DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, directed to the embodiment of Figure 2, in the reply filed on 3/2/2026 is acknowledged. Claim 14-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species.
It’s noted that claim 23 appears directed to Species II, readable in Figure 3. Specifically, the recited “the output sends the combined electrical signal to the test and measurement instrument” appears exclusive to Species II (Figure 3, direct connection between unit 46 and 42 not present in the embodiment of Figure 2). Accordingly, claim 23 is also withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected Species.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 8 be found allowable, claim 9 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
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) 1, 6, 8-13 and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the US Patent US 11,187,730 by Ziegler et al., (Ziegler hereafter) in view of the US Patent US 8,208,414 by Singh et al., (Singh hereafter).
Regarding claim 1, Ziegler teaches in Figures 1-3, a test and measurement accessory, comprising:
an input (20) to receive an input electrical signal from a device under test (DUT 100);
a pilot signal generator to generate a pilot signal (not shown unit generating pilot signal “that is transmitted by the transmitting optical interfaces”. See col. 5, lines 32-34. “a pilot signal may be also added to the optical transmission links” – See col. 9, lines 32-33);
an electrical to optical (E/O) converter (22) coupled to the input and the pilot signal generator to convert the input electrical signal and the pilot signal to optical signals (see col. 7, lines 15-17);
a fiber (42a or 42b, see col. 6, line 45) to transmit the optical signals;
an optical to electrical (O/E) converter (optical interfaces 32a or 32b) to receive the optical signals and convert the optical signals to electrical signals (see col. 7, line 63-65);
an amplitude detector to receive the pilot signal and determine an amplitude of the pilot signal (monitoring of the pilot signal which amplitude changes to zero when the pilot signal is lost – see col. 9, lines 36-38); and
circuitry to adjust a gain of a signal path from the input to a test and measurement instrument using the amplitude of the pilot signal (compensation of the effects based on the variations of the detected pilot signal. Also, a further transmission of the optical signal may be stopped if it is detected that the pilot signal has zero amplitude. See col. 9, lines 42-43 and 37-38).
Although Ziegler mentions the pilot signal is transmitted as an optical signal together with the electrical signal, to be received and converted to electrical signals, Ziegler doesn’t explicitly mention the pilot signal is combined with the electrical signal and outputted as a combined optical signal, or that the converted electrical signal is separated into combined electrical and pilot signals.
Singh teaches a method for transmission of electrical and pilot signals as a combined signal using a combiner (Figure 6, unit 664). Furthermore, Singh also teaches the use of a separator (filter 650) that separates a pilot signal from a received combined downlink signal.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to apply the teaching of combining pilot and electrical signals before transmission, and/or the separation of pilot signals from received combined signals as taught by Singh, in the device/system/method of Ziegler, in order to gain the advantage of reducing the channels needed for communication (two independent channels vs. a single channel), or to expedite transmission (signals sent at the same time vs. one after the other).
As to claim 6, as Ziegler teaches the E/O converter (22) modulates the signal independent of the pilot signal (the pilot signal is added to the transmission, not used as a carrier to the electrical signal for transmission. See col. 9, lines 32-33)
As to claims 8-11, Ziegler shows in Figure 3, the circuitry (demodulator + unit 35), transmits a signal (outputted from unit 33 to unit 23) based upon the amplitude of the pilot signal back to the E/O converter (as a feedback loop, as explained for example, in col. 5, line 58 - col. 6, line 2).
As to claim 12, Singh teaches the signal separator is structured to produce the separated pilot signal (outputted to unit 652 in Figure 6) and an output electrical signal (outputted to unit 656A or 656B).
As to claims 13, Ziegler shows in Figure 1, an output (30) to send the output electrical signal to the test and measurement instrument (200).
Regarding claim 19, Ziegler teaches in Figures 1-3, a test and measurement accessory, comprising:
an input (20) to receive an input electrical signal from a device under test (DUT 100);
a pilot signal generator to generate a pilot signal (not shown unit generating pilot signal “that is transmitted by the transmitting optical interfaces”. See col. 5, lines 32-34. “a pilot signal may be also added to the optical transmission links” – See col. 9, lines 32-33);
an electrical to optical (E/O) converter (22) coupled to the input and the pilot signal generator to convert the input electrical signal and the pilot signal to optical signals (see col. 7, lines 15-17);
a fiber (42a or 42b, see col. 6, line 45) to transmit the optical signals;
an optical to electrical (O/E) converter (optical interfaces 32a or 32b) to receive the optical signals and convert the optical signals to electrical signals (see col. 7, line 63-65); and an output (30) to send the output electrical signal to the test and measurement instrument (200).
Although Ziegler mentions the pilot signal is transmitted as an optical signal together with the electrical signal, to be received and converted to electrical signals, Ziegler doesn’t explicitly mention the pilot signal is combined with the electrical signal and outputted as a combined optical signal, or that the converted electrical signal is separated into combined electrical and pilot signals.
Singh teaches a method for transmission of electrical and pilot signals as a combined signal using a combiner (Figure 6, unit 664). Furthermore, Singh also teaches the use of a separator (filter 650) that separates a pilot signal from a received combined downlink signal.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to apply the teaching of combining pilot and electrical signals before transmission, and/or the separation of pilot signals from received combined signals as taught by Singh, in the device/system/method of Ziegler, in order to gain the advantage of reducing the channels needed for communication (two independent channels vs. a single channel), or to expedite transmission (signals sent at the same time vs. one after the other).
As to claims 20, as explained in regards to the rejection of claim 19 above, Singh teaches the use of a separator. Furthermore, Ziegler shows in Figure 3 a second output (not shown unit that outputs the pilot signal at the receiving end in order to be monitored, as explained in col. 5, lines 61-63) to allow the test and measurement accessory to send the pilot signal to the test and measurement instrument (means for evaluating the optical transmission link by monitoring the pilot signal, see col. 5, lines 64-65).
As to claim 21, Ziegler in view of Singh teaches an amplitude detector to receive the pilot signal and determine an amplitude of the separated pilot signal (monitoring of the pilot signal which amplitude changes to zero when the pilot signal is lost – see Ziegler, col. 9, lines 36-38); and
circuitry to adjust a gain of a signal path from the input to a test and measurement instrument using the amplitude of the separated pilot signal (compensation of the effects based on the variations of the detected pilot signal. Also, a further transmission of the optical signal may be stopped if it is detected that the pilot signal has zero amplitude. See col. 9, lines 42-43 and 37-38).
As to claim 22, although Ziegler doesn’t not explicitly mention the use of a A/D converter to digitize the amplitude of the pilot signal. However, Official Notice is taken to the fact analog-to-digital converters are well known in the art of signal transmission and electronics, and use to convert analog signals into a format (digital) that is suitable for processing by digital processors. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to use an analog-to-digital converter in the device/system/method of Ziegler in view of Singh, in order to provide the signal in a format compatible with cost effective, widely known and efficient digital processors.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziegler in view of the US Patent US 8,717,862 by Xu et al., (Xu hereafter).
Regarding claim 1, Ziegler teaches in Figures 1-3, a test and measurement accessory, comprising:
an input (20) to receive an input electrical signal from a device under test (DUT 100);
a pilot signal generator to generate a pilot signal (not shown unit generating pilot signal “that is transmitted by the transmitting optical interfaces”. See col. 5, lines 32-34. “a pilot signal may be also added to the optical transmission links” – See col. 9, lines 32-33);
an electrical to optical (E/O) converter (22) coupled to the input and the pilot signal generator to convert the input electrical signal and the pilot signal to optical signals (see col. 7, lines 15-17);
a fiber (42a or 42b, see col. 6, line 45) to transmit the optical signals;
an optical to electrical (O/E) converter (optical interfaces 32a or 32b) to receive the optical signals and convert the optical signals to electrical signals (see col. 7, line 63-65);
an amplitude detector to receive the separated pilot signal from the signal separator and determine an amplitude of the separated pilot signal (monitoring of the pilot signal which amplitude changes to zero when the pilot signal is lost – see col. 9, lines 36-38); and
circuitry to adjust a gain of a signal path from the input to a test and measurement instrument using the amplitude of the separated pilot signal (compensation of the effects based on the variations of the detected pilot signal. Also, a further transmission of the optical signal may be stopped if it is detected that the pilot signal has zero amplitude. See col. 9, lines 42-43 and 37-38).
Although Ziegler mentions the pilot signal is modulated or added and transmitted as an optical signal together with the electrical signal, Ziegler doesn’t explicitly mention the pilot signal is combined with the electrical signal and outputted as a combined optical signal. Furthermore, Ziegler is silent about a signal separator configured to separate the pilot from the combined signal at the receiving end.
Xu teaches a communication arrangement where a transmitter outputs a pilot signal, (generated by unit 23 in Figure 1), is combined with a test signal (generated by unit 24 in Figure 1), and outputted as a combined signal to a receiver (12). The receiver then extracts information related to the pilot and the test signal (acting as the recited signal separator).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to apply the teaching of outputting a pilot signal as a combined signal with a test signal as taught by Xu, in the device/system/method of Ziegler, in order to gain the advantage of reducing the channels needed for communication (two independent channels vs. a single channel), or to expedite transmission (signals sent at the same time vs. one after the other).
As to claim 4, in addition to that stated with regards to the rejection of claim 1 above, Xu further teaches the pilot signal may be a pseudo-random sequence signal. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to apply the teaching of pseudo-random sequence as taught by Xu, in the device/system/method of Ziegler, in order to acquire stronger noise immunity from interference with the electrical signal, as well as providing an extra layer of security.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 5 and 7 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.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art of record doesn’t teach alone or in combination, the pilot signal generator produces an out-of-band pilot signal, in combination with all other elements recited.
As to claim 3, the claim is objected as it depends from objected claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art of record doesn’t teach alone or in combination, a second signal generator to generate a matching pseudo-random sequence, in combination with all other elements recited.
As to claim 7, the prior art of record doesn’t teach alone or in combination, the test and measurement accessory as claimed in claim 1, wherein the pilot signal generator and the E/O converter reside on a first photonics substrate, and the O/E converter, the signal separator, and the amplitude detector reside on a second photonics substrate, the first and second photonics substrates being optically coupled by the fiber, in combination with all other elements recited.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
- The US Patent US 12,372,551 by Paver et al., directed to isolation probes using optical means for signal transmission.
- The US Patent US 9,557,399 by Mende et al., directed to testing systems using optical means or signal transmission.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard Isla whose telephone number is (571)272-5056. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9a - 5:30p.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571 272-7924. 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.
/RICHARD ISLA/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 March 12, 2026