DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/06/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 12/07/2023 is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
NOTE: In order to promote compact prosecution, prior art will be applied for all claim limitations as appropriate, even when the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) does not include certain contingent limitations present in method claims. However, this should not be taken as an acknowledgement that the BRI and therefore the scope of method claims with such contingent limitations are broader than as discussed below.
Regarding claim 20, the method claim contains recitation(s) contingent upon (i.e. in response to) “determining that a predetermined wavelength of an optical signal transmitted on a said optical transmitter of the optical transmission unit corresponds with a respective operational wavelength associated with an input port of the optical multiplexing unit to which the said optical transmitter is coupled”. However, this recitation is not required to carry out the claimed invention (i.e. a determination that the predetermined wavelength is not associated with the input port could be made) and according to MPEP 2111.04, II, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” See also Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016). Therefore, the BRI of claim 20 would not include the following limitation(s):
“associating the optical transmitter with said operational wavelength”.
Furthermore, any art that would anticipate or render obvious claims on which claim 20 depends would anticipate or render obvious claim 20 since the only step in the claim is not required as the condition precedent does not need to occur.
A way to overcome this would be to amend the claim as follows:
“The method of claim 14, comprising:
with a respective operational wavelength associated with an input port of the optical multiplexing unit to which the said optical transmitter is coupled, and
associating the optical transmitter with said operational wavelength.”.
Further regarding claim 21, the steps of the claim also appear to be contingent upon the same precedent being completed noted above for claim 20. As such, the BRI of claim 21 would not include the listed steps and any art that would anticipate or render obvious claims on which claim 20 depends would anticipate or render obvious claim 21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14 and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is a method claim which recites a determining step in the second clause but then in the final clause recites:
“wherein the determination is dependent on detection of a non-optical fault signal from the optical multiplexing unit.” (emphasis added)
This appears to be a condition precedent for the determination step which would thereby make the determination step a contingent limitation. However, this is unclear since the step of actually detecting a non-optical fault signal is never positively recited. Furthermore, since the detection of a non-optical fault does not have to occur to carry out the claimed invention (i.e. instances when there is no signal fault in the optical multiplexing unit), then it appears that the BRI of this claim is merely the first clause reciting a transmitting step if the second clause is indeed a contingent limitation.
Due to this issue, one of ordinary skill in the art would find the last two clauses of claim 14 to be unclear and therefore would conclude the meets and bounds of the claim are also unclear. Dependent claims 16-22 do not cure claim 14 of this issue, and are rejected under similar rationale.
Further regarding claim 16, the claim recites a clause with a similar issue as claim 14 as reprinted below:
“wherein the predetermined wavelength is determined not to correspond with the operational wavelength associated with the input port of the optical multiplexing unit in response to detecting the non-optical fault detection signal.” (emphasis added)
As with above, it is unclear based on this wording if “wherein the predetermined wavelength is determined not to correspond with the operational wavelength associated with the input port of the optical multiplexing unit” is a contingent limitation based on the precedent “detecting the non-optical fault detection signal” occurring. If so, since this predicate also does not need to occur to carry out the claimed invention, the BRI of claim 16 would appear to not include the step. As with claim 14, due to this confusion, the meets of bounds of the claim are unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohtani, U.S. Publication No. 2007/0223925.
Regarding claim 14, Ohtani teaches a method of auto-tuning an optical system, the method comprising:
transmitting an optical signal on a first optical transmitter of an optical transmission unit at a predetermined wavelength (see Ohtani Figure 7B, transmitter 20b outputting wavelength λ1);
determining whether the predetermined wavelength corresponds with an operational wavelength associated with an input port of an optical multiplexing unit to which the first optical transmitter is coupled (see Figure 7B, output of transmitter 20b connected to port 1 of module 32-1 in multiplex unit 24b and paragraph [0042], “The comparator circuit 29 compares an intensity of the digitized reflection light transmitted from the A/D converter 27 with a threshold value. The comparison result is input to a wavelength setup circuit 28 in which, if the comparison result indicates that an intensity of the reflection light is larger than the threshold value, an output wavelength of the tunable LD unit 21 is regarded as being wrong and an output wavelength thereof is accordingly set anew”. The paragraph refers to the connections between monitor 26 and tunable LD unit 21 in Figure 7B, which can be seen in an embodiment in Figure 4);
wherein the determination is dependent on detection of a non-optical fault signal from the optical multiplexing unit (see paragraph [0042], “The comparator circuit 29 compares an intensity of the digitized reflection light transmitted from the A/D converter 27 with a threshold value. The comparison result is input to a wavelength setup circuit 28 in which, if the comparison result indicates that an intensity of the reflection light is larger than the threshold value, an output wavelength of the tunable LD unit 21 is regarded as being wrong and an output wavelength thereof is accordingly set anew”. The signal received from monitor 26 of Figure 7B to elements 27-29 of Figure 4 would be electrical in nature i.e. non-optical).
Regarding claim 16, Ohtani teaches all the limitations of claim 14, and further teaches wherein the predetermined wavelength is determined not to correspond with the operational wavelength associated with the input port of the optical multiplexing unit in response to detecting the non-optical fault detection signal (see Ohtani paragraph [0042], “The comparison result is input to a wavelength setup circuit 28 in which, if the comparison result indicates that an intensity of the reflection light is larger than the threshold value, an output wavelength of the tunable LD unit 21 is regarded as being wrong and an output wavelength thereof is accordingly set anew”).
Regarding claim 17, Ohtani teaches all the limitations of claim 16, and further teaches transmitting another optical signal at a different predetermined wavelength on the first optical transmitter and determining whether the different predetermined wavelength corresponds with the operational wavelength associated with the input port of the optical multiplexing unit to which the first optical transmitter is coupled (see Ohtani paragraph [0039] implying that the tunable LD unit 21 of Figure 7B is swept until the reflection is not detected).
Regarding claim 19, Ohtani teaches all the limitations of claim 14, and further teaches
transmitting an optical signal on a second optical transmitter of the optical transmission unit at a second predetermined wavelength (see Ohtani Figure 7B, input into multiplex unit 24b at wavelength λ2 and paragraph [0053] indicating there are transmitters for each other wavelength);
determining whether the second predetermined wavelength corresponds with an operational wavelength associated with a second input port of the optical multiplexing unit to which the second optical transmitter is coupled (see Ohtani paragraph [0042] as applied to each transmitter 20 of Figure 7B).
Regarding claim 20, Ohtani teaches all the limitations of claim 14, and further teaches in response to determining that a predetermined wavelength of an optical signal transmitted on a said optical transmitter of the optical transmission unit corresponds with a respective operational wavelength associated with an input port of the optical multiplexing unit to which the said optical transmitter is coupled, associating the optical transmitter with said operational wavelength (see Ohtani paragraph [0041]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohtani, U.S. Publication No. 2007/0223925 in view of Bouda et al, U.S. Publication No. 2012/0082458.
Regarding claim 8, Ohtani teaches an optical transmitter unit for coupling to an optical multiplexing unit (see Ohtani Figure 7B), the optical transmitter unit comprising:
a plurality of output ports each coupled to a respective optical transmitter operable to transmit optical signals at one or more wavelengths (see Figure 7B, transmitter 20b outputting wavelength λ1 and paragraph [0053] indicating there are transmitters for each other wavelength);
a fault detecting circuit (see Figure 7B, reflection light monitors 26b and paragraph [0052] which indicates that monitors 26 must be connected to tunable LD units 21 within transmitters 20 via control wirings. Figure 4 shows an embodiment of how monitor 26 would be connected to a tunable LD 21 with elements 27-29 being analogized with the “fault detecting circuit”) arranged to detect a non-optical fault signal from the optical multiplexing unit (see paragraph [0042], “The comparator circuit 29 compares an intensity of the digitized reflection light transmitted from the A/D converter 27 with a threshold value. The comparison result is input to a wavelength setup circuit 28 in which, if the comparison result indicates that an intensity of the reflection light is larger than the threshold value, an output wavelength of the tunable LD unit 21 is regarded as being wrong and an output wavelength thereof is accordingly set anew”. The signal received from monitor 26 of Figure 7B to elements 27-29 of Figure 4 would be electrical in nature i.e. non-optical);
whereby said optical transmitter unit is operative to:
transmit an optical signal on a first output port at a predetermined wavelength (see Figure 7B, tunable LD unit 21 sending a signal initially at λ1);
use the fault detecting circuit to determine whether the predetermined wavelength corresponds with an operational wavelength associated with an input port of the optical multiplexing unit to which the first output port is coupled (see Figure 7B, output of transmitter 20b connected to port 1 of module 32-1 in multiplex unit 24b and paragraph [0042], “The comparator circuit 29 compares an intensity of the digitized reflection light transmitted from the A/D converter 27 with a threshold value. The comparison result is input to a wavelength setup circuit 28 in which, if the comparison result indicates that an intensity of the reflection light is larger than the threshold value, an output wavelength of the tunable LD unit 21 is regarded as being wrong and an output wavelength thereof is accordingly set anew”).
Ohtani does not expressively teach a processor and memory, said memory containing instructions executable by said processor.
However, Bouda in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches an optical transmitter unit comprising respective optical transmitters to transmit optical signals to a multiplexing unit (see Bouda Figure 2, modules 260 to mux 210) as taught in Ohtani further comprising
a processor and memory, said memory containing instructions executable by said processor (see Figure 2, controller 216 and paragraph [0049]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the teaching of memory and a processor in an optical transmitter unit as taught in Bouda with the system taught in Ohtani, the motivation being to automate the processes in the system.
Regarding claim 9, Ohtani in view of Bouda teaches all the limitations of claim 8, and further teaches wherein the processor is operative to associate the first output port with a different predetermined wavelength in response to detecting the non-optical fault signal (see Ohtani paragraph [0042], “The comparison result is input to a wavelength setup circuit 28 in which, if the comparison result indicates that an intensity of the reflection light is larger than the threshold value, an output wavelength of the tunable LD unit 21 is regarded as being wrong and an output wavelength thereof is accordingly set anew”).
Regarding claim 10, Ohtani in view of Bouda teaches all the limitations of claim 8, and further teaches wherein the processor is operative to associate the first output port with the predetermined wavelength of the transmitted optical signal in response to not detecting the non-optical fault signal (see Ohtani paragraph [0041] as combined with Bouda Figure 2, controller 216).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohtani, U.S. Publication No. 2007/0223925 in view of Bouda et al, U.S. Publication No. 2012/0082458 and Lee et al, KR20080085996 (see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 13, Ohtani in view of Bouda teaches all the limitations of claim 8, but does not expressively teach wherein the non-optical fault signal is an RFID signal.
However, Lee in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a non-optical fault signal (see Lee page 7, “The processor of the central base station detects this, identifies the faulty channel, and sends an RF signal with a corresponding frequency to the optical line fault location detection device”) as taught in Ohtani in view of Bouda wherein
the non-optical fault signal is an RF signal (see page 7, “The processor of the central base station detects this, identifies the faulty channel, and sends an RF signal with a corresponding frequency to the optical line fault location detection device”).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of simple substitution to replace the electrical fault signal of Ohtani in view of Bouda with that of Lee to yield the predictable results of successfully transmitting the fault information.
Ohtani in view of Bouda and Lee does not expressively teach wherein the RF signal is an RFID signal. However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of simple substitution to replace the RF fault signal of Ohtani in view of Bouda and Lee with an RFID signal claimed to yield the predictable results of successfully transmitting the fault information.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohtani, U.S. Publication No. 2007/0223925 in view of Kandpal et al, U.S. Publication No. 2004/0179851.
Regarding claim 21, Ohtani teaches all the limitations of claim 20, and further teaches
associating the optical transmitter with an upstream wavelength corresponding to the associated predetermined wavelength (see Ohtani paragraph [0041]).
Ohtani does not expressively teach
forwarding an indication of the upstream wavelength to a remote unit by transmitting the indication on an optical signal using the associated predetermined wavelength on the optical transmitter.
However, Kandpal in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a method of associating an optical transmitter with an upstream wavelength (see Kandpal paragraph [0021]) as taught in Ohtani comprising
forwarding an indication of the upstream wavelength to a remote unit by transmitting the indication on an optical signal using the associated predetermined wavelength on the optical transmitter (see paragraph [0021]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the teaching of forwarding an associating wavelength as taught in Kandpal with the method taught in Ohtani, the motivation being to ensure other devices receiving the signal know that set wavelength in for the optical transmitter thereby avoiding sweeping or further tuning.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohtani, U.S. Publication No. 2007/0223925 in view of Lee et al, KR20080085996 (see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 22, Ohtani teaches all the limitations of claim 14, but does not expressively teach wherein the non-optical fault signal is an RFID signal.
However, Lee in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a non-optical fault signal (see Lee page 7, “The processor of the central base station detects this, identifies the faulty channel, and sends an RF signal with a corresponding frequency to the optical line fault location detection device”) as taught in Ohtani wherein
the non-optical fault signal is an RF signal (see page 7, “The processor of the central base station detects this, identifies the faulty channel, and sends an RF signal with a corresponding frequency to the optical line fault location detection device”).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of simple substitution to replace the electrical fault signal of Ohtani with that of Lee to yield the predictable results of successfully transmitting the fault information.
Ohtani in view of Lee does not expressively teach wherein the RF signal is an RFID signal. However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of simple substitution to replace the RF fault signal of Ohtani in view of Lee with an RFID signal claimed to yield the predictable results of successfully transmitting the fault information.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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.
Claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY L KRETZER whose telephone number is (571)272-5639. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-7:00 PM Pacific Time.
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.
/CASEY L KRETZER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635