The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 10, and 12 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chau (US 2013/0120826 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chau discloses (Figs. 1, 4, and 9; para. 0023 and 0047 – 0051) an optical switch apparatus 10 comprising:
an optical input port (comprising at least one of 4 ports defined by 2x2 input fiber array 12; para. 0023);
a plurality of optical output ports (4 ports defined by 2x2 output fiber array 23-26; para. 0023);
a controlling optical receiver 1,108,100 (comprising an input power tap 1 and an output power tap 108; para. 0023);
an optical switching mechanism (MEMS switch) configured to optically couple the optical input port with a controllably selectable one of a set of elements 16,18,23-26,1,108 (comprising input and output MEMS mirror arrays 16,18; para. 0023) to provide light from the input port to the one of the set of elements 16,18,23-26,1,108, the set of elements 16,18,23-26, 1,108 including the plurality of optical output ports 23-26 (light-receiving endfaces of output fibers) and the controlling optical receiver 1,108 (comprising optical taps); and
a triggering optical detector component 2,110 (input and output power sensors; para. 0023) configured to:
monitor light conditions at the optical input port (via the input power tap 1 and an input power senor 2 that collectively generate a monitoring signal g(t) representative of the light conditions at the optical input port; para. 0023)
to detect a predetermined condition (transmitted via an in-band optical signal; para. 0023); and
in response to detection of the predetermined condition, cause the optical switching mechanism (its MEMS mirrors 16,18) to direct modulated light (data transmitted via light), as received at the optical input port, to the controlling optical receiver (its part 108),
wherein the controlling optical receiver 1,108,100 is configured to receive and process the modulated light S(t),f(t) to obtain control information included therein, and to cause the optical switching mechanism (MEMS switch) to perform specific actions (“FIG. 1 shows input power tap 1 and sensor 2 and output power tap 108 and sensor 110. They are utilized to detect the optical power at each input and output fibers. Input power sensor is used to extract the in-band signals, g(t), off the optical data channel from the network system upstream. The signal, g(t), is used to affect the local system for specific actions. Output power sensor is used to interpret the alignment errors in order to supply continuous adjustment to the control voltages of both input and output mirrors. In FIG. 1, S(t) is expressed as an in-band signal generated locally and is intended for the system downstream … The power signal, f(t), extracted at the output can be shown as frequency modulated signals that originated as S(t)” at para. 0023, emphasis added).
Figure 9 of Chau illustrates and details an arrangement wherein an external optical source (All Optical Network) sends a commanded sequence as an in-band optical signal to a downstream MEMS switch and, if a key is matched, a certain optical connection from the input port to a target output port/fiber (claim 7) is allowed and turned on. Hence, Chau at the very least renders obvious that one of the specific actions of the MEMS switch in Fig. 1 caused by the received control information (in-band commanded sequence) is to couple the optical input port to a particular one (a target output fiber) of the plurality of optical output ports based on the control information.
To wit, Chau does not limit in-band command sequences to any particular command and renders obvious that any function the MEMS switch is capable of (port switching, power alignment/adjustment in a path between a given input port and a given output port, switching a particular channel on or off, etc) can be caused/triggered by an optical in-band command sequences sent to the MEMS switch from a remote site.
As an aside and relevant comment for the claims, it is also noted that the MEMS switch of Chau has essential structural features (MEMS mirrors controlled by a controller with a feedback loop) and a principle of operation (remote control by in-band optical signals) that are substantially similar/identical to those of the instant application, as evident by a direct side-by-side comparison of Fig. 1 of Chau with Fig. 2 of the instant application. Both are MEMS switches controlled in the optical domain by in-band optical signals, as evidenced by the titles of the disclosures of the Chau reference and the instant application.
Regarding claim 8, Chau teaches expressly or renders obvious all of the recited step limitations of a corresponding method of using the disclosed MEM switch, as detailed above for claim 8.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Chau teaches (Fig. 1; para. 0023) that the optical switching mechanism (MEMS switch) comprises a micro electrical mechanical system (MEMS) mirror array 16,18.
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Chau teaches (Fig. 1; para. 0023) that the disclosed apparatus comprises a tap 1 configured to receive and redirect a portion of light from the optical input port toward the triggering optical detector component 2 (input power sensor).
Regarding claims 5, 6, 12, and 13, Chau does not limit in-band command sequences to any particular command and renders obvious that any function the MEMS switch is capable of (port switching, power alignment/adjustment in a path between a given input port and a given output port, switching a particular channel on or off, etc) can be caused/triggered by an optical in-band command sequences sent to the MEMS switch from a remote site.
Selection of a suitable/workable signaling sequence for intended commands, including switching light off and back on in a binary (on/off) manner or any other coded sequence in the time domain, would be well within ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Chau teaches (Figs. 1 and 9; para. 0023 and 0051) that the modulated light (modulated signal S(t),g(t) in Fig. 1 which may contain an in-band command sequence sent from an all-optical network, as shown in Fig. 9) can immediately precede or be part of an optical signal received at the optical input port for redirection to the particular one of the plurality of optical output ports.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chau in view of Ma et al (US 6,567,574 B1).
Regarding claim 4 and 11, Chau teaches only embodiments (Fig. 1) optical taps are implemented prior to the input ports (tap 1) and after the output ports (tap 108) and Chau does not detail their structural particulars. However, Ma discloses (Figs. 1 – 4; 4:42 – 6:65) a MEMS type switch (the same general type as that in Chau) comprising optical taps 114,124 that are disposed between the input and output ports 112,122 and each implemented as a leaky reflector configured to receive and redirect, via reflection, a major portion of light from the optical input port toward the controllably selectable one of the set of elements, and to receive and redirect, via admission through the leaky reflector, a remaining (passed/split-off) portion of the light from the optical input port toward a monitoring optical detector component 118/128 (5:15 – 6:7), the latter being comprised in feedback control loop (8:55 – 61).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the MEMS switch of Chau can additionally or alternatively comprise optical taps implemented as leaky reflectors, as a suitable/workable design choice that is expressly taught by Ma and can reduce optical loss within the MEMS switch by using a specially selected wavelength of light for monitoring and configuring the MEMS mirrors to at least partially pass it through (5:57 – 6:6:7).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2013/0107347 A1
US 2002/0092963 A1
US 9,733,432 B2
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT TAVLYKAEV whose telephone number is (571)270-5634. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am - 6:00 pm, 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, William Kraig can be reached on (571)272-8660. 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.
/ROBERT TAVLYKAEV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896