Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim 1 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Harney et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2004/0208552 Al) in view of Shpantzer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2002/0186435 A1) and Spivey et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2005/0074237 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Harney et al. teaches in FIG. 2 a system comprising clients 46 and optical sub-channel switch 44 for mapping the client signal to any available sub-channel. Harney et al. teaches in FIG. 4 route between a first node and a destination at a second node. The difference between Harney et al. and the claimed invention is that Harney et al. does not teach a separate laser operating at a distinct optical carrier frequency. Shpantzer et al. teaches in FIG. 3a a transmitter for generating a plurality of subchannel carriers fora WDM system. FIG. 3a comprises a separate light source 330 for each subchannel. Shpantzer et al. teaches in paragraph [0054] K discrete lasers for K subchannels. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Shpantzer et al. with the system of Harney et al. because using discrete lasers allows each subchannel to be controlled independently. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use discrete lasers for the subchannels, as taught by Shpantzer et al., in the system of Harney et al. because using discrete lasers allows each subchannel to be controlled independently.
The combination of Harney et al. and Shpantzer et al. still fails to teach that the frequency of at least one subchannel is offset from an ITU-T grid. Spivey et al. teaches in paragraph [0003] the ITU grid of 100 GHz (or 50 GHz) separation and in FIG 5 the spectrum of subchannels. Since the subchannels can have separation of 4 GHz, it is necessary that some of the subchannels have offset from the ITU grid. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Spivey et al. with the modified system of Harney et al. and Shpantzer et al. because using smaller channel spacing than the ITU grid provides more channels for a given bandwidth. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use subchannels with smaller channel spacing than the ITU grid, as taught by Spivey et al., in the modified system of Harney et al. and Shpantzer et al. because using smaller channel spacing than the ITU grid provides more channels for a given bandwidth.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,972,209. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of Patent ‘209 teaches all the limitations of claim 1 of instant application.
Claim 1 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,419,743. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of Patent ‘743 teaches all the limitations of claim 1 of instant application.
Claim 1 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 8,744,262. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of Patent ‘262 teaches all the limitations of claim 1 of instant application.
The following table maps the limitations between claim 1 of instant application and those of claim 1 of Patent ‘262, claim 1 of Patent ‘743 and claim 1 of Patent ‘209.
Claim 1 of instant application
Claim 1 of Patent ‘262
Claim 1 of Patent ‘743
Claim 1 of Patent ‘209
A system to route client signals among a plurality of nodes interconnected by one or more fiber optic cables to form an optical network, the system comprising:
A system that can route client signals among a plurality of nodes interconnected by one or more fiber optic cables to form an optical network, the system comprising:
A system that can route client signals among a plurality of nodes interconnected by one or more fiber optic cables to form an optical network, the system comprising:
A system to route client signals among a plurality of nodes interconnected by one or more fiber optic cables to form an optical network, the system comprising:
one or more optical subchannels, each optical subchannel corresponding to a separate laser operating at a distinct optical carrier frequency, wherein the optical carrier frequency at which the laser is operating for at least one subchannel is offset from an International Telecommunication Union, Telecommunication Sector (ITU-T) grid;
wherein each ITU channel has a predefined ITU frequency and a corresponding plurality of subchannels, and wherein each subchannel has an associated frequency with a predetermined offset from the predefined ITU frequency of the subchannel's corresponding ITU channel;(c) a tunable laser at the first node that can be set to a first subchannel frequency for which the second node has a filter to receive signals transmitted at that subchannel frequency,
wherein each ITU channel in the plurality of ITU channels has a predefined ITU frequency and a corresponding plurality of subchannels, and wherein each subchannel has an associated frequency with a predetermined offset from the predefined ITU frequency of the subchannel's corresponding ITU channel;a tunable laser at the first node that can be set to a first subchannel frequency
one or more optical subchannels within or across a plurality of International Telecommunication Union, Telecommunication Sector (ITU-T) channels, each ITU channel having a predefined ITU frequency and a corresponding plurality of optical subchannels, each of the one or more optical subchannels corresponding to a separate laser operating at a distinct optical carrier frequency offset from an International Telecommunication Union, Telecommunication Sector (ITU-T) grid;
a first network route that designates an origin of the one or more optical subchannels at a first node, and a destination for the corresponding one or more optical subchannels at a second node, wherein the first network route to transmit one or more of the client signals;
(b) a first network route that designates the origin of a first client signal at a first node, and a destination for the first client signal at a second node;
a first network route that designates the origin of a first client signal at a first node, and a destination for the first client signal at a second node;
a first network route that designates an origin of the one or more optical subchannels at a first node, and a destination for the corresponding one or more optical subchannels at a second node, wherein the first network route to transmit one or more of the client signals;
and a subchannel mapper to map at the first node the one or more of the client signals to the one or more optical subchannels.
(a) a subchannel mapper that can map each of a plurality of client signals to any available subchannel of any ITU channel,
a subchannel mapper that can map each of a plurality of client signals to a corresponding subchannel within or across a plurality of ITU channels,
and a subchannel mapper to map at the first node the one or more of the client signals to a one or more optical subchannels of a first of the plurality of ITU channels and a one or more optical subchannels of a second of the plurality of ITU channels different from the first of the plurality of ITU channels.
Conclusion
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.
skl17 November 2025
/SHI K LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635