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 Objections
Claims 6 and 11 are objected to for unclear language. Specifically, the wording “a plurality of N parallel optical fibers,” “a plurality of N high data rate signals,” and “a plurality of N photodetectors” uses redundant language. Simply stating “a plurality” would be sufficient to establish the elements as being more than 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 7-9 and 11 are 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.
Specifically, Claims 7-9 recites the limitation “An optical receiver” when claim 6 is introduced as “An optical receiver component.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Furthermore, Claim 11 recites the limitation "an incoming optical fibers" and later uses “the incoming optical fiber.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-10, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Daiber (US Pat. App. Pub. 2007/0230866 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Daiber teaches An optical receiver for use in a high data rate optical communication network, comprising: an optical-based chromatic dispersion compensation element (FIG. 14: 1402), responsive to an incoming optical data signal (FIG. 14: 1463) and configured to introduce optical phase delays sufficient to correct for fiber link-related chromatic dispersion (FIG. 4; [0052]); a photodetector for converting the corrected optical data signal into an electrical equivalent (FIG. 14: 1404); and electronic receiver circuitry coupled to the output of the photodetector for recovering electrical clock and data signals from the corrected optical data signal input ([0125] (“The electrical interface may provide… clocking channels”); [128] (“By way of example, Intel TXN13600 optical transceivers may each include… Clock and Data Recovery (CDR) unit”).
Regarding Claims 2, 7, and 12, Daiber teaches An optical receiver as defined in claim 1, wherein the optical-based chromatic dispersion compensation element comprises at least one GT etalon (FIG. 2A; [0012]).
Regarding Claims 3, 8, and 13, Daiber teaches An optical receiver as defined in claim 2, wherein the at least one GT etalon comprises a cascaded plurality of individual GT etalon elements, each element introducing a group delay value to the phase delay, the cascaded plurality providing an aggregated group delay. (FIG. 10A and 10B; [0022-23]).
Regarding Claims 4, 9, and 14, Daiber teaches An optical receiver as defined in claim 1, wherein the optical-based chromatic dispersion compensation element comprises at least one optical ring resonator including a delay component within the ring ([0068]) (“optical rings may be used in place of G-T etalons to delay light and compensate for optical dispersion”).
Regarding Claims 5, 10, 15, Daiber teaches An optical receiver as defined in claim 4, wherein the at least one ring resonator comprises a cascaded plurality of individual ring resonators, each ring resonator introducing a group delay value to the phase delay, the cascaded plurality providing an aggregated group delay. ([0068]) (“optical rings may be used in place of G-T etalons to delay light and compensate for optical dispersion”) (the rings would also be producing group delay as the GT etalons they replaced were. See FIGs. 10A and 10B; [0022-23]).
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) 3, 8, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daiber (US Pat. App. Pub. 2007/0230866 A1) in light of Zhang (US Pat. App. Pub. 2003/0099019A1).
Regarding Claims 3, 8, and 13, Daiber teaches An optical receiver as defined in claim 2,
In addition to Daiber, Zhang also teaches wherein the at least one GT etalon comprises a cascaded plurality of individual GT etalon elements, each element introducing a group delay value to the phase delay, the cascaded plurality providing an aggregated group delay ([0015] (“providing a dispersion compensation system in which one or more etalons (preferably two or more) are cascaded in series to form a chain. The chain of etalons introduces a cumulative group delay that compensates for chromatic dispersion”)).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply Zhang’s method of introducing a group delay using a series of GT etalons to Daiber’s reflective arrangement. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. Wherein, the predictable result is a series of reflectors that create a group delay.
Zhang and Daiber both relate to optical communication systems and are therefore analogous art.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daiber (US Pat. App. Pub. 2007/0230866 A1) in light of Charlet (US Pat. App. Pub. 2017/0155454 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Daiber teaches An optical receiver component for use in high data rate optical transceiver, comprising: each optical fiber supporting transmission of a high data rate signal (FIG. 14: 1463); a plurality of N individual optical-based chromatic dispersion compensation elements (FIG. 14: 1402), coupled to the plurality of N parallel optical fibers in a one-to-one relationship (FIG. 14: 1463), each optical-based chromatic dispersion compensation element configured to impart a phase delay on the associated incoming optical signal sufficient to compensate for chromatic dispersion accumulated along the optical fiber (FIG. 4; [0052]); a plurality of N photodetectors coupled to the plurality of N individual optical-based chromatic dispersion compensation elements in a one-to-one relationship (FIG. 14: 1404), each photodetector for converting a chromatic dispersion-compensated optical data signal into an electrical equivalent (Id.); and recovering therefrom recovered clock and data signals. ([0125] (“The electrical interface may provide input/output data transfer, clocking channels, control and monitoring channels”); [128] (“By way of example, Intel TXN13600 optical transceivers may each include… Clock and Data Recovery (CDR) unit”).
Daiber does not teach a plurality of N parallel optical fibers, and electronic receiver circuitry receiving as parallel inputs a plurality of N electrical equivalent signal and recovering therefrom recovered clock and data signals.
Charlet teaches a plurality of N parallel optical fibers (FIG. 2: 16a and 16b), and electronic receiver circuitry receiving as parallel inputs a plurality of N electrical equivalent signal (FIG. 9: Y1, 22a-d)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Daiber to include parallel lines and a receiver at the end of those lines in light of the arrangement taught by Charlet. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. Wherein, the predictable result is two parallel lines of the arrangement taught in Daiber and a receiver at the end of the parallel lines.
Daiber and Charlet both relate to optical communication systems and are therefore analogous art.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daiber (US Pat. App. Pub. 2007/0230866 A1) in light of Suzuki (US Pat. App. Pub. 2002/0048071 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Daiber teaches An optical receiver component for use in multi-wavelength high data rate optical transceiver, comprising: an incoming optical fibers supporting transmission of a plurality of N high data rate signals (FIG. 14: 1463), each operating at a different optical wavelength ([0006]); an optical-based chromatic dispersion compensation element coupled to the incoming optical fiber (FIG. 14: 1402) and configured to impart a phase delay on the multi-wavelength incoming optical signal sufficient to compensate for chromatic dispersion accumulated along the optical fiber (FIG. 4; [0052]); a wavelength division demultiplexer coupled to the output of the optical-based chromatic dispersion compensation element for separating the plurality of N high data rate signals and directing each high data rate signal along a separate signal path ([0125] (“The PMA unit may include various processing capabilities, such as, for example, clock multiplier/multiplexer, and clock and data recover/demultiplexer.”); [0034] (“the reception processing logic may include a DMUX/CDR (Demultiplexer/Clock Data Recovery) circuit”); a plurality of N photodetectors (FIG. 14: 1404), electronic receiver circuitry receiving as parallel inputs a plurality of N electrical equivalent signal and recovering therefrom recovered clock and data signals ([0125] (“The electrical interface may provide input/output data transfer, clocking channels, control and monitoring channels”); [128] (“By way of example, Intel TXN13600 optical transceivers may each include… Clock and Data Recovery (CDR) unit”).
Daiber does not teach each photodetector receiving as an input a separate one of the plurality of N outputs from the wavelength division demultiplexer and converting the received, compensated optical data signal into an electrical equivalent;
Suzuki teaches each photodetector receiving as an input a separate one of the plurality of N outputs from the wavelength division demultiplexer and converting the received, compensated optical data signal into an electrical equivalent; (FIG. 7: 14B, 13B-1-N)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Daiber such that the electrooptical conversion does not take place until after the original signal has been demuxed as is done in Suzuki. Such a combination would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Wherein, the predictable result is an arrangement where the electrooptical conversion takes place after the demux.
Daiber and Suzuki both relate to optical communication systems and are therefore analogous art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL M BROCK whose telephone number is (571)272-7257. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30pm.
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, Kenneth Vanderpuye can be reached at (571) 272-3078. 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.
/PAUL MORGAN BROCK/Examiner, Art Unit 2634 June 4, 2026
/KENNETH N VANDERPUYE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights