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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 12, 16-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ‘678 (JP 6829678B2).
Regarding Claim 1, A method of operating a coherent transmitter in a time division multiple access (TDMA) system ([0004]), the method comprising steps of: operating in an OFF state while the coherent transmitter is not assigned to transmit data in the TDMA system ([0037] “the OLT is idle in a non-signal section between burst signals in the uplink with respect to a predetermined specific ONU. The specific ONU includes an instruction unit that gives an instruction to insert a dummy signal which is a signal, and the specific ONU inserts the burst signal from the wavelength variable laser into the non-signal section after emitting the burst signal from the wavelength variable laser in response to the instruction.”; [0046-52]; FIG. 2), wherein operating in the OFF state comprises generating a dummy laser output having a dummy frequency different from an active frequency used to transmit data in the TDMA system (Id.); and operating in an ON state while the coherent transmitter is assigned to transmit data in the TDMA system (Id.), wherein operating in the ON state comprises generating an active laser output having the active frequency and modulating the active laser output using a modulator (Id.).
Regarding Claim 6, ‘678 teaches The method of claim 1, wherein: operating in the OFF state comprises setting a laser to the dummy frequency to generate the dummy laser output; and operating in the ON state comprises setting the laser to the active frequency to generate the active laser output. ([0037] “the OLT is idle in a non-signal section between burst signals in the uplink with respect to a predetermined specific ONU. The specific ONU includes an instruction unit that gives an instruction to insert a dummy signal which is a signal, and the specific ONU inserts the burst signal from the wavelength variable laser into the non-signal section after emitting the burst signal from the wavelength variable laser in response to the instruction.”; [0046-52]; FIG. 2)
Regarding Claim 12, ‘678 teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the operating in the OFF state comprises controlling the modulator using the dummy laser output. (FIG. 4: 45; FIG. 2)
Regarding Claim 16, ‘678 teaches The method of claim 1, wherein a coherent receiver in the TDMA system is locked to the active frequency and the dummy frequency is rejected by the coherent receiver. ([0051, 0069])
Regarding Claim 17, ‘678 teaches The method of claim 16, wherein the coherent transmitter is at an optical network unit (ONU) in a passive optical network (PON) sharing an upstream channel with a plurality of additional ONUs (FIG. 4: 47), and the coherent receiver is at an optical line terminal (OLT) in the PON (FIG. 4: 11).
Regarding Claim 18, ‘678 teaches A coherent transmitter configured for time division multiple access (TDMA) burst transmission ([0004]), the coherent transmitter comprising: one or more lasers comprising either i) a single laser tunable between an active frequency for the TDMA burst transmission and a dummy frequency different from the active frequency, ([0037] “the OLT is idle in a non-signal section between burst signals in the uplink with respect to a predetermined specific ONU. The specific ONU includes an instruction unit that gives an instruction to insert a dummy signal which is a signal, and the specific ONU inserts the burst signal from the wavelength variable laser into the non-signal section after emitting the burst signal from the wavelength variable laser in response to the instruction.”; [0046-52]; FIG. 2), or ii) two lasers including an active laser to output the active frequency and a dummy laser to output the dummy frequency; and a modulator configured to receive an output of the one or more lasers, (FIG. 4: 45) wherein at least one of the one or more lasers are always on to provide laser stability (FIG. 2).
Regarding Claim 20, ‘678 teaches A passive optical network (PON) comprising: an optical line terminal (OLT) (FIG. 4: 11); and a plurality of optical network units (ONUs) configured to optically connect to the OLT via an optical distribution network (ODU) (FIG. 1), wherein each of the plurality of ONUs include one or more lasers (FIG. 4: 47); and a modulator configured to receive an output of the one or more lasers (FIG. 4: 45), wherein the output of the one or more lasers has a dummy frequency while an ONU is not assigned to transmit data to the OLT and has an active frequency while the ONU is assigned to transmit data to the OLT. ([0037] “the OLT is idle in a non-signal section between burst signals in the uplink with respect to a predetermined specific ONU. The specific ONU includes an instruction unit that gives an instruction to insert a dummy signal which is a signal, and the specific ONU inserts the burst signal from the wavelength variable laser into the non-signal section after emitting the burst signal from the wavelength variable laser in response to the instruction.”; [0046-52]; FIG. 2)
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) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘678 (JP 6829678B2) in light of Shiozaki (US Pat. App. Pub. 2002/0097484A1).
Regarding Claim 2, ‘678 teaches The method of claim 1,
Shiozaki teaches wherein: operating in the OFF state comprises generating the dummy laser output using a dummy laser; and operating in the ON state comprises generating the active laser output using an active laser. (FIG. 4: 20, 124)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify ‘678 to use two lasers to transmit the active and dummy signals respectively based on the teachings of Shiozaki. Such a combination would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
‘678 and Shiozaki both relate to optical communication systems and are therefore analogous art.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of ‘678 and Shiozaki teaches The method of claim 2, wherein the steps further include combining outputs of the active laser and the dummy laser (Shiozaki, FIG. 4: 114) for an input to the modulator (‘678, FIG. 3: 45) via a coupler (it’s inherent that a coupler is being used to combine the two signal paths shown in FIG. 4 of Shiozaki).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify ‘678 to include a coupler before modulating the signals based on the teachings of Shiozaki. Such a combination would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘678 (JP 6829678B2) in light of Shiozaki (US Pat. App. Pub. 2002/0097484A1) in further light of Corr (Corr, Paul, How Does a Thermoelectric Cooler (TEC) Work, arroyo instruments, (May 11, 2022) URL: https://www.arroyoinstruments.com/blog/how-does-a-thermoelectric-cooler-tec-work/?srsltid=AfmBOooI9GsI-BhgQWiH4oaKJbavKUJOzziSFj_tO7TClwP8XfDrLb9d.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of ‘678 and Shiozaki teaches The method of claim 2,
Corr teaches wherein the steps further include controlling temperatures of the dummy laser and the active laser using a thermoelectric cooler (TEC).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify ‘678 to further include cooling the laser using a TEC. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result.
‘678 and Corr both relate to optical communication systems and are therefore analogous art.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘678 (JP 6829678B2) in light of Shiozaki (US Pat. App. Pub. 2002/0097484A1) in further light of Jiang (W. Jiang and B. M. A. Rahman, "Design of Power-Splitter With Selectable Splitting-Ratio Using Angled and Cascaded MMI-Coupler," in IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics, vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 1-9, Dec. 2018).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of ‘678 and Shiozaki teaches The method of claim 4, Jiang teaches wherein the coupler has an A/B split with the A split connected to the active laser and the B split connected to the dummy laser, wherein the A split is greater than the B split. (p. 1, ¶ 1)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the coupler in Shiozaki to have an unequal power split based on the teachings of Jiang. Such a combination would merely be a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
‘678 and Jiang both relate to optical communication systems and are therefore analogous art.
Claim(s) 7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘678 (JP 6829678B2) in light of Roberts (US Pat. App. Pub. 2020/0220623 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, ‘678 teaches The method of claim 1,
Roberts teaches wherein the steps further include, prior to transitioning from the OFF state to the ON state, transitioning to a SOFT OFF state to stabilize the active laser output. ([0032] (“it may be possible to allow the laser emitter wavelength to stabilize before the ONU transitions to be burst-on state”))
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the transition method taught in‘678 use the soft off technique taught by Roberts. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result.
‘678 and Roberts both relate to optical communication systems and are therefore analogous art.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of ‘678 and Roberts teaches The method of claim 7, wherein the transitioning to the SOFT OFF state comprises switching an output of a laser from the dummy frequency to the active frequency. (‘678, [0037] “the OLT is idle in a non-signal section between burst signals in the uplink with respect to a predetermined specific ONU. The specific ONU includes an instruction unit that gives an instruction to insert a dummy signal which is a signal, and the specific ONU inserts the burst signal from the wavelength variable laser into the non-signal section after emitting the burst signal from the wavelength variable laser in response to the instruction.”; [0046-52]; FIG. 2)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the transition method taught in‘678 use the soft off technique taught by Roberts. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘678 (JP 6829678B2) in light of Roberts (US Pat. App. Pub. 2020/0220623 A1) in further light of Lee (Lee, H., Suh, MG., Chen, T. et al. Spiral resonators for on-chip laser frequency stabilization. Nat Commun 4, 2468 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms3468)
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of ‘678 and Roberts teaches The method of claim 7,
Lee teaches wherein the transitioning to the SOFT OFF state occurs <5µs prior to transitioning to the ON state. (p. 12, ¶ 1)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify ‘678 such that the soft off portion of the transition takes less than 5 micro second based on the teachings of Lee. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result.
‘678 and Cao both relate to optical communication systems and are therefore analogous art.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘678 (JP 6829678B2) in light of Shiozaki (US Pat. App. Pub. 2002/0097484A1) in further light of Roberts (US Pat. App. Pub. 2020/0220623 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of ‘678 and Roberts teaches The method of claim 7, wherein the transitioning to the SOFT OFF state comprises
Shiozaki teaches turning off a dummy laser generating the dummy laser output and turning on an active laser producing the active laser output. (FIG. 4: 20, 124)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify ‘678 to use two lasers to transmit the active and dummy signals respectively based on the teachings of Shiozaki. Such a combination would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘678 (JP 6829678B2) in light of Roberts (US Pat. App. Pub. 2020/0220623 A1) in further light of Wu (Rui Wu, Chin-Hui Chen, Jean-Marc Fedeli, Maryse Fournier, Kwang-Ting Cheng, and Raymond G. Beausoleil, "Compact models for carrier-injection silicon microring modulators," Opt. Express 23, 15545-15554 (2015)).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of ‘678 and Roberts teaches The method of claim 10,
Wu teaches wherein the switching the output of the laser is performed using carrier injection or an electro-optic effect. (p. 2, ¶ 1-2).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the laser taught in ‘678 to further include carrier injection based on the teaching of Wu. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result.
‘678 and Wu both relate to optical communication systems and are therefore analogous art.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘678 (JP 6829678B2) in light of Kurylak (US Pat. App. Pub. 2025/0175257 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, ‘678 teaches The method of claim 1,
Kurylak teaches wherein the steps further include operating a variable optical attenuator (VOA) connected to an output of the modulator. ([0099])
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modulator in ‘678 to use a VOA based on the teachings of Kurylak. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result.
‘678 and Kurylak both relate to optical communication systems and are therefore analogous art.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of ‘678 and Kurylak teaches The method of claim 13, wherein the operating includes setting the VOA to maximum attenuation except for when the coherent transmitter is in the ON state. ([0099])
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘678 (JP 6829678B2) in light of Sakamoto (T. Sakamoto, A. Chiba and T. Kawanishi, "50-Gb/s 16 QAM by a quad-parallel Mach-Zehnder modulator," 33rd European Conference and Exhibition of Optical Communication - Post-Deadline Papers (published 2008), Berlin, Germany, 2007, pp. 1-2.).
Regarding Claim 15, ‘678 teaches The method of claim 1,
Sakamoto teaches wherein the modulator is a quad-parallel Mach-Zehnder (QPMZ) modulator. (p. 1, ¶ 1)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modulator in ‘678 to be a QPZM like the one taught in Sakamoto. Such a combination would merely be a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
‘678 and Sakamoto both relate to optical communication systems and are therefore analogous art.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘678 (JP 6829678B2) in light of Roberts (US Pat. App. Pub. 2020/0220623 A1) in further light of Wu (Rui Wu, Chin-Hui Chen, Jean-Marc Fedeli, Maryse Fournier, Kwang-Ting Cheng, and Raymond G. Beausoleil, "Compact models for carrier-injection silicon microring modulators," Opt. Express 23, 15545-15554 (2015)) in further light of Corr (Corr, Paul, How Does a Thermoelectric Cooler (TEC) Work, arroyo instruments, (May 11, 2022) URL: https://www.arroyoinstruments.com/blog/how-does-a-thermoelectric-cooler-tec-work/?srsltid=AfmBOooI9GsI-BhgQWiH4oaKJbavKUJOzziSFj_tO7TClwP8XfDrLb9d).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of ‘678, Roberts, and Wu teaches The coherent transmitter of claim 11,
Corr teaches further comprising thermoelectric cooler (TEC) configured to operate with the one or more lasers.
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify ‘678 to further include cooling the laser using a TEC. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result.
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 July 10, 2026
/KENNETH N VANDERPUYE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights