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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A (claims 1-3) in the reply filed on 1/08/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no “serious” burden on the Examiner. This is not found persuasive.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the species listed in the Restriction Requirement (11/17/2025) are independent or distinct for the reasons given in the Restriction and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
(e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Analyzing, searching, and examining each distinct species is burdensome and hinders a clear, concise, and thorough examination. Each claim set would require separate analysis of the claim terms and the prior art, which is an unwise usage of the Examiner's limited time for a first action on the merits.
Search queries encompass the entirety of the claimed invention, and are not only limited to, in this case, the “generic core”. Each and every limitation of a claim must be searched and addressed, and not only limited to the inventive concept. Having overlapping search criteria is not the same as being an obvious variation, and still requires separate and distinct searches.
Applicant’s traversal states, “Differences among Species A-D lies in the configuration regarding directionality of input/output lines and selection of wire connection…” (Remarks 1/08/2026, p. 8).
These differences are significant and are not considered obvious variants without first being individually analyzed, and Applicant’s statement fails to place on the record that all the species are obvious variants of each other, and therefore should be examined together.
The function and capacity of each species is different from the other species, in at least the bandwidth of the optical signals in n and n+1 fibers are not the same. There is a search and examination burden because the different species require different search queries and the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another species.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-3 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.
It is unclear how claim 1 can operate without claim 2.
Claims 1 and 2 are reproduced below (emphasis added).
(Original) An optical fiber branching switching apparatus comprising:
a first optical fiber;
a second optical fiber;
a third optical fiber;
a plurality of fourth optical fibers;
a plurality of fifth optical fibers; and
a plurality of sixth optical fibers,
wherein the first optical fiber is connected to the second optical fiber by using a plurality of the fourth optical fibers,
the first optical fiber is connected to the third optical fiber by using a plurality of the fifth optical fibers, and
the second optical fiber is connected to the third optical fiber by using a plurality of the sixth optical fibers.
(Original) The optical fiber branching switching apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the first optical fiber includes a first plurality of cores,
the second optical fiber includes a second plurality of cores,
the third optical fiber includes a third plurality of cores,
the first plurality of cores are separated into a plurality of the fourth optical fibers and a plurality of the fifth optical fibers,
the second plurality of cores are separated into a plurality of the fourth optical fibers and a plurality of the sixth optical fibers, and
the third plurality of cores are separated into a plurality of the fifth optical fibers and a plurality of the sixth optical fibers.
Claim 1 claims “a plurality of fourth optical fibers” and then goes on to claim “using a plurality of the fourth optical fibers”. Similarly, claim 1 claims “a plurality of fifth optical fibers” and then goes on to claim “using a plurality of the fifth optical fibers” and “a plurality of sixth optical fibers” and then goes on to claim “using a plurality of the sixth optical fibers”. It is unclear whether the plurality of the fourth optical fibers being used later in the claim is:
the previously claimed plurality of fourth optical fibers, in its entirety; or
a subset of fibers of the previously claimed plurality of fourth fibers.
If the intention of the claim is (a), then as claimed, there are antecedent basis issues. Instead of “using a plurality of the fourth optical fibers”, the claim should read – using the plurality of fourth optical fibers –.
If the intention of the claim is (b), then there are further complications. A plurality means at least two. So in the case of (b) there would need to be at least a minimum of three fibers for there to be the initial claimed plurality of fibers, and then the subsequent “subset” plurality of fibers, because in order for the subset to be a plurality, the subset would necessarily be at least two fibers to be a plurality. However, none of this is clarified in the claim language.
These deficiencies similarly apply to “a plurality of fifth optical fibers” and “using a plurality of the fifth optical fibers” and “a plurality of sixth optical fibers” and “using a plurality of the sixth optical fibers”.
Claims 2 and 3 depend upon claim 1 and therefore carry the same deficiencies.
Furthermore, claim 1 claims, “the first optical fiber is connected to the second optical fiber by using a plurality of the fourth optical fibers, the first optical fiber is connected to the third optical fiber by using a plurality of the fifth optical fibers, and the second optical fiber is connected to the third optical fiber by using a plurality of the sixth optical fibers.” It is unclear what is meant by the phrase “connected by … using a plurality of the … optical fibers.” How are the optical fibers being used to be connect to one another? Are they being optically connected, is there a physical connector being provided, etc.? The claim language is deficient. Turning to the instant Specification and Drawings for clarification, it appears the fibers are connected through a fan-in/fan-out device (shown, not labeled, as smaller rectangles in Fig. 1; Specification, p. 7, line 10 – p. 8, line 10). However, it is improper to import claim limitations from the Specification. See MPEP §2111.01 II.
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2017090600 A1 (cited on the IDS of 8/24/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Fig. 20 shows:
An optical fiber branching switching apparatus comprising:
a first optical fiber (200-1);
a second optical fiber (200-2);
a third optical fiber (entering 520-1; wherein “either the connector 150-1 or the connector 190-1 can be connected to each core of the MCF 200-1 and the MCF 200-2”);
a plurality of fourth optical fibers;
a plurality of fifth optical fibers; and
a plurality of sixth optical fibers (plurality of fourth, fifth, and sixth optical fibers are shown in 150-1),
wherein the first optical fiber (200-1) is connected to the second optical fiber (200-2) by using a plurality of the fourth optical fibers (through 150-1),
the first optical fiber (200-1) is connected to the third optical fiber by using a plurality of the fifth optical fibers, and
the second optical fiber is connected to the third optical fiber by using a plurality of the sixth optical fibers (see English Translation of ninth embodiment and Fig. 20).
Regarding claim 2, Fig. 20 shows:
the first optical fiber (200-1) includes a first plurality of cores (fiber is a multi-core fiber “MCF”),
the second optical fiber (200-2) includes a second plurality of cores (fiber is a multi-core fiber “MCF”),
the third optical fiber (entering 520-1) includes a third plurality of cores (fiber is a multi-core fiber “MCF”),
the first plurality of cores are separated into a plurality of the fourth optical fibers and a plurality of the fifth optical fibers,
the second plurality of cores are separated into a plurality of the fourth optical fibers and a plurality of the sixth optical fibers, and
the third plurality of cores are separated into a plurality of the fifth optical fibers and a plurality of the sixth optical fibers (see English Translation, wherein, “As shown in FIG. 20, when the connector 150-1 is connected to the MCFs 200-1 and 200-2, the core 201-1 of the MCF 200-1 and the core 201-2 of the MCF 200-2 insert optical signals or The target of branching. In this case, the optical signal is relayed between the core 202-1 of the MCF 200-1 and the core 202-2 of the MCF 200-2. The optical signal is relayed between the core 203-1 of the MCF 200-1 and the core 203-2 of the MCF 200-2. By selecting the connector 150-1 in the switching connector 510-1, the Add / Drop node 120-1 can insert and branch an optical signal as the node shown in FIG.”).
Regarding claim 3, Fig. 20 shows:
fan-in/fan-out is performed from the first optical fiber to a plurality of the fourth optical fibers and a plurality of the fifth optical fibers, fan-in/fan-out is performed from the second optical fiber to a plurality of the fourth optical fibers and a plurality of the sixth optical fibers, and fan-in/fan- out is performed from the third optical fiber to a plurality of the fifth optical fibers and a plurality of the sixth optical fibers (see English Translation of fifth embodiment, wherein, “A fan-in / fan-out device is used to insert an optical signal into the MCF 200-1 and branch an optical signal from the MCF 200-1. In the transmission / reception node 110b, the transmission / reception devices 113-4 to 113-6 generate optical signals to be transmitted to the Add / Drop nodes 120-1 to 120-3, respectively. The three optical signals generated by the transmission / reception devices 113-4 to 113-6 are inserted into the cores 201-4 to 203-4 of the MCF 200-4, respectively. Further, the transmission / reception devices 113-4 to 113-6 receive the optical signals from the Add / Drop nodes 120-1 to 120-3 via the cores 201-4 to 203-4 of the MCF 200-4, respectively. A fan-in / fan-out device is used for the insertion of the optical signal into the MCF 200-4 and the branching of the optical signal from the MCF 200-4, similarly to the transmission / reception node 110a.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY A EL-SHAMMAA whose telephone number is (571)272-2469. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-6pm (flexible schedule).
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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached at 571-270-1739. 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.
/MARY A EL-SHAMMAA/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights