Final Rejection
Acknowledgements
1. This final rejection is in response to the claim amendments and remarks filed Dec. 23, 2025.
2. The claim amendments filed Dec. 23, 2025 (“DEC 2025 CLAIM AMENDMENTS”) have been entered.
Claims 1-12 are pending follows:
claims 1-5;
claims 6-10; and
claims 11-12.
3. Applicant claims foreign priority to JAPAN 2022-142671, which was filed Sept. 8, 2022. The foreign priority documents have been received.
4. The presumed effective filing date is Sept. 29, 2022, which is the filing date of U.S. App. No. 17/956,068.
Response to Remarks filed December 23, 2025
5. The DEC 2025 CLAIM AMENDMENTS have overcome the §112(a) written description rejection. Thus, the rejection is withdrawn.
6. The DEC 2025 CLAIM AMENDMENTS address some of the bases of the §112(b), and those portions of the §112(b) rejection are withdrawn. Claims 1-10, however, remain rejected under §112(b) because a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite. See MPEP §2173.05(p)(II).
7. The DEC 2025 CLAIM AMENDMENTS have not overcome the §102(1)(2) rejections. Specifically, the main issue in this rejection is the contingent limitation that is not given patentable weight because the broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP §2111.04(II).
The DEC 2025 CLAIM AMENDMENTS merely changes the conditional term “when” to “upon occurrence of a condition,” which does not make it any less contingent. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite. See MPEP §2173.05(p)(II).
Specifically, it is unclear whether infringement occurs when one creates the transmission system or whether infringement occurs “when a counterpart backward Raman amplifier or a counterpart forward Raman amplifier provided at an opposite side through a fiber-optic transmission line is started-up” (claim 1) or “when bidirectional pumping is started between the 1st optical transmission system and the 2nd optical transmission system” (claim 6).
Examiners suggest overcoming this issue with claim language such as “processor configured to…” followed by the claimed process steps.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1)(2) as being anticipated by Miedema et al. published Apr. 27, 2021 (“Miedema”).
Claim 11 is reproduced below:
“A Raman amplifier control method comprising;
at an optical transmission equipment having a forward Raman amplifier and a backward Raman amplifier,
turning off a power of the forward Raman amplifier or the backward Raman amplifier according to a supervisory signal received from a fiber-optic transmission line
upon occurrence of a condition in which a counterpart forward Raman amplifier or the backward Raman amplifier is started up, and after a predetermined period of time, autonomously releasing a power-off state of the forward Raman amplifier or the backward Raman amplifier.”
The limitation “upon occurrence of a condition…” is a contingent limitation. The broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP §2111.04(II). In other words, the BRI of claim 11 does not include the steps of the last clause of claim 11.
Miedema discloses “[a] Raman amplifier control method” of remotely turning on and turning up a Raman amplifier in a stretched fiber span. See Abstract.
Miedema discloses “at an optical transmission equipment having a forward Raman amplifier and a backward Raman amplifier” as shown in the Examiner annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
690
818
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Miedema discloses “turning off a power of the forward Raman amplifier or the backward Raman amplifier according to a supervisory signal received from a fiber-optic transmission line” at e.g., col.7:61-67 and col.10:25-52.
PNG
media_image2.png
106
396
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
478
394
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 12, this claim depends upon the contingent limitation, i.e., “[t]he Raman amplifier control method as claimed in claim 11, wherein the predetermined period of time is longer than a time required for measuring optical pumping characteristics of the counterpart backward Raman amplifier or the counterpart forward Raman amplifier provided at an opposite end of the fiber- optic transmission line,” The broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP §2111.04(II). Thus, this claim is rejected for the same reasons as claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. While claims 1-12 are rejected there is an indication of allowable subject matter. The main issue is the resolution of the contingent limitations in the base claims 1, 6, and 10. If the following limitations in the claims are claimed in such a way that they are given patentable weight, then the claims would be in condition for allowance for the following reasons.
As to claims 1-5, the prior art does not disclose or suggest “the processor turns off a power of the forward Raman amplifier or the backward Raman amplifier according to a supervisory signal received from the fiber-optic transmission line, and releases an off state of the forward Raman amplifier or the backward Raman amplifier after a predetermined period of time” in combination with the other limitations of the claims.
As to claims 6-10, the prior art does not disclose or suggest “ when bidirectional Raman pumping is started between the 1st optical transmission equipment and the 2nd optical transmission equipment, one of the 1st optical transmission equipment and the 2nd optical transmission equipment receives a supervisory signal via the fiber- optic transmission line from another one of the 1st optical transmission equipment and the 2nd optical transmission equipment, turns off a Raman amplifier designated by the supervisory signal, and turns on the Raman amplifier after a predetermined period of time” in combination with the other limitations of the claims.
As to claims 11-12, the prior art does not disclose or suggest “turning off a power of the forward Raman amplifier or the backward Raman amplifier according to a supervisory signal received from a fiber-optic transmission line when the forward Raman amplifier or the backward Raman amplifier is started up, and after a predetermined period of time, autonomously releasing a power-off state of the forward Raman amplifier or the backward Raman amplifier” in combination with the other limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
11. 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.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEANDRA M HUGHES whose telephone number is (571)272-6982. The examiner can normally be reached Generally M-Th 8AM-6PM.
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, Hetul Patel can be reached at 571-272-4184. 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.
Signed:
/DEANDRA M HUGHES/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992