DETAILED ACTION
1. This Office Action is responsive to a response filed for No. 18/612,973 on July 20, 2026. Please note Claims 1-18 are pending.
America Invents Act
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kimura et al. ( US 2025/0141584 A1 ).
Kimura teaches in Claim 1:
A fiber Raman amplifier system ( [0034] disclose a Raman amplification process ), comprising:
an adjustable Raman pump module having an adjustable composite output ( Figure 1, [0033] disclose adjusting the output of lines by adjusting the transmitters L1 to L3 ), the adjustable Raman pump module comprising:
a first pump laser at a first wavelength and a first power ( Figure 1, [0030] discloses a first wavelength band of 1563 nm and [0033] discloses the optical power associated with L1. To clarify, the range is 1531 to 1563 nm );
a second pump laser at a second wavelength and a second power ( Figure 1, [0031] discloses a second wavelength of 1566 nm and [0033] discloses the optical power associated with L2. To clarify, the range is 1566 to 1600 nm ),
wherein the second wavelength is less than 10 nanometers different from the first wavelength ( As noted above, [0030]-[0031] discloses a difference of less than 10 nm ), and
wherein a ratio of the first power to the second power is adjustable to provide an adjustable composite output, the adjustable composite output establishing a specified Raman gain in a bandwidth. ( Figure 2, [0036] discloses multiple optical power adjustments units, such as 110, 120, etc. [0100] discloses a target Raman gain profile to adjust the pump light aspects, which results in an adjusted output, as detailed in Figures 4 and 14. Please note Figure 14, [0100] discloses additional details on the gain profile which is generated and based on this profile, the pump light is adjusted, also adjusting the output. [0033] discloses additional details on adjusting the optical power of each of the optical signals L1 to L3 )
Kimura teaches in Claim 3:
The system of claim 1, wherein the bandwidth is the C-band region or the L-band region. ( Figure 1, [0028] discloses various bands, such as C, L and S bands )
Kimura teaches in Claim 5:
The system of claim 1, further comprising: a third pump laser at a third wavelength and a third power, wherein the third wavelength is different from the second wavelength and less than 10 nanometers different from the first wavelength. ( Figure 1, [0032] discloses a third wavelength band range of 1497 to 1528 nm and [0033] discloses the optical power associated with L3. This is also within 10 nm of the range of the interpreted first wavelength for L1 )
Kimura teaches in Claim 9:
The system of claim 1, wherein the ratio of the first power to the second power is output based on feedback from an amplified signal. ( Figure 4, [0079] discloses repeating a pre-emphasis control based on the calculated tilt amount and GSNR of the output, which results in the adjustment of the pump light. Please note comparing to a threshold and based on this, further adjusting the pump light, i.e. feedback )
Kimura teaches in Claim 10:
The system of claim 1, wherein the ratio of the first power to the second power is output based on a wavelength of a channel to be amplified in a fiber. ( Figure 1, [0033] discloses a wavelength division multiplexing (WDM) process and the optical power which is adjusted is based on the wavelengths of L1 to L3 )
Kimura teaches in Claim 12:
A method of optimizing Raman gain ( [0034] disclose a Raman amplification process ), the method comprising:
transmitting a first pump laser at a first wavelength and a first power ( Figure 1, [0030] discloses a first wavelength band of 1563 nm and [0033] discloses the optical power associated with L1. To clarify, the range is 1531 to 1563 nm );
transmitting a second pump laser at a second wavelength and a second power ( Figure 1, [0031] discloses a second wavelength of 1566 nm and [0033] discloses the optical power associated with L2. To clarify, the range is 1566 to 1600 nm ),
wherein the second wavelength is less than 10 nanometers different from the first wavelength ( As noted above, [0030]-[0031] discloses a difference of less than 10 nm );
adjusting a ratio of the first power to the second power to provide an adjustable composite output, the adjustable composite output establishing a specified Raman gain in a bandwidth. ( Figure 1, [0033] disclose adjusting the output of lines by adjusting the transmitters L1 to L3. Figure 2, [0036] discloses multiple optical power adjustments units, such as 110, 120, etc. [0100] discloses a target Raman gain profile to adjust the pump light aspects, which results in an adjusted output, as detailed in Figures 4 and 14. Please note Figure 14, [0100] discloses additional details on the gain profile which is generated and based on this profile, the pump light is adjusted, also adjusting the output. [0033] discloses additional details on adjusting the optical power of each of the optical signals L1 to L3 )
Kimura teaches in Claim 14:
The method of claim 12, wherein the bandwidth is the C-band region or the L-band region. ( Figure 1, [0028] discloses various bands, such as C, L and S bands )
Kimura teaches in Claim 15:
The method of claim 12, further comprising: transmitting a third pump laser at a third wavelength and a third power, wherein the third wavelength is different from the second wavelength and less than 10 nanometers different from the first wavelength. ( Figure 1, [0032] discloses a third wavelength band range of 1497 to 1528 nm and [0033] discloses the optical power associated with L3. This is also within 10 nm of the range of the interpreted first wavelength for L1 )
Kimura teaches in Claim 17:
The method of claim 12, wherein the ratio of the first power to the second power is output based on feedback from an amplified signal. ( Figure 4, [0079] discloses repeating a pre-emphasis control based on the calculated tilt amount and GSNR of the output, which results in the adjustment of the pump light. Please note comparing to a threshold and based on this, further adjusting the pump light, i.e. feedback )
Kimura teaches in Claim 18:
The method of claim 12, wherein the ratio of the first power to the second power is output based on a wavelength of a channel to be amplified in a fiber. ( Figure 1, [0033] discloses a wavelength division multiplexing (WDM) process and the optical power which is adjusted is based on the wavelengths of L1 to L3 )
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
7. Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura
( US 2025/0141584 A1 ).
As per Claim 11:
Kimura may not explicitly teach “wherein the Raman gain varies by less than 10% over the bandwidth.”
However, Kimura teaches of a Raman gain profile which is based on the wavelengths and various thresholds. It is clear the gain can be adjusted based on the various factors and the specific amount of gain is a design choice/optimization based on the various factors which are analyzed. One of ordinary skill in the art would realize the gain can be a wide range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filed date of the invention, to implement the gain values, with the motivation that Kimura already teaches of a gain profile and the specific value/range is a design choice/optimization issue.
8. Claims 2 and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura
( US 2025/0141584 A1 ), as applied to Claim 1, further in view of Verdoold et al.
( US 2025/0354865 A1 ).
Kimura teaches in Claim 2:
The system of claim 1, further comprising: a third pump laser at a third wavelength ( [0032] discloses a third wavelength band L3 ); but
Kimura does not explicitly teach of a” fourth pump laser at a fourth wavelength.”
However, in the same field of endeavor, Raman spectra, Verdoold teaches of a Raman spectra with multiple wavelengths, ( Verdoold, Figure 2, [0070] ). Notably, Verdoold teaches of four wavelengths, all within a close nm range, similar to Kimura. In particular, please note the fourth wavelength with a band of 625 nm. As combined with Kimura, multiple wavelengths can be incorporated.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filed date of the invention, to implement the fourth wavelength, as taught by Verdoold, with the motivation that a number of wavelengths (is not limited) can be applied using Raman spectra to adjust outputs, ( Verdoold, [0075] ).
Kimura teaches in Claim 13:
The method of claim 12, further comprising: transmitting a third pump laser at a third wavelength ( [0032] discloses a third wavelength band L3 ); but
Kimura does not explicitly teach of “a fourth pump laser at a fourth wavelength.”
However, in the same field of endeavor, Raman spectra, Verdoold teaches of a Raman spectra with multiple wavelengths, ( Verdoold, Figure 2, [0070] ). Notably, Verdoold teaches of four wavelengths, all within a close nm range, similar to Kimura. In particular, please note the fourth wavelength with a band of 625 nm. As combined with Kimura, multiple wavelengths can be incorporated.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filed date of the invention, to implement the fourth wavelength, as taught by Verdoold, with the motivation that a number of wavelengths (is not limited) can be applied using Raman spectra to adjust outputs, ( Verdoold, [0075] ).
9. Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura
( US 2025/0141584 A1 ), as applied to Claim 1, further in view of Karpov et al.
( US 2016/0006209 A1 ).
As per Claim 4:
Kimura does not explicitly teach “the Raman module further comprising: a polarization beam combining component, wherein the first pump laser and the second pump laser are multiplexed with a 45° angle splice into a polarization beam combining component.”
However, in the same field of endeavor, Rama fiber amplifiers, Karpov teaches to use a polarization beam combiner (PBC), ( Karpov, Figure 4A/4C, [0033] ). As shown, two polarized fiber lasers are combined in this way. As for a 45 degree angle splice, respectfully, this is a design choice issue given the combiner aspects of two signals.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filed date of the invention, to use the PBC, as taught by Karpov, as a way to combine the signals and achieve the desired output, as well as to maintain the correct linear polarization, ( Karpov, [0027] ).
10. Claims 6 and 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura
( US 2025/0141584 A1 ), as applied to Claim 1, further in view of Nakagawa et al.
( US 2023/0142798 A1 ).
As per Claim 6:
The system of claim 1, wherein the Raman module comprises a dual chip laser including the first pump laser and the second pump laser ( Kimura, [0103] discloses details on the pump laser control unit and more detail will be provided below as well ); but
Kimura does note explicitly teach “the Raman module further comprises: a first Fiber Bragg Grating (FBG) coupled to the first pump laser; and a second FBG coupled to the second pump laser.”
However, in the same field of endeavor, Raman amplifiers, Nakagawa teaches of pumping lights which include fiber bragg grating-laser diodes, ( Nakagawa, [0034] ). Notably, Nakagawa teaches in [0047] of a plurality of FBG-LDs, as shown in Figure 2 as well. Respectfully, FBGs are well known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filed date of the invention, to implement the FBGs, as taught by Nakagawa, with the motivation that such a type of laser is well known. The bragg grating serves as a filter to precisely stabilize the laser output, again, as is known.
Kimura teaches in Claim 7:
The system of claim 1, wherein the Raman module comprises a two side emission laser chip including the first pump laser and the second pump laser( Kimura, [0103] discloses details on the pump laser control unit and more detail will be provided below as well ); but
Kimura may not explicitly teach of “a first Fiber Bragg Grating (FBG) coupled to the first pump laser; a second FBG coupled to the second pump laser; and an independent drive control for adjusting the first power and the second power to establish the ratio.”
However, in the same field of endeavor, Raman amplifiers, Nakagawa teaches of pumping lights which include fiber bragg grating-laser diodes, ( Nakagawa, [0034] ). Notably, Nakagawa teaches in [0047] of a plurality of FBG-LDs, as shown in Figure 2 as well. Respectfully, FBGs are well known in the art. As for the drive control, please note the combination with Kimura and also, Nakagawa, who teaches of pumping power ratios, [0069].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filed date of the invention, to implement the FBGs, as taught by Nakagawa, with the motivation that such a type of laser is well known. The bragg grating serves as a filter to precisely stabilize the laser output, again, as is known.
11. Claims 8 and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura
( US 2025/0141584 A1 ), as applied to Claim 1, further in view of Bjornstad
( US 2024/0195499 A1 ).
As per Claim 8:
Kimura does not explicitly teach “wherein the ratio of the first power to the second power is output based on machine learning or artificial intelligence techniques.”
However, in the same field of endeavor, wavelength division multiplexing, Bjornstad teaches of an optical transmission system which also uses several wavelengths, ( Bjornstad, [0130] ). Notably, by monitoring the streams and their associated wavelengths, various calculations and adjustments can be made and machine learning is applied. Respectfully, using machine learning when monitoring signals is well known and useful.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filed date of the invention, to implement the machine learning, as taught by Bjornstad, with the motivation that it is well known and can result in a more accurate and reliable calculation, ( Bjornstad, [0130] ).
As per Claim 16:
Kimura does not explicitly teach “wherein the ratio of the first power to the second power is output based on machine learning or artificial intelligence techniques.”
However, in the same field of endeavor, wavelength division multiplexing, Bjornstad teaches of an optical transmission system which also uses several wavelengths, ( Bjornstad, [0130] ). Notably, by monitoring the streams and their associated wavelengths, various calculations and adjustments can be made and machine learning is applied. Respectfully, using machine learning when monitoring signals is well known and useful.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filed date of the invention, to implement the machine learning, as taught by Bjornstad, with the motivation that it is well known and can result in a more accurate and reliable calculation, ( Bjornstad, [0130] ).
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant’s arguments considered, but are respectfully not persuasive.
Applicant’s representative, Attorney Andrew Velzen, is thanked for his time to discuss the application in an interview held on July 16, 2026.
Upon further consideration, the same grounds has been maintained. While Examiner appreciates Applicant’s arguments with respect to L1-L3 as not being reasonable interpretation of “pump” lasers, Examiner is not persuaded by these arguments. While Lp is explicitly defined as a pump light, this does not hinder Examiner’s ability to reasonably interpret L1-L3, which are transmitted as optical signals, as being a first pump laser and second pump laser. The claim language does not particularly well define these terms and Examiner notes that while this is a used term, does not inherently require Applicant’s interpretation. The transmitter outputs/pumps L1-L3 at different wavelengths with different power levels. These outputs are then amplified, resulting in WDM signal Lw.
Respectfully, Applicant is advised to better define the “pump laser” aspects to distinguish from L1-L3.
Conclusion
13. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DENNIS P JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)270-1459. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 5:30 - 3:30 EST.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571-272-7764. 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.
/DENNIS P JOSEPH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights