DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The limitation(s) being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is/are: a system control means… and a distribution control means … i.e. as described in claims 11-13 and 15, and a PON control unit… and an ODN control unit … i.e. as described in claims 11-14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakita et al (US Pub 20210194589) in view of Xu et al (US Pub 20120106952).
Regarding Claim 15. Kawakita discloses a distributive element for an optical network, for data communication between an optical line terminal, OLT, and a plurality of optical network units, ONUs, in a passive optical network, PON (Fig 11, where an optical network comprises a distributive element (e.g. 1005) for data communication between an optical line terminal (OLT) (e.g. MAC 1010, Tx, Rx) and a plurality of optical network units (ONUs) in a passive optical network PON), the distributive element comprising:
a first port associated with signal transmission between the OLT and the optical network via a first optical link (Fig 11, where the distributive element (e.g. 1005) comprises a first port associated with signal transmission between the OLT (e.g. MAC 1010, Tx, Rx) and the optical network via a first optical link);
a plurality of second ports each associated with signal transmission between the optical network and a respective ONU or a respective group of ONUs within the PON via a respective second optical link (Fig 11, where the distributive element (e.g. 1005) comprises a plurality of second ports each associated with signal transmission between the optical network and a respective ONU or a respective group of ONUs within the PON via a respective second optical link); and
a distribution control means (Fig 11, where the distributive element (e.g. 1005) comprises a distribution control means (i.e. for controlling fiber locations 1006, 1007, 1008)) configured to:
obtain, from the OLT, a respective power distribution ratio for each of the second ports (Fig 11, where the distribution control means (i.e. for controlling fiber locations 1006, 1007, 1008) is configured to obtain, from the OLT (e.g. MAC 1010, Tx, Rx), a respective power distribution ratio (i.e. a branching ratio X, Y, Z) for each of the second ports); and
adjust a respective branch power for one or more of the ONUs based on the obtained respective power distribution ratio for communicating data between the OLT and the one or more of the ONUs (Fig 11, where the distribution control means (i.e. for controlling fiber locations 1006, 1007, 1008) is configured to adjust a respective branch power for one or more of the ONUs based on the obtained respective power distribution ratio (i.e. a branching ratio X, Y, Z) for communicating data between the OLT (e.g. MAC 1010, Tx, Rx) and the one or more of the ONUs).
Kawakita fails to explicitly disclose the optical network being an optical distribution network, ODN.
However, Xu discloses
an optical network being an optical distribution network, ODN (Fig 1, where an optical network is an optical distribution network ODN (i.e. an optical splitter and fiber cables)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the optical network as described in Kawakita, with the teachings of the optical network as described in Xu. The motivation being is that as shown an optical network is an optical distribution network ODN (i.e. an optical splitter and fiber cables) and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the optical network as described in Kawakita and better show and illustrate that the optical network is an optical distribution network ODN (i.e. a distributive element (e.g. 1005) and fiber cables) i.e. because the optical distribution network ODN (i.e. a distributive element (e.g. 1005) and fiber cables) is the passive physical fiber infrastructure in the PON that connects the OLT (e.g. MAC 1010, Tx, Rx) and the plurality of ONUs and optimally allows a two-way transmission of optical signals in the PON and where such optical distribution network ODN also provides optimal network scalability and low cost/maintenance and which combination is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. OLTs, ONUs, optical splitters) and which combination is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known optical network into another similar optical network, namely, for better clarifying its operation/ configuration and which combination yields predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 are allowable.
Conclusion
The additional prior art considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure and not relied upon is the following:
Ye et al (US Pub 20240414460) and more specifically Fig 3.
Igarashi et al (US Pub 20230261750) and more specifically Fig 4.
Hatano et al (US Pub 20230146851) and more specifically Fig 1 to Fig 3.
Hara et al (US Pub 20230082934) and more specifically Fig 1.
Bliss et al (US Pub 20220381989) and more specifically Fig 2.
Inuzuka et al (US Pub 20210028857) and more specifically Fig 1.
Li et al (US Pub 20180343065) and more specifically Fig 2.
Odaka et al (US Pub 20140294388) and more specifically Fig 1.
Shimada et al (US Pub 20030095314) and more specifically Fig 6.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DIBSON J SANCHEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0868. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 10:00-6:00.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, Kenneth Vanderpuye can be reached on 5712723078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DIBSON J SANCHEZ/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634