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 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.
Claim 1-12 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, inter alia, “the bidirectional optical interface is configured to output a combined optical signal and receiving a combined optical signal input from outside.” The grammatical inconsistency between “configured to output” and “receiving” renders the scope of the limitation unclear. It is unclear whether the bidirectional optical interface is configured to both output and receive a combined optical signal, or whether the receiving language is intended to recite a separate capability. Accordingly, claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 further recites “the circulator assembly comprises a common optical port, an optical output port, and at least one optical incident port,” and later recites “the wavelength division multiplexing assembly is configured to combine the at least eight transmission-end optical signals from the optical transmission assembly and transmit them to the optical incident port.” Because claim 1 recites “at least one optical incident port” but later refers to “the optical incident port” in the singular, it is unclear whether the claimed transmission is directed to one optical incident port, multiple optical incident ports, or all optical incident ports. As a result, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Claim 1 further recites that “the wavelength division demultiplexing assembly is configured to demultiplex the combined optical signal output from the optical output port into at least eight reception-end optical signals” and that “the optical reception assembly is configured to receive the at least eight reception-end optical signals from the wavelength division demultiplexing assembly.” However, claim 1 does not clearly define the structural relationship between the wavelength division demultiplexing assembly and the optical reception assembly such that it is unclear whether the optical reception assembly includes arrays, discrete receivers, or other structure. The claim therefore recites functional language without clearly defining the structure that performs the recited function.
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and incorporates the indefiniteness of claim 1. Additionally, claim 2 recites “each of the first multiplexers being configured to combine four transmission-end optical signals transmitted from the optical transmission assembly into one first combined optical signal and output it.” The phrase “and output it” is unclear because it does not identify the antecedent for “it” with sufficient precision in the context of the claim. Accordingly, claim 2 is indefinite.
Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and incorporates the indefiniteness of claims 1-2. Claim 3 recites “each of the optical incident ports being arranged in one-to-one correspondence with each of the first multiplexers” and “each optical incident port is configured to receive the first combined optical signal output from the first multiplexer corresponding to it.” The claim language does not clearly specify whether the correspondence is mandatory between each incident port and a respective first multiplexer, or whether the claim encompasses additional ports and multiplexers beyond the stated one-to-one correspondence. This lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 4 depends from claim 3 and incorporates the indefiniteness of claims 1-3. Claim 4 recites “each of polarization beam splitting surfaces and reflecting surfaces is inclined with respect to the first and second directions.” This language is indefinite because it is unclear which surfaces are being referenced. The claim does not expressly identify the specific beam splitting surfaces and reflecting surfaces to which the limitation applies, even though multiple such surfaces are previously recited. Accordingly, the scope of the phrase is unclear.
Claim 4 further recites “each optical signal is input or output the circulator assembly in the first direction or the second direction.” This wording is grammatically incomplete and unclear as to whether the optical signal is input to, output from, or both input to and output from the circulator assembly. Therefore, claim 4 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention.
Claim 5 depends from claim 3 and incorporates the indefiniteness of claims 1-3. Claim 5 recites “each of polarization beam splitting surfaces and reflecting surfaces is inclined with respect to the first and second directions.” As with claim 4, this limitation is indefinite because it does not clearly identify the specific surfaces encompassed by the phrase.
Claim 5 further recites a multi-step optical signal path including that “the two first combined optical signals incident from the two optical incident ports are combined into a fourth combined optical signal by the third polarization beam splitter assembly,” and then recites subsequent splitting and combining by other assemblies. However, the claim does not clearly define the structural cooperation among these components in a manner that distinctly bounds the claim, particularly where the recited operations depend on the orientation and function of the individual optical surfaces. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim remain unclear.
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and incorporates the indefiniteness of claim 1. Claim 6 recites “an eight-in-one second multiplexer” and that “the second multiplexer is configured to combine the eight transmission-end optical signals it receives into a seventh combined optical signal and transmit the seventh combined optical signal to the circulator assembly.” The claim is unclear as to whether “eight-in-one” merely describes the input count, the output count, or a particular physical structure. The claim also recites “the eight transmission-end optical signals it receives” without clearly identifying the source and routing of those signals in the claim language. Accordingly, claim 6 is indefinite.
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and incorporates the indefiniteness of claim 1. Claim 7 recites “a first periscope and/or a second periscope.” The phrase “and/or” renders the scope of the claim ambiguous because it is unclear whether the claim requires the first periscope, the second periscope, or both, and how the claim scope changes depending on which is present. The claim further recites that the first periscope and second periscope are arranged relative to multiple assemblies, but the positional relationships are not clearly stated in a manner that distinctly identifies the required structure. Accordingly, claim 7 is indefinite.
Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and incorporates the indefiniteness of claim 1. Claim 8 recites that “the substrate has two surfaces arranged opposite to each other, and the circulator assembly, the optical transmission assembly, the wavelength division multiplexing assembly, the optical reception assembly, and the wavelength division demultiplexing assembly are all disposed on one of the surfaces of the substrate.” The phrase “one of the surfaces” is ambiguous because it is unclear whether all recited components are on the same single surface, whether the claim permits varying placement across either surface, or whether the claim excludes mixed placement. As a result, claim 8 does not particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter.
Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and incorporates the indefiniteness of claim 1. Claim 9 recites that “the bidirectional optical interface and the circulator assembly are disposed on either the first surface or the second surface,” and further that “the second periscope spans from the first surface side of the substrate to the second surface side.” The phrase “either the first surface or the second surface” is ambiguous because it is unclear whether the bidirectional optical interface and circulator assembly are alternatively disposed on one surface or the other, or whether a mixed arrangement is included. This renders the positional relationship of the components unclear.
Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and incorporates the indefiniteness of claim 1. Claim 10 recites “an optical isolator is disposed between the wavelength division multiplexing assembly and the optical incident port of the circulator assembly, for unidirectionally passing the optical signal output from the wavelength division multiplexing assembly.” The phrase “for unidirectionally passing” is functional and does not clearly define the structure or the extent of the unidirectional operation. The claim therefore fails to distinctly define the bounds of the subject matter.
Claim 11 depends from claim 1 and incorporates the indefiniteness of claim 1. Claim 11 recites that “the first demultiplexer is configured to demultiplex the combined optical signal output from the optical output port into four reception-end optical signals and an eighth combined optical signal.” The claim does not clearly specify the basis for distinguishing the “combined optical signal” from the “eighth combined optical signal,” nor does it define the structural or wavelength relationship between them in a manner that clearly delineates claim scope. Accordingly, claim 11 is indefinite.
Claim 12 depends from claim 1 and incorporates the indefiniteness of claim 1. Claim 12 recites that “the third demultiplexer is configured to demultiplex the combined optical signal output from the optical output port into eight reception-end optical signals.” While the recitation itself is generally understandable, claim 12 remains indefinite because it depends from claim 1, which is indefinite for the reasons stated above, and because the claim does not clearly define the structural basis of the demultiplexing assembly beyond functional language.
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 1–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2015/0295658 A1) in view of Hwang (US 2001/0038478 A1) and further in view of Huang et al. (US 2005/0018967 A1).
Claim 1 recites an optical transceiver module comprising a housing, circuit board, bidirectional optical interface, circulator assembly, optical transmission assembly, wavelength division multiplexing assembly, optical reception assembly, and wavelength division demultiplexing assembly. Chen et al. teach a transceiver module having a fiber ferrule, circulator subassembly, multiplexer/demultiplexer subassembly, optical transmitting subassembly, and optical receiving subassembly configured for single-fiber bidirectional communication. See paragraphs [0005], [0014], [0023]–[0029], and [0034]–[0039]. Huang et al. teach packaging such optical components in a compact plug-in communications module having a casing, duplex plug, and receptacle or pigtail arrangement. See paragraphs [0037]–[0039], [0109]–[0116]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the optical transceiver of Chen et al. to include the plug-in module packaging and optical interface arrangement taught by Huang et al. in order to provide a compact, integrated, single-fiber bidirectional optical transceiver module. Hwang further teaches wavelength-management and isolation structures for bidirectional WDM systems, which would have suggested the claimed wavelength division multiplexing and demultiplexing arrangements. See paragraphs [0040]–[0049] and [0059]–[0067].
Accordingly, claim 1 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of the cited references.
Claim 2 recites that the wavelength division multiplexing assembly comprises at least two four-in-one first multiplexers. Chen et al. teach multi-channel wavelength multiplexing and demultiplexing, including 8-channel and 16-channel configurations. See paragraph [0015]. Hwang teaches modular wavelength managing modules and multi-port wavelength routing structures for processing optical signals of different wavelengths. See paragraphs [0040]–[0049] and [0059]–[0067]. It would have been obvious to partition the multiplexing function into multiple grouped multiplexers, such as two four-in-one multiplexers, as a predictable variation of known multi-channel WDM structures for handling an eight-channel system.
Claim 3 recites that the circulator assembly comprises at least two optical incident ports in one-to-one correspondence with the first multiplexers. Chen et al. teach a circulator subassembly with multiple ports for routing optical signals between the multiplexer/demultiplexer and the fiber ferrule. See paragraphs [0006] and [0023]. Hwang further teaches multiple-port wavelength managing modules and routing elements having multiple input/output ends. See paragraphs [0057]–[0067]. It would have been obvious to provide multiple optical incident ports corresponding to separate multiplexers to facilitate modular routing of combined optical signals.
Claim 4 recites a circulator assembly comprising a first polarization beam splitter assembly, a polarization adjustment assembly, and a second polarization beam splitter assembly arranged along first and second directions, with specific polarization routing.
Huang et al. teaches circulator structures employing polarization beam splitters, Faraday rotators, birefringent wedges, wave plates, and mirrors to direct light in a nonreciprocal manner. See paragraphs [0044]–[0052], [0062]–[0071], [0074]–[0080], and [0089]–[0104]. The reference also teaches that alternate optical components may be substituted to achieve the same circulator function. See paragraphs [0062], [0071], [0080], [0088], [0096], and [0102]–[0104]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the polarization-based circulator arrangements of Huang et al. in the optical transceiver of Chen et al., as both references are directed to bidirectional single-fiber optical communication systems. The selection and arrangement of known polarization optical elements to route light in the claimed manner constitutes a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Claim 5 recites a more complex circulator assembly including first, second, and third polarization beam splitter assemblies, a polarization adjustment assembly, and a specific optical routing path. Huang et al. teach multiple alternate circulator cores using polarization beam splitters, wave plates, Faraday rotators, birefringent wedges, mirrors, and beam displacers. See paragraphs [0062]–[0071], [0072]–[0080], [0081]–[0088], [0089]–[0104]. These disclosures demonstrate that optical circulators may be configured in a variety of forms to accomplish the same bidirectional routing function. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the circulator of Chen et al. using the alternate polarization-based optical core teachings of Huang et al. in view of the general bidirectional WDM routing principles of Hwang.
Claim 6 recites that the wavelength division multiplexing assembly comprises an eight-in-one second multiplexer. Chen et al. expressly teach multi-channel coupling and channel counts including 8 channels. See paragraph [0015]. Hwang teaches modular wavelength managing modules capable of handling multiple wavelengths and routing them bidirectionally. See paragraphs [0040]–[0049] and [0059]–[0067]. It would have been obvious to implement the multiplexing function as an eight-in-one multiplexer as a straightforward scaling of known WDM multiplexing structures.
Claims 7–9 recite first and/or second periscopes, substrate arrangements, and component placement on one or both surfaces of a substrate. Huang et al. teach compact module packaging using a casing, duplex connectors, pigtails, receptacles, and integrated circulator packaging. See paragraphs [0037]–[0039], [0109]–[0116]. The reference also teaches that optical components may be arranged in various orientations and locations within the module. See paragraphs [0071], [0080], [0088], [0096], [0102], and [0112]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the optical components on one or more substrate surfaces and to use optical deflection structures or equivalent routing members to accommodate compact packaging constraints and improve module integration.
Claim 10 recites an optical isolator disposed between the wavelength division multiplexing assembly and the optical incident port of the circulator assembly.
Hwang expressly teaches the use of an optical isolator between wavelength-managing components to improve isolation and suppress interference. See paragraphs [0046]–[0049]. Chen et al. also teaches the use of optical isolators in the optical path. See paragraph [0007]. It would have been obvious to place an optical isolator between the multiplexing assembly and the circulator in order to improve optical isolation and stability.
Claim 11 recites a wavelength division demultiplexing assembly comprising a first demultiplexer and a second demultiplexer, wherein the first demultiplexer separates the combined optical signal into four reception-end optical signals and an eighth combined optical signal, and the second demultiplexer further separates the eighth combined optical signal. Chen et al. teach wavelength demultiplexing of combined optical signals into multiple reception-end optical signals, including 8-channel and 16-channel arrangements. See paragraphs [0013], [0015], [0025], [0028], and [0029]. Hwang teaches wavelength managing modules that separate and route odd and even wavelength groups, and modular decomposition of multi-channel WDM signals. See paragraphs [0042]–[0049] and [0059]–[0067]. It would have been obvious to implement the demultiplexing assembly using a cascaded demultiplexer arrangement as a predictable implementation of known WDM separation techniques.
Claim 12 recites a one-to-eight third demultiplexer configured to demultiplex the combined optical signal into eight reception-end optical signals. Chen et al. teaches multi-wavelength demultiplexing and expressly contemplates 8-channel operation. See paragraphs [0015], [0025], [0028], and [0029]. Hwang likewise teaches modular multi-channel wavelength management and decomposition. See paragraphs [0040]–[0049] and [0059]–[0067]. It would have been obvious to use a one-to-eight demultiplexer as a straightforward scaling of known WDM demultiplexing structures for an eight-channel optical transceiver.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUAN ZHEN WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 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.
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.
/QUAN ZHEN WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights