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 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: “absorbe” should be changed to “absorber”. 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.
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(s) 1-4 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (Elsevier, 2017) in view of Sackinger (Broadbank Cirucits for Opt. Fiber Comm., 2002) and Tsuji (Recommendation of lower minimum extinction ratio for 10GBASE-PR-U, 2008).
Regarding claim 1, Shin et al. discloses An electro-optical device (Fig. 1), comprising:
an optical signal source (Fig. 1; the VCSEL), configured to: generate a modulated optical signal based on non-return-to-zero (NRZ) modulation format (Fig. 1; Page 222, right column, Section, 2. System configuration; The wavelength of the VCSEL is 1543.8mm at a bias current of 8 mA and was directly modulated by 10 Gb/s electrical NRZ signal), wherein the modulated optical signal comprises at least a first signal level and a second signal level (Fig. 1; Fig. 2; the transmitted optical signal is illustrated in the eye diagram as having two signal levels. The upper level represent a logical ‘1’ of the non-return-to-zero (NRZ) signal, while the lower level represents a logical ‘0’), the first signal level being lower than the second signal level (Fig. 1; Fig. 2; the level of the logical ‘0’ is lower than the level of the logical ‘1’), and wherein an extinction ratio of the modulated optical signal is obtained based on the first signal level and the second signal level (Fig. 1; Fig. 2; Fig. 2 shows the optical power levels of logical ‘1’ and logical ‘0.’ The extinction ratio is defined as ER = P1/P0 where P0 is the optical power emitted for a zero and P1 the power for a one (see, Sackinger, page 161, right column, section, Extinction Ratio)); and output the modulated optical signal, wherein a rate of the modulated optical signal is greater than 10 Gbit/s (Fig. 1; Page 223, left column, first paragraph; the 10 Gb/s optical NRZ signals were transmitted over the SMF for 10 km or 20 km).
With respect to the extinction ratio, as disclosed by Sackinger (page 161, right column, section, Extinction Ratio), the extinction ratio is an inherent property of an NRZ optical transmitter because the transmitter necessarily produce distinguishable optical power levels corresponding to the logical “1” and logical ‘0’ states.
Regarding applied in a high-speed passive optical network (HSP-PON), it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claim apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations (Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)).
Regarding a minimum value of the extinction ratio is 6dB, Tsuji discloses a minimum value of the extinction ratio is 6dB (Page 2, Overview; current 10GBASE-PR-U minimum extinction ratio is 6dB. OLT (10GBASE-PR-D) adopts 6dB min.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to adopt 6dB minimum extinction ratio to comply with the established standard. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the choice of minimum 6 dB extinction ratio has any mechanical function in relation to the underlying article or does it provide any unexpected advantage. The claimed differences for this claim exist not as a result of an attempt by Applicant to solve an unknown problem but merely amount to the selection of expedients known as design choices to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, the present combination discloses The electro-optical device according to claim 1, as described and applied above, wherein the optical signal source is a direct modulated laser, a vertical cavity surface emitting laser, or an electro-absorption modulated laser (Shin et al., Fig. 1; Page 222, right column, Section, 2. System configuration; the VCSEL is shown. The wavelength of the VCSEL is 1543.8mm at a bias current of 8 mA and was directly modulated by 10 Gb/s electrical NRZ signal).
Regarding claim 3, the present combination discloses The electro-optical device according to claim 1, as described and applied above.
However, the current combination does not expressly disclose the optical signal source comprises a laser and a modulator, wherein the laser is configured to generate a continuous laser signal, and wherein the modulator is configured to modulate the continuous laser signal provided by the laser to obtain the modulated optical signal.
Sackinger discloses the optical signal source comprises a laser and a modulator (Fig. 7.1 (b); a laser and an external modulator is shown), wherein the laser is configured to generate a continuous laser signal, and wherein the modulator is configured to modulate the continuous laser signal provided by the laser to obtain the modulated optical signal (Fig. 7.1 (b); Page 159, section, Types of Modulation; we can have the laser on at all times (continuous wave laser) and modulate the light beam with a sort of electrooptical shutter known as modulator, this method is called external modulation). (Sackinger teaches that Direct modulation has the advantage of simplicity, compactness, and cost effectiveness while external modulation can produce higher-quality optical pulses permitting extended reach and higher bit rates (Page 159, section, Types of Modulation)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of present combination to an external modulation system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to produce higher-quality optical pulses permitting extended reach and higher bit rates (Sackinger, Page 159, section, Types of Modulation).
Regarding claim 4, the present combination discloses The electro-optical device according to claim 1, as described and applied above, wherein a required output optical power of the modulated optical signal decreases based on the extinction ratio of the modulated optical signal increasing (Sackinger, Fig. 7.2; Page 161, Equation (7.5); Section, Extinction Ratio, last paragraph; the power penalty is given by PP = ER +1 / ER – 1. As seen in Fig. 7.2, decreasing the ER reduces the peak-to-peak optical signal P1-P0. (This means increasing ER increases the peak-to-peak optical signal). Thus we have to increase the transmitted power by PP to restore the original peak-to-peak amplitude (in case, ER is increased, the transmitted power is reduced)).
Regarding claim 17, Shin et al. discloses A transmitter (Fig. 1; the transmitting node is shown), comprising: an electro-optical device (Fig. 1; VCSEL and 10Gb/s NRZ data generator), the electro-optical device comprising:
an optical signal source (Fig. 1; the VCSEL), configured to: generate a modulated optical signal based on non-return-to-zero (NRZ) modulation format (Fig. 1; Page 222, right column, Section, 2. System configuration; The wavelength of the VCSEL is 1543.8mm at a bias current of 8 mA and was directly modulated by 10 Gb/s electrical NRZ signal), wherein the modulated optical signal comprises at least a first signal level and a second signal level (Fig. 1; Fig. 2; the transmitted optical signal is illustrated in the eye diagram as having two signal levels. The upper level represent a logical ‘1’ of the non-return-to-zero (NRZ) signal, while the lower level represents a logical ‘0’), the first signal level being lower than the second signal level (Fig. 1; Fig. 2; the level of the logical ‘0’ is lower than the level of the logical ‘1’), and wherein an extinction ratio of the modulated optical signal is obtained based on the first signal level and the second signal level (Fig. 1; Fig. 2; Fig. 2 shows the optical power levels of logical ‘1’ and logical ‘0.’ The extinction ratio is defined as ER = P1/P0 where P0 is the optical power emitted for a zero and P1 the power for a one (see, Sackinger, page 161, right column, section, Extinction Ratio)); and output the modulated optical signal, wherein a rate of the modulated optical signal is greater than 10 Gbit/s (Fig. 1; Page 223, left column, first paragraph; the 10 Gb/s optical NRZ signals were transmitted over the SMF for 10 km or 20 km).
With respect to the extinction ratio, as disclosed by Sackinger (page 161, right column, section, Extinction Ratio), the extinction ratio is an inherent property of an NRZ optical transmitter because the transmitter necessarily produce distinguishable optical power levels corresponding to the logical “1” and logical ‘0’ states.
Regarding applied in a high-speed passive optical network (HSP-PON), it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claim apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations (Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)).
Regarding a minimum value of the extinction ratio is 6dB, Tsuji discloses a minimum value of the extinction ratio is 6dB (Page 2, Overview; current 10GBASE-PR-U minimum extinction ratio is 6dB. OLT (10GBASE-PR-D) adopts 6dB min.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to adopt 6dB minimum extinction ratio to comply with the established standard. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the choice of minimum 6 dB extinction ratio has any mechanical function in relation to the underlying article or does it provide any unexpected advantage. The claimed differences for this claim exist not as a result of an attempt by Applicant to solve an unknown problem but merely amount to the selection of expedients known as design choices to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 18, the present combination teaches a device that necessarily performs this method claim in light of the rejection described and applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, the present combination teaches a device that necessarily performs this method claim in light of the rejection described and applied in claim 3.
Regarding claim 20, the present combination teaches a device that necessarily performs this method claim in light of the rejection described and applied in claim 4.
Claim(s) 5-13 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (Elsevier, 2017), Sackinger (Broadbank Cirucits for Opt. Fiber Comm., 2002), and Tsuji (Recommendation of lower minimum extinction ratio for 10GBASE-PR-U, 2008) in view of Kim et al. (US20040075890A1).
Regarding claim 5, the present combination discloses The electro-optical device according to claim 1, as described and applied above.
However, the present combination does not expressly disclose an absorber configured to generate an output optical signal from the modulated optical signal, wherein the output optical signal has an extinction ratio larger than the extinction ratio of the modulated optical signal.
Kim et al. discloses an absorber (Fig. 2; saturable absorber 100) configured to generate an output optical signal from the modulated optical signal (Fig. 2; Fig. 4A; Fig. 6; as shown in Fig. 2, the saturable absorber 100 receives input optical signal, ls, and output the signal. The input optical signal, ls, is modulated as shown in Fig. 6), wherein the output optical signal has an extinction ratio larger than the extinction ratio of the modulated optical signal (Fig. 4A; Fig. 4D; Para. 35; Para. 38; Referring to FIG. 4A, if the input optical signals having a power lower than the transparent input optical power Ptr, in are inputted to the saturable absorber, the saturable absorber absorbs most of the input optical signals, and thus the output optical power P1out thereof is low. If the input optical signals having a power higher than the transparent input optical power Ptr, in are inputted to the saturable absorber, most of the input optical signals are outputted. Thus, when optical signals including noises are inputted to the saturable absorber, the noises can be eliminated by adjusting the power of the noises to be less than the transparent input optical power Ptr, in of the saturable absorber. As shown in FIG. 4D, by using the optical signal processing element, the output power of optical signals having different powers are kept constant, the noises are eliminated, and the extinction ratio is increased).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an absorber and optical amplifier, as taught by Kim et al., in the present combination in order to eliminate noises and increase the extinction ratio (Kim et al., Para. 38).
Regarding claim 6, the present combination discloses The electro-optical device according to claim 5, as described and applied above, wherein the absorber is further configured to generate the output optical signal from the modulated optical signal (Kim et al., Fig. 6; The input optical signal, ls, is modulated as shown in Fig. 6) by partially absorbing the modulated optical signal (Kim et al., Fig. 4A; Fig. 4D; Para. 35; Referring to FIG. 4A, if the input optical signals having a power lower than the transparent input optical power Ptr, in are inputted to the saturable absorber, the saturable absorber absorbs most of the input optical signals, and thus the output optical power P1out thereof is low).
Regarding claim 7, the present combination discloses The electro-optical device according to claim 6, as described and applied above, wherein the absorber is configured to partially absorb the modulated optical signal with an absorption characteristic, dependent on a present signal level of the modulated optical signal (Kim et al., Fig. 4A; the absorption characteristic of the saturable absorber is illustrated by Fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 8, the present combination discloses The electro-optical device according to claim 6, as described and applied above, wherein the absorber is configured to partially absorb the modulated optical signal with an absorption characteristic (Kim et al., Fig. 4A; the absorption characteristic of the saturable absorber is illustrated by Fig. 4A), and wherein the absorption characteristic defines an absorption factor, which is indirectly proportional to a present signal level of the modulated optical signal (Kim et al., Fig. 4A; Para. 35; if the input optical signals having a power lower than the transparent input optical power Ptr, in are inputted to the saturable absorber, the saturable absorber absorbs most of the input optical signals, and thus the output optical power P1out thereof is low. That is, output signal is indirectly proportional if the input signal level is low).
Regarding claim 9, the present combination discloses The electro-optical device according to claim 5, as described and applied above, wherein the absorber is a semiconductor absorber (Kim et al., Fig. 3; the saturable absorber area 16a is shown. The saturable absorber is made of semiconductor material as shown).
Regarding claim 10, the present combination discloses The electro-optical device according to claim 9, as described and applied above, wherein the absorber is configured so that the modulated optical signal induces, dependent of a present signal level of the modulated optical signal, carriers in the semiconductor absorber (Kim et al., Fig. 3; Para. 33; Para. 30; when impurities are implanted into the saturable absorber 16a using an ion-implanter, life cycles of carriers generated by the absorbed light are reduced. The optical signal processing element comprises a undoped-doped InGaAsP group active layer 11, a p-doped InP cladding layer 12, an InGaAs ohmic contact layer 13, the upper metal electrodes 14a, 14b, the lower metal electrodes 15 and dielectrics 17. (That is, an applied current induces and injects charge carriers into the active layer through metal-semiconductor transitions)).
Regarding claim 11, the present combination discloses The electro-optical device according to claim 10, as described and applied above, wherein the absorber is configured so that, at the second signal level of the modulated optical signal, induction of carriers (Kim et al., Fig. 3; Para. 30; The optical signal processing element comprises a undoped-doped InGaAsP group active layer 11, a p-doped InP cladding layer 12, an InGaAs ohmic contact layer 13, the upper metal electrodes 14a, 14b, the lower metal electrodes 15 and dielectrics 17. (That is, an applied current induces and injects charge carriers into the active layer through metal-semiconductor transitions)) in the semiconductor absorber reaches saturation (Kim et al., Fig. 4A; a saturation of saturable absorber is reached as shown in Fig. 4A. (When a light pulse hits the material, photons are absorbed to induce charge carriers in the semiconductor. These newly created carriers fill up the available energy states, stopping further absorption and the material becomes temporarily transparent)), resulting in a weaker absorption of the modulated optical signal at the second signal level than at the first signal level (Kim et al., Fig. 4A; Fig. 4D; Para. 35; Referring to FIG. 4A, if the input optical signals having a power lower than the transparent input optical power Ptr, in are inputted to the saturable absorber, the saturable absorber absorbs most of the input optical signals, and thus the output optical power P1out thereof is low. If the input optical signals having a power higher than the transparent input optical power Ptr, in are inputted to the saturable absorber, most of the input optical signals are outputted. Thus, when optical signals including noises are inputted to the saturable absorber, the noises can be eliminated by adjusting the power of the noises to be less than the transparent input optical power Ptr, in of the saturable absorber).
Regarding claim 12, the present combination discloses The electro-optical device according to claim 5, as described and applied above, wherein the absorber is only supplied with the modulated optical signal (Kim et al., Fig. 6; The input optical signal, ls, is modulated as shown in Fig. 6) and a power supply signal (Kim et al., Fig. 3; current ISA applied to the saturable absorber), and wherein the power supply signal is a constant signal and/or has a frequency that is smaller, at least by a factor of 10, than a frequency of the modulated optical signal (Kim et al., Fig. 3; Para. 32; current ISA applied to the saturable absorber is set such that the transparent output optical power of the saturable absorber is equal to or higher than the saturation input optical power of the optical amplifier).
Regarding claim 13, the present combination discloses The electro-optical device according to claim 12, as described and applied above, wherein the absorption characteristic (Kim et al., Fig. 4D; the absorption characteristic is illustrated by Fig. 4D) is dependent on the power supply signal, and wherein the absorber is configured so that the absorption characteristic is controlled by adapting the power supply signal (Kim et al., Fig. 3; Fig. 4C; Para. 32; current ISA applied to the saturable absorber is set such that the transparent output optical power of the saturable absorber is equal to or higher than the saturation input optical power of the optical amplifier).
Regarding claim 15, the present combination discloses The electro-optical device according to claim 1, as described and applied above, wherein the electro-optical device further comprises an amplifier (Kim et al., Fig. 2; optical amplifier 110) configured to amplify the modulated optical signal to provide an amplified modulated optical signal (Kim et al. Fig. 2; Fig. 4B; Referring to FIG. 4B, if the input optical signals having a power less than the saturation input optical power Psat, in are inputted to the optical amplifier, the input optical signals are amplified by a gain of the optical amplifier).
Regarding claim 16, the present combination discloses The electro-optical device according to claim 5, as described and applied above, further comprising an amplifier (Kim et al., Fig. 2; optical amplifier 110) configured to amplify the output optical signal to provide an amplified output optical signal (Kim et al. Fig. 2; Fig. 4B; Referring to FIG. 4B, if the input optical signals having a power less than the saturation input optical power Psat, in are inputted to the optical amplifier, the input optical signals are amplified by a gain of the optical amplifier), wherein the amplifier is configured to be supplied with power at least in part by the absorber (Kim et al., Fig. 3; Fig. 4C; Para. 32; current ISA applied to the saturable absorber is set such that the transparent output optical power of the saturable absorber is equal to or higher than the saturation input optical power of the optical amplifier).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (Elsevier, 2017), Sackinger (Broadbank Cirucits for Opt. Fiber Comm., 2002), Tsuji (Recommendation of lower minimum extinction ratio for 10GBASE-PR-U, 2008), and Kim et al. (US20040075890A1) in view of Mehdi (Von Neumann Architecture, 2012).
Regarding claim 14, the present combination discloses The electro-optical device according to claim 13, as described and applied above, wherein the electro-optical device further control the absorption characteristic of the absorber, by controlling the power supply signal provided to the absorber (Kim et al., Fig. 3; Fig. 4C; Para. 32; current ISA applied to the saturable absorber is set such that the transparent output optical power of the saturable absorber is equal to or higher than the saturation input optical power of the optical amplifier).
However, the present combination does not expressly disclose a controller.
Medhi discloses a controller (Fig. 2.1; Page 2, third paragraph; the central processing unit (CPU). Once the program is in the memory, the operation system then schedules the CPU to begin executing the program instructions. Each instruction to be executed must first be retrieved from memory).
It would have been obvious to add a controller in order to automate the system. The present combination discloses the claimed invention except for a controller that automates the process described by the present combination. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to implement the disclosed process with an absorber controller, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAI M LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:5:30 PM.
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.
JAI M. LEE
Examiner
Art Unit 2634
/JAI M LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights