DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a reinterpretation of the structure of Lin et al. as set forth below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 18 and 25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10 – 14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (WO 2008019612).
In Re claims 10 and 17, ‘612 teaches a switch, comprising: a first laser (710, continuous wave broad spectrum light source, pgs. 4, 7, 8 of translation) and a first optical splitter (73, AWG is a spectral splitter), wherein the first laser is configured to provide a first laser light, and wherein the first optical splitter is configured to split the first laser light into a first downstream laser light and a second downstream laser light (two wavelengths 1 and 2), wherein first information (from 703) is transmitted from the switch to the first terminal using the first downstream laser light, and wherein second information is transmitted from the switch to the second terminal using the second downstream laser light (fig. 7).
Examiner notes that the claim is to a switch and that the local area network and its first and second terminals are not claimed as part of the switch, but rather an environment for which the switch can be used.
In Re claims 11 and 12, ‘612 teaches wherein the switch further comprises a second laser (backup 710 adjacent to labeled 710, fig. 7) and a second optical splitter (702), wherein the second laser is configured to provide a second laser light, wherein the second optical splitter is configured to split the second laser light into a third laser light and a fourth laser light (two wavelengths 1 and 2 as the claim doesn’t recite that the wavelengths differ from first and second laser light), whereby information is transmitted to the switch from the terminals at 706 and 707.
Examiner notes that the first and second terminals are not claimed as part of the switch, but rather an environment for which the switch can be used.
In Re claims 13, 14, and 16, ‘612 teaches wherein the switch further comprises a first input/output block (705) and a second input/output block (706), wherein the first input/output block is configured to transmit the first downstream laser light and third laser light to the first terminal, and wherein no laser is disposed in the first input/output block, and wherein the second input/output block is configured to transmit the second downstream laser light and the fourth laser light to the second terminal, and wherein no laser is disposed in the second input/output block.
Examiner notes that the first and second terminals are not claimed as part of the switch, but rather an environment for which the switch can be used.
Claims 18, 20 – 23, 25 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xiao et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2019/0137816 A1).
In Re claims 18, 21 – 23, and 25, ‘816 teaches a switch, comprising: a first laser (par. 0047, 601), a first optical splitter (605) directly connected to the first laser (fig. 6b), a first wavelength division multiplexing optical splitter (6031 in 603), and a second wavelength division multiplexing optical splitter (6031 in 604), wherein the switch is applied to a local area network, wherein the local area network comprises the switch, a first terminal (Tx in 603), and a second terminal (Tx in 604), and wherein the first terminal and the second terminal are connected to the switch, wherein the first laser is configured to provide a first laser light (par. 0047), wherein the first optical splitter is configured to split the first laser light into a second laser light (to 602) and a third laser light (to 606), wherein the second laser light is transmitted to the first terminal via the first wavelength division multiplexing optical splitter, and the third laser light is transmitted to the second terminal via the second wavelength division multiplexing optical splitter, wherein the second laser light is used by the first terminal to load first information onto the second laser light (par. 0062), to obtain a first information-loaded laser light onto which the first information is loaded, wherein the third laser light is used by the second terminal to load second information onto the third laser light (par. 0062), to obtain a second information-loaded laser light onto which the second information is loaded, and wherein the first information-loaded laser light onto which the first information is loaded is used by the first terminal to transmit the first information to the switch via the first wavelength division multiplexing optical splitter, and the second information-loaded laser light onto which the second information is loaded is used by the second terminal to transmit the second information to the switch via the second wavelength division multiplexing optical splitter (par. 0060, 0062).
In Re claims 20 and 28, ‘816 teaches wherein no laser is disposed in the first terminal, and wherein no laser is disposed in the second terminal (pars. 0060, 5a – 5c).
Claims 10 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thompson et al. (U.S. Patent # 6,282,005 B1).
‘005 teaches a switch comprising, a first laser (46) directly connected to the splitter (54, col. 9, 12 – 26), first and second information (48, 50) (fig. 2).
Examiner notes that the claim is to a switch and that the local area network and its first and second terminals are not claimed as part of the switch, but rather an environment for which the switch can be used.
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (WO 2008019612A).
‘612 teaches the switch as claimed but is silent to a heat dissipater as claimed. However, it is well known in the art to use a heat dissipater such as a heat sink attached to lasers so as to ensure proper operating temperature of the lasers. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the switch as claimed so as to attach heat dissipators to each of the lasers as claimed so as to regulate the temperature of each of the lasers thus ensuring optimum operation of the lasers as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Claims 19, 24, 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2019/0137816 A1).
In Re claims 19 and 26, ‘816 teaches using a laser (par. 0047), but is silent to the laser being a continuous as claimed.
It is well known in the art to use continuous wave lasers as they are readily available is cost effective.
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 a continuous wave laser as the laser of ‘816 so as to allow for efficiency and cost savings as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
In Re claims 24 and 27, ‘816 teaches the switch but is silent to heat dissipaters as claimed. However, it is well known in the art to attach a heat dissipater to a laser, such as a heat sink or substrate, so as to allow for adequate cooling of the laser and thus optimum operation.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach a heat dissipater to the laser so as to ensure adequate cooling of the laser and thus optimum operation as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 CHAD SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1294. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at 1-571-272-2397. 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.
/CHAD H SMITH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights