DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 1-13 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.
Regarding claims 1, 5-8, and thus each of claims 2-4 and 9-12 by way of dependence, the term “low speed” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 13 in line 9 recites “the cross-connections.” There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakagawa et al. (“Nakagawa”) (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0165865).
Regarding claim 13, Nakagawa discloses a method for enabling self-tuning at an optical communication system, wherein the optical communication system comprises a main unit (fig. 2 element 210) and a remote unit (fig. 2 each of elements 220), wherein the main unit comprises a main host unit (fig. 2 element 240 and paragraph 0040) and a plurality transceivers each of a fixed wavelength (fig. 2 elements 211 and paragraphs 0039-0040 in light of fig. 1 and paragraphs 0032, 0036 and 0040, the downstream wavelengths are fixed wavelengths sent by the OLT), wherein the remote unit comprises a remote host unit (fig. 2 element of elements 221 and paragraphs 0050 and 0054), a plurality of transceivers (fig. 2 each pair of elements 222/223 reads on transceiver, and paragraph 0050), a plurality of receiving-side tunable optical filters (paragraph 0040 in light of fig. 1 element 111 and paragraph 0027), and a processing circuitry (paragraph 0040 in light of fig. 1 element 114 and paragraphs 0031-0032); wherein the method comprises: generating, in the remote unit, information relating to the cross-connections between a transceiver identifier and filter port for transmission (fig. 2 elements 220 and paragraph 0040, in light of fig. 1 element 113 as the transmitter of the transceiver-pair 112/113 and paragraphs 0027-0028, where the “utilization permission request” for the second wavelength reads on transceiver identifier [i.e., TX wavelength], and the bandpass filter input port of filter 111 reads on “filter port” for incoming transmission, and the transmit wavelength “corresponding to” the incoming first wavelength [to filter 111] reads on “cross-connection” between the TX wavelength as transceiver identifier, and RX wavelength variable filter setting [to the first wavelength] as “filter port”); transmitting the information relating to the cross-connections to the receiving-side tunable optical filters, and setting, by the processing circuitry of the remote unit, a receiving-side tunable optical filter at respective wavelength based on the information relating to the cross-connections (paragraph 0036 in light of paragraph 0032). Note: the term “cross-connections” under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, amounts to connections that go across; the term as used in the specification does not have the plain meaning in the art of plural, co-located N:N fixed or variable interconnections.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa et al. (“Nakagawa”) (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0165865) in view of Grobe et al. (“Grobe”) (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0336655).
Regarding claim 1, Nakagawa discloses an optical filter module comprising a photodetector (fig. 1 the detection element of receiving unit 112 and paragraphs 0027-0028 in light of fig. 2 receiving unit 211 and paragraphs 0039 and 0045), a tunable optical filter (fig. 1 element 111 and paragraph 0027), and processing circuitry (fig. 1 element 114 and paragraphs 0031-0032), wherein the photodetector is configured to receive a downstream signal from a transceiver of a fixed wavelength, and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to decode information relating to the fixed wavelength from the downstream signal and set the optical filter at the fixed wavelength (paragraph 0036 in light of paragraph 0032, the first wavelength is a fixed wavelength sent by element 10). Nakagawa discloses a low speed overlay signal for the upstream transmission (figs. 4 and 5 and paragraphs 0077-0083), but does not specify the modulation format for the downstream control signal. Grobe discloses using a pilot signal on downstream transmission (paragraph 0033), including using the pilot signal to coordinate delays, to avoid interference, among plural ONUs that will be tuning their communication wavelength settings (paragraph 0135). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a low speed overlay modulation format for the downstream signal, in view of the low speed overlay modulation for the upstream signal, since this modulation allows for management and control communication without requiring a dedicated channel or interrupting or reconfiguring underlying data/payload signals.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Nakagawa and Grobe discloses the optical filter module according to claim 1, wherein the information relating to the fixed wavelength is coded in the frequency of the low-speed overlay signal, or coded in digital information provided in the low speed channel of the overlay signal (Nakagawa: paragraph 0036, the permission notification to use the first wavelength, i.e., the fixed wavelength, is used for setting the wavelength variable filter to the first wavelength).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Nakagawa and Grobe discloses the optical filter module according to claim 1, wherein the tunable optical filter is one of a transmitting-side tunable optical filter and a receiving-side tunable optical filter (Nakagawa: fig. 1 element 111 on receiving side of transmission 100).
Regarding claim 5, Nakagawa discloses a method for enabling self-tuning at an optical filter module, wherein the optical filter module comprises a photodetector (fig. 1 the detection element of receiving unit 112 and paragraphs 0027-0028 in light of fig. 2 receiving unit 211 and paragraphs 0039 and 0045), a tunable optical filter (fig. 1 element 111 and paragraph 0027), and processing circuitry (fig. 1 element 114 and paragraphs 0031-0032), the method comprising: receiving, by the photodetector, a downstream signal from a transceiver of a fixed wavelength, decoding, by the processing circuitry, information relating to the fixed wavelength from the downstream signal, and setting, by the processing circuitry, the tunable optical filter at the fixed wavelength (paragraph 0036 in light of paragraph 0032, the first wavelength is a fixed wavelength sent by element 10). Nakagawa discloses a low speed overlay signal for the upstream transmission (figs. 4 and 5 and paragraphs 0077-0083), but does not specify the modulation format for the downstream control signal. Grobe discloses using a pilot signal on downstream transmission (paragraph 0033), including using the pilot signal to coordinate delays, to avoid interference, among plural ONUs that will be tuning their communication wavelength settings (paragraph 0135). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a low speed overlay modulation format for the downstream signal, in view of the low speed overlay modulation for the upstream signal, since this modulation allows for management and control communication without requiring a dedicated channel or interrupting or reconfiguring underlying data/payload signals.
Regarding claim 6, Nakagawa discloses a remote unit for communication with a main unit in an optical communication system, the remote unit comprising: one or more receiving-side tunable optical filters (fig. 1 element 111 and paragraph 0027); one or more transceivers, wherein each of the one or more transceivers is of a fixed wavelength, and each of the one or more transceivers corresponds to a respective receiving-side tunable optical filter (fig. 1, the pair of 112 RX and 113 TX reads on transceiver, paragraph 0026, and fig. 2 and paragraph 0054); and a photodetector configured to receive a down signal (fig. 1 the detector element of receiving unit 112 and paragraphs 0027-0028 in light of fig. 2 receiving unit 211 and paragraphs 0039 and 0045); and processing circuitry configured to decode information relating to the fixed wavelength from the downstream signal and set the one or more receiving-side tunable optical filters at the fixed wavelength (paragraph 0036 in light of paragraph 0032, the first wavelength is a fixed wavelength sent by element 10). Nakagawa discloses a low speed overlay signal for the upstream transmission (figs. 4 and 5 and paragraphs 0077-0083), but does not specify the modulation format for the downstream control signal. Grobe discloses using a pilot signal on downstream transmission (paragraph 0033), including using the pilot signal to coordinate delays, to avoid interference, among plural ONUs that will be tuning their communication wavelength settings (paragraph 0135). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a low speed overlay modulation format for the downstream signal, in view of the low speed overlay modulation for the upstream signal, since this modulation allows for management and control communication without requiring a dedicated channel or interrupting or reconfiguring underlying data/payload signals.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 7-12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Optical communication with filtering for a supervisory control signal - US Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0184809.
Demultiplexer tunable BP filters controlled in response to pilot tone - European Patent Publication No. 1040607.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN M CORS whose telephone number is (571)272-3028. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Kenneth Vanderpuye can be reached at 571-272-3078. 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.
/NATHAN M CORS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights