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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent application JP2023-192482, filed on November 10, 2023.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 24, 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation:
“an adjustment unit that receives…”
Claim 2 recites the limitation:
“a decoding unit that decodes…”
Claim 8 recites the limitations:
“an encoding unit that precodes…”
“a decoding unit that decodes…”
Claim 10 recites the limitations:
“a coding unit that precodes…”
“an insertion unit that inserts…”
“a sampling frequency error estimation unit that determines…”
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.
Regarding claim 1 with respect to claim limitation “an adjustment unit that receives…”, the instant specification recites in [0036], inter alia, “…sampling phase synchronization unit 42 is an example of an adjustment unit that receives a digital signal output from the DGD scrambler 563…” and in FIG. 2 identified as sampling phase synchronization unit (42).
Regarding claims 2 and 8 with respect to claim limitation “a decoding unit that decodes…”, the instant specification recites in [0036], inter alia, “…THP decoding unit 43 is an example of a decoding unit that decodes a digital signal precoded based on the THP technique…” and in FIG 2. Identified as THP decoding unit (43).
Regarding claim 8 with respect to claim limitation “an encoding unit that precodes…”, the instant specification recites in [0104], inter alia, “…THP processing unit 62 is an example of an encoding unit…” and in FIG 13. identified as THP processing unit (62).
Regarding claim 10 with respect to claim limitation “a coding unit that precodes…”, the instant specification recites in [0104], inter alia, “…THP processing unit 62 is an example of an encoding unit…” and in FIG 13. identified as THP processing unit (62). The examiner interprets “a coding unit that precodes…” as functionally equivalent to “an encoding unit that precodes”.
Regarding claim 10 with respect to claim limitation “an insertion unit that inserts…”, the instant specification recites in [0106], inter alia, “…TS insertion unit 63 inserts a training sequence (TS) into each of the digital signals Hi, Hq, Vi, and Vq output from the THP processing unit 62…” and in FIG 13. identified as THP insertion unit (63).
In conclusion, limitations above are considered to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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
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.
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 1-2, 7-8, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (USPAT 8737847) in view of Yan in the article "Digital Clock Recovery Algorithm for Nyquist Signal" further in view of Zhu (USPUB 20090122854).
As per claims 1 and 7,
Li teaches an optical receive device that receives the optical signal, wherein the optical receive device includes:
a coherent receiver that receives the optical signal and outputs an electrical analog signal corresponding to the optical signal (Li teaches the optical coherent receiver (110) that is configured to receive an optical signal Rx and transmits four electrical signals within FIG. 1);
a converter (Li teaches ADCs (120, 122, 124, and 126) within FIG. 1) that converts the electrical analog signal into a digital signal;
a scrambler the scrambles a differential group delay (DGD) of the digital signal (Li teaches frequency domain equalizers (128 and 130) that receive digital signals and perform signal conditioning within Col. 3, Lines 46-55 – "the first ADC 120 and the second ADC 122 may be configured to provide a digital X-polarized signal to the first FDEQ 128, and the third ADC 124 and the fourth ADC 126 may be configured to provide a digital Y-polarized signal to the second FDEQ 130. The first FDEQ 128 and the second FDEQ 130 may comprise any suitable devices configured to receive signal components from the ADCs 120, 122, 124, and 126 and perform signal conditioning, e.g. to compensate for chromatic dispersion or other signal distortions in the signal components."); and
an adjustment unit that receives the digital signal output by the scrambler as an input and adjusts one or both of a sampling frequency and a sampling phase of the converter (Li teaches an adjustment unit (140) that adjusts one or both of a sampling frequency and a sampling phase of the ADCs (120, 122, 124, and 126) within Col. 4, Lines 47-54 – "the TED module 140 may be coupled to an analog device such as a voltage control oscillator (VCO) 180, which may be configured to control timing and sampling frequency of polarized signals based on the calculated timing error. Furthermore, each of the ADCs 120, 122, 124, and 126 may be synchronized to the VCO 180, whose operating point may be adaptively adjusted via control signals transmitted from the TED 140.") based on a power envelope (PE) method (Li teaches that adjustment unit (140) may employ various timing recovery methods within Col. 5, Lines 46-48 – "the TED module 140 may employ any suitable timing recovery algorithm.").
Although Li does not specifically mention scrambling as a form of signal conditioning, it discloses signal conditioning as a method of compensating for signal distortions in signal components. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that DGD scrambling is a well-known form of bit-level signal conditioning that compensates for polarization mode dispersion, and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that scrambling can be incorporated into the signal conditioning process taught by Li.
Li does not specifically teach the use of a PE method as a suitable timing recovery method.
However, Yan teaches that the PE method is a suitable timing recovery algorithm for Nyquist signals with a sinc pulse shape (Page 1 – “Conventional Gardner clock recovery method fails on Nyquist signal with sinc pulse shape. A novel algorithm is proposed and verified by experiment.”). Furthermore, Yan teaches that a transmitted pulse will likely have a sinc shape in order to achieve minimal signal bandwidth without introducing intersymbol interference (Page 1 – “The Nyquist pulse shaping is an attractive means to enable high spectral efficiency coherent optical communication. To achieve minimal signal bandwidth without introducing inter-symbol interference, the transmitted pulse should have sinc shape.”). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to transmit pulses with a sinc shape in order to improve the performance of an optical communication system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the PE method taught by Yan into the adjustment unit taught by Li to correct sampling frequency and sampling phase errors.
Li does not teach an optical transmit device that applies a predetermined technique for reducing intersymbol interference of a transmission line to a first digital signal and transmits an optical signal corresponding to the first digital signal.
However, Zhu teaches an optical transmit device (Zhu teaches transmitter (1100) and pre-coding component (1102) that transmits precoded data streams (1110) within [0107] – “transmitter 1100, which may be included in a variety of devices or apparatus, which includes a pre-coding component 1102 for pre-coding the information data streams prior to transmitting the precoded data streams 1110 to a receiver 1120”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the receiver taught by Li with the transmitter taught by Zhu to produce an optical receive and transmission system that compensates for intersymbol interference.
As per claims 2 and 8, the combination of Li, Yan, and Zhu teaches claims 1 and 7.
Li does not teach an encoding unit that precodes the first digital signal based on a Tomlinson-Harashima precoding (THP) technique, and wherein the optical receive device includes a decoding unit that decodes the second digital signal based on the THP technique. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the THP technique as a well-known method to compensate for intersymbol interference, and would be motivated to incorporate it into a transmitter to improve data quality and reliability. Furthermore, the use of THP on the transmitting end implies the presence of a decoder on the receiving end.
As per claims 12 and 13, the combination of Li, Yan, and Zhu teaches claims 1 and 7.
Li utilizes FDEQs (128, 130) to compensate for signal distortion via signal conditioning (Col. 3, Lines 50-55). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize intersymbol interference as a form of signal distortion. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a THP technique as a predetermined technique for reducing intersymbol interference of a transmission line (i.e., signal conditioning), as THP is a well-known technique in the art.
Claims 10-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Li (USPAT 8737847), Zhu (USPUB 20090122854), and Buchali (EP 2639977).
As per claim 10,
Li teaches a coherent receiver that receives the optical signal and outputs an electrical analog signal corresponding to the optical signal (Li teaches the optical coherent receiver (110) that is configured to receive an optical signal Rx and transmits four electrical signals within FIG. 1),
a converter that converts the electrical analog signal into a second digital signal (Li teaches ADCs (120, 122, 124, and 126) within FIG. 1),
a sampling phase compensator that compensates for a sampling phase of the optical signal based on a coefficient updated by adaptive equalization processing on the second digital signal (Li teaches an adjustment unit (140) that adjusts one or both of a sampling frequency and a sampling phase of the ADCs (120, 122, 124, and 126) within Col. 4, Lines 47-54 – "the TED module 140 may be coupled to an analog device such as a voltage control oscillator (VCO) 180, which may be configured to control timing and sampling frequency of polarized signals based on the calculated timing error. Furthermore, each of the ADCs 120, 122, 124, and 126 may be synchronized to the VCO 180, whose operating point may be adaptively adjusted via control signals transmitted from the TED 140.").
Li does not teach a coding unit that precodes an electrical first digital signal using a predetermined technique for reducing intersymbol interference of a transmission line.
However, Zhu teaches a coding unit that precodes an electrical first digital signal using a predetermined technique for reducing intersymbol interference of a transmission line (Zhu teaches transmitter (1100) and pre-coding component (1102) that transmits precoded data streams (1110) within [0107] – “transmitter 1100, which may be included in a variety of devices or apparatus, which includes a pre-coding component 1102 for pre-coding the information data streams prior to transmitting the precoded data streams 1110 to a receiver 1120”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate a technique for reducing intersymbol interference of a transmission line into a transmitter to improve data quality and reliability. Furthermore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to implement the technique via some sort of precoder.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the precoding component and transmitter taught by Zhu for use with the coherent receiver taught by Li in order to improve data quality and reliability between the two devices.
Neither Li nor Zhu teach an insertion unit that inserts a training sequence including a plurality of identical patterns to the first digital signal after being precoded, a modulator that modulates, into the optical signal, the first digital signal to which the training sequence has been inserted.
However, Buchali teaches training symbols that comprise a plurality of patterns that may be identical ([0007]), a sampling frequency error estimation unit (carrier frequency estimation and compensation unit 104 within FIG.1 and [0030]) that determines a start position of the training sequence included in the second digital signal based on correlation of the identical patterns before compensating for the sampling phase (Buchali teaches synchronization based on the correlation of two succeeding subsequences of samples within [0039]).
Although Buchali does not explicitly teach estimating a sampling frequency error of the converter based on a sample number difference between a first sample number based on the start position and a second sample number of the training sequency at the optical transmit device and a sample number ratio between the first sample number and the second sample number, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a sample number difference may indicate the offset between the start of the frame and the start of the training sequence in the received signal, and that a sample number ratio may be used to scale or align a training sequence to a start position. One of ordinary skill in the art would also recognize these quantities as factors of sampling frequency error. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to estimate a sampling frequency error of a converter based on sample number difference and a sample number ratio and incorporate it into the optical receive and transmission system taught by Li in combination with Zhu.
As per claim 11, the combination of Li, Zhu, and Buchali teaches claim 10.
Buchali teaches carrier frequency estimation and compensation unit (104) which compensates for an offset between the carrier frequency of the received optical signal and the frequency of a local oscillator used within the coherent receiver ([0030]).
Although Buchali does not explicitly teach the usage of a sample number difference or sample number ratio, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize these quantities as factors of sampling frequency error. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to estimate and compensate for a sampling frequency error of a converter based on sample number difference and a sample number ratio.
As per claim 14, the combination of Li, Zhu, and Buchali teaches claim 10.
Li utilizes FDEQs (128, 130) to compensate for signal distortion via signal conditioning (Col. 3, Lines 50-55). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize intersymbol interference as a form of signal distortion. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a THP technique as a predetermined technique for reducing intersymbol interference of a transmission line (i.e., signal conditioning), as THP is a well-known technique in the art.
It is noted that any citations to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2123.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, and 9 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for objecting the claims as allowable subject matter:
As to claim 3, prior art of record does not teach or suggest the following limitations mentioned within claim 3: "wherein the scrambler compensates for a frequency error between the digital signal and sampling before compensating for the sampling phase, and outputs a predetermined signal obtained by randomly changing one or both of a first variable and a second variable, the first variable being related to polarization rotation of the optical signal, the second variable being related to a group delay time difference, and wherein the adjustment unit detects a sampling phase error of the predetermined signal based on a coefficient updated by adaptive equalization processing on the digital signal output by the converter and the PE method, and adjusts one or both of the sampling frequency and the sampling phase based on the sampling phase error."
As to claims 4-6, claims 4-6 depend on objected allowable claim 3, therefore the claims are not taught by the prior art of record.
As to claim 9, prior art of record does not teach or suggest the following limitations mentioned within claim 9: “wherein the scrambler compensates for a frequency error between the second digital signal and sampling before compensating for the sampling phase, and outputs a predetermined signal obtained by randomly changing one or both of a first variable and a second variable, the first variable being related to polarization rotation of the optical signal, the second variable being related to a group delay time difference, and wherein the adjustment unit detects a sampling phase error of the predetermined signal based on a coefficient updated by adaptive equalization processing on the second digital signal output by the converter and the PE method, and adjusts one or both of the sampling frequency and the sampling phase based on the sampling phase error.”
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB ETHAN DELA ROSA-FRIO whose telephone number is (571)270-5776. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 08:30 - 17:00 EST.
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 C 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.
/JACOB ETHAN DELA ROSA-FRIO/Examiner, Art Unit 2635
/DAVID C PAYNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights