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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Pidgeon (WO 9413042).
Regarding claim 1, Pidgeon teaches an apparatus (Fig. 3), comprising: a radio frequency (RF) amplifier (Fig. 3, amplifier 210; page 5, lines 12-23, frequency range 4-650 Mhz; Page 6. Structure common to Figures 2 and 3 are labelled with the same reference numerals as in Figure 2….); and an RF-to-optical (RF2O) driver (Fig. 3, driver 220+250+330; see also Fig. 4), comprising: a transformer chain including a set of cascaded RF transformers (Fig. 4, set comprising 410 and 460); and an impedance matching circuit coupled in series with the transformer chain (Fig. 4 shows this; see also Fig. 3 matching circuit 220) between the RF amplifier (Fig. 3, amplifier 210) and a laser (Fig. 3, laser 240).
Regarding claim 2, Pidgeon teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the transformer chain is configured to impedance transform a first substantially real impedance at an input of the impedance matching circuit into a second substantially real impedance at an output of the RF amplifier based on an effective turns ratio of the set of cascaded RF transformers (Page 7, lines 5 – page 8, line 3), wherein the second substantially real impedance is greater than the first substantially real impedance (Page 9, line 1 – page 10, line 16; …By careful selection of the above parameters the optimal impedance of a transformer can be approximated. The optimal matching impedance of the wire for a quarter wavelength in the mid-band is the square root of the product of the output impedance of the circuitry leading to the transformer and the input impedance of the circuitry from the transformer. The quarter wavelength line is a function of the number of turns, the size of the wire, and the size of the core. In a preferred embodiment, the optimal wire-pair impedance of the transformer 410 equals the square root of the product of the output impedance of the broadband linear amplifier 210 and the input impedance of the laser 240 and the resistor 430. The optimal impedance of transformer 460 can be similarly calculated…).
Regarding claim 3, Pidgeon teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the second substantially real impedance is substantially 50 ohms (Page 10, lines 5-23, …By careful selection of the above parameters the optimal impedance of a transformer can be approximated. The optimal matching impedance of the wire for a quarter wavelength in the mid-band is the square root of the product of the output impedance of the circuitry leading to the transformer and the input impedance of the circuitry from the transformer. The quarter wavelength line is a function of the number of turns, the size of the wire, and the size of the core. In a preferred embodiment, the optimal wire-pair impedance of the transformer 410 equals the square root of the product of the output impedance of the broadband linear amplifier 210 and the input impedance of the laser 240 and the resistor 430. The optimal impedance of transformer 460 can be similarly calculated…The transformers 410 and 460 are constructed of 6 turns for the coil between the first terminal 411 and the third terminal 413 and 8 turns for the coil between the third terminal 413 and the second terminal 412. The preferred wire is 30 gauge bi-filar wire having an impedance of 45 Ω…The transformers 410 and 460 are constructed of 6 turns for the coil between the first terminal 411 and the third terminal 413 and 8 turns for the coil between the third terminal 413 and the second terminal 412. However, beneficial results may be obtained with 7 or 8 turns, for example. The preferred wire is 36 gauge bi-filar wire having an impedance of 51 Ω).
Regarding claim 4, Pidgeon teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the impedance matching circuit is configured to impedance transform a first complex impedance into the first substantially real impedance (as taught by claim 2).
Regarding claim 5, Pidgeon teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the impedance matching circuit is configured as a low pass filter (LPF) (Page 7, line 21 – page 8, line 3).
Regarding claim 6, Pidgeon teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the impedance matching circuit comprises at least one series inductor and at least one shunt capacitor (Fig. 4 shows at least one series inductor 430/435 and at least one shunt capacitor 420/425; ).
Regarding claim 7, Pidgeon teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the RF2O driver further comprises: a bias tee including first and second ports coupled between the impedance matching circuit and the laser and a current source coupled to a third port of the bias tee (Fig. 4, see 470 and 480, further current source 250 coupled to a third port; ports also shown in Fig. 3 between 220, 250 and 240).
Regarding claim 8, Pidgeon teaches the apparatus of claim 7, wherein: the current source is configured to generate a bias current for the laser (Fig. 3, output from 250); and the bias tee is configured to: receive an RF signal from the impedance matching circuit at the first port (Fig. 3, output from 220); receive the bias current from the current source at the third port and combine the RF signal with the bias current at the second port (Fig. 3, combine the RF output with bias current before 240).
Regarding claim 17, Pidgeon teaches a method, comprising: transforming a first complex impedance related to a diffused laser into a first substantially real impedance (Page 7, lines 5 – page 8, line 3); and transforming the first substantially real impedance into a second substantially real impedance related to a radio frequency (RF) amplifier (Page 9, line 1 – page 10, line 16; …By careful selection of the above parameters the optimal impedance of a transformer can be approximated. The optimal matching impedance of the wire for a quarter wavelength in the mid-band is the square root of the product of the output impedance of the circuitry leading to the transformer and the input impedance of the circuitry from the transformer. The quarter wavelength line is a function of the number of turns, the size of the wire, and the size of the core. In a preferred embodiment, the optimal wire-pair impedance of the transformer 410 equals the square root of the product of the output impedance of the broadband linear amplifier 210 and the input impedance of the laser 240 and the resistor 430. The optimal impedance of transformer 460 can be similarly calculated…) via a set of cascaded RF transformers (Fig. 4, set comprising 410 and 460).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pidgeon (WO 9413042) in view of Weissman (US 2018/0019759).
Regarding claim 20, Pidgeon teaches an optical communication device (Fig. 3) comprising a radio frequency (RF) amplifier (Fig. 3, amplifier 210; page 5, lines 12-23, frequency range 4-650 Mhz; Page 6. Structure common to Figures 2 and 3 are labelled with the same reference numerals as in Figure 2….); a diffused laser (Fig. 3, laser 240); and an RF-to-optical (RF2O) driver (Fig. 3, driver 220+250+330; see also Fig. 4), comprising: a transformer chain including a set of cascaded RF transformers (Fig. 4, set comprising 410 and 460); and an impedance matching circuit coupled in series with the transformer chain (Fig. 4 shows this; see also Fig. 3 matching circuit 220) between the RF amplifier (Fig. 3, amplifier 210) and the diffused laser (Fig. 3, laser 240).
Pidgeon doesn’t teach the device comprising: a modem; one or more frequency upconverting stages coupled to the modem; a local oscillator (LO) coupled to the one or more frequency upconverting stages and a RF amplifier coupled to the upconverting stages.
Weissman teaches a modem and one or more frequency upconverting stages coupled to the modem (Fig. 2, upconverter 234 coupled to 210); a local oscillator (LO) coupled to the one or more frequency upconverting stages (Fig. 2, LO 236 coupled to upconverter 234) and a RF amplifier coupled to the upconverting stages (Fig. 2, RF amplifier 238 coupled to 234).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device taught by Pidgeon and incorporate upconverting stage as taught by Weissman in order to upconvert the baseband signal to the RF signal and output the amplified signals for transmission.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-16, 18 and 19 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the notice of reference cited (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRANESH K BARUA whose telephone number is (571)270-1017. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Sat: 11-8pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Payne can be reached on 5712723024. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PRANESH K BARUA/Examiner, Art Unit 2635