DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits. Claims 1-10 are currently pending.
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
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/11/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 10 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.
Regarding claim 10, it is unclear how GFF can increase power in a frequency band since the GFF is an optical filter and not an amplification device.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Akutsu et al., US 20130121632 A1 (“Akutsu”).
Regarding claim 1, Akutsu discloses A dummy light module, comprising:
a dual semiconductor optical amplifier (SOA) light source configured to emit two light emissions, wherein the two light emissions include a first light emission and a second light emission both having a first polarization (Fig. 1, SOAs 112, Paragraph [0032]-[0033]);
a polarization rotator configured to rotate the second light emission to a second polarization (Fig. 1, half-wave plate 103, Paragraph [0031]); and
a polarization beam combiner configured to generate dummy light by combining the first light emission with the first polarization and the second light emission with the second polarization (Fig. 1, MZI 107, Paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 2, Akutsu discloses The dummy light module of claim 1, wherein the dual SOA light source comprises one or more SOA units, wherein each SOA unit is configured to emit light in a first emitting direction and a second emitting direction opposite the first emitting direction (Fig. 1, SOAs 112, Paragraph [0032]-[0033]).
Regarding claim 4, Akutsu discloses The dummy light module of claim 2, wherein the first emitting direction of each respective SOA unit is directed towards a corresponding reflector arranged to redirect the light back to the respective SOA unit (Fig. 1, U-turn portion 108b, Paragraph [0032]), and the second emitting direction of each SOA unit is directed towards a power splitter configured to receive the light emitted by each of the SOA units and output the first light emission and the second light emission as identical light emissions (Fig. 1, MZI 107, Paragraph [0031]).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akutsu in view of Flanders et al., US 20130321820 A1 (“Flanders”).
Regarding claim 3, Akutsu discloses The dummy light module of claim 2, wherein the dual SOA light source comprises two SOA units (Fig. 1, SOAs 112, Paragraph [0032]-[0033]), […], and wherein the first light emission and the second light emission are output in the second emitting direction (Fig. 1, SOAs 112, direction towards output-input portion 108aa and an output-input portion 108ab, Paragraph [0032]-[0033]).
Akutsu does not teach: wherein the first emitting direction of each SOA unit is directed towards a reflector array arranged to redirect the light back to the other SOA unit.
However, Flanders teaches an optical source with multiple SOA units arranged in a loop with polarization components. Flanders teaches an array of fold mirrors that direct light into two SOA units in a loop (Fig. 6, fold mirrors 614, 616, Paragraph [0134]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Akutsu’s SOA circuit by replacing the U-turn waveguide with an array of fold mirrors, which is disclosed by Flanders. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one directional component for another and the results would have been predictable (MPEP 2141 I KSR Rationale B).
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akutsu in view of Ziari et al., US 20130279910 A1 (“Ziari”).
Regarding claim 5, Akutsu discloses The dummy light module of claim 4.
Akutsu does not teach: wherein the dual SOA light source comprises at least a first SOA unit configured to emit light in a first band, and a second SOA unit configured to emit light in a second band different than the first band.
However, Ziari teaches a banded semiconductor optical amplifier where a band splitter receives an optical signal, outputs bands of optical signals into their respective SOA module, and recombines the optical signals using a power combiner or multiplexer. Each SOA module amplifies their respective wavelength band, where each wavelength band is different (Fig. 2, band splitter 210, SOA modules 220-1 – 220-6, combiner 230, Paragraph [0038]-[0039]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Akutsu’s SOA circuit by adding a band splitter and providing an SOA circuit for each wavelength band, which is disclosed by Ziari. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to offset optical signal losses as a WDM optical signal propagates along an optical communication path, as suggested by Ziari (Paragraph [0025]).
Regarding claim 6, Akutsu, as modified in view of Ziari, discloses The dummy light module of claim 5, wherein the dual SOA light source further comprises a first band multiplexer configured to combine the light in the first band and the Light in the second band emitted in the first emitting direction (Ziari, Fig. 2, SOA modules 220-1 – 220-6, combiner 230, Paragraph [0038]-[0039]), and direct the combined light to a common reflector (Akutsu, Fig. 1, U-turn portion 108b, Paragraph [0032]).
Regarding claim 7, Akutsu, as modified in view of Ziari, discloses The dummy light module of claim 6, wherein the dual SOA light source comprises a wideband SOA unit arranged between the first band multiplexer and the common reflector (Ziari, Fig. 2, band splitter 210, SOA modules 220-1 – 220-6, combiner 230, Paragraph [0038]-[0039]), wherein the wideband SOA unit comprises the one or more SOA units (Ziari, Fig. 2, SOA modules 220-1 – 220-6, Paragraph [0038]-[0039]), and wherein the wideband SOA unit is configured to emit wideband light in the first emitting direction and the second emitting direction, wherein the wideband light includes at least the first band and the second band (Ziari, Fig. 2, SOA modules 220-1 – 220-6, Paragraph [0038]-[0039]).
Regarding claim 8, Akutsu, as modified in view of Ziari, discloses The dummy light module of claim 5, wherein the dual SOA light source further comprises:
one or more additional SOA units each configured to emit light in a respective band different from each other band (Ziari, Fig. 2, SOA modules 220-1 – 220-6, Paragraph [0038]-[0039]), and
a second band multiplexer configured to combine the light of the different bands emitted in the second emitting direction, and direct the combined light to the power splitter (Ziari, Fig. 2, SOA modules 220-1 – 220-6, combiner 230, Paragraph [0038]-[0039]).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akutsu in view of Flanders in further view of Renaudier et al., US 20180212702 A1 (“Renaudier”).
Regarding claim 9, Akutsu, as modified in view of Flanders, discloses The dummy light module of claim 3.
Akutsu, as modified in view of Flanders, does not teach: wherein the light emitted from each SOA unit in the first emitting direction passes through a gain flattening filter (GFF) configured to flatten an emission profile of the dummy light.
However, Renaudier teaches an amplification device that contains a polarization beam splitter to split light into TE and TM modes and two SOAs to amplify each split optical signal. After light is amplified by the SOAs, it passes through a gain flattening filter, which flattens the ripples of the optical gain bandwidth (Fig. 1, gain flattening filters 131 and 132, Paragraph [0050],[0051]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Akutsu’s SOA circuit by adding a gain flattening filter in the first emitting direction, which is disclosed by Renaudier. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to compensate for the optical characteristics in the gain bandwidth, such as tilts and ripples, as suggested by Renaudier (Paragraph [0051]).
Regarding claim 10, Akutsu, as modified in view of Flanders and Renaudier, discloses The dummy light module of claim 9, wherein the GFF is further configured to increase an output power in a frequency band (Fig. 1, gain flattening filters 131 and 132, Paragraph [0050],[0051]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fujiwara et al., US 20070127113 A1 discloses an optical modulation apparatus that includes a polarization beam splitter, a wavelength multi-demultiplexer, a bidirectional SOA, a polarization rotator, and a reflecting mirror.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5:30 pm ET.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at (571) 270-3603. 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.
/RACHEL NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ZHENGQING QI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights