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.
Claims 2 and 6 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.
Both claims 2 and 6 directly or indirectly depend on claim 1. Claim 2 states “a GT etalon disposed adjacent to the first quarter plate” and claim 6 states “…defining a first reflective surface of a GT etalon”. However, claim 1 already states that the GT etalon based compensator includes “GT etalon devices”. If the structure of claim 1 already comprises GT etalons, how is claim 2 comprising more GT etalons? The same issue exists between claim 1 and claim 6. It is unclear if besides the GT Etalons of claim 1, there are further more GT Etalons present within the multi-channel optical transmitter as stated within claims 2 and 6. Furthermore, there doesn’t seem to be any link between the GT etalon limitations of claim 2/claim 6 and claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2/3 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form, overcoming the issues mentioned above and including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergano (US 6134033) in view of Leisching (US 6823108) in further view of Sugden (US 2003/0210864).
Regarding claim 1 and similar claim 7, Bergano teaches a multi-channel optical transmitter (Fig. 5), comprising: a laser engine including a plurality of N individual laser devices operating at different wavelengths (Fig. 5, Transmitters 1, N-1, 2, N operating at different respective wavelengths; Fig. 3 also shows the N transmitters 301 operating at different wavelengths), with each individual laser device responsive to a unique input data signal and creating a plurality of N optical signals operating at wavelengths lambda1-lambdaN and referred to as a plurality of N channels (Col. 2, lines 50-54); a wavelength-division multiplexer receiving as inputs the plurality of N optical signals for combining the plurality of N optical signals to create a single, N-channel output signal for transmission along an optical fiber signal path (Fig. 5, wavelength combiners + couplers add to create a single N channel output; Fig. 3 also shows this with 307+308+315 outputting the single N channel output signal 305); and a dispersion compensator disposed between the laser engine and the wavelength-division multiplexer, the dispersion compensator including individual devices disposed along signal paths associated with identified wavelengths within the range lambda1-lambdaN that are subject to chromatic dispersion during transmission along the optical fiber signal path, wherein each device creates phase-shifted predistortion to signals at selected wavelengths passing therethrough (Fig. 5 shows individual “Dispersion Compensators” coupled to each respective transmitter pertaining to each respective wavelength).
Although Bergano teaches dispersion devices coupled to respective transmitters, Bergano doesn’t teach the number of individual compensator devices disposed along each channel is determined as a function of the level of chromatic dispersion experienced by the wavelength utilized by the channel.
Leisching teaches the number of individual compensator devices (Fig. 5, individual compensator devices 134/144-146/154-158) disposed along each channel (Fig. 5, demux 110 outputs each channel from its outputs) is determined as a function of the level of chromatic dispersion experienced by the wavelength utilized by the channel (Fig. 5 shows waveguide 130 comprises 1 compensator device 134, waveguide 140 comprises devices 144/146 as the required dispersion compensation increases; Col. 6, lines 10-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the dispersion compensation method/layout for each channel used by Bergano and incorporate the compensation method used by Leisching as this would allow compensation to be matched to the dispersion of individual wavelength channels.
Although Bergano in view of Leisching teaches the compensator devices, Bergano in view of Leisching don’t teach that these compensator devices are GT etalon devices.
Sugden teaches utilizing GT etalon devices as the dispersion compensation devices (Title; Fig. 22 shows multiple etalon devices 72-78).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the dispersion compensator device taught by Bergano in view of Leisching and incorporate the GT etalon device for dispersion compensation as taught by Sugden as a matter of substitution of one known dispersion compensator for another with the benefit of providing compact, wavelength dependent chromatic dispersion compensation.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergano (US 6134033) in view of Leisching (US 6823108) in further view of Sugden (US 2003/0210864) in further view of Luo (US 2025/0070881).
Regarding claim 4, Bergano in view of Leisching in further view of Sugden teaches the multi-channel optical transmitter of claim 1.
Although Bergano teaches the wavelength multiplexer (Fig. 3 shows this as 307+308+315), Bergano doesn’t teach wherein the wavelength- division multiplexer comprises a Z-block multiplexer configuration.
Luo teaches a wavelength- division multiplexer comprising a Z-block multiplexer configuration (Fig. 4, z-block multiplexer 340).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the multiplexer taught by Bergano and incorporate the Z-block multiplexer taught by Luo since z-block multiplexers comprises minimal absorption and degradation and are also less sensitive to temperature fluctuations in comparison to other multiplexer such as AWGs, thereby providing an efficient multiplexer.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergano (US 6134033) in view of Leisching (US 6823108) in further view of Sugden (US 2003/0210864) in further view of Luo (US 2025/0070881) in further view of Ji (US 2009/0162066).
Regarding claim 5, Bergano in view of Leisching in further view of Sugden in further view of Luo teaches the multi-channel optical transmitter of claim 4.
Although Bergano in view of Leisching in further view of Sugden in view of Luo teaches the GT etalon compensator and the Z-block multiplexer, these references don’t teach wherein the compensator is integrated with the multiplexer configuration to form a monolithic component.
Ji teaches wherein compensating/equalizing components and optical interleaving components are integrated to realize a monolithic device (paragraph [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the multi-channel optical transmitter taught by Bergano in view of Leisching in further view of Sugden in view of Luo and incorporate the monolithic device to comprise the compensator and interleaver/combiner as taught by Ji as this will lead to a less loss, smaller footprint, lower cost and less complex device (Ji: paragraph [0034]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the notice of reference cited (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRANESH K BARUA whose telephone number is (571)270-1017. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Sat: 11-8pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Payne can be reached on 5712723024. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PRANESH K BARUA/Examiner, Art Unit 2635
