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 .
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(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 8, 10-11, 13, 15, 17-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syed et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2020/0304204 A1) in view of Kobayashi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2014/0212133 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Syed et al. teaches in FIG. 2A a system for recovery of transport system faults, comprising: a first optical communications light source (backup transmitter 58) associated with a first optical transmission band of a plurality of optical transmission bands of an optical communications network; and a second optical communications light source (transmitter 66) associated with a first optical transmission band of a plurality of optical transmission bands of an optical communications network; at least one processor programmed or configured to (Syed et al. teaches in paragraph [0058] processor for executing software program): cause an optical channel monitor (OCM) to perform a scan operation of one or more optical transmission bands of the plurality of optical transmission bands of the optical communications network (Syed et al. teaches in FIG. 1 that the node contains optical power monitor 32—equivalent to OCM of instant claim); identify a presence of a reduction of power in the first optical transmission band of the plurality of optical transmission bands of the optical communications network based on a reading of the OCM (Syed et al. teaches in paragraph [0044] and FIG. 2A photo diode 108 for identify a change in power, the change may be caused by an expected signal is not present, i.e., the power has been reduced), wherein the reading indicates that the reduction of power in the first optical transmission band is taking place in real-time; determine a cause of the reduction of power in the first optical transmission band based on identifying the presence of the reduction of power in the first optical transmission band; and perform an action to rectify the reduction of power in the optical transmission band using the first optical communications light source without using the second optical communications light source (Syed et al. teaches in paragraph [0044] that the control circuit 34 may send a signal to the appropriate switch 50a-n associated with the expected information signal to select the output signal from the transmitter 66a-n to the backup transmitter 58a-n so that noise is transmitted in the appropriate spectrum while the problem is assessed and the wavelength fault can be rectified). Syed et al. does not explicitly state that the OCM performs a scan without the OCM receiving a command to initiate the scan operation from a node of the optical communications network. To strengthen the rejection, the Examiner cites Kobayashi et al. for teaching the limitation. Kobayashi et al. teaches in FIG. 1 an OCM unit 16. Kobayashi et al. teaches in paragraph [0069] that the level detecting unit 19 triggers the OCM to scan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Kobayashi et al. with the system of Syed et al. because Kobayashi et al. teaches the details of implementation that are missing from Syed et al. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to trigger the OCM to scan based on the power level change, as taught by Kobayashi et al., in the system of Syed et al.
Regarding claim 3, Syed et al. teaches paragraph [0044] that one or more tap and photodiode may be optically coupled to the transmitter optical cable 70a-n and/or the filter output optical cable 62a-n thereby enabling the control circuit 34 to receive one or more signal from the photodiode indicating an output power level of the transmitter 66a-n and/or the backup transmitter 58a-n respectively. Based on the signals from the photodiodes, the failure channel(s) can be identified.
Regarding claim 4, for example, if the difference of the power level of transmitter 70 and the power level of transmitter 62 greater than a threshold amount, it indicates that the transceiver 18 is in a failure condition.
Regarding claim 6, Syed et al. teaches in paragraph [0039] that the switches 50a-n can be wavelength selective switches (WSS).
Claim 8 is rejected based on the same reason for rejecting claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Syed et al. teaches paragraph [0044] that one or more tap and photodiode may be optically coupled to the transmitter optical cable 70a-n and/or the filter output optical cable 62a-n thereby enabling the control circuit 34 to receive one or more signal from the photodiode indicating an output power level of the transmitter 66a-n and/or the backup transmitter 58a-n respectively. Based on the signals from the photodiodes, the failure channel(s) can be identified.
Regarding claim 11, for example, if the difference of the power level of transmitter 70 and the power level of transmitter 62 greater than a threshold amount, it indicates that the transceiver 18 is in a failure condition.
Regarding claim 13, Syed et al. teaches in paragraph [0039] that the switches 50a-n can be wavelength selective switches (WSS).
Regarding claim 15, Syed et al. teaches in paragraph [0058] computer readable medium for storing executable code (i.e. instructions), when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform a process.
Regarding claim 17, Syed et al. teaches paragraph [0044] that one or more tap and photodiode may be optically coupled to the transmitter optical cable 70a-n and/or the filter output optical cable 62a-n thereby enabling the control circuit 34 to receive one or more signal from the photodiode indicating an output power level of the transmitter 66a-n and/or the backup transmitter 58a-n respectively. Based on the signals from the photodiodes, the failure channel(s) can be identified.
Regarding claim 18, for example, if the difference of the power level of transmitter 70 and the power level of transmitter 62 greater than a threshold amount, it indicates that the transceiver 18 is in a failure condition.
Regarding claim 20, Syed et al. teaches in paragraph [0039] that the switches 50a-n can be wavelength selective switches (WSS).
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syed et al. and Kobayashi et al. as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8, 10-11, 13, 15, 17-18 and 20 above, and further in view of St-Laurent et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2020/0336238 A1).
Syed et al. and Kobayashi et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8, 10-11, 13, 15, 17-18 and 20. The difference between Syed et al. and Kobayashi et al. and the claimed invention is that Syed et al. and Kobayashi et al. do not teach performing the action to rectify the reduction of power in the optical transmission band using the optical communications light source within 50 ms of identifying the presence of the reduction of power in the optical transmission band. Laurent et al. teaches in paragraph [0044] detecting optical loss of signal and switching a backup signal to replace the failed channel(s). Laurent et al. teaches in paragraph [0045] that the injection of the ASE source is done less than 50 ms after the detection of an OLOS. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Laurent et al. with the modified system of Syed et al. and Kobayashi et al. because a short reaction time avoids prolonged negative effects on the other channels. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to switch to the backup transmitters in less than 50 ms, as taught by Laurent et al., in the modified system of Syed et al. and Kobayashi et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues, “None of the cited references, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 1. For example, none of Buset, Syed, or St-Laurent, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests causing an OCM to perform a scan operation of one or more optical transmission bands of the plurality of optical transmission bands of the optical communications network without the OCM receiving a command to initiate the scan operation from a node of the optical communications network, identifying a presence of a reduction of power in the first optical transmission band of the plurality of optical transmission bands of the optical communications network based on a reading of the OCM, where the reading indicates that the reduction of power in the first optical transmission band is taking place in real-time, determining a cause of the reduction of power in the first optical transmission band based on identifying the presence of the reduction of power in the first optical transmission band, and performing an action to rectify the reduction of power in the optical transmission band using the first optical communications light source without using the second optical communications light source, as recited in claim 1.”
The argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Kobayashi et al. teaches in FIG. 1 an OCM unit 16. Kobayashi et al. teaches in paragraph [0069] that the level detecting unit 19 triggers the OCM to scan.
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 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.
skl24 March 2026
/SHI K LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635