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.
Claims 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites in line 1 the limitation “a reception subsystem” and in line 12 the limitation “a reception subsystem”. It is unclear whether the two limitations refer to the same reception subsystem or different reception subsystems.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 11-16 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naghshvarianjahromi2022 (Naghshvarianjahromi et al., “Software-Defined Fiber Optic Communications for Ultrahigh-Speed Optical Pulse Transmission Systems”, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics, Vol. 28, No. 4, 2022) in view of Naghshvarianjahromi2020 (Naghshvarianjahromi et al., “Natural Brain-Inspired Intelligence for Non-Gaussian and Nonlinear Environments with Finite Memory”, Apply. Sci. 2020). Both Naghshvarianjahromi2022 and Naghshvarianjahromi2020 are provided in the IDS dated 9/18/2024.
Regarding claim 11, Naghshvarianjahromi2022 teaches in FIG. 4 a method for NI processing in a reception subsystem for an SDOCS (see Abstract) comprising: receiving, by a perceptor subsystem, perceptions comprising a plurality of transmitted symbols (Yk,mn are the received symbols); determining, based on the received plurality of transmitted symbols, whether a suitable posterior model is available in a posterior storage within the posterior subsystem (in the perceptor, the decision diamond "posterior available?"); when a suitable posterior model is available, retrieving, by one or more posterior processing modules within the posterior subsystem, a posterior model from the posterior storage (following the "yes" flow to "previous posterior selection" box); communicating, by the one or more posterior processing modules, the retrieved posterior model to an adaptive feedback path control (FIG. 4 shows the main feedback channel and internal feedback link; there are other feedback mechanisms as explained below); receiving, by a feedback processing module within the feedback subsystem, the signals comprising the selected prospective action (prospective actions output by the “Planner” box); based on the received signals, determining, by the feedback processing module, an adjustment to implement the selected prospective action (the “Apply action” box at the bottom); and transmitting, by the feedback processing module, signals to perform the determined adjustment to one or more components within a transmission in the SDOCS (Naghshvarianjahromi2022 teaches on page 2, right col, first paragraph adjustment of the modulation format), a reception within the SDOCS, or an input client data source to the SDOCS (Naghshvarianjahromi2022 teaches on page 2, right col, first paragraph changing the data rate).
The difference between Naghshvarianjahromi2022 and the claimed invention is that Naghshvarianjahromi2022 does not teach the details of the feedback subsystem. Naghshvarianjahromi2020 teaches in FIG. 8 estimating, by the adaptive feedback path control module, a bit error rate (BER) using the retrieved posterior model (“select maximum probability, then BER” box in the perceptor); communicating the estimated BER to an executive subsystem; when the estimated BER is below a threshold (decision diamond “BER < threshold”), selecting, by a planning module within the executive subsystem, a prospective action from an executive storage (following the “yes” path to “Select actions” box); testing, by at least one of the planning module and one or more executive processing modules within the executive subsystem, the selected prospective action in a virtual environment ("virtually apply action on environment" box); based on the testing, determining, by at least one of the planning module and one or more executive processing modules, whether the selected prospective action is beneficial (“reward calculation” box); when the selected prospective action is beneficial (reward increase—the “no” path of decision diamond “reward decrease”), communicating, by either the planning module or the one or more executive processing modules, signals comprising the selected prospective action to a feedback subsystem (“Apply action” box).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Naghshvarianjahromi2020 with the system of Naghshvarianjahromi2022 because Naghshvarianjahromi2020 is cited by Naghshvarianjahromi2022 as reference [11] and provides details that are missing from Naghshvarianjahromi2022. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the feedback process, as taught by Naghshvarianjahromi2020, in the system of Naghshvarianjahromi2022.
Regarding claim 12, Naghshvarianjahromi2022 teaches on page 2, right col, first paragraph adjustment of the modulation format and changing the data rate.
Regarding claim 13, it is understood that the symbols must be received before they can be demapped.
Regarding claim 14, Naghshvarianjahromi2020 teaches in FIG. 8 action space module and the select actions module is fed by the action space.
Regarding claim 15, Naghshvarianjahromi2020 teaches in FIG. 8 that if the “BER < Threshold” test result is “No”, the flow goes to “previous model selection”.
Regarding claim 16, Naghshvarianjahromi2022 teaches on FIG. 4 that when the posterior is not available, the flow goes to “3-layered posterior extraction.
Regarding claim 19, Naghshvarianjahromi2020 teaches on page 8 optimize the internal reward.
Regarding claim 20, Naghshvarianjahromi2020 teaches on page 5, last paragraph that the soft decision is no longer needed when the CDS (cognitive dynamic system) is used.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naghshvarianjahromi2022 and Naghshvarianjahromi2020 as applied to claims 11-16 and 19-20 above, and further in view of Madala et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2025/0023636 A1).
Naghshvarianjahromi2022 and Naghshvarianjahromi2020 have been discussed above in regard to claims 11-16 and 19-20. Regarding claim 17, Naghshvarianjahromi2022 teaches in the Abstract that the posterior can be extracted directly without using the Bayesian equation to obtain a significant reduction of the CDS complexity. The difference between Naghshvarianjahromi2022 and Naghshvarianjahromi2020 and the claimed invention is that Naghshvarianjahromi2022 and Naghshvarianjahromi2020 do not teach a PRBS generator. Madala et al. teaches in paragraph [0028] that test signal may be pseudorandom binary sequence (PRBS) test patterns. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Madala et al. with the modified system of Naghshvarianjahromi2022 and Naghshvarianjahromi2020 because Madala et al. provides the details of implementation that are missing from Naghshvarianjahromi2022 and Naghshvarianjahromi2020. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use PRBS generator to generate training data, as taught by Madala et al., in the modified system of Naghshvarianjahromi2022 and Naghshvarianjahromi2020.
Regarding claim 18, Naghshvarianjahromi2020 teaches on page 9, third paragraph that the CDS can switch between steady state to a pre-adaptive mode where training data is used to train the system.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naghshvarianjahromi2022 and Naghshvarianjahromi2020 as applied to claims 11 above, and further in view of Bilic et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2022/0180763 A1) and Wei et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2022/0006500 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Naghshvarianjahromi2022 and Naghshvarianjahromi2020 teach a system for natural intelligence (NI) processing in a reception subsystem for a software defined optical communications system (SDOCS) (see Abstract of Naghshvarianjahromi2022) comprising: a perceptor subsystem communicatively coupled to an executive subsystem via interconnections (see FIG. 1 of Naghshvarianjahromi2022), wherein: the perceptor subsystem comprises a posterior storage (Naghshvarianjahromi2022 teaches in FIG. 4 “posterior library” module) and one or more posterior processing modules coupled to each other by perceptor subsystem interconnections (represented by the lines and arrows), and the executive subsystem comprises an executive storage (Naghshvarianjahromi2020 teaches in FIG. 8 “action space” module), one or more executive processing modules and a planning module (Naghshvarianjahromi2020 teaches in FIG. 7 “planner” module which is equivalent to the top part in the executive of FIG. 8 of Naghshvarianjahromi2020) coupled to each other by executive subsystem interconnections; a feedback subsystem communicatively coupled to the executive subsystem, a transmission subsystem, a reception subsystem and an input client data source (Naghshvarianjahromi2022 teaches on page 2, right col, first paragraph adjustment of the modulation format and changing the data rate); an adaptive feedback path control module (“select maximum probability, then BER” box in the perceptor) communicatively coupled to the executive subsystem and the perceptor subsystem, wherein: the perceptor subsystem receives perceptions comprising a plurality of transmitted symbols (Xkn are the transmitted symbols), based on the received plurality of transmitted symbols (Yk,mn are the received symbols), determining whether a suitable posterior model is available in the posterior storage (Naghshvarianjahromi2022 teaches in FIG. 4 the decision diamond “posterior available?”), when a suitable posterior model is available, the one or more posterior processing modules retrieves a posterior model from the posterior storage (following the "yes" flow to "previous posterior selection" box), and the one or more posterior processing modules communicates the retrieved posterior model to the adaptive feedback path control module, the adaptive feedback path control module estimates a bit error rate (BER) using the retrieved posterior model (Naghshvarianjahromi2020 teaches in FIG. 8 “select maximum probability, then BER” box in the perceptor), the adaptive feedback path control module communicates the estimated BER to the executive subsystem, when the estimated BER is below a threshold (decision diamond “BER < threshold”), the planning module selects a prospective action from the executive storage (Naghshvarianjahromi2020 teaches in FIG. 8 selection action from action space), at least one of the planning module and the one or more executive processing modules test the selected prospective action in a virtual environment (Naghshvarianjahromi2020 teaches in FIG. 8 “virtually apply action on environment” module), at least one of the planning module and the one or more executive processing modules determines whether the selected prospective action is beneficial (Naghshvarianjahromi2020 teaches in FIG. 8 “reward calculation” module), when the selected prospective action is beneficial (reward increases), either the planning module or the one or more executive processing modules communicates signals comprising the selected prospective action to the feedback subsystem, and the feedback processing module: receives the signals comprising the selected prospective action, determines, based on the received signals, an adjustment to implement the selected prospective action, and transmits signals to perform the determined adjustment to one or more components within the transmission or the reception, or the input client data source (“Apply action” box).
The difference between Naghshvarianjahromi2022 and Naghshvarianjahromi2020 and the claimed invention is that Naghshvarianjahromi2022 and Naghshvarianjahromi2020 do not teach “wherein: the feedback subsystem comprises a feedback processing module communicatively coupled to a feedback subsystem database, further wherein: the feedback processing module comprises a feedback subsystem firmware running on a feedback subsystem processor”. Bilic et al. teaches in FIG. 1 and paragraph [0050] feedback database; Wei et al. teaches in paragraph [0136] and FIG. 7 feedback module 715 which includes firmware that can be executed by a processor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Bilic et al. and Wei et al. with the modified system of Naghshvarianjahromi2022 and Naghshvarianjahromi2020 because Bilic et al. and Wei et al. provide details of implementation that are missing from Naghshvarianjahromi2022 and Naghshvarianjahromi2020. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include database in the feedback subsystem and run firmware on a feedback subsystem processor, as taught by Bilic et al. and Wei et al., in the modified system of Naghshvarianjahromi2022 and Naghshvarianjahromi2020.
Regarding claim 2, Naghshvarianjahromi2022 teaches on page 2, right col, first paragraph adjustment of the modulation format and changing the data rate; Naghshvarianjahromi2020 teaches on page 5, last paragraph that the soft decision (SD) forward error correction (FEC) is no longer needed when the CDS (cognitive dynamic system) is used.
Regarding claim 3, Naghshvarianjahromi2022 teaches in FIG. 4 posterior library from where posterior model is loaded.
Regarding claim 4, Naghshvarianjahromi2020 teaches in FIG. 8 action space module and the select actions module is fed by the action space.
Regarding claim 5, Naghshvarianjahromi2020 teaches in FIG. 8 that if the “BER < Threshold” test result is “No”, the flow goes to “previous model selection”.
Regarding claim 6, Naghshvarianjahromi2022 teaches on FIG. 4 that when the posterior is not available, the flow goes to “3-layered posterior extraction.
Regarding claim 9, Naghshvarianjahromi2020 teaches on page 8 optimize the internal reward.
Regarding claim 10, Naghshvarianjahromi2020 teaches on page 9, third paragraph that the CDS can switch between steady state to a pre-adaptive mode where training data is used to train the system.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naghshvarianjahromi2022, Naghshvarianjahromi2020, Bilic et al. and Wei et al. as applied to claims 1-6 and 9-10 above, and further in view of Madala et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2025/0023636 A1).
Naghshvarianjahromi2022, Naghshvarianjahromi2020, Bilic et al. and Wei et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 1-6 and 9-10. The difference between Naghshvarianjahromi2022, Naghshvarianjahromi2020, Bilic et al. and Wei et al. and the claimed invention is that Naghshvarianjahromi2022, Naghshvarianjahromi2020, Bilic et al. and Wei et al. do not teach a PRBS generator. Madala et al. teaches in paragraph [0028] that test signal may be pseudorandom binary sequence (PRBS) test patterns. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Madala et al. with the modified system of Naghshvarianjahromi2022, Naghshvarianjahromi2020, Bilic et al. and Wei et al. because Madala et al. provides the details of implementation that are missing from Naghshvarianjahromi2022, Naghshvarianjahromi2020, Bilic et al. and Wei et al. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use PRBS generator to generate training data, as taught by Madala et al., in the modified system of Naghshvarianjahromi2022, Naghshvarianjahromi2020, Bilic et al. and Wei et al.
Regarding claim 8, Naghshvarianjahromi2020 teaches on page 9, third paragraph that the CDS can switch between steady state to a pre-adaptive mode where training data is used to train the system.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7 of copending Application No. 19/064,547 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, except for intended use recited in the preamble, they recite essentially the same limitations.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHI K LI whose telephone number is (571)272-3031. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:53 a.m. -3:23 p.m.
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, David Payne can be reached at 571 272-3024. 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.
skl15 July 2026
/SHI K LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights