-Jones, U.S. Publication No. 2020/0153514.
Regarding claim 29, Zhang in view of Zhu 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 in view of Zhu 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 in Zhang in view of Zhu with those taught in Baehr-Jones to yield the predictable results of successfully transmitting data on a dual polarized signal.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31-39 are allowed.
Claims 41 and 42 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
Although no prior art is used against claims 22 and 23, this is not an indication that it/they is/are allowable. See MPEP 2173.06, section II, second paragraph. The 112 issues cause a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim(s). It is therefore difficult for the Examiner to properly search for prior art for the invention.
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
Prosecution Insights