CTNF 18/657,144 CTNF 79232 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-5, 7-8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pei et al. (U.S. Patent 11,139,633 B2) in view of Shukunami et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2006/0291036 A1) and Park et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2019/0128934 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Pei et al. teaches in FIG. 7 an optical transmission device comprising: a transmitter (the ASE 70 and the WSS 62) configured to transmit quasi-signal light (signals generated by ASE) that [[belongs to a unit wavelength band that]] includes at least one vacant wavelength (the ASE generate noise and is not used for traffic; therefore, the wavelengths generated by ASE and the WSS are vacant wavelengths), to another optical transmission device (amplifier node 56) coupled via an optical transmission line 60. The differences between Pei et al. and the claimed invention are (a) Pei et al. does not teach that the quasi-signal light belongs to a unit wavelength band, and (b) Pei et al. does not teach a specifying circuit configured to specify a zero dispersion wavelength of the optical transmission line, based on information regarding a crosstalk optical power caused by four-wave mixing (FWM) generated at the vacant wavelength of the quasi-signal light, the crosstalk optical power being measured by the another optical transmission device. Shukunami et al. teaches in FIG. 11 and paragraphs [0115]-[0131] calculating crosstalk caused by FWM which is plotted in FIG. 12. Shukunami et al. teaches in FIG. 13 that zero-dispersion wavelength is the wavelength with maximal FWM crosstalk. Shukunami et al. does not explicitly teach a specifying circuit. However, it is obvious to build such a circuit for one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Shukunami et al. with the system of Pei et al. because measuring the crosstalk enables the comparison of different schemes for reducing the crosstalk that occurs in transmission system. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Pei et al. to measure crosstalk and determine zero dispersion wavelength, as taught by Shukunami et al. The combination of Pei et al. and Shukunami et al. still fails to teach a unit wavelength band. Park et al. teaches in paragraph [0049] that a spectrum may be split into a plurality of wavelength bands. A unit of a wavelength band that divides the spectrum may be referred to “wavelength band unit” or “band unit.” For example, Shukunami et al. teaches in FIG. 11 that there are 21 wavelengths in the spectrum range 1580.35 ~ 1597.17 nm. The spectrum can be divided into 3 wavelength bands with a unit wavelength band consists of 7 wavelengths. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teaching of Park et al. with the modified system of Pei et al. and Shukunami et al. because it is a simple definition that does not change the operation of the modified system. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the concept of a unit wavelength band, as taught by Park et al., in the modified system of Pei et al. and Shukunami et al. Regarding claims 2-3, Shukunami et al. teaches in FIG. 12 that there are three unit wavelength bands and each unit wavelength band contains a center wavelength. Regarding claim 4, Shukunami et al. teaches in FIG. 13 that the zero-dispersion wavelength is at a wavelength with peak value of the crosstalk optical power caused by the FWM. Regarding claim 5, Pei et al. teaches in FIG. 7 ASE 70. Regarding claim 7, Pei et al. teaches in col. 3, line 43 DSF. Regarding claim 8, Pei et al. teaches in col. 4, line 42 C-band. It is obvious to use C-band signal in addition to, or instead of, the L-band wavelengths used by Shukunami et al. for determining the zero-dispersion wavelength of other types of fiber. Claim 11 is rejected based on the same reason for rejecting claim 1 because an apparatus implies the method of using the apparatus . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pei et al., Shukunami et al. and Park et al . as applied to claim s 1-5, 7-8 and 11 above, and further in view of Mori et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2019/0115993 A1) . Pei et al., Shukunami et al. and Park et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 1-5, 7-8 and 11. The difference between Pei et al., Shukunami et al. and Park et al. and the claimed invention is that Pei et al., Shukunami et al. and Park et al. do not teach that the wavelength band includes a short-wavelength-band (S-band). Mori et al. teaches in paragraph [0198] S-band. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teaching of Mori et al. with the modified system of Pei et al., Shukunami et al. and Park et al. to carry S-band wavelengths in the fiber because it increases the capacity of the transmission system. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include S-band wavelengths, as taught by Mori et al., in the modified system of Pei et al., Shukunami et al. and Park et al . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 6 is 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. 12-151-07 AIA 07-97 12-51-07 Claim 10 is allowed. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHI K LI whose telephone number is (571)272-3031. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:53 a.m. -3:23 p.m. 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, David Payne can be reached at 571 272-3024. 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. skl19 March 2026 /SHI K LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635 Application/Control Number: 18/657,144 Page 2 Art Unit: 2635 Application/Control Number: 18/657,144 Page 3 Art Unit: 2635 Application/Control Number: 18/657,144 Page 4 Art Unit: 2635 Application/Control Number: 18/657,144 Page 5 Art Unit: 2635 Application/Control Number: 18/657,144 Page 6 Art Unit: 2635
Prosecution Insights