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.
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 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zou (US Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0230693).
Regarding claim 1, Zou discloses a method for providing communication between an access point and a HUB of a point-to-multipoint optical network, the method comprising: causing the access point to determine a communication wavelength of the HUB (fig. 7a element 63 and paragraph 0064, where receiving the downlink wavelength with the OFDMA signals reads on determining the communication wavelength of the OLT; the OLT reads on the hub of a PON network); causing the access point to determine, using information on a control channel centered at the communication wavelength, whether the HUB has an amount of available resources allocable within a plurality of data sub-carriers to the access point (fig. 12a and paragraph 0122); and in response to determining that the HUB has the amount of available resources allocable within the plurality of data sub-carriers to the access point, establishing a bidirectional communication between the access point and the HUB (fig. 7a and paragraphs 0063-0064 in light of paragraphs 0122-0126).
Regarding claim 2, Zou discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the amount of available resources is determined based on characteristics of the access point (paragraph 0122, the traffic volume and/or service priority requested by the ONUs).
Regarding claim 6, Zou discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the amount of available resource are physical resources comprising bandwidth and data sub-carriers of the HUB (paragraph 0122, the traffic volume and/or service priority requested by the ONUs and the bandwidth allocated to each ONU based on the OFDMA subcarriers).
Regarding claim 7, Zou discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the causing the access point to determining that the HUB has the amount of available resources allocable within the plurality of data sub-carriers to the access point comprises: receiving, by the HUB from the access point, a request comprising information indicative of the amount of available resources for a potential establishment of a bidirectional communication between the access point and the HUB and transmitting, by the HUB to the access point, information about a presence or an absence of the amount of available resources (paragraph 0122, the ONU bandwidth allocation request to the OLT, and the OLT indicating to the ONU the quantity and serial numbers of OFDMA subcarriers available for the ONU).
Regarding claim 11, Zou discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: in response to a bandwidth of the access point being equal or wider than a wavelength spectrum including the data sub-carriers of the HUB: assigning one or more of the data sub-carriers to the access point (paragraph 0122, where the OLT indicating the OFDMA subcarriers available to the ONU, and the ONU using the allocated subcarriers and performing zero fill processing for the non-indicated subcarriers, means the ONU’s bandwidth is equal to the wavelength spectrum of the subcarriers of the HUB); and transmitting data between the HUB and the access point on the assigned data sub-carriers (fig. 7a and paragraphs 0063-0064 in light of paragraphs 0122-0126).
Regarding claim 16, Zou discloses a system for providing communication between an access point and a HUB of a point-to-multipoint optical network, the system being configured to: cause the access point to determine a communication wavelength of the HUB (fig. 7a element 63 and paragraph 0064, where receiving the downlink wavelength with the OFDMA signals reads on determining the communication wavelength of the OLT; the OLT reads on the hub of a PON network); cause the access point to determine, using information on a control channel centered at the communication wavelength, whether the HUB has an amount of available resources allocable within a plurality of data sub-carriers to the access point (fig. 12a and paragraph 0122); and in response to determining that the HUB has the amount of available resources allocable within the plurality of data sub-carriers to the access point, establish a bidirectional communication between the access point and the HUB (fig. 7a and paragraphs 0063-0064 in light of paragraphs 0122-0126).
Regarding claim 17, Zou discloses the system of claim 16, wherein the amount of available resources is determined based on characteristics of the access point (paragraph 0122, the traffic volume and/or service priority requested by the ONUs).
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.
Claims 3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou (US Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0230693) in view of Zhang et al. (“Zhang”) (US Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0142237).
Regarding claim 3, Zou discloses the method of claim 1, but does not disclose that the causing the access point to determine the communication wavelength of the HUB comprises: tuning a central frequency of a local oscillator laser of the access point to a pre-determined wavelength, and in response to the communication wavelength of the HUB matching the pre-determined wavelength, locking a frequency and a time of sampling of the access point to the HUB. Zhang discloses another PON system with a related continuous-mode transmission, including tuning a central frequency of a local oscillator laser of the ONU to a pre-determined wavelength, and in response to the communication wavelength of the OLT matching the pre-determined wavelength, locking a frequency and a time of sampling of the ONU to the OLT (fig. 1A and paragraphs 0046-0047 and fig. 3 and paragraphs 0057-0060, where the injection locking to the received frequency reads on locking a frequency of the ONU to the OLT and the ADC reads on locking a time of sampling of the ONU to the OLT). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zou to use the coherent transmission and frequency locking approach taught by Zhang, to provide the benefit of higher capacities, improved receiver sensitivity and simplified receiver DSP (Zhang: 0004 and 0041).
Regarding claim 18, Zou discloses the system of claim 16, but does not disclose that to cause the access point to determine the communication wavelength of the HUB comprises the system configured to: tune a central frequency of a local oscillator laser of the access point to a pre-determined wavelength; and in response to the communication wavelength of the HUB matching the pre-determined wavelength, lock a frequency and a time of sampling of the access point to the HUB. Zhang discloses another PON system with a related continuous-mode transmission, including tuning a central frequency of a local oscillator laser of the ONU to a pre-determined wavelength, and in response to the communication wavelength of the OLT matching the pre-determined wavelength, locking a frequency and a time of sampling of the ONU to the OLT (fig. 1A and paragraphs 0046-0047 and fig. 3 and paragraphs 0057-0060, where the injection locking to the received frequency reads on locking a frequency of the ONU to the OLT and the ADC reads on locking a time of sampling of the ONU to the OLT). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zou to use the coherent transmission and frequency locking approach taught by Zhang, to provide the benefit of higher capacities, improved receiver sensitivity and simplified receiver DSP (Zhang: 0004 and 0041).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 8-10, 12-15, 19 and 20 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0141557 – OLT determines the central frequency that ONUs lock to for LO and/or carrier.
US Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0097612 – Optical frequency comb locking for PON.
US Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0294614 – OFDMA-PON with coherent detection at the ONU.
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