DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK (US 20210184773, IDS), in view of Hiroshi (JP2006054929, IDS).
Regarding claim 1, and 9-10, PARK discloses an optical transceiver (fig. 3, 1100-1) comprising: an optical transmission unit (fig. 3, 1130-1) that outputs a first optical signal obtained by superimposing an optical signal for giving an instruction to another optical transceiver (fig. 3, 1200-1) on a first main signal that is an optical signal for transmitting communication data to the other optical transceiver; an optical reception unit (fig. 3, 1150-1) that receives a second optical signal from the other optical transceiver (fig. 3 1200-1); and a control unit (fig. 2, 1110) that controls the optical transmission unit and the optical reception unit.
PARK does not specifically disclose that the control unit controls the optical transmission unit modulates the first main signal into a signal having a waveform, whose amplitude transitions between two levels by amplitude shift-keying or phase shift-keying to superimpose a first superimposed signal , which is the optical signal superimposed on the first main signal, on the first main signal, and controls an amplitude of the first superimposed signal based on a value obtained by multiplying an amplitude of the first main signal by a predetermined ratio.
However, Hiroshi from the same field disclose that the control unit controls the optical transmission unit modulates the first main signal into a signal having a waveform, whose amplitude transitions between two levels by amplitude shift-keying or phase shift-keying to superimpose a first superimposed signal , which is the optical signal superimposed on the first main signal, on the first main sign (fig. 10(A), and 0062), and controls an amplitude of the first superimposed signal based on a value obtained by multiplying an amplitude of the first main signal by a predetermined ratio (0062).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art at the time when the application is filed to incorporate the teaching of Hiroshi into the system of PARK in order to superimpose the control data for transmission.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK (US 20210184773, IDS), in view of Hiroshi (JP2006054929, IDS), further in view of Zampetti et al. (US 20110299853).
Regarding claim 6, the modified system of PARK and Hiroshi does not specifically disclose that the first main signal by Manchester encoding. However, Manchester encoding is well known in the art, for example, Zampetti et al. disclose using Manchester encoding for an optical communication system (Zampetti: 0035). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art at the time when the application is filed to use Manchester encoding in the modified system of PARK and Hiroshi into the system in order to recover the clock with exceptionally high quality (Zampetti: 0035).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2, 3-5, 7-8 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Hiroshi (JP2006054929)
Applicant argues that Hiroshi is a JP patent publication and has been applied for the 35 USC 103 rejection, and no English translation was provided with the Office action (Arguments/Remarks, page 2). However, Hiroshi (JP2006054929) is provided by the applicant in the filed IDS (FOR, 04/10/2024) which is a clear indication that the applicant completely understands the reference. And the rejection only uses fig.10(A) and the corresponding description paragraph (paragraph 0062). There is no confusion and misunderstanding in the Office Action. Nevertheless, an English translation is provided.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 103
Claims 1 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK (US 20210184773, IDS), in view of Hiroshi (JP2006054929, IDS); Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK (US 20210184773, IDS), in view of Hiroshi (JP2006054929, IDS), further in view of Zampetti et al. (US 20110299853).
Applicant’s arguments are fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Argued terminologies are not part of claimed limitations. As clearly indicated above, limitations of claims 1 and 9-10 are met by the applied references PARK (US 20210184773, IDS), in view of Hiroshi (JP2006054929, IDS). The limitations of claim 6 are met by the applied references PARK (US 20210184773, IDS), in view of Hiroshi (JP2006054929, IDS), further in view of Zampetti et al. (US 20110299853).
The rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUAN ZHEN WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/QUAN ZHEN WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights