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 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 tunable optical filter (fig. 1 element 111 and paragraph 0027), 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), the photodetector is configured to receive a downstream signal from a transceiver of a fixed wavelength (paragraph 0036 in light of paragraph 0032, the first wavelength is a fixed wavelength sent by element 10), and processing circuitry (fig. 1 element 114 and paragraphs 0031-0032), 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 an overlay signal for the upstream transmission, the overlay signal indication information (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. Note: the recitation that the overlay signal indicates a wavelength of an optical data signal is non-limiting intended use. The apparatus and/or overlay signal is not physically or functionally changed by specifying particular information that the physical waveform is abstractly representing.
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 overlay signal, or coded in digital information provided in the 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
Claims 4 and 7-13 are allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that reciting that the overlay signal indicating a wavelength of an optical data signal is not non-limiting use language. Applicant’s argument is based on whether the recitation appears in the preamble or not. However, while an intended use in a preamble affects how the preamble is considered (see MPEP § 2111.02), this is not the only consideration for an intended use recitation. An intended use recitation that appears in the body of a claimed apparatus generally does not impart a patentable distinction if it merely states an intention while the prior art satisfies all the structural limitations of the claimed apparatus. The intended use does not impose a limit on the interpretation of the claim (see MPEP § 2103(I)(C) and 2111.04). In the present case, the recitation that the overlay signal indicates a wavelength of another signal, an optical data signal, is only directed to information content of the overlay signal, i.e. what the overlay signal waveform is intended to convey. There is no structural result from the information content of the message being what it is. Applicant also argues that the information qualifies as a positively recited element. To the contrary, while the signal carrying the information is a positively recited element, i.e., a physical waveform carrying symbols, the information itself, i.e., the message of the symbols, is not a structural element.
Applicant also argues that the information content of the overlay signal makes a manipulative difference, arguing for claim 5 that the step requires receipt of a signal of “the recited character.” This argument is not persuasive. A signal being optical, and the signal carrying decodable information about the fixed wavelength of the overlay signal, are both manipulative differences for the corresponding steps in the claim as written. However, the information indicating the wavelength of an optical data signal is not an additional manipulative difference, because nothing happens in the method because of that information. The decoding step is not decoding the wavelength information of an optical data signal, it is decoding information relating to the fixed wavelength of the overlay signal itself.
Applicant further argues that the content of the overlay signal determines the physical passband state to which the filter is set. This is true for the information relating to the fixed wavelength of the overlay signal itself, which determines the physical passband state of the filter. However, the information indicating a wavelength of an optical data signal has no functional role.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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.
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