DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-22 have been examined and are pending.
Claims 1-22 are rejected (Non-Final Rejection).
Notice of 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 27 November 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 16 recites “crosstalk; coating-loss;” (emphasis added), which appears to be an artifact of Applicant’s editing process. At a minimum the claim should end with a period. Examiner suggests replacing the above quoted language with “crosstalk, or coating loss.”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The following is an analysis based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
(See MPEP 2106).
Claims 1, 2, 6-14, 16-18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite a mental process and a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claims 1-22 Step 1, Statutory Category?:
Yes: Claims 1, 2, 6-14, 16-18 and 20 are directed to the statutory category of a process. See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes: Claim 21 is directed to the statutory category of a machine. See MPEP § 2106.03.
No: Claim 22 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 22 recites “computer-readable medium” and the specification recites “medium 701 may for example be a non-transitory medium such as a storage, or a transitory medium such as a carrier wave or transmission medium" (emphasis added). The claim 22 does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because: the computer readable medium is not defined by applicant, and is open to a signal (transitory) embodiment, which is non-statutory. The specification fails to specifically exclude a transitory embodiment.
Step 2A:
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A). Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Claim 1 Step 2A Prong One: Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception?
For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. The limitations of the claims that describe abstract ideas are bolded.
1. A method of producing data indicative of a multi-core optical fibre configuration, the method comprising:
(a) determining at least one fibre configuration constraint;
(b) determining at least one initial parameter set, each initial parameter set comprising a plurality of initial fibre configuration parameters;
(c) calculating a fitness value for each initial parameter set;
(d) modifying each initial parameter set to produce at least one modified parameter set, said modifying being to improve the fitness value of at least some of the initial parameter sets;
(e) iteratively repeating said modifying until it is determined that a ceasing condition is met;
(f) determining whether at least one said modified parameter set satisfies the at least one fibre configuration constraint;
(g) responsive to said at least one modified parameter set satisfying the at least one fibre configuration constraint, and based on said modified parameter set, generate data indicative of a multi-core optical fibre configuration; and
(h) outputting said data.
The limitations “producing data indicative of a multi-core optical fibre configuration, the method comprising:” “(a) determining at least one fibre configuration constraint”, “(b) determining at least one initial parameter set, each initial parameter set comprising a plurality of initial fibre configuration parameters”, “(d) modifying each initial parameter set to produce at least one modified parameter set, said modifying being to improve the fitness value of at least some of the initial parameter sets”, “(e) iteratively repeating said modifying until it is determined that a ceasing condition is met”, “(f) determining whether at least one said modified parameter set satisfies the at least one fibre configuration constraint” and “(g) responsive to said at least one modified parameter set satisfying the at least one fibre configuration constraint, and based on said modified parameter set, generate data indicative of a multi-core optical fibre configuration” are abstract ideas because they are directed to mental processes, observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. The limitations, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a human could determine a a fibre configuration constraint (e.g., cut-off wavelength) and a fibre parameter set (e.g., radius of the core and width of the inner cladding), repeatedly modify the fibre parameter set until a first condition (ceasing condition) is met, determine whether a second condition (configuration constraint/range) is satisfied, and if so, generate data indicative of a multi-core optical fibre configuration. In addition, the limitation of “calculating a fitness value for each initial parameter set” and can be performed using mathematical calculations/equations and therefore encompass mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the specification, of the “calculating a fitness value” requires mathematical calculations. Thus, claim 1 recites an abstract idea(s).
Claim 1 Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception/Abstract idea into practical application?
Under Step 2A Prong Two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside of the abstract idea only present mere instructions to apply an exception, generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment, or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations of:
• “outputting said data” (insignificant extra-solution activity – mere data gathering/inputting – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation can be viewed as nothing more than mere data gathering/inputting in conjunction with the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Claim 1 Step 2B: Do the additional elements, considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained above, there is one type of additional element. The first type of additional element is “outputting said data” as explained previously, are insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data inputting/gathering and/or data outputting). These recitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are also well-known. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, these limitations do not amount to significantly more.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and/or data gathering, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 1 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim 1 is not patent subject matter eligible. Dependent claims 2-20 are further addressed below after addressing each independent claim.
Claim 21 Step 2A Prong One: Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception?
For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. The limitations of the claims that describe abstract ideas are bolded.
21. An apparatus comprising:
interface circuitry to receive at least one fibre configuration constraint;
calculation circuitry to calculate a fitness value for each of a plurality of initial parameter sets, each said initial parameter set comprising a plurality of initial fibre configuration parameters;
modification circuitry to modify each initial parameter set to produce at least one modified parameter set, said modifying being to improve the fitness value of at least some of the initial parameter sets, and to iteratively repeat said modifying until it is determined that a ceasing condition has been met; and
output generation circuitry to determine whether at least one said modified parameter set satisfies the at least one fibre configuration constraint and to, responsive to said at least one modified parameter set satisfying the at least one fibre configuration constraint, and based on said modified parameter set, generate data indicative of a multi-core optical fibre configuration.
The limitations “modify each initial parameter set to produce at least one modified parameter set, said modifying being to improve the fitness value of at least some of the initial parameter sets, and to iteratively repeat said modifying until it is determined that a ceasing condition has been met” and “determine whether at least one said modified parameter set satisfies the at least one fibre configuration constraint and to, responsive to said at least one modified parameter set satisfying the at least one fibre configuration constraint, and based on said modified parameter set, generate data indicative of a multi-core optical fibre configuration” are abstract ideas because they are directed to mental processes, observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. The limitations, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a human could determine a a fibre configuration constraint (e.g., cut-off wavelength) and a fibre parameter set (e.g., radius of the core and width of the inner cladding), repeatedly modify the fibre parameter set until a first condition (ceasing condition) is met, determine whether a second condition (configuration constraint/range) is satisfied, and if so, generate data indicative of a multi-core optical fibre configuration. In addition, the limitation of “calculate a fitness value for each of a plurality of initial parameter sets, each said initial parameter set comprising a plurality of initial fibre configuration parameters” and can be performed using mathematical calculations/equations and therefore encompass mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the specification, of the “calculate a fitness value” requires mathematical calculations. Thus, claim 21 recites an abstract idea(s).
Claim 21 Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception/Abstract idea into practical application?
Under Step 2A Prong Two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside of the abstract idea only present mere instructions to apply an exception, generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment, or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations of:
• “interface circuitry”, “calculation circuitry”, “modification circuitry” and “output generation circuitry” (mere instructions to apply an exception to a computer – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(f); these limitations can be viewed as nothing more than high level recitations of generic computer components or computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
• “receive at least one fibre configuration constraint” (insignificant extra-solution activity – mere data gathering/inputting – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation can be viewed as nothing more than mere data gathering/inputting in conjunction with the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Claim 21 Step 2B: Do the additional elements, considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained above, there are two types of additional elements. The first type of additional element is the generic computer components (various “circuitry”), which are high level recitations of generic computer component(s) or computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The second type of additional element is “receive at least one fibre configuration constraint” as explained previously, are insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data inputting/gathering and/or data outputting). These recitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are also well-known. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, these limitations do not amount to significantly more.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and/or data gathering, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 21 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim 21 is not patent subject matter eligible.
Claim 22 Step 2A Prong One: Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception?
For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. The limitations of the claims that describe abstract ideas are bolded.
22. An apparatus comprising: computer-readable medium comprising computer-readable instructions which, when executed by at least one processor, cause said processor to perform a method comprising:
(a) determining at least one configuration constraint;
(b) determining at least one initial parameter set, each initial parameter set comprising a plurality of initial configuration parameters;
(c) calculating a fitness value for each initial parameter set;
(d) modifying each initial parameter set to produce at least one modified parameter set, said modifying being to improve the fitness value of at least some of the initial parameter sets;
(e) iteratively repeating said modifying until it is determined that a ceasing condition is met;
(f) determining whether at least one said modified parameter set satisfies the at least one configuration constraint;
(g) responsive to said at least one modified parameter set satisfying the at least one configuration constraint, and based on said modified parameter set, generate output data; and
(h) outputting said data.
The limitations “(a) determining at least one configuration constraint”, “(b) determining at least one initial parameter set, each initial parameter set comprising a plurality of initial configuration parameters”, “(d) modifying each initial parameter set to produce at least one modified parameter set, said modifying being to improve the fitness value of at least some of the initial parameter sets”, “(e) iteratively repeating said modifying until it is determined that a ceasing condition is met”, “(f) determining whether at least one said modified parameter set satisfies the at least one configuration constraint” and “(g) responsive to said at least one modified parameter set satisfying the at least one configuration constraint, and based on said modified parameter set, generate output data” are abstract ideas because they are directed to mental processes, observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. The limitations, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a human could determine a a fibre configuration constraint (e.g., cut-off wavelength) and a fibre parameter set (e.g., radius of the core and width of the inner cladding), repeatedly modify the fibre parameter set until a first condition (ceasing condition) is met, determine whether a second condition (configuration constraint/range) is satisfied, and if so, generate data indicative of a multi-core optical fibre configuration. In addition, the limitation of “calculating a fitness value for each initial parameter set” and can be performed using mathematical calculations/equations and therefore encompass mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the specification, of the “calculating a fitness value” requires mathematical calculations. Thus, claim 22 recites an abstract idea(s).
Claim 22 Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception/Abstract idea into practical application?
Under Step 2A Prong Two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside of the abstract idea only present mere instructions to apply an exception, generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment, or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations of:
• “computer-readable medium comprising computer-readable instructions which, when executed by at least one processor, cause said processor to perform a method” (mere instructions to apply an exception to a computer – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(f); these limitations can be viewed as nothing more than high level recitations of generic computer components or computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
• “outputting said data” (insignificant extra-solution activity – mere data gathering/inputting – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation can be viewed as nothing more than mere data gathering/inputting in conjunction with the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Claim 22 Step 2B: Do the additional elements, considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained above, there are two types of additional elements. The first type of additional element is the generic computer components (“computer-readable medium”), which are high level recitations of generic computer component(s) or computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The second type of additional element is “outputting said data” as explained previously, are insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data inputting/gathering and/or data outputting). These recitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are also well-known. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, these limitations do not amount to significantly more.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and/or data gathering, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 22 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim 22 is not patent subject matter eligible.
Dependent Claims 2, 6-14, 16-18 and 20
Regarding claims 2, 6-14, 16-18 and 20, claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “wherein the calculating the fitness value for a given parameter set is based on at least one cost function, each said cost function being associated with at least one of an objective and one or more fibre configuration constraints”, claim 6 depends from claim 2 and further recites: “wherein said at least one cost function comprises at least one of: a crosstalk cost value, based on a level of crosstalk associated with the given parameter set; an effective mode area cost value, associated with a fibre core effective mode area associated with the given parameter set; a cut-off cost value associated with a fibre core wavelength cut-off associated with the given parameter set; an overlap cost value associated with a fibre core overlap associated with the given parameter set; and a coating loss cost value associated with a coating loss associated with the given parameter set”, claim 7 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “wherein said modifying comprises performing an iterative optimisation of the fitness values of the parameter sets”, claim 8 depends from claim 7 and further recites: “comprising performing said optimisation by applying a metaheuristic optimisation algorithm”, claim 9 depends from claim 8 and further recites: “wherein said metaheuristic optimisation algorithm is a particle swarm optimisation algorithm, wherein each parameter set is a particle of said particle swarm”, claim 10 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “wherein said ceasing condition is a convergence condition, indicating that said fitness values have converged”, claim 11 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “further comprising, responsive to determining in step (e) that: a predetermined threshold number of iterations has been performed; and the ceasing condition has not been met, repeating at least steps (b) to (e)”, claim 12 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “wherein said modifying is to improve the fitness value of at least one of said parameter sets”, claim 13 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “further comprising, responsive to determining in step (f) that no modified parameter sets satisfy the at least one fibre configuration constraint: updating said at least one fibre configuration constraint; and repeating steps (b) to (f)”, claim 14 depends from claim 13 and further recites: “wherein said updating the at least one fibre configuration constraint and repeating steps (b) to (f) is additionally responsive to determining, at step (f), that a predefined threshold number of iterations have been performed in step (e)”, claim 16 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “wherein said at least one fibre configuration constraint comprises a constraint on at least one of: effective mode area; cut-off wavelength; chromatic dispersion; crosstalk; coating-loss”, claim 17 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “wherein updating said at least one fibre configuration constraint comprises: iteratively modifying the effective mode area constraint and the cut-off wavelength constraint and optimizing a level of crosstalk at each combination of the effective mode area constraint and the cut-off wavelength constraint; and iteratively modifying the cut-off wavelength and optimizing the effective mode area at each cut-off wavelength”, claim 18 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “wherein improving a given fitness value comprises causing said given fitness value to indicate improved fitness” and claim 20 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “wherein each initial parameter set, and the output data, comprises parameters indicative of a physical layout of a multi-core optical fibre”.
These features have been considered in combination with the features required by the claim(s) from which these claims depend. The bolded portion of the additional features are considered to further clarify the details of the mathematical concepts and/or the human’s mental activity (e.g., with pen and paper). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and (III). Therefore, these features are considered to be drawn to the abstract idea without adding significantly more, and hence claims 2, 6-14, 16-18 and 20 are considered to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
For the foregoing reasons, claims 1, 2, 6-14, 16-18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
Claims 3-5, 15 and 19 are statutory (for the same reasons as claim 1) and indicated as eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 abstract idea analysis (by intentional omission from the § 101 rejection(s) above). Specifically, claim 3 is interpreted requiring determining transmission quality indicator (e.g., optical signal-to-noise ratio), claims 4, 5 and 15 depend from claim 3, and claim 19 includes constructing a multi-core optical fibre.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7, 10, 12, 13, 16 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Non-Patent Literature (NPL) HAYASHI et al. (“'Design and fabrication of ultra-low crosstalk and low-loss multi-core fiber References and links'', OPT. EXPRESS, vol. 19, no. 17, 15 August 2011 (2011-08-15), pages 16576-16592”) in view of RAPPAPORT et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0236547).
Regarding claim 1, HAYASHI discloses a method of producing data indicative of a multi-core optical fibre configuration (designed and fabricated a multi-core fiber (MCF) in which seven identical trench-assisted pure-silica cores were arranged hexagonally. To design MCF, the relation among the crosstalk, fiber parameters, and fiber bend was derived using a new approximation model based on the coupled-mode theory with the equivalent index model, Abstract of HAYASHI; See also seven-core MCF with index profile of Figure 6, at Page 16585 of HAYASHI; See also Section 2.3 Design of multi-core fiber, Page 16584 of HAYASHI), the method comprising: (a) determining at least one fibre configuration constraint (designed a homogeneous seven-core fiber with the following conditions: (i.)-(iv.), Section 2.3 at Page 16584 of HAYASHI); (b) determining at least one initial parameter set, each initial parameter set comprising a plurality of initial fibre configuration parameters (Table 1 lists the designed optical properties of each core at A= 1550 nm … Ace and MFD were designed to meet the target conditions and Aeff was �80 µm2, Last Para. of Page 16584 of HAYASHI; See also Table 1 at Page 16585 of HAYASHI which shows numerical values for five optical properties of each MCF core; See also equation (27) at Page 16583 of HAYASHI; [Examiner interprets starting computation of equation (27) as inherently/implicitly requiring initial value for index profile and fiber geometry]); (c) calculating a fitness value for each initial parameter set (crosstalk XT as given by model equation (27) … crosstalk XT is obtained by calculation via equation (19) at Page 16582 of HAYASHI; [Examiner interprets crosstalk as a fitness value in this multi-core fiber context]); (d) modifying each initial parameter set to produce at least one modified parameter set, said modifying being to improve the fitness value of at least some of the initial parameter sets (Ace elongated for improving the power confinement, because ultra-high-capacity transmissions have been demonstrated using only C- and L-bands (C + L band) [1-3] because of the limited bandwidths of the amplifiers and the relatively high attenuation of the other bands … the target of the crosstalk was also determined at A = 1625 nm considering the application for the C + L band, because longer wavelengths weaken the confinement and increase the crosstalk … other parameters in condition (iv) were determined so that low crosstalk can be achieved when the MCF is wound on a bobbin … the attenuation degradation of the outer cores should be suppressed, Page 16584 of HAYASHI; See also equation (27) of HAYASHI discussed above providing a numerical solution which implicitly modifies MCF parameters]).
HAYASHI does not appear to explicitly disclose (e) iteratively repeating said modifying until it is determined that a ceasing condition is met; (f) determining whether at least one said modified parameter set satisfies the at least one fibre configuration constraint; (g) responsive to said at least one modified parameter set satisfying the at least one fibre configuration constraint, and based on said modified parameter set, generate data indicative of a multi-core optical fibre configuration; and (h) outputting said data.
RAPPAPORT, however, is in the same network performance field (Title of RAPPAPORT) and teaches (e) iteratively repeating said modifying until it is determined that a ceasing condition is met (continues iterating equipment positions until it reaches an optimal or preferred network configuration, Para. [0141] of RAPPAPORT; See also the measured signal or interference levels (or other measured parameters) are sensed and used to iterate the proper reconfiguration of actual network hardware connected to the invention, Para. [0043] of RAPPAPORT; See also the placement of components can be refined and fine-tuned prior to actual implementation of a system or network, wherein performance prediction modeling or measurement may be used for design and deployment; and to ensure that all required regions of the desired service area are blanketed with adequate signal to noise ratio, Para. [0058] of RAPPAPORT; See also iteratively determines overall network performance and cost, and further iterates equipment settings, locations and orientations, Abstract of RAPPAPORT); (f) determining whether at least one said modified parameter set satisfies the at least one fibre configuration constraint (continues iterating equipment positions until it reaches an optimal or preferred network configuration; See also the placement of components can be refined and fine-tuned prior to actual implementation of a system or network, wherein performance prediction modeling or measurement may be used for design and deployment; and to ensure that all required regions of the desired service area are blanketed with adequate signal to noise ratio, Para. [0058] of RAPPAPORT); (g) responsive to said at least one modified parameter set satisfying the at least one fibre configuration constraint, and based on said modified parameter set, generate data indicative of a multi-core optical fibre configuration (the placement of components can be refined and fine-tuned prior to actual implementation of a system or network, wherein performance prediction modeling or measurement may be used for design and deployment; and to ensure that all required regions of the desired service area are blanketed with adequate, Para. [0058] of RAPPAPORT; See also iterate the proper reconfiguration of actual network hardware, Para. [0043]; See also fiber optic infrastructure, Para. [0123] of RAPPAPORT); and (h) outputting said data (the physical components of the network allows the invention to display, store, and iteratively adapt any network to constantly varying traffic and interference conditions, Abstract of RAPPAPORT; See also displaying the physical location of network assets on a site-specific model of the physical environment, Para. [0029] of RAPPAPORT).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of multi-core fibre/fiber system/method of HAYASHI with the iterative method of RAPPAPORT for the purpose of determining and maintaining the proper configuration of wireless or wired network hardware (Para. [0003] of RAPPAPORT).
Regarding claim 2, HAYASHI as modified by RAPPAPORT discloses the method of claim 1 (as shown above), wherein the calculating the fitness value for a given parameter set is based on at least one cost function, each said cost function being associated with at least one of an objective and one or more fibre configuration constraints (desired network configuration is preferably also stored in the bill of materials and a complete cost breakdown is provided for display and stored for future use, Para. [0063] of RAPPAPORT; See also three-dimensional digital model identifies costs of components, Para. [0088] of RAPPAPORT; See also desired or specified performance targets … equipment cost, equipment installation cost., ongoing actual equipment upkeep costs and records, predicted ongoing equipment upkeep costs, Para. [0098] of RAPPAPORT).
Regarding claim 3, HAYASHI as modified by RAPPAPORT discloses the method of claim 1 (as shown above), comprising, following step (f), updating said at least one fibre configuration constraint, and repeating steps (b) to (f) at least once, to determine at least one result parameter set (continues iterating equipment positions until it reaches an optimal or preferred network configuration, Para. [0141] of RAPPAPORT; See also the measured signal or interference levels (or other measured parameters) are sensed and used to iterate the proper reconfiguration of actual network hardware connected to the invention, Para. [0043] of RAPPAPORT; See also the placement of components can be refined and fine-tuned prior to actual implementation of a system or network, wherein performance prediction modeling or measurement may be used for design and deployment; and to ensure that all required regions of the desired service area are blanketed with adequate signal to noise ratio, Para. [0058] of RAPPAPORT; See also iteratively determines overall network performance and cost, and further iterates equipment settings, locations and orientations, Abstract of RAPPAPORT), each result parameter set being one of said modified parameter sets having an associated transmission quality indicator (the placement of components can be refined and fine-tuned prior to actual implementation of a system or network, wherein performance prediction modeling or measurement may be used for design and deployment; and to ensure that all required regions of the desired service area are blanketed with adequate signal to noise ratio, Para. [0058] of RAPPAPORT; [Applicant’s claim 4 indicates “signal to noise ratio” is a transmission quality indicator]), and wherein the modified parameter set of step (g) comprises said at least one result parameter set (the physical components of the network allows the invention to display, store, and iteratively adapt any network to constantly varying traffic and interference conditions, Abstract of RAPPAPORT; See also displaying the physical location of network assets on a site-specific model of the physical environment, Para. [0029] of RAPPAPORT).
Regarding claim 4, HAYASHI as modified by RAPPAPORT discloses the method of claim 3 (as shown above), wherein the transmission quality indicator is a signal-to-noise ratio (the placement of components can be refined and fine-tuned prior to actual implementation of a system or network, wherein performance prediction modeling or measurement may be used for design and deployment; and to ensure that all required regions of the desired service area are blanketed with adequate signal to noise ratio, Para. [0058] of RAPPAPORT).
Regarding claim 5, HAYASHI as modified by RAPPAPORT discloses the method of claim 3 (as shown above), wherein the calculating the fitness value for a given parameter set is based on at least one cost function, each said cost function being associated with at least one of an objective and one or more fibre configuration constraints, the method further comprising selecting one or more cost functions based on determining one or more next fibre configuration constraints to be updated (iteratively determines overall network performance and cost, and further iterates equipment settings, locations and orientations, Abstract of RAPPAPORT; See also desired network configuration is preferably also stored in the bill of materials and a complete cost breakdown is provided for display and stored for future use, Para. [0063] of RAPPAPORT; See also three-dimensional digital model identifies costs of components, Para. [0088] of RAPPAPORT; See also desired or specified performance targets … equipment cost, equipment installation cost., ongoing actual equipment upkeep costs and records, predicted ongoing equipment upkeep costs, Para. [0098] of RAPPAPORT).
Regarding claim 6, HAYASHI as modified by RAPPAPORT discloses the method of claim 2 (as shown above), wherein said at least one cost function comprises at least one of: a crosstalk cost value, based on a level of crosstalk associated with the given parameter set (the target of the crosstalk was also determined at A = 1625 nm considering the application for the C + L band, because longer wavelengths weaken the confinement and increase the crosstalk … other parameters in condition (iv) were determined so that low crosstalk can be achieved when the MCF is wound on a bobbin … the attenuation degradation of the outer cores should be suppressed, Page 16584 of HAYASHI); an effective mode area cost value, associated with a fibre core effective mode area associated with the given parameter set (predicts the performance of wireless communication systems based on a computer model of a given environment using a deterministic radio coverage predictive technique known as ray tracing, Para. [0024] of RAPPAPORT; [coverage area is interpreted as corresponding to effective mode area]); a cut-off cost value associated with a fibre core wavelength cut-off associated with the given parameter set; an overlap cost value associated with a fibre core overlap associated with the given parameter set; and a coating loss cost value associated with a coating loss associated with the given parameter set (due to the ability of the present invention to have site-specific knowledge of the location, area, and size of the overlapping service areas for all of the wireless network transceivers in the environment in question. By using this information, the invention can more efficiently determine when a mobile client should shift from one wireless transceiver to another in terms of which transceiver is managing the communication with the mobile client, and can also more efficiently plan bandwidth shaping on the neighboring wireless transceivers, Para. [0203] of RAPPAPORT).
Regarding claim 7, HAYASHI as modified by RAPPAPORT discloses the method of claim 1 (as shown above), wherein said modifying comprises performing an iterative optimisation of the fitness values of the parameter sets (optimizing and comparing performance, iterating the hardware or modeled hardware to reach desired specified criteria for the network, Para. [0095] of RAPPAPORT).
Regarding claim 10, HAYASHI as modified by RAPPAPORT discloses the method of claim 1 (as shown above), wherein said ceasing condition is a convergence condition, indicating that said fitness values have converged (analysis process may be automated, may time out automatically, or may allow the user to intervene or set initial conditions, in order to help avoid and deal with convergence issues or to deal with the cases when particular goals are met satisfactorily without further computation being required, Para. [0132] of RAPPAPORT).
Regarding claim 12, HAYASHI as modified by RAPPAPORT discloses the method of claim 1 (as shown above), wherein said modifying is to improve the fitness value of at least one of said parameter sets (when the iteration has concluded 112, the ideal type and configuration for each component in the network has been identified that provides the most dramatic improvement in the performance criteria, Para. [0134] of RAPPAPORT).
Regarding claim 13, HAYASHI as modified by RAPPAPORT discloses the method of claim 1 (as shown above), further comprising, responsive to determining in step (f) that no modified parameter sets satisfy the at least one fibre configuration constraint: updating said at least one fibre configuration constraint; and repeating steps (b) to (f) (continues iterating equipment positions until it reaches an optimal or preferred network configuration, Para. [0141] of RAPPAPORT; See also the measured signal or interference levels (or other measured parameters) are sensed and used to iterate the proper reconfiguration of actual network hardware connected to the invention, Para. [0043] of RAPPAPORT; See also the placement of components can be refined and fine-tuned prior to actual implementation of a system or network, wherein performance prediction modeling or measurement may be used for design and deployment; and to ensure that all required regions of the desired service area are blanketed with adequate signal to noise ratio, Para. [0058] of RAPPAPORT; See also iteratively determines overall network performance and cost, and further iterates equipment settings, locations and orientations, Abstract of RAPPAPORT).
Regarding claim 16, HAYASHI as modified by RAPPAPORT discloses the method of claim 1 (as shown above), wherein said at least one fibre configuration constraint comprises a constraint on at least one of: effective mode area; cut-off wavelength; chromatic dispersion; crosstalk; coating-loss (the target of the crosstalk was also determined at A = 1625 nm considering the application for the C + L band, because longer wavelengths weaken the confinement and increase the crosstalk … other parameters in condition (iv) were determined so that low crosstalk can be achieved when the MCF is wound on a bobbin … the attenuation degradation of the outer cores should be suppressed, Page 16584 of HAYASHI; See also predicts the performance of wireless communication systems based on a computer model of a given environment using a deterministic radio coverage predictive technique known as ray tracing, Para. [0024] of RAPPAPORT; [coverage area is interpreted as corresponding to effective mode area]).
Regarding claim 18, HAYASHI as modified by RAPPAPORT discloses the method of claim 1 (as shown above), wherein improving a given fitness value comprises causing said given fitness value to indicate improved fitness (when the iteration has concluded 112, the ideal type and configuration for each component in the network has been identified that provides the most dramatic improvement in the performance criteria, Para. [0134] of RAPPAPORT).
Regarding claim 19, HAYASHI as modified by RAPPAPORT discloses the method of claim 1 (as shown above), comprising constructing a multi-core optical fibre based on said data (Section 3.1 discusses Fabrication and measured properties of the designed MCF, Page 16586 of HAYASHI).
Regarding claim 20, HAYASHI as modified by RAPPAPORT discloses the method of claim 1 (as shown above), wherein each initial parameter set, and the output data, comprises parameters indicative of a physical layout of a multi-core optical fibre (the physical components of the network allows the invention to display, store, and iteratively adapt any network to constantly varying traffic and interference conditions, Abstract of RAPPAPORT; See also displaying the physical location of network assets on a site-specific model of the physical environment, Para. [0029] of RAPPAPORT).
Claim 21 is an apparatus and has substantially the same technical features as claim 1, differing only in the category of invention. Thus, the same reasoning as in claim 1 applies to claim 21. Additionally, RAPPAPORT teaches circuitry (integrated circuits, Para. [0101] of RAPPAPORT).
Claim 22 is a computer-readable medium and has substantially the same technical features as claim 1, differing only in the category of invention. Thus, the same reasoning as in claim 1 applies to claim 22. Additionally, RAPPAPORT teaches computer-readable medium comprising computer-readable instructions which, when executed by at least one processor, cause said processor to perform a method (the control/GUI part of the invention may ship as executable files on a standard PC or handheld computer application, and part of the invention may be implemented on a chip (an integrated circuit or circuits) or as embedded software or as a series of computing instructions combined with memory, wherein the memory or chip contains or may receive an electronic upload of a site-specific map of the components and wireless infrastructure that is controllable by the invention, Para. [0041] of RAPPAPORT).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Non-Patent Literature (NPL) HAYASHI et al. (“'Design and fabrication of ultra-low crosstalk and low-loss multi-core fiber References and links'', OPT. EXPRESS, vol. 19, no. 17, 15 August 2011 (2011-08-15), pages 16576-16592”) in view of RAPPAPORT et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0236547), and further in view of NPL OZKAN-BAKBAK et al. (“'Particle Swarm Optimization Design of Optical Directional Coupler Based on Power Loss Analysis'”, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS IN ENGINEERING, vol. 1, no. 2, 27 June 2013, (2013-06-27), pages 29-33).
Regarding claim 8, HAYASHI as modified by RAPPAPORT discloses the method of claim 7 (as shown above) but appear to fail to explicitly disclose comprising performing said optimisation by applying a metaheuristic optimisation algorithm.
OZKAN-BAKBAK, however, is in the same field and teaches comprising performing said optimisation by applying a metaheuristic optimisation algorithm (design optimization for an optical directional coupler (including optical waveguides) using particle swarm optimization, Abstract of OZKAN-BAKBAK; [Applicant’s claim 9 indicates PSO is a type of metaheuristic optimization algorithm]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of multi-core fibre/fiber system/method of HAYASHI as modified by RAPPAPORT with the particle swarm optimization method of OZKAN-BAKBAK for the purpose of efficient intelligent evolutionary optimization (1. Introduction on Page 29 of OZKAN-BAKBAK).
Regarding claim 9, HAYASHI as modified by RAPPAPORT AND OZKAN-BAKBAK discloses the method of claim 8 (as shown above), wherein said metaheuristic optimisation algorithm is a particle swarm optimisation algorithm, wherein each parameter set is a particle of said particle swarm (design optimization for an optical directional coupler (including optical waveguides) using particle swarm optimization, Abstract of OZKAN-BAKBAK).
Claims 11, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Non-Patent Literature (NPL) HAYASHI et al. (“'Design and fabrication of ultra-low crosstalk and low-loss multi-core fiber References and links'', OPT. EXPRESS, vol. 19, no. 17, 15 August 2011 (2011-08-15), pages 16576-16592”) in view of RAPPAPORT et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0236547), and further in view of ALFARHAN et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0274555).
Regarding claim 11, HAYASHI as modified by RAPPAPORT discloses the method of claim 1 (as shown above) but appears to fail to explicitly disclose further comprising, responsive to determining in step (e) that: a predetermined threshold number of iterations has been performed; and the ceasing condition has not been met, repeating at least steps (b) to (e).
ALFARHAN, however, is in the same field and teaches further comprising, responsive to determining in step (e) that: a predetermined threshold number of iterations has been performed; and the ceasing condition has not been met, repeating at least steps (b) to (e) (the determining of whether the preamble transmission or the SR transmission attempt fails a listen Before Talk (LBT) operation for the first channel may include determining a number of failed LBT attempts for the first channel such that the attempt counter is incremented after each LBT attempt failure until the attempt counter reaches the threshold level such that prior to the attempt counter reaching the threshold level, repeatedly attempting an LBT operation on the first channel and after the attempt counter reaches the threshold level, possibly repeatedly attempting an LBT operation on the further channel, Para. [0334] of ALFARHAN).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of multi-core fibre/fiber system/method of HAYASHI as modified by RAPPAPORT with the iterative method of ALFARHAN for the purpose of efficiency (Para. [0168] of ALFARHAN).
Regarding claim 14, HAYASHI as modified by RAPPAPORT discloses the method of claim 13 (as shown above) but appears to fail to explicitly disclose wherein said updating the at least one fibre configuration constraint and repeating steps (b) to (f) is additionally responsive to determining, at step (f), that a predefined threshold number of iterations have been performed in step (e).
ALFARHAN, however, is in the same field and teaches wherein said updating the at least one fibre configuration constraint and repeating steps (b) to (f) is additionally responsive to determining, at step (f), that a predefined threshold number of iterations have been performed in step (e) (the determining of whether the preamble transmission or the SR transmission attempt fails a listen Before Talk (LBT) operation for the first channel may include determining a number of failed LBT attempts for the first channel such that the attempt counter is incremented after each LBT attempt failure until the attempt counter reaches the threshold level such that prior to the attempt counter reaching the threshold level, repeatedly attempting an LBT operation on the first channel and after the attempt counter reaches the threshold level, possibly repeatedly attempting an LBT operation on the further channel, Para. [0334] of ALFARHAN).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of multi-core fibre/fiber system/method of HAYASHI as modified by RAPPAPORT with the iterative method of ALFARHAN for the purpose of efficiency (Para. [0168] of ALFARHAN).
Regarding claim 15, HAYASHI as modified by RAPPAPORT discloses the method of claim 3 (as shown above) but appears to fail to explicitly disclose wherein updating the at least one fibre configuration constraint comprises loosening at least one constraint of the plurality.
ALFARHAN, however, is in the same field and teaches wherein updating the at least one fibre configuration constraint comprises loosening at least one constraint of the plurality (the selected LBT operation may have more relax requirements for availability than if the PTT was not received, Para. [0271] of ALFARHAN).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of multi-core fibre/fiber system/method of HAYASHI as modified by RAPPAPORT with the iterative method of ALFARHAN for the purpose of efficiency (Para. [0168] of ALFARHAN).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Non-Patent Literature (NPL) HAYASHI et al. (“'Design and fabrication of ultra-low crosstalk and low-loss multi-core fiber References and links'', OPT. EXPRESS, vol. 19, no. 17, 15 August 2011 (2011-08-15), pages 16576-16592”) in view of RAPPAPORT et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0236547), and further in view of MATSUI et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0341618).
Regarding claim 17, HAYASHI as modified by RAPPAPORT discloses the method of claim 16 (as shown above) but appears to fail to explicitly disclose wherein updating said at least one fibre configuration constraint comprises: iteratively modifying the effective mode area constraint and the cut-off wavelength constraint and optimizing a level of crosstalk at each combination of the effective mode area constraint and the cut-off wavelength constraint; and iteratively modifying the cut-off wavelength and optimizing the effective mode area at each cut-off wavelength.
MATSUI, however, is in the same field and teaches wherein updating said at least one fibre configuration constraint comprises: iteratively modifying the effective mode area constraint and the cut-off wavelength constraint and optimizing a level of crosstalk at each combination of the effective mode area constraint and the cut-off wavelength constraint; and iteratively modifying the cut-off wavelength and optimizing the effective mode area at each cut-off wavelength (determining the cutoff wavelength, the upper limit value of crosstalk, the mode field diameter, and the bending loss of the multi-core optical fiber as specification values (step S11), Para. [0079] of MATSUI; See also detecting a corresponding mode field diameter corresponding to the upper limit value of crosstalk of the specification values, from a relationship chart (a second ordinate axis in FIG. 3) between the mode field diameter and the crosstalk at the cutoff wavelength of the specification values (step S12), Para. [0080] of MATSUI; See also detecting the minimum OTC corresponding to the corresponding mode field diameter, from a relationship chart (a first ordinate axis in FIG. 3) between the mode field diameter at the cutoff wavelength of the specification values and the shortest distance (minimum OTC) from the center of the core to the outer periphery of the cladding in a cross-section of the multi-core optical fiber (step S13), Para. [0081] of MATSUI; See also drawing a first curve satisfying the mode field diameter among the specification values, a second curve satisfying the cutoff wavelength among the specification values, a third curve satisfying the bending loss among the specification values, and a fourth curve satisfying the corresponding mode field diameter in an optical characteristics chart (FIG. 2), Para. [0082] of MATSUI).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of multi-core fibre/fiber system/method of HAYASHI as modified by RAPPAPORT with the iterative method of ALFARHAN for the purpose of efficiency (Para. [0168] of ALFARHAN).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P HOCKER whose telephone number is (571)272-0501.
The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached on (571)272-3676. 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.
/JOHN P HOCKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
