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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 10 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 5, line 1, the phrase “The apparatus according to claim 1” should be changed to -- The apparatus according to claim 4 --.
In Claim 10, line 1, the phrase “The apparatus according to claim 1” should be changed to -- The apparatus according to claim 9 --.
In Claim 13, line 1, the phrase “The apparatus according to claim 1” should be changed to -- The apparatus according to claim 12 --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 7, 8, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Zeydel (US Patent No. 12,334,986) in view of Azenkot et al (US Patent No. 10,404,496).
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 15, referring to Figures 8-11, Zeydel teaches an
apparatus (i.e., receiver 800, Figures 8-11), comprising:
at least one memory (i.e., a memory, Figures 8-11, col. 4, lines 14-65) configured to store instructions; and
at least one processor (i.e., a processor, Figures 8-11, col. 4, lines 14-65) configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus (i.e., receiver 800, Figures 8-11) to perform:
determining (i.e., rate detect 836, Figures 8-11) a rate for a received signal (i.e., input signal 803, Figures 8-11) in a passive optical network, PON (i.e., PON 1100, Figure 11);
selecting (i.e., EQ LMS Engine 806, Figures 8-11), based on the determined rate, a EQ LMS for an equalizer (i.e., equalizer 808, Figures 8-11); and
equalizing (i.e., equalizer 808, Figures 8-11) the received signal with the equalizer based on the selected EQ LMS, obtaining to obtain an equalized signal (i.e., Figures 8-11, col. 4, lines 14-65, col. 7, lines 42-67, col. 8, lines 1-67, col. 9, lines 1-63, col. 10, lines 3-60, col. 11, lines 33-67, col. 12, lines 1-67, col. 13, lines 1-34, and col. 15, lines 12-17).
Zeydel differs from claims 1, 14 and 15 in that he fails to specifically teach selecting, based on the determined rate, a set of coefficients for an equalizer from a plurality of predetermined sets of coefficients for the equalizer, wherein, the plurality of predetermined sets respectively corresponds to a plurality of rates, and equalizing the received signal with the equalizer based on the selected set of coefficients, obtaining to obtain an equalized signal. However, Azenkot et al in US Patent No. 10,404,496 teaches selecting (i.e., EQ Control Logic 150, Figures 1-3), based on the determined rate, a set of coefficients for an equalizer (i.e., Adaptive EQ 132, Figures 1-3) from a plurality of predetermined sets of coefficients for the equalizer, wherein, the plurality of predetermined sets respectively corresponds to a plurality of rates, and equalizing the received signal with the equalizer based on the selected set of coefficients, obtaining to obtain an equalized signal (i.e., Figures 1-3, col. 4, lines 44-55, col. 5, lines 59-67, col. 6, lines 13-44, col. 7, lines 7-67, col. 8, lines 1-35, and col. 13, lines 24-31). 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 selecting, based on the determined rate, a set of coefficients for an equalizer from a plurality of predetermined sets of coefficients for the equalizer, wherein, the plurality of predetermined sets respectively corresponds to a plurality of rates, and equalizing the received signal with the equalizer based on the selected set of coefficients, obtaining to obtain an equalized signal as taught by Azenkot et al in the system of Zeydel. 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 7, the combination of Zeydel and Azenkot et al teaches wherein, the apparatus (i.e., receiver 800, Figs. 8 and 11 of Zeydel) is implemented in an Optical Line Terminal, OLT, or in an Optical Network Unit, ONU (i.e., ONU 1116, Figs. 8 and 11 of Zeydel).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Zeydel and Azenkot et al teaches wherein the equalizer (i.e., equalizer 808, Fig. 8 of Zeydel, col. 8, lines 20-24) is selected from: a Feed-Forward Equalizer, FFE, a Decision Feedback Equalizer, DFE, and a Maximum Likelihood Sequence Estimation, MLSE, equalizer.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Zeydel (US Patent No. 12,334,986) in view of Azenkot et al (US Patent No. 10,404,496) and further in view of Sasaki et al (US Patent No. 11,146,428).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Zeydel and Azenkot et al
differs from claim 2 in that it fails to specifically teach the equalizing is further based on adaptive training. However, Sasaki et al in US Patent No. 11,146,428 teaches the equalizing (i.e., AEQ filter 25, Figs. 4, 5 and 21) is further based on adaptive training (i.e., training sequence TS, Figs. 4, 5 and 21) (i.e., Figures 4, 5 and 21, col. 4, lines 62-67, col. 5, lines 1-67, col. 6, lines 1-59, col. 10, lines 59-67, col. 11, lines 1-24, and col. 12, lines 44-48). 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 equalizing is further based on adaptive training as taught by Sasaki et al in the system of the combination of Zeydel and Azenkot et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this since allowing reducing the error signal and increasing the reliability, and improving the performance of the system.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Zeydel, Azenkot et al, and Sasaki et al teaches wherein apparatus (optical receiver 10, Figs. 4, 5 and 21 of Sasaki et al) is further caused to perform predetermining at least one of the plurality of predetermined sets of coefficients (i.e., coefficient computation unit 273, Figs. 4, 5, 21 of Sasaki et al) based on adaptive training (i.e., training sequence TS, Figs. 4, 5 and 21 of Sasaki et al).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 and 9-13 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 and overcome the objection above.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mashimo et al (US Patent No. 8,503,891) discloses multirate burst mode receiver.
8. 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