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 .
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.
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(s) 16-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (U.S. Patent 6,483,631 B1) in view of Satyarthi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2020/0059712 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Cheng et al. teaches in FIG. 2 a method comprising: sampling an optical power of one or more optical channel of an optical signal (the optical channel monitor 34 measures the optical spectrum—i.e. power profile— of the signal output by gain stage 30) as a sample power profile; generating an attenuation profile based on the sample power profile and a target power profile (Cheng et al. teaches in col. 9, lines18-21 desired amount of attenuation and desired amount tilt); and shaping the optical signal based on the attenuation profile (Cheng et al. teaches in col. 5, lines 29-35 that the control unit 36 adjusts the settings of the tilt controller, the variable optical attenuator 42 and the gain stage to produce different amounts of attenuation for different frequencies). The difference between Cheng et al. and the claimed invention is that Cheng et al. does not teach spectral slice. Satyarthi et al. teaches in paragraphs [0072]-[0073] that a spectrum can be divided by a wavelength selective switch (WSS) in slices each of which can be attenuated individually by the WSS. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Satyarthi et al. with the system of Cheng et al. because the power level adjustment can be accurately controlled by adjusting each slice independently. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control each slice using a WSS, as taught by Satyarthi et al., in the system of Cheng et al.
Regarding claim 17, Cheng et al. teaches in FIG. 2 optical channel monitor 34.
Regarding claim 18, Satyarthi et al. teaches in paragraph [0050] that a spectrum of 12.5 GHz is divided into slice; therefore each slice is smaller than 12.5 GHz; Satyarthi et al. teaches in FIG. 2 and FIG. 4 three slices; therefore each slice is about 4.2 GHz.
Regarding claim 20, Cheng et al. teaches in FIG. 4 different spectral tilts including flat power profile and non-uniform shaped power profile.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. and Satyarthi et al. as applied to claims 16-18 and 20 above, and further in view of Kaneoka et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2014/0126903 A1).
Cheng et al. and Satyarthi et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 16-18 and 20. Regarding claim 1, Satyarthi et al. further teaches in paragraph [0081] processor and memory storing processor-executable instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to perform a method. The difference between Cheng et al. and Satyarthi et al. and the claimed invention is that Cheng et al. and Satyarthi et al. do not teach an add transceiver. Kaneoka et al. teaches in FIG. 2 the construction of a ROADM with line ports #1 and #2 (the top leftmost and rightmost arrows). Kaneoka et al. teaches in FIG. 15 an add configuration where transceivers 15 add channels to one of the optical line ports via OCM 147 and WSS 144. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Kaneoka et al. with the modified system of Cheng et al. and Satyarthi et al. because ROADM (Reconfigurable Optical Add-Drop Multiplexer) is a common device in the WDM technology. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the modified system of Cheng et al. and Satyarthi et al. in a ROADM, as taught by Kaneoka et al.
Regarding claim 3, Kaneoka et al. teaches in FIG. 15 that the wavelength selective switch is disposed between the line port and the optical signal inspector.
Regarding claim 5, Cheng et al. teaches in FIG. 2 optical channel monitor 34.
Regarding claims 6-7, Cheng et al. teaches in FIG. 4 different spectral tilts including flat power profile and non-uniform shaped power profile.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al., Satyarthi et al. and Kaneoka et al. as applied to claims 1, 3 and 5-7 above, and further in view of Magri et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2024/0031024 A1).
Cheng et al., Satyarthi et al. and Kaneoka et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 1, 3 and 5-7. The difference between Cheng et al., Satyarthi et al. and Kaneoka et al. and the claimed invention is that Cheng et al., Satyarthi et al. and Kaneoka et al. do not teach determining a second sample power profile based on the optical power of the one or more spectral slices at a second period in time. Magri et al. teaches in FIG. 2 a process for adjusting the power of optical channels. Magri et al. teaches in paragraph [0104] that the process can be performed periodically. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Magri et al. with the modified system of Cheng et al., Satyarthi et al. and Kaneoka et al. because the approach of Magri et al. takes into consideration that the operating parameters may have changed such that readjustment is needed. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the power levels of the optical spectrum periodically, as taught by Magri et al., in the modified system of Cheng et al., Satyarthi et al. and Kaneoka et al.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al., Satyarthi et al. and Kaneoka et al. as applied to claims 1, 3 and 5-7 above, and further in view of Maki et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2009/0041457 A1) and Boduch (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2009/0226168 A1).
Cheng et al., Satyarthi et al. and Kaneoka et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 1, 3 and 5-7. The difference between Cheng et al., Satyarthi et al. and Kaneoka et al. and the claimed invention is that Cheng et al., Satyarthi et al. and Kaneoka et al. do not teach a configuration similar to that of FIG. 15 of Kaneoka et al. for a drop transceiver. Maki et al. teaches in the last diagram/slot of FIG. 43 a configuration for drop transceiver with OCM and WSS. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Maki et al. with the modified system of Cheng et al., Satyarthi et al. and Kaneoka et al. because adjusting the power to a drop transceiver optimizes the transceiver’s performance. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the optical power to a drop transceiver, as taught by Maki et al., in the modified system of Cheng et al., Satyarthi et al. and Kaneoka et al.
The combination of Cheng et al., Satyarthi et al., Kaneoka et al. and Maki et al. still fails to teach that a common OCM can be shared for controlling of power levels of the drop transceiver and the add transceiver. Boduch teaches in FIG. 10 that a single OCM 1055 can be shared for measuring the power level of the drop transceiver (connected to the drop port 1042) and the power level of the add transceiver (connected to the add port 1040) by switching between the two paths using a 2-to-1 switch. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Boduch with the modified system of Cheng et al., Satyarthi et al., Kaneoka et al. and Maki et al. because the approach reduces cost. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to share a common OCM for measuring the power level of the add transceiver and power level of the drop transceiver, as taught by Boduch, in the modified system of Cheng et al., Satyarthi et al., Kaneoka et al. and Maki et al.
Claim(s) 8, 10-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (U.S. Patent 6,483,631 B1) in view of Satyarthi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2020/0059712 A1).
Cheng et al. and Satyarthi et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 16-18 and 20. Regarding claim 8, Cheng et al. further teaches in col. 3, lines 25-28 that the optical amplifier 18 of FIG. 2 can be an in-line amplifier; Satyarthi et al. further teaches in paragraph [0081] processor and memory storing processor-executable instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to perform a method.
Regarding claim 10, Cheng et al. teaches in FIG. 2 that the dynamic gain equalizer is disposed between the first line port and the optical signal inspector.
Regarding claim 11, Cheng et al. teaches in FIG. 2 optical channel monitor 34.
Regarding claims 12-13, Cheng et al. teaches in FIG. 4 different spectral tilts including flat power profile and non-uniform shaped power profile.
Regarding claim 15, Satyarthi et al. teaches in paragraphs [0072]-[0073] that a spectrum can be divided by a wavelength selective switch (WSS) in slices each which can be attenuated individually by the WSS.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. and Satyarthi et al. as applied to claims 8, 10-13 and 15 above, and further in view of Magri et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2024/0031024 A1).
Cheng et al. and Satyarthi et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 8, 10-13 and 15. The difference between Cheng et al. and Satyarthi et al. and the claimed invention is that Cheng et al. and Satyarthi et al. do not teach determining a second sample power profile based on the optical power of the one or more spectral slices at a second period in time. Magri et al. teaches in FIG. 2 a process for adjusting the power of optical channels. Magri et al. teaches in paragraph [0104] that the process can be performed periodically. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Magri et al. with the modified system of Cheng et al. and Satyarthi et al. because the approach of Magri et al. takes into consideration that the operating parameters may have changed such that readjustment is needed. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the power levels of the optical spectrum periodically, as taught by Magri et al., in the modified system of Cheng et al. and Satyarthi et al.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. and Satyarthi et al. as applied to claims 8, 10-13 and 15 above, and further in view of Trisnadi et al. (U.S. Patent 7,054,515 B1).
Cheng et al. and Satyarthi et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 8, 10-13 and 15. The difference between Cheng et al. and Satyarthi et al. and the claimed invention is that Cheng et al. and Satyarthi et al. do not teach that the optical signal inspector and the dynamic gain equalizer are integrated into an optical component. Trisnadi et al. teaches in FIG. 5 an equalizer with integrated spectral monitor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Trisnadi et al. with the modified system of Cheng et al. and Satyarthi et al. because the integrated device is compact. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use and integrated equalizer with monitor capability, as taught by Trisnadi et al., in the modified system of Cheng et al. and Satyarthi et al.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. and Satyarthi et al. as applied to claims 16-18 and 20 above, and further in view of Magri et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2024/0031024 A1).
Cheng et al. and Satyarthi et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 16-18 and 20. The difference between Cheng et al. and Satyarthi et al. and the claimed invention is that Cheng et al. and Satyarthi et al. do not teach determining a second sample power profile based on the optical power of the one or more spectral slices at a second period in time. Magri et al. teaches in FIG. 2 a process for adjusting the power of optical channels. Magri et al. teaches in paragraph [0104] that the process can be performed periodically. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Magri et al. with the modified system of Cheng et al. and Satyarthi et al. because the approach of Magri et al. takes into consideration that the operating parameters may have changed such that readjustment is needed. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the power levels of the optical spectrum periodically, as taught by Magri et al., in the modified system of Cheng et al. and Satyarthi et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues:
The Satyarthi reference discloses methods and apparatuses for preventing false recovery in optical networks. Satyarthi has absolutely nothing to do with inter-carrier shaping processes. Instead, Satyarthi discloses using a controller at a node to generate fault indications for a failure where restoration or protection would be ineffective and preventing sending false fault indications until an optical switch fabric of the bode has at least substantially completed a ramp-up process in which optical signals have sufficient power to carry data traffic to a downstream node.
The office action cites Satyarthi as teaching that a spectrum can be divided into spectral slices by a WSS and alleges that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Chang and Satyarthi in order to produce control each slice of a spectrum using a WSS. However, as mentioned above, Satyarthi has absolutely nothing to do with inter-carrier shaping processes.
The argument is not persuasive. The claimed invention of Satyarthi et al. may be a method for preventing false recovery in optical network. However, prior art and its teachings must be considered as a whole in determining the patentability of a claim. Satyarthi et al. clearly teaches in paragraphs [0072]-[0073] that a spectrum can be divided by a wavelength selective switch (WSS) in slices each of which can be attenuated individually by the WSS. Such teaching is relevant to the claimed invention of instant application.
The argument continues:
Neither Chang, Satyarthi, nor any other reference cited in the outstanding office action relates to intra-carrier shaping processes that use a high-resolution optical signal inspector to measure the signal power profile and wavelength selective switches (WSS) to apply a corrective attenuation profile to achieve a target power profile within a signal carrier. In fact, none of the art cited in the outstanding office action even considers the problems solved by the embodiments disclosed in the subject application. Even if Satyarthi suggests that a WSS can be used to produce control of each slice of a spectrum, nothing in Satyarthi, Chang, or any other cited reference disclose or suggest measuring the signal power profile and wavelength selective switches (WSS) to apply a corrective attenuation profile to achieve a target power profile within a signal carrier.
The argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant's invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., intra-carrier shaping) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The argument continues:
As such, not only do the cited references fail to disclose the subject matter claimed in the subject application, no motivation exists to combine Chang and Satyarthi since neither address the problem solved by the subject application.
The argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that there is no suggestion to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness can only be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Satyarthi et al. teaches in paragraphs [0072]-[0073] that a spectrum can be divided by a wavelength selective switch (WSS) in slices each which can be attenuated individually by the WSS. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Satyarthi et al. with the system of Cheng et al. because the power level adjustment can be accurately controlled by adjusting each slice independently. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control each slice using a WSS, as taught by Satyarthi et al., in the system of Cheng et al.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHI K LI whose telephone number is (571)272-3031. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:53 a.m. -3:23 p.m.
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, David Payne can be reached at 571 272-3024. 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.
skl22 October 2025
/SHI K LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635