DETAILED ACTION
1. This Office Action is responsive to claims filed for No. 18/625,725 on April 3, 2024. Please note Claims 1-12 are pending and have been examined.
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 § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. ( US 2012/0002283 A1 ) in view of Smith et al. ( US 2025/0003796 A1 ).
Xie teaches in Claim 1:
An optical system ( [0001] discloses an optical coherent communications systems ), said system comprising:
a dual-ended laser apparatus, comprising a laser light source coupled to a controllable current drive ( Figure 2, [0025] disclose a control unit 240 with multiple outputs to Laser 1 and Laser 2 (read as dual-ended). Please also note the wavelength control 242 and monitor frequency difference 244, which can monitor and adjust parameters (read as a controllable current drive) ), wherein said dual-ended laser apparatus is operable to output a first light beam and a second light beam generated by said laser light source ( Figure 2, [0025] discloses Laser 1 210 and Laser 2 220 are output from control module 240 );
a depolarizer is coupled to said first light beam and said second light beam; wherein said feedback signal is operable to control an output wavelength of said first light beam and said second light beam ( Figure 2, [0021], [0029] disclose a depolarizer is used to depolarize each laser to reduce the dependent gain PDG. As shown in Figure 5, this can be before the combiner PBC or after. Respectfully, the location is suggested to be modified here. Furthermore, please note the orthogonally polarized pump lasers, indicative of a depolarization aspect. Please note the feedback signal is detailed below as well ); and
wherein said depolarizer is operable to combine said first light beam and said second light beam into a depolarized output beam ( [0021], [0029] discloses a depolarizer can be used to combine if needed, such as shown in Figure 5, [0030] ); but
Xie does not explicitly teach of “a wavelength locker coupled to said first light beam or said second light beam, said wavelength locker generating an optical feedback signal coupled to said laser light source”.
However, in the same field of endeavor, frequency monitoring optical systems, Smith teaches a locker optics element 106 that can be coupled to the light beam(s), ( Smith, Figure 1, [0024] ). Smith teaches in [0016] that the locker optics can be provided to one or both light beams and [0017] discloses providing feedback to the detector 110 which can then be feedback to the controller 112 (and light sources). This part is similar to Xie’s Figure 2 with the monitor frequency difference monitoring the output of the PBC. As combined, a wavelength locker is integrated.
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 locker optics, as taught by Smith, with the motivation that lockers are well known to tune and produced a light beam at a specific desired optical frequency, ( Smith, [0015] ).
Xie teaches in Claim 2:
The system of claim 1, wherein said depolarized output beam is coupled to a fiber Raman amplifier to provide a pump laser signal. ( Figure 2, [0025] discloses the output is a Raman co-pump output and in general, the invention is directed to Raman amplification )
Xie teaches in Claim 4:
The system of claim 2, wherein said fiber Raman amplifier is operable as a wideband amplifier in the C-band, L-band, C++ band, and/or L++ bands. ( Respectfully, these types of bands, notably C and L, as well as variants, are well known in the art and Examine asserts Official Notice to this being well known )
Xie teaches in Claim 5:
The system of claim 2, wherein said fiber Raman amplifier is pumped by a plurality of said optical systems. ( [0005] discloses the Raman co-pumps can be used in high sped optical coherent systems, i.e. plural )
As per Claim 7:
Xie may not explicitly teach “wherein said output wavelength is 1423 nm or 1445 nm or 1466 nm or 1493 nm or in the range from 1420 nm to 1528 nm”.
However, this output wavelength range is well known in the art and respectfully, the exact output range is a design choice issue. Given Xie and Smith teach of wavelength output units as well as means to tune these outputs, it is clear there is an emphasis on the output ranges and one of ordinary skill in the art would realize to output in these claimed ranges.
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 output wavelength ranges, within the claimed range, with the motivation that these are well known output ranges and it is a design choice issue.
Xie teaches in Claim 8:
The system of claim 1, wherein said first light beam and said second light beam have a same said output wavelength ( Smith, [0034] discloses the first and second light beams may have the same or different frequencies ) and have a same output power. ( Smith, [0036] discloses a power beam splitter may be a 50:50 power beam split )
Xie teaches in Claim 9:
The system of claim 1, wherein said output first light beam exits said dual-ended laser apparatus in a spatial direction different from said output second light beam. ( Xie, Figure 2 shows the output of/to Laser 1 and Laser 2 being in different spatial directions )
Xie teaches in Claim 11:
The system of claim 1, wherein said optical system is comprised in a single chip. ( Figure 2 shows apparatus 200 )
Xie teaches in Claim 12:
The system of claim 1, wherein said laser light source is coupled to a thermo-electric cooler element. ( [0024] discloses the control module may control the temperature of the two lasers, i.e. a thermos-electric cooler element )
6. Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al.
( US 2012/0002283 A1 ) in view of Smith et al. ( US 2025/0003796 A1 ), as applied to
Claim 1, further in view of Kawakami et al. ( US 20240039233 A1 ).
As per Claim 3:
Xie does not explicitly teach “wherein said fiber Raman amplifier is a distributed Raman amplifier or a discrete Raman amplifier”.
However, these types of Raman amplifiers are well known in the art. To emphasize, in the same field of endeavor, optical systems, Kawakami teaches of a distributed Raman amplification system, ( Kawakami, [0024] ).
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 distributed Raman scheme, as taught by Kawakami, with the motivation that that suppression of PDG (polarization dependent gain) can be achieved, ( Kawakami, [0024] ).
7. Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al.
( US 2012/0002283 A1 ) in view of Smith et al. ( US 2025/0003796 A1 ), as applied to
Claim 1, further in view of Luo et al. ( US 2023/0387648 A1 ).
As per Claim 6:
Xie does not explicitly teach “wherein said wavelength locker comprises a fiber Bragg grating or a volume Bragg grating”.
However, in the same field of endeavor, optical systems, Luo teaches to improve the optical efficiency of the pump light absorption by using a volume Bragg grating (VBG) 132, ( Luo, Figure 2, [0037] ). Alternate methods can include using a fiber Bragg grating (FBG), as well.
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 Bragg aspects, as taught by Luo, with the motivation that optical efficiency can be improved, ( Luo, [0037] ).
8. Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al.
( US 2012/0002283 A1 ) in view of Smith et al. ( US 2025/0003796 A1 ), as applied to
Claim 1, further in view of Charlet ( US 2004/0184816 A1 ).
As per Claim 10:
Xie does not explicitly teach “wherein said depolarizer may combine and depolarize said first light beam and said second light beam by multiplexing said first light beam and said second light beam with a 45-degree angle splice into a beam combiner component.”
However, in the same field of endeavor, optical systems, Charlet teaches of a Raman pump depolarizer and multiplexer which allow to combine two wavelengths, ( Charlet, [0015] ). Charlet teaches in [0025] of depolarizing the signal at 45 degrees. Furthermore, how two signals interact, are combined, etc, is well known and the angle of depolarization is essentially a design choice.
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 depolarization aspects, as taught by Charlet, with the motivation that by having this angle, the polarization of the two light beams can be maintained, ( Charlet, [0025]-[0026] ). Notably, the difference between the two lengths, for the signals, must be maintained.
Conclusion
9. 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