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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1,2,9,13,14,21,25,28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0148963 A1 to Cvijetic et al., in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0201324 A1 to Wang, further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0120977 A1 to Zhu et al.
As to claim 1, Cvijetic discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at an intermediate orbital angular momentum (OAM) node, comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to (Fig. 2, paragraphs 25, “space/spectral routing node” (500), teaching “intermediate OAM node”, in view of paragraph 30 and Figs. 4 and 5, indicating that the network shown in Fig. 2 is a OAM network, thus teaching OAM node at 500 since it is capable of processing OAM):
receive, from a parent OAM node (Fig. 2, 200, 100, 300, collectively teaching “parent OAM node”, in view of Fig. 4, teaching that these elements collectively are OAM capable) via a parent link between the intermediate OAM node and the parent OAM node (Fig. 2, “fiber link 400”), a first signal based at least in part on a first set of OAM modes (Fig. 2, paragraphs 25, in view of paragraphs 30-32 and Figs. 4 and 5, teaching/indicating that the network shown in Fig. 2 is a OAM network, thus teaching that the signals communicated from 200/100/300, i.e., parent node, to 500, i.e., intermediate node, is based on OAM modes, teaching this limitation); and
transmit, to a child OAM node via a child link between the intermediate OAM node and the child OAM node, a second signal based at least in part on a second set of OAM modes (Fig. 2, paragraphs 25, in view of paragraphs 30-32 and Figs. 4 and 5, teaching/indicating that the network shown in Fig. 2 is a OAM network, thus teaching that the signals communicated from 500, i.e., intermediate node, to 700/800/900, collectively “child OAM node”, through fiber link 600, i.e., child link, is based on OAM modes, teaching this limitation).
Cvijetic does not appear to explicitly disclose transmit to a node a second signal based at least in part on a second set of OAM modes that are different than the first set of OAM modes.
Wang discloses transmit to a node a second signal based at least in part on a second set of OAM modes that are different than the first set of OAM modes. (Figs. 3-4, paragraphs 91-98, 107-111, disclosing, e.g., [paragraphs 94-98] an input signal having mode OAM-1 [which may be one of two input OAM modes as disclosed in paragraph 98 where N >=2, these two input OAM modes disclosing “first set of OAM modes” that is converted into an output signal [“second signal”] having OAM mode(s) OAM-1, OAM-2 and/or OAM-3 [“second set of OAM modes”];
Fig. 2 and paragraphs 80-90, especially paragraphs 88-89 and Table 2, disclosing input signals having OAM-1, OAM-2, OAM-3 or OAM-4 OAM modes under the OAM mode column [teaching “first set of OAM modes”, and output signals based on OAM-1, OAM-1, OAM-(-2) and OAM-0 OAM modes under the SLM state column [teaching “second set of OAM modes”], where the disclosed/taught “first set of OaM modes” and “second set of OAM modes” are clearly different from each other);
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings as disclosed in Wang, in conjunction with the teachings of Cvijetic, to reject the limitations of this claim, by incorporating, and imbuing in Cvijetic’s second set of OAM modes the characteristics of the second set of OAM modes disclosed in Wang, i.e., that such second set of OAM modes are different from the first set of OAM modes, where in both Cvijetic and Wang the first set and second set of OAM modes correspond to the input and output OAM modes, respectively. Thus, Wang’s teaching of “transmit to a node a second signal based at least in part on a second set of OAM modes that are different than the first set of OAM modes” and Cvijetic’s teaching of “transmit, to a child OAM node via a child link between the intermediate OAM node and the child OAM node, a second signal based at least in part on a second set of OAM modes” are combinable to reject “transmit, to a child OAM node via a child link between the intermediate OAM node and the child OAM node, a second signal based at least in part on a second set of OAM modes that are different than the first set of OAM modes.” This is at least because both Cvijetic and Wang feature input and output OAM modes and OAM nodes in an OAM network and both are also in the same field of endeavor of OAM network communication methodologies. The suggestion/motivation would have been to optimize and improve methods for managing and improving the communications in OAM network environments and infrastructures. (Wang, paragraphs 1-44; Cvijetic, paragraphs 1-7, 30-33). Furthermore, please note that the features of the limitations above have been shown to be known or disclosed in the cited references, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Wang and Cvijetic do not appear to explicitly disclose utilizing wireless communication at an intermediate OAM node to communicate with a parent OAM node and a child OAM node; wherein the parent OAM node, the intermediate OAM node, and the child OAM node are nodes of a wireless network.
Zhu discloses utilizing wireless communication at an intermediate OAM node to communicate with a parent OAM node and a child OAM node (Fig. 1(a) and (b), 3 and 4, paragraphs 1-9, 82-85: “The method provided in embodiments of this application may be applied between the terminal and the access network device (for example, between the terminal and an access network device 1), may be applied between the access network devices (for example, between the access network device 1 and an access network device 2), or may be applied between the access network device and the core network device (for example, between the access network device 2 and the core network device)”, paragraph 108, disclosing that the access network device(s) and the core network device(s) implement OAM modes, and thus are all “OAM nodes”, further note that the access network device(s) and the core network device(s) as shown in Fig. 1 are all in a network that implements “wireless communications”, thus teaching that an “intermediate” access network device(s) or core network device(s) process communications for wireless communications, thus teaching this limitation);
wherein the parent OAM node, the intermediate OAM node, and the child OAM node are nodes of a wireless network. (see citations and discussion above, where the network of access network device(s) and the core network device(s) shown in Fig. 1 teach “parent OAM node, the intermediate OAM node, and the child OAM node” and are part of a network infrastructure that implements wireless communications, i.e., a “wireless network”, thus teaching this limitation).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings as disclosed in Zhu, in conjunction with the combined teachings of Cvijetic and Wang, to reject the limitations of this claim, by recognizing that the OAM modes/nodes taught by Cvijetic and Wang may be situated in an access/core network of a wireless network infrastructure, as taught in Zhu, and that it would have been obvious that the OAM nodes taught by Cvijetic and Wang may be imbued with the characteristics of the OAM nodes in Zhu. Further and similarly, Cvijetic and Wang’s teaching of “an apparatus for wireless communication at an intermediate orbital angular momentum (OAM) node” and Zhu’s teaching of “utilizing wireless communication at an intermediate OAM node to communicate with a parent OAM node and a child OAM node” may be combinable to reject “an apparatus utilizing wireless communication at an intermediate orbital angular momentum (OAM) node”. This is at least further because all references are also in the same field of endeavor of OAM network communication methodologies. The suggestion/motivation would have been to optimize and improve methods for managing and improving the communications in OAM network environments and infrastructures. (Wang, paragraphs 1-44; Cvijetic, paragraphs 1-7, 30-33; Zhu, paragraphs 1-14). Furthermore, please note that the features of the limitations above have been shown to be known or disclosed in the cited references, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
As to claim 2, Cvijetic, Zhu and Wang teach the apparatus as in the parent claim 1.
Cvijetic does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:determine the first set of OAM modes for the parent link and the second set of OAM modes for the child link from a plurality of OAM modes for mode-division duplexing at the intermediate OAM node.
Wang discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:determine the first set of OAM modes for the parent link and the second set of OAM modes for the child link from a plurality of OAM modes for mode-division duplexing at the intermediate OAM node. (Figs. 2-4, disclosing an embodiment of “intermediate OAM node”; Figs. 3-4, paragraphs 91-98, 107-111, disclosing, e.g., [paragraphs 94-98] an input signal having mode OAM-1 [which may be one of two input OAM modes as disclosed in paragraph 98 where N >=2, these two input OAM modes disclosing “first set of OAM modes” that is converted into an output signal [“second signal”] having OAM mode(s) OAM-1, OAM-2 and/or OAM-3 [“second set of OAM modes”], where the input disclosing “parent link” and the output discloses “child link”, teaching this limitation;
Fig. 2 and paragraphs 80-90, especially paragraphs 88-89 and Table 2, disclosing input signals having OAM-1, OAM-2, OAM-3 or OAM-4 OAM modes under the OAM mode column [teaching “first set of OAM modes”, and output signals based on OAM-1, OAM-1, OAM-(-2) and OAM-0 OAM modes under the SLM state column [teaching “second set of OAM modes”], where the input disclosing “parent link” and the output discloses “child link”, teaching this limitation)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings as disclosed in Wang, in conjunction with the teachings of Cvijetic, to reject the limitations of this claim, by incorporating, and imbuing in Cvijetic’s second set of OAM modes the characteristics of the second set of OAM modes disclosed in Wang, i.e., that such second set of OAM modes are different from the first set of OAM modes, where in both Cvijetic and Wang the first set and second set of OAM modes correspond to the input and output OAM modes, respectively, at least since both Cvijetic and Wang feature input and output OAM modes and OAM nodes in an OAM network and both are also in the same field of endeavor of OAM network communication methodologies. The suggestion/motivation would have been to optimize and improve methods for managing and improving the communications in OAM network environments and infrastructures. (Wang, paragraphs 1-44; Cvijetic, paragraphs 1-7, 30-33). Furthermore, please note that the features of the limitations above have been shown to be known or disclosed in the cited references, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
As to claim 9, Cvijetic, Zhu and Wang teach the apparatus as in the parent claim 1.
Cvijetic discloses wherein the intermediate OAM node is a central controller node (Figs. 2-3, paragraphs 29-30, disclosing that the element 500, i.e., the intermediate OAM node since it is situated in an OAM network environment, performs basic controller functions)
Cvijetic does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to allocate a plurality of OAM modes for a plurality of OAM nodes including the parent OAM node and the child OAM node based at least in part on received indications of useable OAM modes.
Wang discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to allocate a plurality of OAM modes for a plurality of OAM nodes including the parent OAM node and the child OAM node based at least in part on received indications of useable OAM modes. (Figs. 2-4, disclosing an embodiment of “intermediate OAM node”; Figs. 3-4, paragraphs 91-98, 107-111, disclosing, e.g., [paragraphs 94-98] an input signal having mode OAM-1 [which may be one of two input OAM modes as disclosed in paragraph 98 where N >=2, these two input OAM modes disclosing “first set of OAM modes” that is converted into an output signal [“second signal”] having OAM mode(s) OAM-1, OAM-2 and/or OAM-3 [“second set of OAM modes”], where the input disclosing “parent link” coming from a parent node and the output discloses “child link” leading to a child node, where the OAM modes are based on modes that are permissible/allowed, pursuant to received configurations, teaching this limitation;
Fig. 2 and paragraphs 80-90, especially paragraphs 88-89 and Table 2, disclosing input signals having OAM-1, OAM-2, OAM-3 or OAM-4 OAM modes under the OAM mode column [teaching “first set of OAM modes”, and output signals based on OAM-1, OAM-1, OAM-(-2) and OAM-0 OAM modes under the SLM state column [teaching “second set of OAM modes”], where the input disclosing “parent link” coming from a parent node and the output discloses “child link” leading to a child node, where the OAM modes are based on modes that are permissible/allowed, pursuant to received configurations as in Table 2, teaching this limitation)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings as disclosed in Wang, in conjunction with the teachings of Cvijetic, to reject the limitations of this claim, by incorporating, and imbuing in Cvijetic’s second set of OAM modes the characteristics of the second set of OAM modes disclosed in Wang, i.e., that such second set of OAM modes are different from the first set of OAM modes, where in both Cvijetic and Wang the first set and second set of OAM modes correspond to the input and output OAM modes, respectively, at least since both Cvijetic and Wang feature input and output OAM modes and OAM nodes in an OAM network and both are also in the same field of endeavor of OAM network communication methodologies. The suggestion/motivation would have been to optimize and improve methods for managing and improving the communications in OAM network environments and infrastructures. (Wang, paragraphs 1-44; Cvijetic, paragraphs 1-7, 30-33). Furthermore, please note that the features of the limitations above have been shown to be known or disclosed in the cited references, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
AS to claims 13,14,21, see rejections for claims 1, 2, 9.
AS to claims 25,28, see rejections for claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8,10-12,15-20,22-24,26-27,29-30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 CHI TANG P CHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-9021. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30AM - 6PM.
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, Asad M Nawaz can be reached at (571)272-3988. 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.
/CHI TANG P CHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights