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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 09/22/2025 is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Van Veen et al, U.S. Publication No. 2023/0107822.
Regarding claim 1, Van Veen teaches an optical modulation amplitude (OMA) controller circuit (see Van Veen Figure 3) comprising:
an input port, arranged to receive an average output power control setting, wherein the average output power control setting is used for controlling an average output power (see Figure 3, input for signal 252 and paragraph [0036]) of a laser diode (see Figure 3, laser 310 and paragraph [0019]);
a processing circuit, arranged to control an OMA signal according to at least the average output power control setting (see Figure 3, microcontroller 350 outputting signal 342 and paragraph [0036]); and
an output port, arranged to output the OMA signal for controlling an OMA of the laser diode (see Figure 3, output for signal 342).
Method claim 6 recites similar limitations as claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 5, Van Veen teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the OMA controller is arranged to control the OMA of the laser diode included in a bi-directional optical sub-assembly (BOSA) (see Van Veen Figure 1, ONU 160 with transmitter 164 and receiver 166. Figure 3 is an embodiment of transmitter 164).
Method claim 10 recites similar limitations as claim 5, and is rejected under similar rationale.
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 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Veen et al, U.S. Publication No. 2023/0107822.
Regarding claim 2, Van Veen teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressively teach wherein a ratio of the OMA signal to an average output power signal set by the average output power control setting is maintained at a constant.
However, Van Veen does teach the same analysis for the OMA signal and an average output power signal set by the average output power control setting in regards to extinction ratio as the present application (see Van Veen paragraph [0022] as compared to paragraphs [0018] and [0020] of the present published application). Furthermore, Van Veen goes on to teach controlling the extinction ratio as well the OMA signal and the average output power signal (see paragraph [0036]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of design choice to keep the ratio of the OMA signal to the average output power signal constant as claimed based on system needs.
Method claim 7 recites similar limitations as claim 2, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Veen et al, U.S. Publication No. 2023/0107822 in view of Sawtell, U.S. Patent No. 5,949,225.
Regarding claim 3, Van Veen teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressively teach wherein the OMA signal is positively correlated with the average output power control setting.
However, Sawtell in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a processing circuit (see Sawtell Figure 3, LED drive circuit 304) to control an output signal of a light source based on an input signal (see column 3, “The present invention calls for varying an LED drive signal in a non-linear and, preferably, exponential fashion with respect to a feedback control signal, which is a function of a load voltage, to minimize the effects of an optocoupler's gain on the feedback loop”) as taught in Van Veen wherein
the output signal is positively correlated with the input signal (see column 3, “The present invention calls for varying an LED drive signal in a non-linear and, preferably, exponential fashion with respect to a feedback control signal, which is a function of a load voltage, to minimize the effects of an optocoupler's gain on the feedback loop”).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the teaching of having an input and output signal for a light source to be positively correlated as taught in Sawtell with the system using an OAM signal and power setting signal taught in Van Veen, the motivation being to account for other issues in the system such as gain fluctuations and age issues (see Sawtell column 3, “Therefore, there is a need for an adjustable gain block within the drive portion of the optocoupler circuit that compensates for the unpredictable gain fluctuations of the optocoupler, as well as for thermal drift and aging of the circuit, such that the gain of the overall circuit remains constant despite variations in the gain of the optocoupler”).
Method claim 8 recites similar limitations as claim 3, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 4, Van Veen in view of Sawtell teaches all the limitations of claim 3, and further teaches wherein the OMA signal is exponentially proportional to the average output power control setting (see Sawtell column 3, “The present invention calls for varying an LED drive signal in a non-linear and, preferably, exponential fashion with respect to a feedback control signal, which is a function of a load voltage, to minimize the effects of an optocoupler's gain on the feedback loop” as combined with Van Veen Figure 3).
Method claim 9 recites similar limitations as claim 4, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-15 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 11, the prior art made of record fails to teach 1n optical system comprising:
a laser diode;
a monitor photodiode, arranged to monitor an output of the laser diode to generate a feedback output;
an average output power controller circuit, arranged to receive an average output power control setting, and generate an average output power signal according to the average output power control setting;
an optical modulation amplitude (OMA) controller circuit, arranged to receive the average output power control setting, and generate an OMA signal according to at least the average output power control setting;
a first comparator circuit, arranged to compare the average output power signal with a first feedback signal derived from the feedback output, and generate a first comparator output;
a second comparator circuit, arranged to compare the OMA signal with a second feedback signal derived from the feedback output, and generate a second comparator output; and
a laser diode driver circuit, arranged to drive the laser diode according to the first comparator output and the second comparator output.
Van Veen, cited above, teaches the OMA controller circuit but fails to teach the highlighted features.
Geller, U.S. Patent No. 5,502,298 generally teaches an optical system with a laser diode (see Geller Figure 3, LASC and column 4, “FIG. 3 illustrates a schematic illustration of one preferred embodiment of the invention. Referring to this figure, laser diode LASC”); a monitor photodiode, arranged to monitor an output of the laser diode to generate a feedback output (see Geller Figure 4, “monitor diode” and column 4, “Light emitted by the laser diode is monitored, preferably via a back facet of the laser diode, by a monitor diode connected to a bias voltage 8”); a first comparator circuit and
a second comparator circuit (see Figure 3, comparators 12 and 14); and
a laser diode driver circuit, arranged to drive the laser diode according to the first comparator output and the second comparator output (see Figure 3, signals 31 and 32 to current sources Im and Ib connected to LASC).
However, Geller does not teach the features highlighted above.
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 CASEY L KRETZER whose telephone number is (571)272-5639. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-7:00 PM Pacific Time.
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 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.
/CASEY L KRETZER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights