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 .
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/26/2025, 11/23/2024 and 5/29/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1, claim cites a method of operating a multi-channel acousto-optic modulator (AOM), comprising: “calculating initial radio frequency (RF) tones to be applied to multiple channels of the AOM; …calculating compensation RF tones to be added to the initial RF tones; and …calculating subsequent compensation RF tones to be added to the initial RF tones”.
The cited claiming terms referring to calculation models and parameters of claimed method/steps are directed to an abstract idea as it require no actual selection components/devices but rather requires steps of calculations, which can be performed by a human, on an optimization choice and calculations. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not recite any configurations/components of structures and compositions involving in practicing the method and means for performing the light steering. Thus, the claim does not amount to anything significantly more than the abstract idea, and is not patent eligible. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2357, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (See MPEP § 2106).
Claims 2-17 are rejected as containing the deficiencies of claim 1 through their dependency from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claimed term of “….at least partially correct..” (line 6) comprises a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term of “partially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Within what scopes the undesired crosstalk effects can be considered as “partially correct”? within 1%, 50% or 99% portions?
Claims 2-17 are rejected as containing the deficiencies of claim 1 through their dependency from claim 1.
Therefore proper amendments are required in order to clarify the scopes of the claims and overcome the rejections.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morse et al (US 9958710) in a view of Mizutori et al “Demonstratio11 of Four-wave-mixing induced Crosstalk Cancellation in 10-Gbit/s Phase Locked Multi-carrier Transmission”; 2013 18th Opto-Electronics and Communications Conference held jointly with 2013 International Conference on Photonics in Switching (OE CC/PS).
Regarding Claim 1, Morse teaches a method of operating a multi-channel acousto-optic modulator (AOM) (abstract; figs. 1-5), comprising:
calculating initial radio frequency (RF) tones to be applied to multiple channels of the AOM (fig. 1, 136, 134; fig. 3, 34 and driving signal waveforms; fig. 5, 74-GENERATE RESPECTIVE RF DRIVE SIGNALS FOR PHASE ARRAY TRANSDUCER ELECTRODES USING PLURALITY OF RF DRIVERS);
calculating, in response to an application of the initial RF tones, RF tones to at least partially correct for undesired crosstalk effects (col. 4, line 46 –col 5, line 5, to reduce beam intensity fluctuations produced by inter-channel acoustic crosstalk by minimizing changes in the adjacent channel strain field due to changes in local channel data; the effects of inter-channel acoustic crosstalk are reduced since the integrated optical effect resulting from changes in the localized strain field due to adjacent transducer operation are reduced).
But Morse does not specifically disclose that wherein calculating, in response to an application of the initial RF tones, compensation RF tones to be added to the initial RF tones to at least partially correct for undesired crosstalk effects; and in response to the application of the initial RF tones and the compensation RF tones, calculating subsequent compensation RF tones to be added to the initial RF tones until the crosstalk effect in each of the multiple channels is below a threshold level.
However, Mizutori et al in the same field of endeavor teaches an AOM system (fig. 1), wherein calculating, in response to an application of the initial RF tones, compensation RF tones to be added to the initial RF tones to at least partially correct for undesired crosstalk effects ; and in response to the application of the initial RF tones and the compensation RF tones, calculating subsequent compensation RF tones to be added to the initial RF tones until the crosstalk effect in each of the multiple channels is below a threshold level (page 2, left col, line 10-40, The launched optical power into the DSF was set by the optical amplifier in order to control crosstalk level crosstalk; Eq.(l) shows that the two FWM lights are mutually cancelled out if θp,q,r – θu,v,w = π is satisfied, and the total power P becomes zero; The ratio of the cancelled waves to the total amount of FWM induced XT were, in our estimation, 53%, 48% and 56%, respectively).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-channel AOM system of Morse by the AOM system of Mizutori to have the second acoustic wave reduces or eliminates the crosstalk effect caused by the portion of the first acoustic wave, for a purpose to cannel crosstalk noises (page 2, right col., line 1-8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is rejected 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 in case above 101/112 rejections of the independent claim are overcome by proper amendments.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art taken singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the independent claims, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 would be proper.
In regard to claim 2, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest a method of operating a multi-channel acousto-optic modulator (AOM) further comprise wherein the second acoustic wave reduces or eliminates the crosstalk effect caused by the portion of the first acoustic wave within the second channel.
Claims 3-17 would be allowable as they depend on claim 2.
Examiner’s Note
Regarding the references, the Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the reference(s), as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the reference(s) or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Jie Lei whose telephone number is (571) 272 7231. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Thurs. 8:00 am to 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by the telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Thomas Pham can be reached on (571) 272 3689.The Fax number for the organization where this application 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 application 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 Services Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199(In USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/JIE LEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights