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.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 21 and 31 recites “…a transmitter configured to operate using a transmit power that is less than a minimum transmit power specified for the optical module class for passive optical networks...” There is no teaching in the specification how the transmitter is configured to operate using a transmit power that is less than a minimum transmit power specified for the optical module class for passive optical networks. Is the transmitter controllable such that the power can be adjusted to be less than a minimum transmit power? How much power is considered as minimum transmit power? Will the transmitter operate if the transmit power is 0.1 dBm or 0.01 dBm or 0.001 dBm?
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.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 21 and 31 recites “…a transmitter configured to operate using a transmit power that is less than a minimum transmit power specified for the optical module class for passive optical networks...” The term “minimum” is not defined. It is unclear what limits the term “minimum” imposes.
The claim as written is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention because the claims do not point out and distinctly claim how the transmitter is configured to operate using a transmit power that is less than a minimum transmit power specified for the optical module class for passive optical network.
The claim as written is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention because there may be various ways that the transmitter may be configured to operate using a transmit power that is less than a minimum transmit power specified for the optical module class for passive optical networks.
In view of the 35 USC 112 rejections and broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the limitation “…transmitter is configured to operate using a transmit power that is less than a minimum transmit power…” is interpreted as a transmitter in which transmit power can be adjusted to a desired value.
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 21, 22, 25-32 and 35-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al (US Pub. 2012/0106952 A1) in view of Cress et al (US Pub. No. 2018/0198552 A1).
Regarding claim 21 (as far as understood in view of the 112 rejection), Xu et al teaches an apparatus, shown on Figs. 5 and 6, comprising:
a receiver (Rx) configured to operate using a receiver sensitivity specified for an optical module class for passive optical networks (para [0045]; “The optical power budget of the passive optical network, that is, the minimum optical link loss, is determined by the minimum transmission power of the optical transmitter minus the maximum sensitivity of the optical receiver. In order to increase the efficiency and reduce errors, standard organizations such as the IEEE and ITU and so on formulate the relevant standards and define a plurality of optical power budgets, and fix the pairs, that is, when a user selects one optical power budget category, the optical transmitters and optical receivers required by the OLT and ONU are also fixed.”; para [0051]; “There are two types of optical receivers, one is PIN, whose production process is simple and inexpensive but sensitivity is not large, and generally only -20 dBm can be guaranteed; the other is Avalanche Photo Diode (APD), whose production process is relatively complicated and relatively expensive but sensitivity is relatively high…”); and
a transmitter (Tx) configured to operate using a transmit power that is less than a transmit power specified for the optical module class for passive optical networks (para [0050]; “Two key devices that can be paired as a high optical power budget are an optical transmitter and an optical receiver. In the following, the performance and power of the optical transmitters are estimated in terms of a plurality of technical feasibilities. First of all, these optical transmitters are typically Multiple Quantum Wells Distributed Feedback Lasers (DFB) transmitters, so that large power can be guaranteed. 20 mW (13 dBm) DFB used is very common and is the most basic according to the prior art and the experience in the bearer network, and most of the device manufacturers can provide 40 mW (16 dBm) DFB. Therefore, the power range applied by the DFB optical transmitter is 4-18 dBm.”; The power range between 4-18 dBm suggests that output power can be adjusted to be less than a transmit power specified for the optical module class for passive optical networks).
Xu et al teaches a transmitter configured to operate using a transmit power range between 4-18 dBm (para [0050]; “…the power range applied by the DFB optical transmitter is 4-18 dBm.”) and differs from the claimed invention in that Xu et al does not specifically teach that the transmitter is configured to operate using a transmit power that is less than a minimum transmit power. Cress et al teaches a transmitter configured to control power level (para [0013]; “The present application generally pertains to systems and methods for optical network units (ONUs) of a passive optical network (PON) to automatically and quickly set their transmission power levels so as to avoid unacceptable levels of out-of-channel interference. By designing an optical line terminal (OLT) to advertise certain information, an ONU can then determine the appropriate power level to launch into the fiber, as will be described in more detail below.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the transmitter of Xu et al by controlling the transmit power, as taught by Cress et al, to be less than a minimum transmit power in order to reduce or eliminate interference between channels and thereby increase signal to noise ratio.
Regarding claims 22 and 32, combination of Xu et al as modified by Cress et al teaches output power can be adjusted so that the apparatus is configured such that a dispersion penalty at a particular distance is equal to or less than a maximum specified value (Xu et al: para [0053]; “…the result of the power of the optical transmitter minus the sensitivity of the optical receiver equals to the optical power budget level (minimum optical link loss) +1 dB (transmission and dispersion costs).”).
Regarding claims 25 and 35, combination of Xu et al as modified by Cress et al teaches wherein the optical module class for the passive optical networks comprises one of Class A, Class B, Class B+, Class N1, Class N2, Class C, Class C+, Class D, Class E1, or Class E2 (Xu et al: para [0050]; “…the power range applied by the DFB optical transmitter is 4-18 dBm.”).
Regarding claims 26 and 36, combination of Xu et al as modified by Cress et al teaches wherein the optical module class for the passive optical networks comprises Class D, wherein the minimum transmit power specified for Class D is +8 dBm, wherein the transmitter is configured to operate using a transmit power of +5 dBm (Xu et al: para [0050]; “…the power range applied by the DFB optical transmitter is 4-18 dBm.”).
Regarding claims 27 and 37, combination of Xu et al as modified by Cress et al teaches wherein the apparatus comprises a passive optical network module (Xu et al: para [0001]; “The present invention relates to the optical network system in the field of communication, and more especially, to a method and a device for an optical power budget in a passive optical network (PON).”).
Regarding claims 28 and 38, combination of Xu et al as modified by Cress et al teaches wherein the passive optical network module is configured to support a single passive optical network (Xu et al: para [0003]; “The Passive Optical Network (PON) is a point-to-multipoint fiber access technique, as shown in FIG. 1. The passive optical network comprises an Optical Line Terminal (OLT), an Optical Network Unit (ONU) and an Optical Distribution Network (ODN).”).
Regarding claims 29 and 39, combination of Xu et al as modified by Cress et al teaches wherein the passive optical network module is configured to support multiple passive optical networks (Xu et al: para [0003]; “Generally, the PON is a point-to-multipoint structure that is composed by one OLT connecting with multiple ONUs via the optical power splitter (the splitter) of the ODN, wherein each ONU includes an Optical Network Terminal (ONT) for Fiber To The Home (FTTH), and the ONT is a special form belonging to the ONU definition areas.”).
Regarding claims 30 and 40, combination of Xu et al as modified by Cress et al teaches wherein the apparatus comprises an optical line terminal for a passive optical network (Xu et al: para [0003]; “The Passive Optical Network (PON) is a point-to-multipoint fiber access technique, as shown in FIG. 1. The passive optical network comprises an Optical Line Terminal (OLT), an Optical Network Unit (ONU) and an Optical Distribution Network (ODN).”).
Regarding claim 31 (as far as understood in view of the 112 rejection), Xu et al teaches a method, shown on Figs. 5 and 6, comprising:
receiving, by a receiver (Rx) configured to operate using a receiver sensitivity specified for an optical module class for passive optical networks, upstream signals from one or more optical network units (para [0045]; “The optical power budget of the passive optical network, that is, the minimum optical link loss, is determined by the minimum transmission power of the optical transmitter minus the maximum sensitivity of the optical receiver. In order to increase the efficiency and reduce errors, standard organizations such as the IEEE and ITU and so on formulate the relevant standards and define a plurality of optical power budgets, and fix the pairs, that is, when a user selects one optical power budget category, the optical transmitters and optical receivers required by the OLT and ONU are also fixed.”; para [0051]; “There are two types of optical receivers, one is PIN, whose production process is simple and inexpensive but sensitivity is not large, and generally only -20 dBm can be guaranteed; the other is Avalanche Photo Diode (APD), whose production process is relatively complicated and relatively expensive but sensitivity is relatively high…”); and
transmitting , by a transmitter (Tx) configured to operate using a transmit power that is less than a transmit power specified for the optical module class for passive optical networks, downstream signals toward the one or more optical network units (para [0050]; “Two key devices that can be paired as a high optical power budget are an optical transmitter and an optical receiver. In the following, the performance and power of the optical transmitters are estimated in terms of a plurality of technical feasibilities. First of all, these optical transmitters are typically Multiple Quantum Wells Distributed Feedback Lasers (DFB) transmitters, so that large power can be guaranteed. 20 mW (13 dBm) DFB used is very common and is the most basic according to the prior art and the experience in the bearer network, and most of the device manufacturers can provide 40 mW (16 dBm) DFB. Therefore, the power range applied by the DFB optical transmitter is 4-18 dBm.”; The power range between 4-a8 dBm suggests that output power can be adjusted to be less than a transmit power specified for the optical module class for passive optical networks).
Xu et al teaches a transmitter configured to operate using a transmit power range between 4-18 dBm (para [0050]; “…the power range applied by the DFB optical transmitter is 4-18 dBm.”) and differs from the claimed invention in that Xu et al does not specifically teach that the transmitter is configured to operate using a transmit power that is less than a minimum transmit power. Cress et al teaches a transmitter configured to control power level (para [0013]; “The present application generally pertains to systems and methods for optical network units (ONUs) of a passive optical network (PON) to automatically and quickly set their transmission power levels so as to avoid unacceptable levels of out-of-channel interference. By designing an optical line terminal (OLT) to advertise certain information, an ONU can then determine the appropriate power level to launch into the fiber, as will be described in more detail below.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the transmitter of Xu et al by controlling the transmit power, as taught by Cress et al, to be less than a minimum transmit power in order to reduce or eliminate interference between channels and thereby increase signal to noise ratio.
Claims 23, 24, 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al (US Pub. 2012/0106952 A1) in view of Cress et al (US Pub. No. 2018/0198552 A1) and further in view of Sugawara et al (US Pub. No. 2009/0169209 A1).
Regarding claims 23 and 33, combination of Xu et al as modified by Cress et al teaches passive optical communication system transmitting optical signal at various power levels and differs from the claimed invention in that Xu et al does not specifically wherein the apparatus is configured to support execution of a dispersion penalty test to measure a dispersion penalty at a particular distance. Sugawara et al teaches several ways to compensate dispersion in PON system (para [0005]; “With respect to the wavelength dispersion, the wavelength dispersion refers to a phenomenon in which lights having different wavelengths propagate inside an optical fiber at different speeds. Since an optical spectrum of an optical signal modulated at a high-speed contains different wavelength components, the components reach a receiver at different times while propagating an optical fiber. As a result, a waveform of an optical signal causes a distortion after passing through a fiber. In order to suppress such waveform deterioration caused by the wavelength dispersion, there is a dispersion compensation technology. In the dispersion compensation technology, an optical element, which has the wavelength dispersion characteristics opposite to that of an optical fiber used in a transmission line, is disposed in an optical transmitter, a receiver, or a relay or the like, thereby aiming to cancel the wavelength dispersion characteristics of the optical fiber and to prevent waveform deterioration from happening. As such an optical element, that is, a dispersion compensator, a device such as a dispersion compensation fiber or an optical fiber grating, which has an opposite dispersion characteristics, has been studied and attempted to be practiced. However, a dispersion compensator is very expensive to be used in the PON system, therefore it is very difficult to be adopted really. As an alternative way of not using a dispersion compensator, use of a low chirp external modulator can be considered. A chirp refers to a minute and dynamic wavelength variation happened when modulating an optical carrier emitted from a communication laser in an optical communications system. The chirp causes a group delay in accordance with a wavelength dispersion value of an optical transmission line, and causes a waveform of an optical signal pulse to be distorted, resulting in the deterioration of transmission quality. When directly modulating a laser beam for a wavelength of 1490 nm or more which is used in the PON system, it is difficult to realize 20 km of transmission distance due to the influences of the chirp and the dispersion. Thus, it is thought that a way of adopting an EA (Electro-Absorption) modulator which uses the electro-absorption effect of a semiconductor is promising in this case. The reason is as follows: since the EA uses a semiconductor material, the EA is easy to be integrated with an external modulator and a laser together, which can reduce a cost up in comparison with a modulator used an optical crystal having an electro-optical effect, such as LiNbO3. In fact, using such a modulator makes more expensive than a way of directly modulating a laser beam; however, the cost up factor is not a serious one, because, in the PON system, multiple subscribers share the equipment of the central office and the cost for the equipment is divided by the number of the subscribers.”). Since there exist several technologies to compensate for dispersion, therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the passive optical communication system of the combination by including dispersion compensation system, as taught by Sugawara et al, in order to reduce or eliminate signal deterioration and hence increase signal to noise ratio. See also page 6 of applicant’s remarks filed January 20, 2026 (“Applicant notes that a dispersion penalty test is a well-known and standardized procedure in optical communication systems, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand what it means to perform such a dispersion penalty test.”).
Regarding claims 24 and 34 combination of Xu et al as modified by Cress et al and further as modified by Sugawara et al, differs from the claimed invention in that the combination does not specifically teach wherein the dispersion penalty test is configured to confirm that the dispersion at the particular distance is equal to or less than a maximum specified value. However, since Sugawara et al teaches dispersion compensation, therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to adjust the compensation such that the dispersion penalty test is configured to confirm that the dispersion at the particular distance is equal to or less than a maximum specified value in order to reduce or eliminate signal deterioration and hence increase signal to noise ratio. Furthermore, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Swain et al., 33 CCPA (Patents) 1250, 156 F.2d 239, 70 USPQ 412; Minnesota Minning and Mfg. Co. v. Coe, 69 App D.C. 217, 99 F.2d 986, 38 USPQ 213; Allen et al. v. Coe, 77 App D.C. 324, 135 F.2d 11, 57 USPQ 136. In addition, discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 239, 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); In re Aller, 42 CCPA 824, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (1955). See also In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) and In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). See also page 6 of applicant’s remarks filed January 20, 2026 (“Applicant notes that a dispersion penalty test is a well-known and standardized procedure in optical communication systems, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand what it means to perform such a dispersion penalty test.”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 6 of the remark, applicant states:
“Applicant notes that a dispersion penalty test is a well-known and standardized procedure in optical communication systems, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand what it means to perform such a dispersion penalty test. The written description requirement does not require the specification to teach the details of a known testing procedure or identify specific circuitry for such known testing procedure; rather, the written description requirement only requires that the specification reasonably convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor has possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.”
Based on applicant’s remark that performing dispersion penalty test is well known, the 35 USC 112 rejections previously made on office action mailed October 17, 2025, in regard to claims 23, 24, 33 and 34, is hereby withdrawn.
On page 7 to page 8 of the remark applicant states:
“…Xu are devoid of any disclosure or suggestion of optical module classes or transmit powers specified for optical module classes. Rather, the cited portions of Xu merely disclose the technical capabilities of optical transmitters and optical receivers within the context of describing optical power budget for optical transmitter/receiver pairs. More specifically, regarding the optical transmitter, the cited portions of Xu merely disclose the technical capabilities of optical transmitters in terms of the transmit powers which are within the technical capabilities of the transmitters, without regard to optical module class.”
Optical module classes such as A, B, C, D and others generally refer to the power budget and sensitivity of PON (Passive Optical Network) transceivers, particularly GPON OLT modules, determining their transmission distance and splitting ratio capabilities. Xu et al teaches optical modules relating to power budget and sensitivity on PON transceiver (Xu et al: para [0062]; “Refer to Table 2, as addressed above, the adaptive optical power budget system can be provided for the passive optical network transmission with large splitting ratio in accordance with the combinations of optical modules defined in the IEEE 802.3av.”; TABLE 2 shows “… the combinations of optical modules defined in the IEEE 802.3av standard…”; para [0110]; “…the combination module 82 is configured to: select optical transmitters with large power and optical receivers with high sensitivity as the combination of the optical transmitter of OLT and the optical receiver of ONU in the optical link, as well as the combination of the optical receiver of OLT and the optical transmitter of ONU in the optical link according to the minimum optical link loss acquired by the budget module 81 to compose a passive optical network system comprising the OLT, ODN and ONUs connected in sequence.”).
In view of the 35 USC 112 rejections and in interpreting the claims to the broadest reasonable interpretation, the combination of Xu et al as modified by Cress et al teaches the claimed subject matter.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DALZID E SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-3029. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 ET.
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.
DALZID E. SINGH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2635
/DALZID E SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635