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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
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.
Claim 1 and 3 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 recites the limitation "synchronously add the signals modulated by the plurality of phase modulators" in Lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 recites the limitation "output from the same laser diode" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by 9.
Consider Claim 7, Fuse discloses a method of controlling an optical transmission apparatus, the method comprising: a division step of dividing a frequency-multiplexed input signal into signals with a plurality of bands (Figure 21, element 1112 frequency multiplexed signal); a plurality of phase modulation steps of performing phase modulation on signals with the allocated bands divided by the division step (Figure 21, elements 1051 and 1052 both receive signals with allocated bands for phase modulation); and a synchronous addition step of performing synchronous addition on each of the signals modulated by the plurality of phase modulation steps (Figure 21, element 106 where modulated signals are combined together).
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuse, and further in view of Wood (US 9960846).
Consider Claim 1, Fuse discloses divide a frequency-multiplexed input signal into signals with a plurality of bands (Figure 21, element 1112 where band divider divides frequency multiplexed signal); and synchronously add the signals modulated by the plurality of phase modulators (Figure 21, element 106 where modulated signals are combined together); and a plurality of phase modulators that are allocated to the plurality of bands and perform phase modulation on the signals with the allocated bands (Figure 21, elements 1051 and 1052 both receive signals with allocated bands for phase modulation) but does not disclose an optical transmission apparatus comprising: a processor; and a storage medium having computer program instructions stored thereon, when executed by the processor.
However, Wood discloses an optical transmission apparatus comprising: a processor (Figure 3, element 300); and a storage medium having computer program instructions stored thereon, when executed by the processor (Column 5, Lines 20-22 where memory unit can include processor executable code).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Wood into Fuse to implement signal processing to reduce noise of signals.
Consider Claim 3, Fuse discloses the optical transmission apparatus according to claim 1, wherein an output from the same laser diode is input to each of the plurality of phase modulators (Figure 21, where an output from light source element 101 will go into angle modulator elements 1051 and 1052).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Wood into Fuse to implement signal processing to reduce noise of signals.
Consider Claim 4, Fuses discloses the optical transmission apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising an intensity modulator configured to perform intensity modulation on a signal (Figure 21, element 104 perform intensity modulation on signal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Wood into Fuse to implement signal processing to reduce noise of signals.
Consider Claim 6, Fuse discloses the optical transmission apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the signal is able to be demodulated by a reception apparatus having received the signal (Figure 27C and Column 2, Lines 19-21, where angle modulated signal gets demodulated after being obtained by photodetector element 1007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Wood into Fuse to implement signal processing to reduce noise of signals.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuse in view of Wood, and further in view of Fuse (US 5541757; hereinafter "Fuse 2").
Consider Claim 2, Fuse and Wood do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, “Fuse 2” discloses the optical transmission apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the input signal is a multichannel video signal (Figure 1, element 1001).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof “Fuse 2” into Fuse and Wood to increase bandwidth.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuse in view of Wood, and further in view of Kawahara (US 11979226).
Consider Claim 5, Fuse and Wood do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Kawahara discloses the optical transmission apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of bands are determined in accordance with a distortion characteristic of each band (Column 3, Lines 38-45, where wavelength bands can be used to measure loss.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Kawahara into Fuse and Wood to better identify different frequency bands
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASIF SHAMEEM whose telephone number is (571)272-6576. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM EST-5:00 PM 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, KENNETH VANDERPUYE can be reached at (571) 272-3078. 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.
/ASIF SHAMEEM/Examiner, Art Unit 2634
/KENNETH N VANDERPUYE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights