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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-18 are pending in this action.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on July 22, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US 11,888,613 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed July 22, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments:
On page 9 of the remark, Applicant argued that the limitation "the encoding including an error decorrelation interleaving that randomizes correlated errors in the first codewords to reduce correlation of noise samples and resultant data errors" recited in claim 1 of the '414 patent is not recited in the pending claim 1.
In Responses:
Examiner disagreed that the double rejection should not be rejected because the current application does not recite “the encoding including an error decorrelation interleaving that randomizes correlated errors in the first codewords to reduce correlation of noise samples and resultant data errors”. Therefore, the current application is broader and has a fewer requirement. It is an obvious variation of the claimed subject matter of independent claims of patent US 12,184,414. As such, the double patent rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments:
On page 9 of the remark, Applicant argued that the limitation such as “outputting blocks of a predetermined number of consecutive bits from the first codewords in a sequence that increases resilience to bursts of errors” recited in the pending claim 1 is not recited in claim 1 of the '414 patent.
In Responses:
Examiner disagreed because Applicant fails to explain how this limitation ““outputting blocks of a predetermined number of consecutive bits from the first codewords in a sequence that increases resilience to bursts of errors” is different from “that “…spread a transmission order of the first codeword”
Applicant should submit an argument under the heading “Remarks” pointing out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions. Applicant must also discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish them.
Examiner disagreed because Applicant does not clearly define “predetermined number of consecutive bits” in the recited claim and how it would “that increases resilience to bursts of errors”. The predetermined number can be any number of consecutive bits. Therefore, the “…spread a transmission order of the first codeword” of ‘414 is well-known in the art to add a predetermined number of consecutive bits in the codeword so that it can reduce the noise. As such, it is an obvious variation of the claimed subject matter of independent claims of patent US 12,184,414. Thus, the double patent rejection is maintained.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,184,414. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the following:
Instant Application
US 12,184,414
As per claim 1:
An optical transmitter comprising:
a first encoder configured to encode data using a staircase code to generate encoded frames;
a first interleaver configured to interleave first codewords in the encoded frames using convolutional interleaving to spread a transmission order of the first codewords,
the convolutional interleaving comprising outputting blocks of a predetermined number of consecutive bits from the first codewords in a sequence
that increases resilience to bursts of errors;
a second encoder configured to encode the interleaved first codewords using a second code to generate second codewords;
a mapper configured to map the second codewords to transmit symbols;
a second interleaver configured to time interleave the transmit symbols to distribute the transmit symbols between pilot symbols; and
a frame generator configured to generate a transmit frame including the interleaved transmit symbols and the pilot symbols,
wherein the optical transmitter is configured to transmit the generated transmit frame to a receiver over a communication channel.
As per claim 1:
An optical transmitter comprising:
a first encoder configured to encode data using a staircase code to generate first codewords, …
a first interleaver configured to interleave the first codewords using convolutional interleaving to spread a transmission order of the first codewords;
convolutional interleaving to spread a transmission order of the first codeword
reduce correlation of noise samples and resultant data errors;
a second encoder configured to encode the interleaved first codewords using a second code to generate second codewords;
a mapper configured to map the second codewords to transmit symbols;
a second interleaver configured to interleave the transmit symbols to distribute the transmit symbols between pilot symbols; and
a frame generator configured to generate a transmit frame including the interleaved transmit symbols and the pilot symbols,
wherein the optical transmitter is configured to transmit the generated transmit frame to a receiver over a communication channel.
As per claim 2:
wherein the staircase code is a recursive block-wise forward error correction code and wherein the first encoder is configured to: map data symbols in the data to a series of two-dimensional blocks; and compute, using the staircase code, coding symbols across the blocks to encode the blocks such that concatenating a row of a matrix transpose of a preceding encoded block with a corresponding row of a subsequent block being encoded forms a valid codeword.
As per claim 3:
wherein the staircase code is a recursive block-wise forward error correction code and wherein the first encoder is configured to: map data symbols in the data to a series of two-dimensional blocks; and compute, using the staircase code, coding symbols across the blocks to encode the blocks such that concatenating a row of a matrix transpose of a preceding encoded block with a corresponding row of a subsequent block being encoded forms a valid codeword.
As per claim 3:
wherein when encoding the subsequent block, the first encoder is configured to select the coding symbols in a first row of the subsequent block so that i) a first row of the matrix transpose of the preceding encoded block, ii) the data symbols of the first row of the subsequent block, and iii) the coding symbols of the same row of the subsequent block together form the valid codeword.
As per claim 4:
wherein when encoding the subsequent block, the first encoder is configured to select the coding symbols in a first row of the subsequent block so that i) a first row of the matrix transpose of the preceding encoded block, ii) the data symbols of the first row of the subsequent block, and iii) the coding symbols of the same row of the subsequent block together form the valid codeword.
As per claim 4:
wherein the encoded blocks have a staircase structure that includes alternating encoded blocks and matrix transposes of the encoded blocks, and wherein each two-block wide row along a stair tread and each two-block high column along a stair riser form the valid codeword
As per claim 4:
wherein the encoded blocks have a staircase structure that includes alternating encoded blocks and matrix transposes of the encoded blocks, and wherein each two-block wide row along a stair tread and each two-block high column along a stair riser form the valid codeword.
As per claim 5:
wherein the second code is a Hamming code and wherein: the first interleaver is configured to output the interleaved first codewords in an array of i columns and j rows; and the second encoder is configured to encode a selected number of bits from an i.sup.th block of the array using the Hamming code to generate an encoded codeword, the number of bits being selected based on a type of the Hamming code, and to insert the encoded codeword into a j.sup.th row of the array.
As per claim 6:
wherein the second code is a Hamming code and wherein: the first interleaver is configured to output the interleaved first codewords in an array of i columns and j rows; and the second encoder is configured to encode a selected number of bits from an i.sup.th block of the array using the Hamming code to generate an encoded codeword, the number of bits being selected based on a type of the Hamming code, and to insert the encoded codeword into a j.sup.th row of the array.
As per claim 6:
wherein the mapper is configured to map the second codewords to the transmit symbols using Gray code mapping.
As per claim 7:
wherein the mapper is configured to map the second codewords to the transmit symbols using Gray code mapping.
As per claim 7:
wherein the pilot symbols include a bit sequence that is encoded and mapped to the transmit symbols.
As per claim 8:
wherein the pilot symbols include a bit sequence that is encoded and mapped to the transmit symbols.
As per claim 8:
wherein the pilot symbols include a bit sequence to synchronize the pilot symbols with the second codewords.
As per claim 8:
wherein the pilot symbols include a bit sequence to synchronize the pilot symbols with the second codewords.
As per claim 9:
wherein:the transmit symbols include dual polarized quadrature amplitude modulated symbols; and the pilot symbols include a polarization identification code to detect and avoid polarization collision.
As per claim 9:
wherein: the transmit symbols include dual polarized quadrature amplitude modulated symbols; and the pilot symbols include a polarization identification code to detect and avoid polarization collision.
One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize independent claims of current application is an obvious variation of the claimed subject matter of independent claims of patent US 12,184,414.
Specifically, both claims of the current application and patent US 12,184,414 discloses an optical transmitter comprising a first encoder, a first interleaver, a second encoder, a mapper, a second interleaver, a frame generator with the identical method of generating transmit frame to receiver. The primary difference of the current application recite “in a sequence that increases resilience to bursts of errors” limitation instead of “reduce correlation of noise…” limitation. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that both limitations are for reducing errors.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the current application and US 12,184,414 are such obvious variants of each other.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THIEN DANG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9189. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 AM - 3:30 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, Mark Featherstone can be reached at 571-270-3750. 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.
/Thien Nguyen/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2111
Prosecution Insights