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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 10/29/2024 has been considered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
For claim 1,
a. a tap coefficient update unit configured to adaptively set tap coefficients… on lines 16,17.
For claim 3,
b. the tap coefficient update unit is configured to adaptively set tap coefficients
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
a. The tap coefficient update unit 10 is a computer including a program 101, a CPU (Central Processing Unit) 102, a ROM (Read Only Memory) 103, and a RAM (Random Access Memory) 104, see and paragraph 29 and figure 1.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Komaki et al (EP 2464069A2) in view of Lee (US 2007/0047637).
Regarding claim 4, Komaki discloses a tap coefficient update ;(adaptive equalizer for processing the received optical signal and updating tap coefficient for the FIR filters, see figure 5) method comprising: detecting, by a detector, (the histogram generation units 44h and 44v, see figure 5) an output signal of a polarization separator that separates an input polarization multiplexed signal into two polarization components ;(the polarization multiplexed signal is separated into horizontal signal component and vertical signal component, see figure 5) detecting, by the detector, an output signal obtained by multiplexing output signals of optical filters connected to the polarization separator in a butterfly type; (first FIR filter 42-1 and third FIR filter 42-3 coupled horizontal component signal component second FIR filter 42-2 and fourth filter 42-4 coupled vertical component signal component, coupled to the histogram generation units 44h and 44v, see figure 5) calculating, by a control unit,(determination and tap coefficient correction circuit 45, filter coefficient application circuit 43, see figure 5) and an output signal obtained by multiplexing the output signals of the optical filters; (the histogram generation unit 44h determines where the amplitude value (a sum of squares of the I and Q components of a signal) of the horizontal signal component Eh' is located in the range which is delimited at equal intervals between 0 and a certain value and the histogram generation unit 44v determines where the amplitude value of the vertical signal component Ev' is located in the range which is delimited at equal intervals between 0 and a certain value (maximum value), see page 5, paragraphs 32 and 33 and figure 5) and calculating, by the control unit, (tap coefficient correction circuit 45, see figure 5) tap coefficients of the optical filters, the output signal of the polarization separator, and the output signal obtained by multiplexing the output signals of the optical filters ;(the tap coefficient of the FIR filters 42-1 through 42-4 is corrected by the filter coefficient application control circuit 43 or the local convergence determination and tap coefficient correction circuit 45, see page 4, paragraph 31 and figure 5).
However, Komaki does not explicitly disclose as an error signal, a difference between a predetermined amplitude, based on the error signal.
In a related field of endeavor, Lee discloses as an error signal, a difference between a predetermined amplitude, based on the error signal; (a plurality of predetermined amplitude levels based on an amplitude of an output signal of the feedforward filter, and an error calculation unit to calculate a first error value based on the amplitude of the output signal of the feedforward filter and the first level value, see Abstract and figure 3).
Thus, it would be obvious for one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the error signal of Lee with Komaki to provide update of the filter tap coefficients based on predertmiend amplitude values and the motivation is to provide the channel equalizer is capable of operating independently of a phase error by using the amplitude of the received signal in channel equalization.
Regarding claim 5, Komaki discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program that causes a computer to perform operations ;(adaptive equalizer for processing the received optical signal and updating tap coefficient for the FIR filters, see figure 5) comprising: detecting an output signal of a polarization separator that separates an input polarization multiplexed signal into two polarization components; ;(the polarization multiplexed signal is separated into horizontal signal component and vertical signal component is coupled to the histogram generation units 44h and 44v and , filter coefficient application circuit 43, see figure 5) detecting an output signal obtained by multiplexing output signals of optical filters connected to the polarization separator in a butterfly type; (first FIR filter 42-1 and third FIR filter 42-3 coupled horizontal component signal component second FIR filter 42-2 and fourth filter 42-4 coupled vertical component signal component, coupled to the histogram generation units 44h and 44v, filter coefficient application circuit 43, see figure 5) calculating, and an output signal obtained by multiplexing the output signals of the optical filters (tap coefficient correction circuit 45, see figure 5); and calculating tap coefficients of the optical filters the output signal of the polarization separator, and the output signal obtained by multiplexing the output signals of the optical filters ;(the tap coefficient of the FIR filters 42-1 through 42-4 is corrected by the filter coefficient application control circuit 43 or the local convergence determination and tap coefficient correction circuit 45, see page 4, paragraph 31 and figure 5).
However, Komaki does not explicitly disclose as an error signal, a difference between a predetermined amplitude, based on the error signal.
In a related field of endeavor, Lee discloses as an error signal, a difference between a predetermined amplitude, based on the error signal; (a plurality of predetermined amplitude levels based on an amplitude of an output signal of the feedforward filter, and an error calculation unit to calculate a first error value based on the amplitude of the output signal of the feedforward filter and the first level value, see Abstract and figure 3).
Thus, it would be obvious for one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the error signal of Lee with Komaki to provide update of the filter tap coefficients based on predertmiend amplitude values and the motivation is to provide the channel equalizer is capable of operating independently of a phase error by using the amplitude of the received signal in channel equalization.
Allowable Subject Matter
3. Claims 1-3 are allowed.
4. The following is an Examiner’s reason for allowance.
5. Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art is Komaki et al (EP 2464069A2) Regarding claim 1, Komaki discloses an optical signal processing device ;(adaptive equalizer for processing the received optical signal, see figure 5) comprising: a polarization separator configured to separate an input polarization multiplexed signal into two polarization components;(the polarization multiplexed signal is separated into horizontal signal component and vertical signal component, see figure 5) a first optical coupler configured to branch one polarization component separated by the polarization separator; (the polarization multiplexed signal is separated into horizontal signal component and vertical signal component, see figure 5) a second optical coupler configured to branch another polarization component separated by the polarization separator; (the polarization multiplexed signal is separated into horizontal signal component and vertical signal component, see figure 5) first and second optical filters to which the one polarization component branched by the first optical coupler is input;(first FIR filter 42-1 and third FIR filter 42-3 coupled horizontal component signal component, see figure 5) third and fourth optical filters to which the other polarization component branched by the second optical coupler is input; (second FIR filter 42-2 and fourth filter 42-4 coupled vertical component signal component, see figure 5).
However, regarding claim 1, the prior art of record fails to disclose a third optical coupler configured to multiplex outputs of the first and the third optical filters; a fourth optical coupler configured to multiplex outputs of the second and the fourth optical filters; and a tap coefficient update unit configured to adaptively set tap coefficients of the first to the fourth optical filters to separate a polarization multiplexed signal.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as reproduced below.
a. Izumi (US 9735916) discloses an optical receiver includes: an optical brancher configured to branch polarization multiplexed light to a first polarization multiplexed light and a second polarization multiplexed light, the polarization multiplexed light in which a pilot signal is superimposed on at least one of a first polarization and a second polarization; see figure 3.
b. Masuda et al; (US 2021/0218476) discloses a digital coherent receiver includes: an adaptive equalizer configured to execute, using a first tap coefficient, adaptive equalization processing on a digital signal that corresponds to a signal; a first coefficient updating unit configured to update the first tap coefficient based on the digital signal on which the adaptive equalization processing has not been executed, see figure 2.
c. Perin et al; (US 11218224) discloses polarization demultiplexing performed by the addition of an optical polarization controller prior to the hybrid and may advantageously be realized by cascading multiple phase shifters driven by low-speed circuitry, see figure 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMRITBIR K SANDHU whose telephone number is (571)270-1894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm.
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.
/AMRITBIR K SANDHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights