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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 04/11/2024 has beenconsidered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Boertjes (US 8509621).
Consider Claim 1, Boertjes discloses an Optical Network Element (ONE) (Figure 9, element 2) comprising: a line-out port configured for connection with a first fiber span of a pair of external fiber spans (Figure 9, top fiber of element 16 serves a fiber out connection); a line-in port configured for connection with a second fiber span of the pair of external fiber spans (Figure 9, bottom fiber of element 16 serves as a line in port) ; a first broadband switch having a first output and a second output (Figure 9, element 72 has a first and second input), the first output of the first broadband switch coupled directly to the line-out port (Figure 9, an output of element 72 goes to top fiber of element16); a second broadband switch having a first input and a second input (Figure 9, element 74 has a first and second input), the first input of the second broadband switch coupled directly to the line-in port (Figure 9, element 74 is connected to bottom fiber of element 1616); and a loopback connection arranged between the second output of the first broadband switch and the second input of the second broadband switch (Figure 9, element 78 is a loopback connection between elements 72 and 74).
Consider Claim 2, Boertjes discloses the ONE of claim 1, wherein switching the first broadband switch to the second output and switching the second broadband switch to the second input causes optical signals to propagate through the loopback connection to enable loopback testing of the ONE (Column 7, Lines 29-35 where loopback is used for connection verification between elements via elements 72 and 74).
Consider Claim 8, Boertjes discloses The ONE of claim 1, wherein the ONE is one of Add/Drop Multiplexer (ROADM) (Figure 9, element 2 is a ROADM)
Consider Claim 16, Boertjes discloses a method comprising the steps of: switching a first broadband switch of a remote Optical Network Element (ONE) (Figure 9, element 2) from a first output to a second output (Figure 9, element 72 has two outputs for switching), the first output of the first broadband switch enabling direct transmission to a line-out port configured for connection with a first fiber span of a pair of external fiber spans (Figure 9, top fiber of element 16 serves a fiber out connection for element 72); and switching a second broadband switch of the remote ONE from a first input to a second input (Figure 9. element 74 has two inputs for switching), the first input of the second broadband switch enabling direct reception from a line-in port configured for connection with a second fiber span of the pair of external fiber spans (Figure 9, bottom fiber of element 16 serves as a line-in port for element 74); wherein switching the first broadband switch to the second output and switching the second broadband switch to the second input enables propagation through a loopback connection for testing the remote
ONE (Figure 9, loop back element 78 is connected between second output of element 72 and second input of element 74).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 11, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boertjes and further in view of Itoh (US 8422121).
Consider Claim 3, Boertjes discloses The ONE of claim 1 wherein, when the first broadband switch is switched to the second output (Figure 9, element 72 uses element 76 as second output) and the second broadband switch is switched to the second input (Figure 9, element 74 uses element 76 as second input) but does not disclose further comprising an optical source configured to produce Amplified Spontaneous Emission (ASE) test signals and the ASE test signals are propagated through the loopback connection for testing the ONE.
However, Itoh discloses an optical source configured to produce Amplified Spontaneous Emission (ASE) test signals (Column 2, Lines 48-49 where element 12 produces ASE signals) and the ASE test signals are propagated through the loopback connection for testing the ONE (Figure 2 and Column 2, Lines 48-50 where ASE light is looped back between amplifier elements 11 and 12 via switching elements sw1 and sw3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Itoh into Boertjes to characterize gain of optical amplifiers in the system.
Consider Claim 11, Boertjes discloses a processing device (Column 7, Lines 78-82 where processor performs instructions stored on memory); and memory configured to store a standalone validation program configured for isolated testing of one or more remote Optical Network Elements (ONEs) in a network (Column 7, Lines 78-82 where memory can store instructions to carry out steps in a method), the standalone validation program having logical instructions that enable the processing device to switch a first broadband switch of a first ONE from a first output to a second output (Figure 9, element 72 has two outputs for switching) first output of the first broadband switch enabling direct transmission to a line-out port configured for connection with a first fiber span of a pair of external fiber spans (Figure 9, top fiber of element 16 serves a fiber out connection for element 72), and switch a second broadband switch of the first ONE from a first input to a second input (Figure 9. element 74 has two inputs for switching), the first input of the second broadband switch enabling direct reception from a line-in port configured for connection with a second fiber span of the pair of external fiber spans (Figure 9, bottom fiber of element 16 serves as a line-in port for element 74), wherein switching the first broadband switch to the second output and switching the second broadband switch to the second input enables propagation through a loopback connection (Figure 9, loop back element 78 is connected between second output of element 72 and second input of element 74) but does not disclose a controller.
However, Itoh discloses a controller (Figure 2, element 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Itoh into Boertjes to have better control of loopback processing.
Consider Claim 12, Boertjes does not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Itoh discloses the controller of claim 11 (Figure 2, element 14), wherein the logical instructions further enable the processing device to configure an amplifier of the first ONE to propagate Amplified Spontaneous Emission (ASE) test signals through the loopback connection for testing the first ONE (Figure 2 and Column 2, Lines 48-50 where ASE light is looped back between amplifier elements 11 and 12 via switching elements sw1 and sw3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Itoh into Boertjes to have better control of loopback processing.
Consider Claim 17, Boertjes does not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Itoh discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising a step of configuring an amplifier of the remote ONE to propagate Amplified Spontaneous Emission (ASE) test signals through the loopback connection for testing the remote ONE Figure 2 and Column 2, Lines 48-50 where ASE light is looped back between amplifier elements 11 and 12 via switching elements sw1 and sw3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Itoh into Boertjes to have better control of loopback processing.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boertjes and further in view of Akasaka (US 9837788).
Consider Claim 4, Boertjes does not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Akasaka discloses he ONE of claim 1, further comprising a Raman amplifier coupled to an output of the second broadband switch (Figure 3, where element 322 is connected to output of element 304-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Akasaka into Boertjes to increase signal strength coming out of the switch.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boertjes and in view of Akasaka and further in view of Charlet (US 7027214).
Consider Claim 5, Boertjes discloses the ONE of claim 4, wherein, loopback test involving the loopback connection (Column 7, Lines 29-35 where loopback is used for connection verification between elements via elements 72 and 74) but does not disclose wherein the Raman amplifier includes a plurality of pumps (Figure 6 and Column 5, Lines 19-23, Raman amplifier element 30 is comprised of a plurality of pump elements 42, 44, and 46), one at a time, at a low level, for testing the Raman amplifier. While the pumps do not explicitly disclose to be operating at a low power level, Column 5, Lines 27-29 disclose choosing powers of the pumps. It would be obvious to one of skill in the ordinary art that the pump powers can be chosen to be low level.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Charlet into Boertjes and Akasa to have dedicated Raman pumps to power the Raman amplifier at a safe level.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boertjes and further in view of Bhatnagar (US 6765659).
Consider Claim 9, Boertjes does not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Bhatnagar discloses the ONE of claim 1, further comprising Optical Supervisory Channel (OSC) (Figure 4, element 40 is an OSC detector on a fiber)) ( (Column 6, Lines 16-20 where property being determined is link loss) are communicated to remote
management system (Figure 4, element 70 receives information from OSC detector element 40) for determining a condition of the ONE.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Bhatnagar into Boertjes to accurately measure loss within the fiber.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boertjes in view of Watkins (6654354).
Consider Claim 10, Boertjes does not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Watkins discloses the ONE of claim 1, wherein the ONE is part of a network including one or more additional optical network elements (Figure 1, where add/drop elements 12A-12D are ONEs part of a network). While the reference does not explicitly disclose each having a loopback connection assembly for enabling loopback testing of different portions of the network, the connection between elements 12-12D in Watkins can be applied to the ROADM system presented by elements 10 and 12 in Figure 9 of Boertjes due to the nature that ROADM elements connect to each other within a network and are not usually standalone; it would follow that ince the signal leaves the fiber span at the top fiber of element 4, it will connect to another ROADM. Since most ROADMs that are connected are duplicates, it would be obvious to one of skill in the ordinary art that other ROADMS in Boertjes will also have a loopback connection. Thus, loopback testing is achieved at different portions of the network.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Watkins into Boertjes to check for conditions at different locations within a network.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boertjes in view of Itoh in view of Akasaka and further in view of Charlet.
Consider Claim 13, Boertjes and Itoh do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Akasaka discloses disclose a Raman amplifier, coupled to an output of the second broadband switch (Figure 3, where element 322 is connected to output of element 304-3) but does not disclose the controller of claim 11, wherein the logical instructions further enable the processing device to turn on a plurality of pumps one at a time, at a low level, for testing the Raman amplifier.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Akasaka into Boertjes and Itoh to increase signal strength coming out of the switch.
However, Charlet discloses turning on a plurality of pumps (Figure 6 and Column 5, Lines 19-23, Raman amplifier element 30 is comprised of a plurality of pump elements 42, 44, and 46), one at a time, at a low level, for testing the Raman amplifier. While the pumps do not explicitly disclose to be operating at a low power level, Column 5, Lines 27-29 disclose choosing powers of the pumps. It would be obvious to one of skill in the ordinary art that the pump powers can be chosen to be low level.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Charlet into Boertjes, Itoh, and Akasa to have dedicated Raman pumps to power the Raman amplifier at a safe level.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boertjes in view of Itoh and further in view of Bhatnagar.
Consider Claim 15, Boertjes and Itoh do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Bhatnagar discloses the controller of claim 11, wherein the logical instructions further enable the processing device to receive test parameters from Optical Supervisory Channel (OSC) (Figure 4, controller element 70 receives optical parameter signals from OSC detector element 40) and telemetry components (Figure 9. Element 42 acts as a telemetry component) that monitor optical signals propagating through the first ONE, determine test results related to connectivity and loss parameters of the first ONE (Figure 9, element 70 contains link loss calculator). While the reference does not explicitly disclose providing the test results to an installer of the first ONE while the installer is on site at the first ONE, Bhatnagar discloses a memory element 78 connected to a controller element 70 in Figure 7. The memory device stores data relating to the OSC (Column 10, Lines 60-64 where wavelength data is stored in element 78). It would be obvious to one of skill in the ordinary art to modify the controller element 70 in Figure 4 to include a memory to store parameters so than an installer can retrieve them.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Bhatnagar into Boertjes and Itoh to accurately measure loss within the fiber.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boertjes in in view of Akasaka and further in view of Charlet.
Consider Claim 18, Boertjes does not disclose the limitations of this claim,
However, Akasaka discloses a Raman amplifier, coupled to an output of the second broadband switch (Figure 3, where element 322 is connected to output of element 304-3) but does not disclose the method of claim 16, further comprising a step of turning on a plurality of pumps, one at a time, at a low level, for testing the Raman amplifier.
However, Charlet discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising a step of turning on a plurality of pumps (Figure 6 and Column 5, Lines 19-23, Raman amplifier element 30 is comprised of a plurality of pump elements 42, 44, and 46), one at a time, at a low level, for testing the Raman amplifier. While the pumps do not explicitly disclose to be operating at a low power level, Column 5, Lines 27-29 disclose choosing powers of the pumps. It would be obvious to one of skill in the ordinary art that the pump powers can be chosen to be low level.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Charlet into Boertjes and Akasa to have dedicated Raman pumps to power the Raman amplifier at a safe level.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boertjes in further in view of Bhatnagar.
Consider Claim 20, Boertjes does not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Bhatnagar discloses The method of claim 16, further comprising steps of: receiving test parameters from Optical Supervisory Channel (OSC) (Figure 4, controller element 70 receives optical parameter signals from OSC detector element 40) and telemetry components of the remote ONE (Figure 9. Element 42 acts as a telemetry component), the OSC and telemetry components configured to monitor optical signals propagating through the remote ONE, determining test results related to connectivity and loss parameters of the remote ONE, (Figure 9, element 70 contains link loss calculator). While the reference does not explicitly disclose providing the test results to an installer of the first ONE while the installer is on site at the first ONE, Bhatnagar discloses a memory element 78 connected to a controller element 70 in Figure 7. The memory device stores data relating to the OSC (Column 10, Lines 60-64 where wavelength data is stored in element 78). It would be obvious to one of skill in the ordinary art to modify the controller element 70 in Figure 4 to include a memory to store parameters so that an installer can retrieve them.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Bhatnagar into Boertjes to accurately measure loss within the fiber.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7, 14, and 19 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASIF SHAMEEM whose telephone number is (571)272-6576. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM EST-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, KENNETH VANDERPUYE can be reached at (571) 272-3078. 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.
/ASIF SHAMEEM/Examiner, Art Unit 2634
/KENNETH N VANDERPUYE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2634