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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
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.
Claims 13 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gao et al. (“Gao”) (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0306596).
Regarding claim 1, Gao discloses a control apparatus comprising: a reception unit configured to receive a request for setting an optical communication route from a start point node to an end point node (fig. 8 node A receiving connection instruction from the NMS, paragraphs 0083-0084); and a control unit configured to set a route using a first core included in a plurality of cores of a multi core optical fiber (MCF) used in the start point node (fig. 8, node A and paragraphs 0085-0087), based on quality of an optical transmission route in each of the plurality of cores (paragraphs 0057-0059, 0063 and 0080, where the idle spectrum information reads on a quality of available bandwidth of a transmission route).
Regarding claim 2, Gao discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control unit uses the first core in a first multi core optical fiber at a first section from the start point node to a relay node, and sets a route using a second core included in a plurality of cores of a second multi core optical fiber at a second section from the relay node to the end point node, based on quality of an optical transmission route in each of the plurality of cores (paragraphs 0085-0096, each section core selected based on the respective idle spectrum information).
Regarding claim 3, Gao discloses the control apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the control unit sets a route being capable of transmitting an optical signal with the same wavelength from the start point node to the end point node (paragraphs 0085-0096 in light of paragraphs 0057-0059, for the case of available spectrum at the transmission wavelength for each section).
Regarding claim 5, Gao discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control unit estimates quality of the optical transmission route, based on a usage situation of each of a plurality of cores of the multi core optical fiber (paragraphs 0057-0059, 0063 and 0080, where the idle spectrum information for each core reads on a usage situation of each core).
Regarding claim 6, Gao discloses a control method comprising: receiving a request for setting an optical communication route from a start point node to an end point node (fig. 8 node A receiving connection instruction from the NMS, paragraphs 0083-0084); and setting a route using a first core included in a plurality of cores of a multi core optical fiber (MCF) used in the start point node (fig. 8, node A and paragraphs 0085-0087), based on quality of an optical transmission route in each of the plurality of cores (paragraphs 0057-0059, 0063 and 0080, where the idle spectrum information reads on a quality of available bandwidth of a transmission route).
Regarding claim 7, Gao discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute processing (paragraph 0142) of: receiving a request for setting an optical communication route from a start point node to an end point node (fig. 8 node A receiving connection instruction from the NMS, paragraphs 0083-0084); and setting a route using a first core included in a plurality of cores of a multi core optical fiber (MCF) used in the start point node (fig. 8, node A and paragraphs 0085-0087), based on quality of an optical transmission route in each of the plurality of cores (paragraphs 0057-0059, 0063 and 0080, where the idle spectrum information reads on a quality of available bandwidth of a transmission route).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0306596) in view of Oda et al. (“Oda”) (US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0375579).
Regarding claim 4, Gao discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1, and discloses having signal quality information at each node location for the cores connected to that node (paragraph 0063) but does not disclose that quality of the optical transmission route is an optical signal to noise ratio measured at the end point node. Oda discloses selecting core in multicore fiber transmission based on a signal quality including the options of signal strength and noise (fig. 1 and paragraph 0211). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure and add signal to noise ratio information to the available spectrum information at each node, to provide the benefit of selecting spectrum based on noise impact for a particular core and/or section of spectrum not just the availability or not of that core and/or spectrum of bandwidth.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0063807
US Patent No. 9660762
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN M CORS whose telephone number is (571)272-3028. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
/NATHAN M CORS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634