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
Claim 16 is 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 16 recites the limitation "other laser emitter." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Changing the element to “the other laser emitter” would cure the deficiency as “another laser emitter” is introduced in claim 10.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-8, 10, and 15-17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmer (US Pat. App. Pub. 2020/0280373 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Palmer teaches A coherent optical transmission system, comprising: a first optical transceiver (FIG. 3) each comprising: a laser emitter configured to emit an initial light (FIG. 3: 105); an optical splitting module optically coupled to the laser emitter (FIG. 3: 115), and the optical splitting module configured to divide the initial light into a reference light and a signal light (Id.); an optical modulator optically coupled to the optical splitting module (FIG. 3: 120), and the optical modulator configured to modulate the signal light (Id.); an optical mixer optically coupled to the optical splitting module (FIG. 3: 130); and an optical detector optically coupled to the optical mixer (it’s inherent that there be an optical detector for converting the received signal to electrical), wherein the optical mixer of the first optical transceiver is configured to mix the reference light of the first optical transceiver and the signal light of the second optical transceiver (FIG. 3: 130)
Palmer does not teach and a second optical transceiver and the optical mixer of the second optical transceiver is configured to mix the reference light of the second optical transceiver and the signal light of the first optical transceiver
However, in accordance with MPEP 2144.03, official notice is being taken that it would have been common knowledge for a person of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the transceiver taught in FIG. 3 of Palmer and have the duplicate transceiver connected to the first transceiver for bidirectional communication, thus implicitly teaching: and a second optical transceiver and the optical mixer of the second optical transceiver is configured to mix the reference light of the second optical transceiver and the signal light of the first optical transceiver
Regarding Claims 7 and 16, Palmer teaches The coherent optical transmission system of claim 1, wherein each of the first optical transceiver and the second optical transceiver comprises the laser emitter without other laser emitter. (FIG. 3: 105)
Regarding Claims 8 and 17, Palmer teaches The coherent optical transmission system of claim 1, wherein the optical mixer of the first optical transceiver only receives the reference light of the first optical transceiver and the signal light of the second optical transceiver, and the optical mixer of the second optical transceiver only receives the reference light of the second optical transceiver and the signal light of the first optical transceiver. (FIG. 3: 120, 130)
Regarding Claim 10, Palmer teaches An optical transceiver of a coherence optical transmission system, the optical transceiver comprising: a laser emitter configured to emit an initial light (FIG. 3: 105); an optical splitting module optically coupled to the laser emitter (FIG. 3: 115), and the optical splitting module configured to divide the initial light into a first reference light (FIG. 3: 130) and a first signal light (FIG. 3: 120); an optical modulator optically coupled to the optical splitting module (FIG. 3: 120), and the optical modulator configured to modulate the first signal light (Id.); an optical mixer optically coupled to the optical splitting module (FIG. 3: 130), and the optical mixer configured to mix the first reference light and a second signal light (Id.); and an optical detector optically coupled to the optical mixer. (it’s inherent that the receiver include an optical detector for converting the optical signal to electrical).
However, in accordance with MPEP 2144.03, official notice is being taken that it would have been common knowledge for a person of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the transceiver taught in FIG. 3 of Palmer and have the duplicate transceiver connected to the first transceiver for bidirectional communication i.e. emitting a second signal with a different laser, thus implicitly teaching: wherein the second signal light comes from another laser emitter different from the laser emitter
Claim(s) 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmer (US Pat. App. Pub. 2020/0280373 A1) in light of Qureshi (US Pat. App. Pub. 2023/0269001 A1).
Regarding Claims 2 and 11, Palmer teaches The coherent optical transmission system of claim 1, wherein the optical splitting module comprises: an optical splitter optically coupled to the laser emitter (FIG. 3: 115), and the optical splitter configured to divide the initial light into the reference light and the signal light (Id.);
Palmer does not teach a first wavelength selector optically coupled to the optical splitter and the optical mixer, and the first wavelength selector configured to adjust center wavelength of the reference light; and a second wavelength selector optically coupled to the optical splitter, and the second wavelength selector configured to select center wavelength of the signal light, wherein the optical modulator is optically coupled to the second wavelength selector and is configured to modulate the signal light with selected center wavelength.
Qureshi teaches a first wavelength selector optically coupled to the optical splitter and the optical mixer ([0068] (“multiwavelength laser light source 200 can be configured as a laser light source with a wavelength selective function. In one implementation, the wavelength selector is configured to exhibit a center wavelength”)), and the first wavelength selector configured to adjust center wavelength of the reference light (Id.); and a second wavelength selector optically coupled to the optical splitter (Id.), and the second wavelength selector configured to select center wavelength of the signal light (Id.), wherein the optical modulator is optically coupled to the second wavelength selector and is configured to modulate the signal light with selected center wavelength. (Id.)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the transceiver arrangement in Palmer to further include a wavelength selector between the laser and modulators and demodulators based on the teachings of Qureshi. The wavelength selector taught in Qureshi is also placed between a laser and an output and is used to adjust the wavelength being used by a transceiver (FIG. 4). It would therefore be obvious for a PHOSITA seeking to adjust the wavelength of the laser in Palmer to look to Qureshi for a laser and wavelength selector combination. Such a combination would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Wherein, the predictable result is a laser where the output is reduced to a center wavelength.
Palmer and Qureshi both relate to optical communication systems and are therefore analogous art.
Claim(s) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmer (US Pat. App. Pub. 2020/0280373 A1) in light of Qureshi (US Pat. App. Pub. 2023/0269001 A1) in further light of Wang (US Pat. App. Pub. 2016/0308075 A1).
Regarding Claim 3 and 12, the combination of Palmer and Qureshi teaches The coherent optical transmission system of claim 2,
the combination of Palmer and Qureshi does not teach wherein the first wavelength selector and/or the second wavelength selector is a distributed Bragg reflector.
Wang teaches wherein the first wavelength selector and/or the second wavelength selector is a distributed Bragg reflector. ([0204-05])
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Qureshi’s wavelength selector such that it filtered using a distributed Bragg reflector based on the teachings of Wang. Such a combination would merely be a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Palmer and Qureshi both relate to optical communication systems and are therefore analogous art.
Claim(s) 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmer (US Pat. App. Pub. 2020/0280373 A1) in light of Qureshi (US Pat. App. Pub. 2023/0269001 A1) in further light of Welch (US Pat. App. Pub. 2026/0051955 A1).
Regarding Claim 4 and 13, the combination of Palmer and Qureshi teaches The coherent optical transmission system of claim 2,
the combination of Palmer and Qureshi does not teach wherein there is a frequency difference of 25 GHz to 30 GHz between the reference light with adjusted center wavelength and the signal light.
Welch teaches wherein there is a frequency difference of 25 GHz to 30 GHz between the reference light with adjusted center wavelength and the signal light. ([0217] (“predetermined frequency of the first carrier signals is in a range between 30 GHz and 300 GHz”); [0221] (“In some embodiments, the predetermined frequency of the second carrier signals (i.e., the BB frequency) is in a range between 8 GHz and 10 GHz”))
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the frequency range difference of the signals being mixed in Palmer based on the teachings of mixed signal frequency ranges in Welch. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result.
Palmer and Welch both relate to optical communication systems and are therefore analogous art.
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmer (US Pat. App. Pub. 2020/0280373 A1) in light of Miyatake (US Pat. App. Pub. 2024/0162991 A1).
Regarding Claim 5 and 14, Palmer teaches The coherent optical transmission system of claim 1,
the combination of Palmer and Welch does not teach wherein information of the signal light is analyzed through heterodyne detection.
Miyatake teaches wherein information of the signal light is analyzed through heterodyne detection. ([0046])
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Palmer’s demodulator uses heterodyne detection based on the technique taught by Miyatake. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result.
Palmer and Miyatake both relate to optical communication systems and are therefore analogous art.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmer (US Pat. App. Pub. 2020/0280373 A1) in light of Zheng (US Pat. App. Pub. 2017/0195079 A1).
Regarding Claim 9 and 18, Palmer teaches The coherent optical transmission system of claim 1,
Palmer does not teach wherein the laser emitter is an FP laser.
Zheng teaches wherein the laser emitter is an FP laser. ([0012] (“The plurality of laser emitters may be gain chips such as, for example, Fabry-Perot (FP) laser emitters”))
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to replace the lasers taught in Palmer with the FP lasers taught in Zhang. Such a combination would merely be a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Palmer and Zhang both relate to optical communication systems and are therefore analogous art.
Claim(s) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmer (US Pat. App. Pub. 2020/0280373 A1) in light of Argyris (US Pat. App. Pub. 2023/0213835 A1).
Regarding Claim 6 and 15, Palmer teaches The coherent optical transmission system of claim 1,
Argyris teaches wherein the initial light emitted by the laser emitter is within an infrared light wavelength range. ([0067] (“for example, a fiber optic communication channel… that transmits pulses of infrared light.”))
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the transmitter taught in Palmer such that the transmitted like on an infrared wavelength as taught by Argyris. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result.
Palmer and Argyris both relate to optical communication systems and are therefore analogous art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL M BROCK whose telephone number is (571)272-7257. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30pm.
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.
/PAUL MORGAN BROCK/ Examiner, Art Unit 2634 June 22, 2026
/KENNETH N VANDERPUYE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights