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 § 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 11 is 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.
Claim 11 states “controlling a filter to bring a peak…close to a wavelength appearing at a corresponding output port of the demultiplexer”. This limitation is vague and confusing. What is quantified as “close”? Furthermore, what amount or percentage is required for something to be considered “close”. The claim also states “the filter being provided to each of n output ports of the demultiplexer”. Is the same filter being provided at each output port of the demultiplexer?
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 1 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (US 6282005) in view of Grubb (US 2018/0062750).
Regarding claim 1, Thompson teaches an optical transmitter (Fig. 4) comprising: a frequency light source (Fig. 4, source 150); a demultiplexer configured to demultiplex light output from the frequency light source into n channels (n is an integer of 2 or greater) (Fig. 4, output from demultiplexer; Col. 11, lines 11-13, demultiplexed by a 1xN WDM optical demultiplexer 152) at a wavelength interval
PNG
media_image1.png
20
26
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 4A shows the delta.lambda interval); and n filters respectively connected to n output ports of the demultiplexer (Fig. 4, n filters 154/156/N), the n filters being configured to reduce a high-order spectral component for each wavelength (Col. 11, lines 23-24, narrow the optical carriers…).
Although Thompson teaches the wideband light source, Thomspon doesn’t explicitly state that the wideband light source is a comb light source.
Grubb teaches using a wideband comb light source 60 (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the source taught by Thompson and incorporate the wideband comb source as taught by Grubb as a matter of simple substitution of one known wideband light source for another in order to output the number of wavelengths from the source.
Regarding claim 9, Thompson in view of Grubb teaches the optical transmitter as claimed in claim 1, wherein Thompson teaches further comprising: n optical modulators provided corresponding to the n filters (Fig. 4, n modulators 160/162/N coupled to corresponding filters 154/156/N); and a multiplexer configured to multiplex output light of the n optical modulators (Fig. 4, multiplexer 166).
Claim(s) 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (US 6282005) in view of Grubb (US 2018/0062750) in further view of Xu (US 2004/0161242).
Regarding claim 2, Thompson in view of Grubb teaches the optical transmitter as claimed in claim 1.
Although Thompson teaches notch filters, Thompson in view of Grubb don’t teach further comprising a controller configured to control a peak wavelength of a transmission spectrum of each of the n filters.
Xu teaches utilizing tunable notch filters to control a peak wavelength of a transmission spectrum (paragraph [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the notch filters taught by Thompson and incorporate tunable notch filters as taught by Xu in order to enable analysis of the optical parameters as required (Xu: paragraph [0030]).
Regarding claim 11, Thompson teaches a wavelength control method (shown in Fig. 4) comprising: demultiplexing, by a demultiplexer (Fig. 4, output from demultiplexer; Col. 11, lines 11-13, demultiplexed by a 1xN WDM optical demultiplexer 152), light output from a frequency light source into n channels (Fig. 4, source 150) (n is an integer of 2 or greater) at a wavelength interval
PNG
media_image1.png
20
26
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 4A shows the delta.lambda interval); a filter being provided to each of n output ports of the demultiplexer (Fig. 4, filters 154/156/N) to reduce a high-order spectral component for each wavelength (Col. 11, lines 23-24, narrow the optical carriers…).
Although Thompson teaches the wideband light source, Thomspon doesn’t explicitly state that the wideband light source is a comb light source.
Grubb teaches using a wideband comb light source 60 (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the source taught by Thompson and incorporate the wideband comb source as taught by Grubb as a matter of simple substitution of one known wideband light source for another in order to output the number of wavelengths from the source.
Although Thompson teaches notch filters, Thompson in view of Grubb don’t teach further comprising a controller configured to control a peak wavelength of a transmission spectrum to bring a peak of a transmission spectrum of the filter close to a wavelength required.
Xu teaches utilizing tunable notch filters to control a peak wavelength of a transmission spectrum (paragraph [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the notch filters taught by Thompson and incorporate tunable notch filters as taught by Xu in order to enable analysis of the optical parameters as required (Xu: paragraph [0030]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (US 6282005) in view of Grubb (US 2018/0062750) in view of Xu (US 2004/0161242) in further view of Esman (US 004001702B2).
Regarding claim 5, Thompson in view of Grubb in view of Xu teaches the optical transmitter as claimed in claim 2.
Thompson in view of Grubb don’t teach wherein each of the n filters includes a resonator configured to resonate with a corresponding channel wavelength.
Esman teaches wherein a notch filter includes a resonator configured to resonate with a corresponding channel wavelength (Col. 4, lines 4-5, A second preferred narrowband filter 32 is the fiber optic ring resonator (FORR) filter which operates as a notch filter…; Claim 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify each filter taught by Thompson and incorporate a resonator as taught by Esman since resonators provide high sensitivity sensing and sharp wavelength filtering thereby leading to an efficient transmitter.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (US 6282005) in view of Grubb (US 2018/0062750), Xu (US 2004/0161242), Esman (US 004001702B2) in further view of Lipson (US 2012/0177060).
Regarding claim 6, Thompson in view of Grubb in further view of Esman teaches the optical transmitter as claimed in claim 5.
Although Thomspon in view of Esman teaches resonator for each filter, Thompson in view of Esman doesn’t teach wherein a free spectral range of the resonator is greater than
PNG
media_image2.png
32
66
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Lipson teaches wherein a free spectral range of the resonator is greater than
PNG
media_image2.png
32
66
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(paragraph [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the resonator taught by Esman and incorporate the FSR of the resonator taught by Lipson as a matter of simple substitution of one known element for another in order to provide optical resonance for specific wavelengths.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (US 6282005) in view of Grubb (US 2018/0062750) in further view of Akiyama (US 2020/0379181).
Regarding claim 7, Thompson in view of Grubb teaches the optical transmitter as claimed in claim 1.
Although Thompson in view of Grubb teaches each respective n filter coupled to each respective output of the demultiplexer, Thompson in view of Grubb don’t teach wherein the demultiplexer includes 2L-1 unit circuits connected in a tree-shaped branching structure in L stages (L is an integer of 1 or greater), wherein each of the 2L-1 unit circuits has one input port and two outputs ports, and wherein the output ports of a unit circuit at an L-th stage among the L stages is coupled outward for further processing.
Akiyama teaches wherein the demultiplexer (Fig. 7) includes 2L-1 unit circuits connected in a tree-shaped branching structure in L stages (L is an integer of 1 or greater), wherein each of the 2L-1 unit circuits has one input port and two outputs ports, and wherein the output ports of a unit circuit at an L-th stage among the L stages is coupled outward for further processing (Fig. 7 shows the demultiplexer comprising three unit circuits UC connected in a tree structure wherein each UC comprises one input and two output ports each outputting specific wavelengths for further processing. For example, UC2 outputs lambda1 and lambda3 respectively).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the demultiplexer taught by Thompson in view of Grubb and incorporate the layout of the demultiplexer as taught by Akiyama in order to provide an optical demultiplexer capable of separating an optical signal for each wavelength with low crosstalk even when there is wavelength variation (Akiyama: paragraph [0044]).
Regarding claim 8, Thompson in view of Grubb in further view of Akiyama teaches the optical transmitter as claimed in claim 7, wherein Akiyama teaches each of the 2L-1 unit circuits includes a first asymmetric Mach-Zehnder interferometer, a second asymmetric Mach-Zehnder interferometer, and a third asymmetric Mach-Zehnder interferometer having an identical arm length difference (Fig. 7, first, second and third AMZs 10, 20 and 30; paragraph [0087], An arm length difference of each AMZ of the first unit circuit UC1 is set to 2Δ), and wherein an arm length difference of a unit circuit at the L-th stage is 1/2 of an arm length difference of a unit circuit at an (L-1)-th stage among the L stages (paragraph [0087]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (US 6282005) in view of Grubb (US 2018/0062750) in further view of Vijayan (US 2025/0097612).
Regarding claim 10, Thompson in view of Grubb teaches the optical transmitter in claim 1.
Thompson in view of Grubb don’t teach an optical transceiver comprising: the optical transmitter and an optical receiver; wherein the optical receiver demultiplexes received a wavelength division multiplexing signal into optical signals of respective wavelengths, and detects the demultiplexed optical signals of the respective wavelengths by using a portion of light transmitted through the n filters of the optical transmitter as local oscillation light.
Vijayan teaches an optical transceiver that comprises a transmitter section (Fig. 1, transmitter portion outputting to mux 114) and an optical receiver wherein the optical receiver demultiplexes received a wavelength division multiplexing signal into optical signals of respective wavelengths (Fig. 1, multiplexed signals received on 173 demultiplexed towards each receiver 115), and detects the demultiplexed optical signals of the respective wavelengths by using a portion of light transmitted through the n filters of the optical transmitter as local oscillation light (Fig. 1 shows LO signals input from the outputs of the demux 112; paragraph [0045], The demultiplexer 112 may be implemented in various ways. For example, the demultiplexer 112 may be implemented using passive splitters followed by optical injection locking (OIL), tunable filters, an array-waveguide grating (AWG), or the like).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the transmitter taught by Thompson in view of Grubb within the transceiver and receiver wherein the demuxed signals are used as local oscillation as taught by Vijayan in order to enable frequency and phase alignment between transmission and reception thereby simplifying the hardware and reducing frequency drift errors.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 4 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the notice of reference cited (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRANESH K BARUA whose telephone number is (571)270-1017. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Sat: 11-8pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Payne can be reached on 5712723024. 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.
/PRANESH K BARUA/Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights