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 .
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arikawa (US Pub 20240007193) in view of Arikawa 2 (US Pub 20220385374).
Regarding Claim 5. Arikawa discloses an optical reception device in an optical transmission system that performs communication by a digital coherent system including an optical transmission device and the optical reception device (Fig 2, where an optical reception device (150) in an optical transmission system performs communication by a digital coherent system including an optical transmission device (110) and the optical reception device (150)), the optical reception device comprising:
an adaptive filter configured to perform adaptive filtering processing using a digital filter (Fig 2, Fig 4, where the optical reception device (150) comprises a demodulation unit (154) with an adaptive filter (e.g. 171) (as shown in Fig 4) configured to perform adaptive filtering processing using a digital filter);
a Fourier transformer configured to convert a tap coefficient of the digital filter into a signal in a frequency domain by digital Fourier transform (Fig 2, Fig 4, Fig 6, where the adaptive filter (e.g. 171) (as shown in Fig 4) comprises a distortion detecting unit (e.g. 178) with a Fourier transformer (e.g. 211 to 214) (as shown in Fig 6) configured to convert a tap coefficient of the digital filter into a signal in a frequency domain by digital Fourier transform (para [147])); and
an estimator configured to calculate a ratio of a linearly transformed amount after conversion into a signal in a frequency domain by the Fourier transformer, and estimates a physical quantity related to at least a response between the optical transmission device and the optical reception device based on amplitude and phase information of the calculated ratio of the linearly transformed amount (Fig 2, Fig 4, Fig 6, where the distortion detecting unit (e.g. 178) comprises an estimator (e.g. 215, 216, 217) (as shown in Fig 6) configured to calculate a ratio (e.g. as shown in equations 48, 49, 50) (paras [148] [149] [150]) of a linearly transformed amount after conversion into a signal in a frequency domain by the Fourier transformer and estimate a physical quantity (e.g. IQ skew, IQ imbalance, IQ phase shift) related to at least a response between the optical transmission device (110) and the optical reception device (150) based on amplitude and phase information (i.e. of I and Q channels which have amplitude and phase information) of the calculated ratio (e.g. as shown in equations 48, 49, 50) (paras [148] [149] [150]) of the linearly transformed amount).
Arikawa fails to explicitly disclose the filter being an equalizer.
However, Arikawa 2 discloses
a filter being an equalizer (Fig 10, paras [12][13] where an adaptive filter (e.g. 701) is an equalizer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the adaptive filter (e.g. 171) as described in Arikawa, with the teachings of the adaptive filter (e.g. 701) as described in Arikawa 2. The motivation being is that as shown an adaptive filter (e.g. 701) is an equalizer and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the adaptive filter (e.g. 171) as described in Arikawa and better show and illustrate that the adaptive filter (e.g. 171) is an equalizer i.e. because the adaptive filter (e.g. 171) by using a digital filter and coefficients optimally performs equalization in order to adjust a receive signal to its original form and where such equalization includes optimally compensating for signal distortions and improving signal quality and which combination is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. distortion compensation filters) and which combination is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known adaptive filter (e.g. 701) into another similar adaptive filter (e.g. 171), namely, for better clarifying its operation/configuration and which combination yields predictable results.
Regarding Claim 1. Claim 1 is similar to claim 5, therefore, claim 1 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Regarding Claim 2. Arikawa as modified by Arikawa 2 also discloses the estimation method, wherein a delay difference between an I channel and a Q channel is estimated as a physical quantity related to a response between the optical transmission device and the optical reception device (Arikawa Fig 2, Fig 4, Fig 6, where a delay difference (i.e. IQ skew) (time lag) between an I channel and a Q channel is estimated as the physical quantity (e.g. IQ skew, IQ imbalance, IQ phase shift) related to a response between the optical transmission device (110) and the optical reception device (150)).
Regarding Claim 3. Arikawa as modified by Arikawa 2 also discloses the estimation method, wherein an amplitude difference between an I channel and a Q channel is estimated as a physical quantity related to a response between the optical transmission device and the optical reception device (Arikawa Fig 2, Fig 4, Fig 6, where an amplitude/strength difference (i.e. IQ imbalance) between an I channel and a Q channel is estimated as the physical quantity (e.g. IQ skew, IQ imbalance, IQ phase shift) related to a response between the optical transmission device (110) and the optical reception device (150)).
Regarding Claim 4. Arikawa as modified by Arikawa 2 also discloses the estimation method, wherein an orthogonal error between an I channel and a Q channel is estimated as a physical quantity related to a response between the optical transmission device and the optical reception device (Arikawa Fig 2, Fig 4, Fig 6, where an orthogonal error (i.e. IQ phase shift) (quadrature shift/error) between an I channel and a Q channel is estimated as the physical quantity (e.g. IQ skew, IQ imbalance, IQ phase shift) related to a response between the optical transmission device (110) and the optical reception device (150)).
Regarding Claim 6. Claim 6 is similar to claim 5, therefore, claim 6 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Conclusion
The additional prior art considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure and not relied upon is the following:
Yamagishi et al (US Pub 20200036440) and more specifically Fig 4.
Kaneda et al (US Pub 20150372764) and more specifically Fig 4.
Saito et al (US Pub 20140212132) and more specifically Fig 6.
Winzer et al (US Pub 20120057863) and more specifically Fig 3B.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DIBSON J SANCHEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0868. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 10:00-6:00.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, Kenneth Vanderpuye can be reached on 5712723078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding 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 applications 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 Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DIBSON J SANCHEZ/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634