Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 14, 16 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kani et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2010/0239247 A1) in view of Gui et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2021/0006347 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kani et al. teaches in FIG. 10 a passive optical module (optical multi/demultiplexer 30-2) comprising: a common optical connection optically coupled to a single optical fiber 33, the single optical fiber carrying a plurality of optical services thereon, the plurality of optical services including a passive optical network service (generated by OLT for PON 53-m) and a point-to-point optical service (generated by OLT for P-P 51-1; it is understood that there can be multiple P-P channels as shown in FIG. 8) having a plurality of groups of optical channels. The difference between Kani et al. and the claimed invention is that Kani et al. does not teach the particular connection of filters as recited in claim 1. Gui et al. teaches in FIG. 6A a passive optical network similar to that of Kani et al. and in FIG. 6B a passive optical network filter arrangement (filter 634(1)) optically connected to the common optical connection (the common port) and providing a passive optical network service connection, the passive optical network filter arrangement having a reflect port (the port with an connection to filter 634(2)); a plurality of point-to-point optical filters optically connected in a cascaded arrangement (filters 634(2), 634(3)…), wherein: each point-to-point optical filter receives optical signals from a reflect port of one other filter within the passive optical module and includes a point to-point optical service connection for one of the plurality of groups of channels, the one other filter being one of (1) the passive optical network filter or (2) another of the point-to-point optical filters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teaching of Gui et al. with the system of Kani et al. by replacing the optical multi/demultiplexer 30-2 of FIG. 10 of Kani et al. with the WDM device 624 of FIG. 6B of Gui et al. because it is a simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results. 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 the WDM device 624, as taught by Gui et al., in the system of Kani et al.
Regarding claim 2, Gui et al. teaches in FIG. 6C GPON service 642 in a wavelength range of 1300 to 1500 nm.
Regarding claim 3, Gui et al. teaches in FIG. 6B that the plurality of point-to-point optical filters include: a first optical filter optically connected to the reflect port of the passive optical network filter, the first optical filter having a first point-to-point service connection; a second optical filter optically connected to a reflect port of the first optical filter, the second optical filter having a second point-to-point service connection; a third optical filter optically connected to the reflect port of the passive optical network filter, the first optical filter having a third point-to-point service connection; a fourth optical filter optically connected to the reflect port of the passive optical network filter, the first optical filter having a fourth point-to-point service connection.
Regarding claim 14, Kani et al. teaches in FIG. 10 optical splitter 35m for the PON subscribers.
Claim 16 is rejected based on the same reason for rejecting claim 1 because an apparatus claim implies the method of using the apparatus.
Regarding claims 19-20, Kani et al. teaches in FIG. 10 optical splitter 35m for the PON subscribers and each of the ONUs receives one or more passive optical network services.
Regarding claim 21, Gui et al. teaches in FIG. 6A that the OLT supports GPON 608 and XGS-PON 610 and in paragraph [0056] that the power splitter 624 then routes the signals to their respective ONU 606.
Claim(s) 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kani et al. and Gui et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 14, 16 and 19-21 above, and further in view of Perry et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2021/0281347 A1).
Kani et al. and Gui et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 1-3, 14, 16 and 19-21. The difference between Kani et al. and Gui et al. and the claimed invention is that Kani et al. and Gui et al. do not teach the specific wavelength ranges for the point-to-point service. Firstly, Gui et al. teaches in FIG. 6C a diagram illustrating an example transmission spectra 636, which implies that other choices or arrangements of the spectra are possible and can be considered as an engineering design choice. To strengthen the rejection, the Examiner cites Perry et al. for teaching the particular wavelength ranges. Perry et al. teaches in Table 3 four groups of wavelength ranges: 1554.94-1560.61 nm, 1547.72-1553.33 nm, 1536.61-1542.14 nm, and 1529.55-1535.04 nm. These ranges are close to the claimed ranges. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been combined the teaching of Perry et al. with the modified system of Kani et al. and Gui et al. because it is a simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results. 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 the wavelength ranges, as taught by Perry et al., or other suitable wavelength ranges, in the modified system of Kani et al. and Gui et al.
Regarding claim 5, Perry et al. teaches in Table 2 XGS-PON groups with wavelength ranges 1260-1280 nm and 1575-1581 nm.
Regarding claim 6, since Gui et al. teaches in FIG. 6A GPON 608 and XGS-PON 610, the filters in FIG. 6B includes an GPON filter and an XG-PON filter.
Regarding claim 7, Gui et al. teaches in FIG. 6C RF video service which is different from services delivered at the GPON service connection and the XGS-PON service connection.
Regarding claim 8, Gui et al. teaches in FIG. 6B filter 634(2) for the XGS-PON signal; the filter has a reflect port.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kani et al. and Gui et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 14, 16 and 19-21 above, and further in view of Grasis et al. (U.S. Patent 6,167,171).
Kani et al. and Gui et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 1-3, 14, 16 and 19-21. The difference between Kani et al. and Gui et al. and the claimed invention is that Kani et al. and Gui et al. do not teach that the passive optical network filter arrangement comprises one or more wavelength division multiplexers selected from between point-to-point wavelength division multiplexers and passive optical network (PON) wavelength division multiplexers. Grasis et al. teaches in FIG. 5 that a wavelength division multiplexer 95 can be placed in between the multiplexer between port 84 and port 88. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Grasis et al. with the modified system of Kani et al. and Gui et al. because the arrangement can used to support different levels of granularity. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place one or more wavelength division multiplexer in between other wavelength division multiplexers, as taught by Grasis et al., in the modified system of Kani et al. and Gui et al.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kani et al. and Gui et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 14, 16 and 19-21 above, and further in view of Ota et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2010/0091355 A1).
Kani et al. and Gui et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 1-3, 14, 16 and 19-21. The difference between Kani et al. and Gui et al. and the claimed invention is that Kani et al. and Gui et al. do not teach a plurality of 8-skip-1 (8S1) filters. Ota et al. teaches in paragraph [0325] use 8-skip-1 filters as wavelength division multiplexer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teaching of Ota et al. with the modified system of Kani et al. and Gui et al. because it is a simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results. 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 8-skip-1 filters, as taught by Ota et al., in the modified system of Kani et al. and Gui et al.
Claim(s) 11-12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kani et al. and Gui et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 14, 16 and 19-21 above, and further in view of Kim (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2004/0071397 A1).
Kani et al. and Gui et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 1-3, 14, 16 and 19-21. The difference between Kani et al. and Gui et al. and the claimed invention is that Kani et al. and Gui et al. do not teach that the passive optical module has a total channel isolation for each of the plurality of point-to-point service connections of at least 60 dB. Kim teaches in FIG. 4 an optical communication system using WDM technology. Kim teaches in paragraph [0011] that the filter can has an isolation ratio to about 60 dB. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Kim with the modified system of Kani et al. and Gui et al. because high channel isolation reduces interference from adjacent channels. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use filter with an isolation ratio of 60dB, as taught by Kim, in the modified system of Kani et al. and Gui et al.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kani et al. and Gui et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 14, 16 and 19-21 above, and further in view of Campos et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2019/0149245 A1).
Kani et al. and Gui et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 1-3, 14, 16 and 19-21. The difference between Kani et al. and Gui et al. and the claimed invention is that Kani et al. and Gui et al. do not teach that the passive optical module comprises a fiber optic splice enclosure. Campos et al. teaches in FIG. 23 a passive optical network comprising headend 2302, an optical distribution center (ODC) 2304 and a plurality of splice boxes 2326. The splice boxes are used for splicing the fibers between the transmission lines and the ODC. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Campos et al. with the modified system of Kani et al. and Gui et al. because the splice boxes facilitate the connection between the transmission fiber cable and the ODC. 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 splice boxes in the passive optical network, as taught by Campos et al., in the modified system of Kani et al. and Gui et al.
Claim(s) 15 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kani et al. and Gui et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 14, 16 and 19-21 above, and further in view of Giraud et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2020/0174212 A1).
Kani et al. and Gui et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 1-3, 14, 16 and 19-21. The difference between Kani et al. and Gui et al. and the claimed invention is that Kani et al. and Gui et al. do not teach that the splitter, the passive optical network service connection of the passive optical module, and the passive optical network filter arrangement having a reflect port, are contained in a common housing in the form of a cassette or tray. Giraud et al. teaches in FIG. 1 an optical network, similar to that of FIG. 6A of Gui et al., comprising OLT and convergence points (similar to ODN of Gui et al.). Giraud et al. teaches in FIG. 10 and paragraph [0057] tray 150 where optical components such as filters and splitters can be installed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Giraud et al. with the modified system of Kani et al. and Gui et al. because using the tray facilitates the installation and maintenance of the optical 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 install optical components in a tray, as taught by Giraud et al., in the modified system of Kani et al. and Gui et al.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kani et al. and Gui et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 14, 16 and 19-21 above, and further in view of Benner et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2018/0083727 A1).
Kani et al. and Gui et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 1-3, 14, 16 and 19-21. The difference between Kani et al. and Gui et al. and the claimed invention is that Kani et al. and Gui et al. do not teach that each of the point-to-point optical services includes a plurality of optical channels. Benner et al. teaches in FIG. 9A a point-to-point network. Benner et al. teaches in paragraph [0070] that point-to-point can supports one or more forward channels and one or more backward channels. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Benner et al. with the modified system of Kani et al. and Gui et al. because a plurality of channels can support large transmission capacity. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plurality of channels for point-to-point optical service, as taught by Benner et al., in the modified system of Kani et al. and Gui et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues:
In the present application, claims 1 and 16 are independent. Claim 1 recites, among other features, both “a passive optical network filter arrangement optically connected to the common optical connection and providing a passive optical network service connection, the passive optical network filter arrangement having a reflect port” and “a plurality of point-to-point optical filters optically connected in a cascaded arrangement” wherein “each point-to-point optical filter receives optical signals from a reflect port of one other filter within the passive optical module and includes a point to-point optical service connection for one of the plurality of groups of channels, the one other filter being one of (1) the passive optical network filter or (2) another of the point-to-point optical filters.” That is, claim 1 requires both a passive optical network filter arrangement and a plurality of point-to-point optical filters in a cascaded arrangement. Claim 16 recites both “a passive optical network service connection of the passive optical module, the passive optical network service connection being optically connected to the passive optical network service connection via a passive optical network filter arrangement having a reflect port” and “delivering a plurality of point-to-point optical services from the passive optical module, wherein each of the plurality of point-to-point optical services is provided at the output of a point-to-point optical filter of a plurality of point-to-point optical filters optically connected in a cascaded arrangement.”
By contrast, no combination of Kani and Gui teaches the combination of features as recited in claims 1 or 16. In particular, the combination of Kani and Gui does not teach or suggest either the combination of passive optical network filter and point to point filters as recited in claim 1, or the specific combination of delivery of PON and point-to-point optical services from the passive optical module, including “wherein each of the plurality of point-to-point optical services is provided at the output of a point-to-point optical filter of a plurality of point-to-point optical filters optically connected in a cascaded arrangement” as recited in claim 16.
As an initial matter, Kani lacks such features entirely. Kani discloses, at Fig. 10, a passive optical module having an input optical fiber 33 carries P-P and PON services between station device 31 and ONUs 2A, 2B. The breakout of services is performed at a multiplexer 30-2, which separates/combines individual upstream/downstream wavelength pairs λ1, λ1' etc.). Nowhere in Kani is it disclosed how to break out P-P and PON services at the multiplexer, nor does Kani teach use of a plurality of point-to-point optical filters in a cascaded arrangement. This is recognized in the Office Action at least at pp. 3-4.
The argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Gui et al. teaches in FIG. 6B the use of cascaded arrangement of optical filters for providing a plurality of services including point-to-point service.
The argument continues:
Gui does not overcome the deficiencies of Kani. Gui discloses, at Fig. 6B, a "power splitter" 624 that is constructed as a set of cascaded WDMs encased within a housing 625, as shown at Fig. 6A. In Gui, a single channel is broken out by a WDM 634, and remaining wavelengths are forwarded to a next WDM in the cascaded sequence, and so on. These WDMs 634 are not a set of cascaded point-to-point optical filters that have reflect ports on which filtered signals are reflected, nor are there two different types of filters as recited in claim 1 (point to point and PON filters). Gui's WDMs 634 are described as breaking out various service wavelength ranges of PON services, but does not separate multiple point to point optical services (e.g., multiple channels) as recited in claims 1 and 16.
The argument is not persuasive. Gui et al. teaches in FIG. 6B cascaded arrangement of filters where each filter passes through certain wavelength(s) and reflects the other wavelengths. The filters are characterized by the wavelengths it passes through and the wavelengths that are reflected. The services provided by these wavelengths are design choices as illustrated in FIG. 6C and FIG. 6D. If one classifies filters based on their wavelengths, Gui et al. teaches different type of filters including wavelengths that can be used for providing point-to-point service and wavelengths that can be used for providing PON service. Therefore, the combination of Kani et al. and Gui et al. renders claims 1 and 16 obvious.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHI K LI whose telephone number is (571)272-3031. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:53 a.m. -3:23 p.m.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Payne can be reached at 571 272-3024. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
skl10 May 2026
/SHI K LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights