DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Re claim 1, 10, and 19, these independent claim recite the limitation of “first checking to determine an inability whether nodes in the current working route of a fiber optic network can communication and execute a cross connect deletion request, wherein the first checking comprises transmitting a cross connect deletion request message toward each node and receiving, from each node, a respective cross connection deletion confirmation message within a time out interval”, but the examiner is unable to find within the specification, the disclosure of a “timeout interval” or the confirmation message. In some parts of the disclosure, it states “If the alarm is not present, then the current working route is able to handle CRS deletion along all nodes on the route, so the process continues at step 312 above.”, such that the fulfillment of the deletion requestion has to do with the detection of the alarm rather than acknowledgments and timeout. Hence, the amended limitation is not supported by the current specification and it unable to reach the written description requirement.
Re claims 2-6, 9, 11-18, 20-22, these claim limitations are dependent upon the independent claims and suffer from the same issues as previously stated.
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, 6, 10, 11, 13-22 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.
Re claim 1, the claim is amended to recite “if the capacity change mode is a MODE1 mode, then”, such that the limitations that follow this statement is only required within a certain scenario and is not required by the claim scope at all times. Since certain limitations are not required at all time, the claim scope of the independent claims can vary, and the variations makes the claim scope indefinite and hard to define. Currently, the claim scope could be interpreted as such that once the checking a capacity change mode results in the capacity change mode not being MODE1, none of the other limitations are required, and all that is required is “receiving an indication of an auto-reversion or a manual operation to switch a current working route following fault recovery” and “checking a capacity change mode”. The variability of the claim scope is variable is found in dependent claims from claim 1, such as in dependent claim 4, which recites “checking a capacity change mode, wherein when the capacity change mode is not a MODE1 mode”, such that the capacity change mode being MODE 1 is not inherently required by the claim scope but rather varied by the scenario, such that the limitations that follow are not inherently required by the claim scope. The variation within the claim scope results in the claim being indefinite.
Re claims 2, 3, 6, these claims limitations are all dependent upon claim 1 and refer to steps that follow the scenario of “a capacity change mode being MODE1”, but these limitations also stem from a scenario that does not seem to be required by the claim scope, specifically from the limitation of “if the capacity change is MODE1 mode”, such that they also suffer from the same issues as the claim from which they depend and are also rejected accordingly.
Re claim 10, the claim is amended to recite “wherein when the capacity change mode is a MODE1 mode, then”, such that the limitations that follow this statement is only required within a certain scenario and is not always required by the claim scope. Since certain limitations are not required at all time, the claim scope of the independent claims can vary, and the variations makes the claim scope indefinite and hard to define. Currently, the claim scope could be interpreted as such that once the checking a capacity change mode results in the capacity change mode not being MODE1, none of the other limitations are required, and all that is required is “receiving an indication of an auto-reversion or a manual operation to switch a current working route following fault recovery” and “checking a capacity change mode”. The variability of the claim scope is variable is found in dependent claims from claim 10, such as in dependent claim 12, which recites “wherein the operations further comprise: performing the network operations when the capacity change mode is not MODE1 mode”, such that the capacity change mode being MODE 1 is not inherently required by the claim scope but rather varied by the scenario, such that the limitations that follow are not inherently required by the claim scope. The variation within the claim scope results in the claim being indefinite.
Re claims 2, 3, 6, these claims limitations are all dependent upon claim 1 and refer to steps that follow the scenario of “a capacity change mode being MODE1”, but these limitations also stem from a scenario that does not seem to be required by the claim scope, specifically from the limitation of “if the capacity change is MODE1 mode”, such that they also suffer from the same issues as the claim from which they depend and are also rejected accordingly.
Re claims 11, 13-18, these claims limitations are all dependent upon claim 1 and refer to steps that follow the scenario of “a capacity change mode being MODE1”, but these limitations also stem from a scenario that does not seem to be required by the claim scope, specifically from the limitation of “if the capacity change is MODE1 mode”, such that they also suffer from the same issues as the claim from which they depend and are also rejected accordingly.
Re claim 19, the claim is amended to recite “wherein when the capacity change mode is a MODE1 mode, then”, such that the limitations that follow this statement is only required within a certain scenario and is not always required by the claim scope. Since certain limitations are not required at all time, the claim scope of the independent claims can vary, and the variations makes the claim scope indefinite and hard to define. Currently, the claim scope could be interpreted as such that once the checking a capacity change mode results in the capacity change mode not being MODE1, none of the other limitations are required, and all that is required is “receiving an indication of an auto-reversion or a manual operation to switch a current working route following fault recovery” and “checking a capacity change mode. The variation within the claim scope results in the claim being indefinite.
Re claims 20, these claims limitations are all dependent upon claim 1 and refer to steps that follow the scenario of “a capacity change mode being MODE1”, but these limitations also stem from a scenario that does not seem to be required by the claim scope, specifically from the limitation of “if the capacity change is MODE1 mode”, such that they also suffer from the same issues as the claim from which they depend and are also rejected accordingly.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4, 5, 9, and 21, 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitation within claim 4, which claim 1 is dependent upon claim 1, states "wherein when the capacity change mode is not a MODE1 mode, the node performs network operations", but capacity change mode being MODE1 is noted by the limitation within claim 1, such that in the scenario, which is suggested by the claim 1, it would not further limit the claim scope if MODE1 was present. Applicants may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Re claims 5, 9, 21, and 22 these claims are dependent upon claim 4, and are rejected for reasons previously stated.
Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitation within claim 12, which claim 12 is dependent upon claim 10, states "wherein when the capacity change mode is not a MODE1 mode, the node performs network operations", but capacity change mode being MODE1 is noted by the limitation within claim 1, such that in the scenario, which is suggested by the claim 1, it would not further limit the claim scope if MODE1 was present. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANYA MOTSINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-7488. The examiner can normally be reached 9-4.
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.
TANYA MOTSINGER
Examiner
Art Unit 2637
/TANYA T MOTSINGER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights