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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 8, lines 1 and 2, the phrase “An non-transitory computer readable
storage medium storing an optical short pulse generation program for causing a computer to function” should be changed to -- An non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing an optical short pulse generation program when executed by a computer causes the computer to function --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Tanaka et al (US Patent No. 5,434,693) in view of Suzuki et al (US Patent No. 5,798,856).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, referring to Figures 3-5, Tanaka et al teaches an
optical short pulse generator (i.e., optical short pulse generator, Figs. 3 and 4) comprising:
a first optical modulator (i.e., first electro-absorption optical modulator 2,
Figs. 3 and 4) that outputs an optical pulse in which a signal intensity of photocarriers output from a light source (i.e., laser 1, Figs. 3 and 4) is modulated in accordance with a magnitude of a first drive signal (i.e., sinusoidal voltage generator 5, Figs. 3 and 4) around an operation bias point (i.e., DC voltage source 3, Figs. 3 and 4);
a delay unit (i.e., delay circuit 10, Figs. 3 and 4) that generates a second drive signal (i.e., sinusoidal voltage generator 5, Figs. 3 and 4) obtained by delaying the first drive signal by a half cycle (i.e., col. 4, lines 13-20); and
a second optical modulator (i.e., second electro-absorption optical
modulator 8, Figs. 3 and 4) that outputs an optical short pulse in which a signal intensity of the optical pulse is modulated in accordance with a magnitude of the second drive signal around an operation bias point (i.e., DC voltage source 9, Figs. 3 and 4)(i.e., Figures 3-5, col. 3, lines 50-67, col. 4, lines 1-56, and col. 5, lines 1-10).
Tanaka et al differs from claims 1 and 6 in that he fails to specifically teach the first optical modulator and the second optical modulator are optical intensity modulators. However, Suzuki et al in US Patent No. 5,798,856 teaches the first optical modulator (i.e., first optical modulator 2, Figs. 2A-2B) and the second optical modulator (i.e., second optical modulator 8, Figs. 2A-2B) are optical intensity modulators (i.e., Figures 2A-2B, col. 2, lines 52-65, col. 7, lines 35-67, and col. 8, lines 1-26). Based on this teaching, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the first optical modulator and the second optical modulator are optical intensity modulators as taught by Suzuki et al in the system of Tanaka et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this since allowing reducing the optical loss and improving the performance of the system.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Tanaka et al and Suzuki et al teaches
an non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing an optical short pulse generation program when executed by a computer causes the computer to function as an optical short pulse generator (i.e., Figs. 3-5 of Tanaka et al, and Figs. 2A-2B of Suzuki et al).
Claims 2, 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Tanaka et al (US Patent No. 5,434,693) in view of Suzuki et al (US Patent No. 5,798,856) and further in view of OOI et al (Pub. No.: US 2011/0176816).
Regarding claims 2 and 7, the combination of Tanaka et al and Suzuki et al differs from claims 2 and 7 in that it fails to specifically teach a delay adjustment unit that increases or decreases a delay amount by which the delay unit delays the first drive signal. However, OOI et al in Pub. No.: US 2011/0176816 teaches a delay adjustment unit (i.e., delay amount control section 17, Fig. 1) that increases or decreases a delay amount by which the delay unit delays the first drive signal (i.e., Figure 1, page 5, paragraphs [0084]-[0088], and page 6, paragraph [0089]). Based on this teaching, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the delay adjustment unit that increases or decreases a delay amount by which the delay unit delays the first drive signal as taught by OOI et al in the system of the combination of Tanaka et al and Suzuki et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this since allowing reducing the error signal and improving the performance of the system.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Tanaka et al, Suzuki et al, and OOI et al teaches wherein the delay adjustment unit (i.e., delay amount control section 17, Fig. 1 of OOI et al) adjusts the delay amount so that a pulse width of the optical short pulse becomes constant.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 5 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
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure.
Garrett et al (Pub. No.: US 2003) discloses optical pulse generation.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications
From the examiner should be directed to Hanh Phan whose telephone number is
(571)272-3035. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful
the examiner's supervisor, Kenneth Vanderpuye, can be reached on (571)272-
3078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or
proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300. Any inquiry of a general nature or
relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the
receptionist whose telephone number is (703)305-4700.
/HANH PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights