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) 14-16, 20-21, 24, 26, 28-31 and 33-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2023/0179318 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Deng et al. teaches in FIG. 4 a Reconfigurable Optical Add/Drop Multiplexer (ROADM) node supporting integrated C and L band functionality (Deng et al. teaches in paragraph [0090] that FIG. 4 is a structure of a ROADM node including C+L-band), the ROADM node comprising: one or more ROADM modules (Deng et al. teaches in FIG. 4 the details of the ROADM module for the first direction; please note that the direction of the arrow for waveband filter 710 is incorrect) each including a demultiplexer Wavelength Selective Switch (WSS) having a plurality of output ports (Deng et al. teaches in FIG. 4 WSS 100 having a plurality of output ports), a multiplexer WSS having a plurality of input ports (Deng et al. teaches in FIG. 4 that WSS 200 has a plurality of input ports), wherein, each of the demultiplexer WSS and the multiplexer WSS support both the C band and L band in an integrated manner, a plurality of amplifiers (amplifiers 600, 610, 620 and 630) that each connect to one of the demultiplexer WSS and the multiplexer WSS. The difference between FIG. 4 of Deng et al. and the claimed invention is that, in FIG. 4, the demultiplexer WSS has two inputs instead of one input and the multiplexer WSS has two outputs instead of one output. Deng et al. teaches in paragraph [0106] that the 2×N WSS can be replaced by a 1×N WSS as shown in FIG. 9A. It is obvious that the same can be done in the transmit direction. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of FIG. 9A of Deng et al. with the ROADM of FIG. 4 because it is suggested by Deng 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 use 1×N WSS, as taught in FIG. 9, in the ROADM of FIG. 4 of Deng et al. The Examiner notes that in FIG. 9A of Deng et al., the single receive port received a combined optical spectrum including both C-band and L-band channels and, therefore, is bandless.
The modified FIG. 4 of Deng et al. with FIG. 9 of Deng et al. teaches the limitation “wherein the common receive input is a single bandless receive port configured to receive a combined optical spectrum including both C-band and L-band channels (Deng et al. teaches in FIG. 9A that the single input receives both C-Band and L-band channels), and wherein the common transmit output is a single bandless transmit port configured to output a combined optical spectrum including both C-band and L-band channels (Deng et al. teaches in paragraph [0105] that the passive optical path is reversible, i.e. the 1×N demultiplexing WSS can also be used as a N×1 multiplexing WSS) and wherein each output port of the demultiplexer WSS and each input port of the multiplexer WSS is a bandless connection port configured to carry any of the C-band channels, any of the L-band channels, or both, through a common switching fabric of the respective WSS (Deng et al. teaches in paragraph [0106] that all ports of the 1×N WSS support the C-band and the L-band)”.
Regarding claim 15, Deng et al. teaches in FIG. 9B that two pre amplifiers, one for L-band and one for C-band, can be used. It is obvious that the same can be done in the transmit port by using two post amplifiers.
Regarding claim 16, Deng et al. teaches in FIG. 9A a single pre amplifier. It is obvious that the same can be done in the transmit port by using a single optical amplifier.
Regarding claim 20, Deng et al. teaches in FIG. 4 up modules 310 and 410 and down modules 300 and 400 that are connected to the plurality input ports and output ports of the WSS, and in paragraph [0093] that the modules may be implemented based on demultiplexer/multiplexer.
Regarding claim 21, Deng et al. teaches in FIG. 10 that the C+L up module 410 and C+L down module 400 can support channels from both the C band and the L band. It is obvious that the C+L modules in FIG. 10 can be used to replace the separate L modules 400 and 410 and C modules 300 and 310 of FIG. 4.
Regarding claim 24, Deng et al. teaches in FIG. 4 a second direction which includes second demultiplex WSS and second multiplexer WSS similar to those for the first direction.
Regarding claim 26, Deng et al. teaches in FIG. 4 a multiplexer/demultiplexer module for a Reconfigurable Optical Add/Drop Multiplexer (ROADM) comprising: a plurality of local add/drop ports (the up modules 310 and 410 and down modules 300 and 400); degree ports (first degree on the left-hand side, second degree on the upper side and third degree on the right-hand side); and multiplexer/demultiplexer components interconnecting the plurality of local add/drop ports to the degree ports, supporting at least two bands of spectrum (the plurality of 2×N WSS, the waveband filters 500 and 510, and the up modules and down modules; Deng et al. teaches in paragraph that the ROADM operates on C band and L band.). The difference between FIG. 4 of Deng et al. and the claimed invention is that FIG. 4 of Deng et al. does not teach an integrated C+L switching unit. Deng et al teaches in FIG. 9A C+L WSS comprise an integrated C+L switching structure that treats the C band and L band as a single line system rather than parallel band-specific systems, wherein each degree port and each local add/drop port is bandless and is configurable to carry any channel in the C band, any channel in the L band, or both (Deng et al. teaches in paragraph [0106] that all ports of the 1×N WSS support the C-band and the L-band; Deng et al. teaches in paragraph [0105] that the passive optical path is reversible, i.e. the 1×N demultiplexing WSS can also be used as a N×1 multiplexing WSS, i.e. the WSS is colorless and directionless), and wherein the multiplexer/demultiplexer components are configured to provide colorless and directionless add/drop for channels in both the C band and the I.. band through a common C+L switching fabric (Deng et al. teaches in paragraph [0093] that the modules may be colorless, directionless, and contentionless (CDC)). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of FIG. 9A of Deng et al. with the ROADM of FIG. 4 because it is suggested by Deng 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 use 1×N WSS, as taught in FIG. 9, in the ROADM of FIG. 4 of Deng et al.
Regarding claim 28, Deng et al. teaches in paragraph [0093] that the modules may be colorless, directionless, and contentionless (CDC).
Regarding claim 29-30, Deng et al. teaches in paragraph [0093] N×M WSS and that the module may be contentionless.
Regarding claim 31, Deng et al. teaches in FIG. 4 a degree in a Reconfigurable Optical Add/Drop Multiplexer (ROADM) comprising: ROADM components including a line port (first direction; please note that the direction of the arrow for waveband filter 710 is incorrect) and a plurality of connection ports (the right-hand side of the 2×N WSS and N×2 WSS); channel multiplexer/demultiplexer components including degree ports (ports on the upper side of the up modules 310 and 410 and down modules 300 and 400) and local add/drop ports (ports on the lower side of the up modules and down modules). Deng et al. further teaches in FIG. 4 and paragraph [0091] that the modules 500 and 510 include integrated C band and L band functionality. The difference between FIG. 4 of Deng et al. and the claimed invention is that FIG. 4 of Deng et al. does not teach an integrated C+L WSS. Deng et al teaches in FIG. 9A C+L WSS having a bandless line port and a plurality of bandless connection ports each supporting an extended spectral range encompassing both the C band and the L. band (Deng et al. teaches in paragraph [0106] that all ports of the 1×N WSS support the C-band and the L-band; Deng et al. teaches in paragraph [0093] that the modules may be colorless, directionless, and contentionless (CDC), i.e. they support both C band and L band, and therefore is bandless), wherein the channel multiplexer/demultiplexer components comprise one or more integrated C+L channel multiplexer/demultiplexer modules coupled to the plurality of bandless connection ports, and wherein each of the ports in between the ROADM components and the channel multiplexer/demultiplexer components is configured to carry any channel in the C band, any channel in the L band, or both without requiring band-dedicated intermediate ports. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of FIG. 9A of Deng et al. with the ROADM of FIG. 4 because it is suggested by Deng 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 use 1×N WSS, as taught in FIG. 9, in the ROADM of FIG. 4 of Deng et al.
Regarding claim 33, Deng et al. teaches in FIG. 9A Wavelength Selective Switches (WSS) that supports integrated C-band and L- band functionality.
Regarding claim 34, Deng et al. teaches in FIG. 9A C+L WSS; Deng et al. teaches in paragraph [0105] that the passive optical path is reversible, i.e. the 1×N demultiplexing WSS can also be used as a N×1 multiplexing WSS.
Regarding claim 35, Deng et al. teaches in FIG. 9A a single pre amplifier. It is obvious that the same can be done in the transmit port by using a single optical amplifier.
Regarding claim 36, Deng et al. teaches in paragraph [0093] that the modules may be colorless, directionless, and contentionless (CDC).
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng et al. as applied to claims 14-16, 20-21, 24, 26, 28-31 and 33-36 above, and further in view of Dangui et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2018/0262292 A1).
Deng et al. has been discussed above in regard to claims 14-16, 20-21, 24, 26, 28-31 and 33-36. The difference between Deng et al. and the claimed invention is that Deng et al. does not teach that the one or more ROADM modules further include an Optical Service Channel (OSC) located between the plurality of amplifiers and the line ports. Dangui et al. teaches in FIG. 1 a ROADM comprising ROADM blocks. Dangui et al. teach in FIG. 2 the details of a ROADM block comprising OSC 262. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Dangui et al. with the modified system of Deng et al. because an OSC facilitates network management. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an OSC, as taught by Dangui et al., in the modified system of Deng et al. The Examiner notes that Dangui et al. does not explicitly teach that the OSC is located between the plurality of amplifier and the line ports; however, positioning the OSC between the amplifier and the line port is obvious because it does not involve undue experimentation.
Regarding claim 18, Dangui et al. teaches in FIG. 2 OTDR 260.
Regarding claim 19, Dangui et al. teaches in FIG. 2 OCM 265a and 265b.
Claim(s) 23 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng et al. as applied to claims 14-16, 20-21, 24, 26, 28-31 and 33-36 above, and further in view of Archambault et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2016/0099851 A1).
Deng et al. has been discussed above in regard to claims 14-16, 20-21, 24, 26, 28-31 and 33-36. The difference between Deng et al. and the claimed invention is that Deng et al. does not teach one or more fiber interconnection modules between the one or more ROADM modules and the one or more channel multiplexers/demultiplexers. Archambault et al. teaches in FIG. 1 and ROADM comprising a fiber interconnection module (FIM) for connecting among the degree modules and the MCS modules (equivalent to add/drop modules). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Archambault et al. with the modified system of Deng et al. because FIM facilitates the interconnection among the modules. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include one or more FIMs, as taught by Archambault et al., in the modified system of Deng et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues:
Applicant further respectfully reiterates that "bandless" is distinct from "colorless." As reflected in the claims, colorless refers to wavelength flexibility, whereas bandless refers to the architectural elimination of band-dedicated ports in favor of integrated ports supporting both bands. The specification itself uses these terms separately, for example describing "bandless C&L" architectures and also separately describing "colorless, directionless, and contentionless" functionality in paragraph [0002] and paragraph [0038]. Thus, colorless functionality does not inherently satisfy the bandless limitation.
The Examiner's prior position appears to equate "colorless in an entire C+L wavelength range" with "bandless." Applicant respectfully submits that this is inconsistent with both the claim language and the specification. A system may be colorless while still employing band-dedicated ports or interfaces. In contrast, the present claims, as amended, require integrated common ports supporting both bands and expressly exclude architectures based on separate parallel band-specific ports.
Accordingly, as clarified by the present amendment, the cited portions of Deng et al. that describe colorless or CDC functionality do not teach or suggest the claimed bandless architecture. The rejection therefore does not establish that the cited reference discloses or renders obvious the claimed limitations.
The argument is not persuasive. The claim clearly defines bandless as “denotes a common port comprising a common receive input or a common transmit output supporting an extended spectral range encompassing both the C-band and the L-band in an integrated manner, rather than band-dedicated C-band and L-band ports configured as separate parallel systems.” Deng et al. teaches in FIG. 9A that the C+L WSS has a common port supporting a spectral range encompassing both the C-band and the L-band where FIG. 4 of Deng et al. shows a band-dedicated C-band and L-band ports configured as separate parallel systems. By replacing the 2×N WSS and N×2 WSS of FIG. 4 with the C+L WSS of FIG. 9A, the resulting system uses WSS that has a common receive input or a common transmit output supporting a spectral range encompassing both the C-band and the L-band and, therefore, is bandless.
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.
skl30 April 2026
/SHI K LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights