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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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(s) 1-5, 7, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tsai et al. (12,216,377).
With regards to claim 1, 10 Tsai teaches an optical modulator(Fig 1, 4) comprising: an optical splitter (Fig 1@11)configured to split input light into two light beams(Fig 1 Os1, Os2) ; a first arm and a second arm (Fig 1 121, 122) that are configured to modulate the two light beams by transmission data after split by the optical splitter(Fig 1 Om1, Om2); and an optical coupler configured to couple output light from the first arm and output light from the second arm( at a predetermined coupling ratio(Fig 1@13, a coupler inherently has a predetermined coupling ratio, see abstract splitting ratio) and generating an optical modulation signal(Fig 1 Oout), wherein the optical splitter, the first arm and the second arm, and the optical coupler are configured to operate as a Mach-Zehnder optical modulator(col. 2, lines 65-67 to col. 3, lines 1-3), and the coupling ratio is set in such a way as to apply predetermined pre-chirping to the optical modulation signal.( See abstract lines 9-15, combining ratio).
With regards to claim 2, Tsai teaches the optical modulator according to claim 1, wherein the optical modulator is a silicon optical modulator including an optical waveguide path formed of silicon as material (col. 3 lines 1-3).
With regards to claim 3, Tsai teaches the optical modulator according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined pre-chirping is applied in such a way that the modulation signal includes predetermined transmission quality (Col. 2 lines 13-23).
With regards to claim 4 Tsai teaches a control circuit configured to set the coupling ratio (Fig 4@14, col. 5 lines 42-61 also see claim 9, the ratio regulator functions as a controller).
With regards to claim 5, Tsai teaches wherein the control circuit controls the coupling ratio in such a way to improve the predetermined transmission quality (Col. 2 lines 13-23, col. 5 lines 62-67 to col. 6 lines 1-12)
With regards to claim 7, Tsai teaches the optical modulator wherein, a bias voltage of the first and second arm is selected in such a way that the optical modulation signal has higher positive dispersion tolerance (col. 4 lines 35-67 to col. 5 lines 1-11)
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) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (12,216,377).
With regards to claim 6, Tsai does not specifically teach wherein the coupling ratio is set to 0.6:0.4, 0.9:0.1 or a value in between, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that it would not require undue experimentation to select these settings using the ration regulator.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (12,216,377). And further in view of Kaneoka et al. (20170293165)
With regards to claim 8, Tsai teaches a system comprising: an optical modulator and being configured to output an optical modulation signal to an optical transmission path(Fig 4) ; wherein the optical modulator includes an optical splitter configured to split input light into two light beams (Fig 4@11), a first arm and a second arm that are configured to modulate the two light beams by transmission data after split by the optical splitter(Fig 4@#121, 122), the optical coupler configured to couple output light from the first arm and output light from the second arm at a predetermined coupling ratio(Fig 4@13) and generating the optical modulation signal, and the control circuit configured to set the coupling ratio(Fig 4@14, rate regulator), wherein the optical splitter the first arm and the second arm, and the optical coupler are configured to operate as a Mach-Zehnder optical modulator(col. 2, lines 65-67 to col. 3, lines 1-3), the coupling ratio is set in such a way as to apply predetermined pre-chirping to the optical modulation signa.( See abstract lines 9-15, combining ratio), and the predetermined pre-chirping is applied in such a way that the optical modulation signal includes predetermined transmission quality. (Col. 2 lines 13-23).
Tsai fails to teach an optical transmitter including a modulator and a storage device configured to store a coupling ratio associated with dispersion of the optical transmission path and notify control circuit of the coupling ratio being stored, wherein the control circuit controls an optical coupler according to the coupling ratio notified by the storage device. Although Tsai teaches a coupling ration associated with dispersion of the transmission path and a rate regulator(controller), Tsai fails to teach a storage device to store a coupling ratio used by the controller to control the optical coupler. Kaneoka (Fig. 1) shows an optical transmitter including an MZM modulator a RAM and controller. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the RAM and control unit into Tsai in order to store preset coupling ratios (according to Fig 2, 3) in the RAM and use these preset values to control the optical coupler in a more faster and predictable way..
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH N VANDERPUYE whose telephone number is (571)272-3078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 6:30am-2:30p.
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.
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.
/KENNETH N VANDERPUYE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2634