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 .
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art document(s) submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on 10/11/2023 and 10/02/2024 have all been considered and made of record.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “LOCOS” should instead state “LCOS” in the second paragraph of page 7 (four instances of “LOCOS”; examiner notes “LCOS” is properly used on page 1, line 16 and page 8 line 18).
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 130.2 and 501. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 4 be found allowable, claim 8 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 3: “each OCS module” should instead state “each OCS module of the plurality of OCS modules”.
Claim 1, lines 6-9: “each one of the OCS modules has a reconfigurable arrangement of optical reflectors capable of selectively optically cross-connecting ones of the input optical fiber ports of the same one of the OCS modules to ones of the output optical fiber ports of the same one of the OCS modules” should instead state “each one of the plurality of OCS modules has a reconfigurable arrangement of optical reflectors capable of selectively optically cross-connecting one or more of the input optical fiber ports ofor more of the output optical fiber ports of the same
Claim 1, lines 10-12: “each particular one of the OCS modules is selectively configurable to route light received from ones of the optical input optical fiber ports thereof via the arrangement of optical reflectors thereof to one or more others of the OCS modules” should instead state “each plurality of OCS modules is selectively configured to route light received from one or more of the plurality of input optical fiber ports thereof via the arrangement of optical reflectors thereof to one or more others of the plurality of OCS modules”.
Claim 2, lines 1-4: “wherein the routing of light from particular ones to others of the OCS modules is via one more free-space optical paths connecting the particular ones to the one or more others of the OCS modules” should instead state “wherein the routing of light from the oneor more OCS modules to the one or more others of the plurality of OCS modules is via one or more free-space optical paths connecting the or more OCS modules to the one or more others of the plurality of OCS modules”.
Claim 3, lines 2-3: “is configurable to route light from ones of its own input optical fiber ports to a second one of the OCS modules via a free-space optical path traversing an intervening third one of the OCS modules” should instead state “is configuredthe plurality of input optical fiber ports to a second
Claim 4, lines 2-3 and claim 8, lines 2-3: “communicatively connected to operate the reconfigurable arrangements of optical reflectors of the OCS modules” should instead state “communicatively connected to the plurality of OCS modules to operate the reconfigurable arrangements of optical reflectors of the plurality of OCS modules”.
Claim 6, lines 1-3: “is configurable to selectively direct light, via the intermediate optical reflector array, to one or more others of the OCS modules” should instead state “is configured
Claim 9, lines 1-4: “wherein the reconfigurable arrangement of optical reflectors within each specific one of the OCS modules is configurable to direct light received from a different one of the OCS modules to one or more of the output optical fiber ports of the specific one of the OCS modules” should instead state “wherein the reconfigurable arrangement of optical reflectors within each specific ed
Claim 11, line 2: “within each particular one of the OCS modules” should instead state “within each particular
Claim 11, lines 7-8: “the input optical reflector of the particular one of the OCS modules to the output optical reflector of the particular one of the OCS modules” should instead state “the input optical reflector of the particular
Claim 11, lines 10-11: “the input optical reflector of the particular one of the OCS modules to a different one or different ones of the OCS modules” should instead state “the input optical reflector of the particular more different
Claims 5, 7, and 10-11: The term “can” should instead be replaced with “configured to”, “capable of”, “adapted to” or the like.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-4 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krol et al. in US 20020126502 A1 (hereinafter "Krol").
Regarding claim 1, Krol discloses an apparatus in Fig. 1-2 comprising:
an electronic device (control system 40 is interpreted as the electronic device) having a plurality of module connectors thereon (connectors 220 are interpreted as the plurality of module connectors); and
a plurality of optical circuit switch (OCS) modules (optical modules 100; see Para. 29), each OCS module of the plurality of OCS modules being removably mechanically affixed to the electronic device by at least one of the module connectors (“removably coupled” is interpreted as removably mechanically affixed; see Para. 28) and having a plurality of input optical fiber ports and a plurality of output optical fiber ports (see Para. 17; the examiner notes that Fig. 1-2 have modules which have optical fibers which must necessarily act as input, output, and/or bidirectional ports; switch fabric 10 in Fig. 5 is clearly identified as having ports in Para. 34);
wherein:
each one of the plurality of OCS modules has a reconfigurable arrangement of optical reflectors (beam steering panel 106 includes a reconfigurable array of steerable pixels which are interpreted as optical reflectors; see Para. 31; note pixels are identified as reflective in Para. 32) capable of selectively optically cross-connecting one or more of the input optical fiber ports of one OCS module to one or more of the output optical fiber ports of the same OCS module (pixel element steerability allows 2-degrees of freedom in which to direct the light ray; the controlled actuator assembly allows selectivity of the light ray’s desired direction which gives the switch fabric the ability to cross-connect light rays from input ports towards any output ports; see Para. 32; the switch fabric 10 is interpreted as being capable of selectively optically cross-connecting any input port with any output port even though reflector 30 is not identified as being actuatable and since the pixel element of a module is interpreted as being capable of returning an incoming light beam into the same module instead of routing the light beam to another module; to expedite prosecution, the examiner notes, but does not rely upon, the second embodiment where any input port may clearly be directed to any output port as stated in Para. 36); and
each of the plurality of OCS modules is selectively configured to route light received from one or more of the plurality of optical input optical fiber ports thereof via the arrangement of optical reflectors thereof to one or more others of the plurality of OCS modules (Fig. 1 and 5-7 show light beams routed from different starting and ending modules).
Regarding claim 2, Krol discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the routing of light from the one or more OCS modules to the one or more others of the plurality of OCS modules is via one or more free-space optical paths connecting the one or more OCS modules to the one or more others of the plurality of OCS modules (see Fig. 1 and 5-7 where light LS passes through and between modules via a variety of free-space optical paths).
Regarding claim 3, Krol discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein at least one of the OCS modules is configured to route light from the plurality of input optical fiber ports to a second OCS module via a free-space optical path traversing an intervening third OCS module (Fig. 1 shows that centralized modules will have light paths LS traversing the modules closest to reflector 30; see Annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
350
384
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 4 and 8, Krol discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the electronic device comprises an electronic controller communicatively connected to the plurality of OCS modules to operate the reconfigurable arrangements of optical reflectors of the plurality of OCS modules (the control system 40 is interpreted as communicatively connected to control bus 42 and thus connected to beam steering panel 106, which is interpreted as providing the reconfigurable arrangements of optical reflectors of the modules, in order to operate the pixel elements such as 1080; see Para. 31-32).
Regarding claim 9, Krol discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the reconfigurable arrangement of optical reflectors within each specific OCS module is configured to direct light received from a different OCS module to one or more of the output optical fiber ports of the specific OCS module (see Annotated Fig. 1 where light from “1” passes through an interpreted different module to the pixel assembly of “2”, that is the interpreted optical reflectors, to the output ports of “2”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krol et al. in US 20020126502 A1 (hereinafter "Krol"), as applied above, and in view of Daneman in US 20010043386 A1 (hereinafter "Daneman").
Regarding claim 10, Krol discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein:
the reconfigurable arrangement of optical reflectors within each of the OCS modules comprises
an input optical reflector arranged to receive light from the input optical fiber ports (the beam steering panel 106 of the input module is interpreted as the input optical reflector and is arranged to receive light from the input optical fiber ports; see Fig. 1),
an output optical reflector arranged to transmit light to the output optical fiber ports (the beam steering panel 106 of the output module is interpreted as the output optical reflector and is arranged to transmit light to the output optical fiber ports; see Fig. 1), and
an intermediate optical reflector comprising an intermediate reflector that can reflectively couple the input optical reflector to the output optical reflector (reflector 30 is interpreted as the intermediate reflector and reflectively couple light from the input optical reflector to the output optical reflector; see Fig. 1);
the input optical reflector is a MEMS mirror array (beam steering panel 106 is an array of the reflective pixels and is interpreted as a MEMS mirror array; see Fig. 2-3 and Para. 31-33; note Para. 33 specifically points to MEMS machining techniques; note Para. 31 specifically points to beam steering panel 106 as an array of steerable pixels); and
the output optical reflector is a MEMS mirror array (beam steering panel 106 is an array of the reflective pixels and is interpreted as a MEMS mirror array; see Fig. 2-3 and Para. 31-33; note Para. 33 specifically points to MEMS machining techniques; note Para. 31 specifically points to beam steering panel 106 as an array of steerable pixels).
Krol fails to disclose that the reflector 30 (interpreted as the intermediate optical reflector) is an array.
Daneman teaches individual modules, each with an intermediate optical reflector that is an array (mirror arrays 214 and 222 are interpreted as intermediate optical reflector arrays within modules 210 and 220 respectively; see Fig. 4; also note Para. 7 and 22).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the alternative intermediate reflector array(s) of Daneman in the apparatus of Krol for the purpose of providing a beam steering system with the ability to switch a particular path that is independent of a current configuration of the switch thereby achieving increased control over each individual light path or for the purpose of reducing loss in high port-count systems.
Regarding claim 11, Krol discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein:
the reconfigurable arrangement of optical reflectors within each particular OCS module comprises
an input optical reflector arranged to receive light from the input optical fiber ports (a pixel 108 of the beam steering panel 106 at the end of module 1 in Annotated Fig. 1 is interpreted as an input optical reflector arranged to receive light from the input optical fiber ports; note Fig. 2),
an output optical reflector arranged to transmit light to the output optical fiber ports (a pixel 108 of the beam steering panel 106 at the end of module 1 in Annotated Fig. 1 is interpreted as an output optical reflector arranged to transmit light to the output optical fiber ports), and
an intermediate optical reflector (reflector 30 is interpreted as an intermediate reflector); and
the intermediate optical reflector further comprises at least one intermodular intermediate reflector that can reflectively couple the input optical reflector of the particular OCS module to one or more different OCS modules (the interpreted reflector 30 is further interpreted as an intermodular reflector that can reflectively couple the input optical reflector of the particular OCS module to one or more different OCS modules since reflector 30 is can transmit light from one module to a different module; see Fig. 1).
Krol fails to identify that the intermediate reflector 30 is an array.
Daneman teaches individual modules, each with an intermediate optical reflector that is an array (mirror arrays 214 and 222 are interpreted as intermediate optical reflector arrays within modules 210 and 220 respectively; see Fig. 4; also note Para. 7 and 22).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the alternative intermediate reflector array(s) of Daneman in the apparatus of Krol for the purpose of providing a beam steering system with the ability to switch a particular path that is independent of a current configuration of the switch thereby achieving increased control over each individual light path or for the purpose of reducing loss in high port-count systems.
While Krol highlights the importance of any input and output ports being connectable regardless of module (see second embodiment, Para. 36), Krol specifically fails to identify that the intermediate optical reflector array comprises an intramodular intermediate reflector that can reflectively couple the input optical reflector of the particular OCS module to the output optical reflector of the particular OCS module.
However, Daneman further teaches an intermediate optical reflector array (214 and 222 are interpreted as intermediate optical reflector arrays) that comprises an intramodular intermediate reflector that can reflectively couple the input optical reflector of the particular OCS module to the output optical reflector of the particular OCS module (Daneman identifies that because of the nature of optics, the light can be reversed thus resulting in an intermediate optical reflector array that is capable of reflectively coupling the input optical reflector of the particular OCS module to the output optical reflector of the particular OCS module; note Para. 18).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the intermediate optical reflector array comprise an intramodular intermediate reflector as taught by Daneman in the apparatus of Krol for the purpose of allowing switching regardless of whether a module is connected to a different module thereby achieving increased versatility for the user.
Regarding claim 12, Krol/Daneman discloses the apparatus of claim 11 as discussed above, wherein each of the intermodular intermediate reflectors is a static mirror (Krol’s intermodular intermediate reflector 30 is in “fixed alignment” and is interpreted as a static mirror; see Para. 29).
Regarding claim 13, Krol/Daneman discloses the apparatus of claim 11 as discussed above, but fails to teach that each of the intermodular intermediate reflectors is a reconfigurable mirror.
Daneman teaches intermodular intermediate reflectors that are reconfigurable (see Fig. 4 and Para. 23).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the reconfigurable feature as taught by Daneman in the apparatus of Krol/Daneman for the purpose of reducing loss upon entry to the output fiber thereby achieving a more desirable device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record, which is the most relevant prior art known, does not disclose or reasonably suggest:
- the apparatus as defined by claim 5, “wherein, within each of the OCS modules, the reconfigurable arrangement of optical reflectors comprises an input optical reflector arranged to receive light from the input optical fiber ports, an output optical reflector arranged to transmit light to the output optical fiber ports, and an intermediate optical reflector array comprising an intermediate reflector that can reflectively couple the input optical reflector to the output optical reflector” in combination with all of the other limitations of base claim 1. Claims 6-7 are allowable by virtue of their ultimate dependency on base claim 5.
Krol et al. in US 20020126502 A1 is the closest known prior art of record. Krol includes “a reconfigurable arrangement of optical reflectors comprises an input optical reflector arranged to receive light from the input optical fiber ports, an output optical reflector arranged to transmit light to the output optical fiber ports, and an intermediate optical reflector comprising an intermediate reflector that can reflectively couple the input optical reflector to the output optical reflector”, but fails to disclose or suggest that the intermediate reflector is an array and that the reconfigurable arrangement occurs within each OCS module as required by the present application.
Additionally, claims 14-19 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record, which is the closest prior art to the subject matter of the claims, does not disclose an optical fiber comprising, along with other limitations, “causing an optical signal from a second input optical fiber port of the first OCS module to be output by said first OCS module by reconfiguring at least one optical reflector of the first OCS module to direct the optical signal from said second input optical fiber port to an output optical fiber port of the first OCS module, thereby to make an intramodular connection” (claim 14). The Krol reference fails to disclose such limitations, and if modified to include the steps or structures required by the limitations would fail to operate as intended. Nothing on the record suggests that such differences would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Lastly, one having ordinary skill in the art does not possess any general knowledge or known motivations to find such differences obvious in view of the prior art of record. As such, claim 14 is patentably distinct and is allowed. Claims 15-19 are allowed at least by virtue of their ultimate dependency upon an allowed independent claim.
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure since the following references have similar structure and/or use similar structure and/or similar optical elements to what is disclosed and/or claimed in the instant application:
US 20030002783 A1
US 20030002781 A1
US 7106926 B2
US 6529652 B1
US 20200064556 A1
US 20050152638 A1
US 7386201 B1
US 20230231642 A1
US 20120236216 A1
US 6567574 B1
US 20090304328 A1
US 20030142900 A1
US 10061087 B2
JP 2002202465 A
JP 2012508908 A
Kawajiri et al., 512x512 Port 3D MEMS Optical Switch Module with Toroidal Concave Mirror, November 2012, NTT Technical Review, Vol. 10, No. 11, pp. 63-69.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARBY M THOMASON whose telephone number is (703)756-5817. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8am-5pm.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (571) 272-2397. 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.
/DARBY M. THOMASON/ Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874