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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 52-71 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Applicants’ arguments are rendered moot in view of the present Office Action.
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) 52-55, 57-58, 62-65, and 67-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nuijts (US 9331844) in further view of Jayakumar (US 20030025957)
Nuijts discloses selecting, by a network element and the between a plurality of predefined wavelength paths of an optical network (Column 9, Lines 41-43, where OSC signal operates on different wavelength channels and a wavelength of 1510 nm is chosen), a first wavelength path between the network element and an intended network element (Figure 1, element 107 emits OSC signal between element 101 and 102), identifying, by the network element, an optical carrier the along the first wavelength path (Column 9, Lines 41-43 where wavelength of signal is transmitted 1510 nm is selected/identified) but does not disclose imparting, by the network element, the control information onto the identified optical carrier by modulating onto the optical carrier at a modulation frequency less than the carrier modulation frequency. While Nuijts does explicitly not disclose having a carrier modulation frequency that is transmitted, the wavelength is a physical property of a carrier wave. If a signal has a wavelength, then it must have an associated frequency/modulation frequency with it. Since the carrier is a light wave with a physical property of wavelength, it would be obvious to one of sill in the ordinary art that the carrier wave will also have an associated modulation frequency.
However, Jayakumar discloses imparting, by the network element, the control information onto the identified optical carrier by modulating onto the optical carrier (Paragraph 0065 and Figure 3, element 36 imparts control data from element 34 onto carrier generated by element 38). While Jayakumar does not explicitly disclose a modulation frequency less than the carrier modulation frequency, it is well known in the art that the modulation frequency is usually smaller than the carrier modulation frequency as a standard to prevent distortion and ensure that receiver can properly recover the original signal.
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 teachingsJayakumar unto Nuijts to enable supervisory channels with control information at a reduced cost.
Consider Claim 53, Nuijts does not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Jayakumar discloses the method of claim 52, wherein identifying the optical carrier comprises receiving the optical carrier via an input port (Figure 3, where carrier is input into element 26 by element 38).
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 teachingsJayakumar unto Nuijts to enable supervisory channels with control information at a reduced cost.
Consider Claim 54, Nuijts discloses the method of claim 53, wherein identifying the optical carrier further comprises selecting the identified optical carrier from among a plurality of optical carriers received via one or more input ports (Column 9, Lines 41-43, where OSC signal operates on different wavelength channels and a wavelength of 1510 nm is chosen)
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 teachingsJayakumar unto Nuijts to enable supervisory channels with control information at a reduced cost.
Consider Claim 55, Nuijts discloses the method of claim 52, wherein identifying the optical carrier comprises generating an optical carrier (Column 9, Lines 41-43 where wavelength of signal is transmitted 1510 nm is selected/identified). While the reference does not explicitly disclose having a carrier modulation frequency that is transmitted by the optical network along the first wavelength path, the wavelength is a physical property of a carrier wave. If signal has a wavelength, then it must have an associated frequency/modulation frequency with it. Since the carrier is a light wave with a physical property of wavelength, it would be obvious to one of sill in the ordinary art that the carrier wave will also have an associated modulation frequency.
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 teachingsJayakumar unto Nuijts to enable supervisory channels with control information at a reduced cost.
Consider Claim 57, Nuijts does not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Jayakumar discloses the method of claim 52, wherein modulating the optical carrier comprises amplitude modulating, phase modulating, or frequency modulating the optical carrier (Paragraph 0059 where carrier is modulated with control information via quadrature amplitude modulation).
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 teachingsJayakumar unto Nuijts to enable supervisory channels with control information at a reduced cost.
Consider Claim 58, Nuijts discloses the method of claim 52, wherein: the network element is a (Figure 2, element 101 is a transceiver)
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 teachingsJayakumar unto Nuijts to enable supervisory channels with control information at a reduced cost.
Consider Claim 62, However, Nuijts configured to: selecting, between the plurality of predefined wavelength paths of the optical network, a first wavelength path that includes the intended network element (Column 9, Lines 41-43, where OSC signal operates on different wavelength channels and a wavelength of 1510 nm is chosen and where Figure 1, element 102 is an intended network element); identifying an optical carrier having that is transmitted along the first wavelength path (Column 9, Lines 41-43 where wavelength of signal is transmitted 1510 nm is selected/identified), one or more optical output ports configured to output optical signals (Figure 1, where element 103 is connected to output port of element 101 to be transmit signal to element 102) but does not disclose for transmittal via the optical network; a control processor, and a modulator configured to impart the control information onto the identified optical carrier by modulating the optical carrier a modulation frequency that is less than the carrier modulation frequency.
While Nuijts does explicitly not disclose having a carrier modulation frequency that is transmitted by the along the first wavelength path, the wavelength is a physical property of a carrier wave. If a signal has a wavelength, then it must have an associated frequency/modulation frequency with it. Since the carrier is a light wave with a physical property of wavelength, it would be obvious to one of sill in the ordinary art that the carrier wave will also have an associated modulation frequency.
Jayakumar discloses a modulator (Figure 3, element 36) configured to impart the control information onto the identified optical carrier by modulating the optical carrier (Figure 3, element 36 imparts control data from element 34 onto carrier generated by element 38). While Jayakumar does not explicitly disclose a modulation frequency less than the carrier modulation frequency, it is well known in the art that the modulation frequency is usually smaller than the carrier modulation frequency as a standard to prevent distortion and ensure that receiver can properly recover the original signal. While Jayakumar does not explicitly disclose a control processor, paragraph 0065 discloses that control and management information is processed in data formatter 34. It would be obvious to one of skill in the ordinary art that a processor would be used here to automate this function.
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 teachingsJayakumar unto Nuijts to enable supervisory channels with control information at a reduced cost.
Consider Claim 63, Nijts does not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Jayakumar discloses the network element of claim 62, further comprising: an optical input port configured to receive the optical (Figure 3, where carrier is input into element 26 by element 38).
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 teachingsJayakumar unto Nuijts to enable supervisory channels with control information at a reduced cost.
Consider Claim 64, Nuijts discloses the network element of claim 62, further comprising: one or more optical input ports configured to receive a plurality of optical carriers (Column 9, Lines 41-43, where OSC signal operates on different wavelength channels and a wavelength of 1510 nm is chosen) but does not disclose one or more optical input ports configured to receive a plurality of optical carriers.
However, Jayakumar discloses one or more optical input ports configured to receive a plurality of optical carriers. (Figure 3, where carrier is input into element 26 by element 38).
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 teachingsJayakumar unto Nuijts to enable supervisory channels with control information at a reduced cost.
Consider Claim 65, Nuijts does not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Jayakumar discloses the network element of claim 62, further comprising: an optical signal generator configured to generate the identified optical carrier (Figure 3, where element 38 generates carrier).
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 teachingsJayakumar unto Nuijts to enable supervisory channels with control information at a reduced cost.
Consider Claim 67, Nuijts does not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Jayakumar discloses the network element of claim 62, wherein the modulating the optical carrier comprises by amplitude modulating, phase modulating, or frequency modulating the identified optical carrier (Paragraph 0059 where carrier is modulated with control information via quadrature amplitude modulation).
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 teachingsJayakumar unto Nuijts to enable supervisory channels with control information at a reduced cost.
Consider Claim 68, Nuijts discloses the network element of claim 62, wherein the network element is a (Figure 2, element 26),
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 teachingsJayakumar unto Nuijts to enable supervisory channels with control information at a reduced cost.
Claim(s) 56 and 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nuijts in view of Jayakumar in view and further in view of Han (US 9672394).
Consider Claim 56, Nuijts and Jayakumar do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Han discloses the method of claim 52, wherein the optical carrier comprises at least one of (Figure 1, where element 204 generates CW carrier signal), or
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 Han into Nuijts and Jayakumar to provide improved frequency resolution with a CW signal.
Consider Claim 66, Nuijts and Jayakumar do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Han discloses the network element of claim 62, wherein the optical carrier comprises at least one of (Figure 1, where element 204 generates CW carrier signal), or
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 Han into Nuijts and Jayakumar to provide improved frequency resolution with a CW signal.
Claims 59 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Nuijts over Jayakumar and further in view of Lim (US 20140241727).
Consider Claim 59, Nuijts and Jayakumar do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Lim discloses the method of claim 52, wherein the control information includes digital diagnostic monitoring information (Paragraph 0050, where subcarriers carry service data which includes control information and diagnostics information such as device temperature and laser temperature).
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 Lim into Nuijts and Jayakumar to monitor conditions of devices in the network.
Claims 60 and 69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nuijts in view of Jayakumar and further in view of McNichol (US 9485049).
Consider Claim 60, Nuijts and Jayakumar do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, McNichol discloses the method of claim 52, wherein the intended network element is configured based on the transmitted control information (Figure 5 and Column 12, Lines 44-58, where element 510 interacts with transmitter elements 212 which go on to influence signal element 225 being output from intended MUX element 216).
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 McNichol into Nuijts and Jayakumar to adjust for frequency errors associated with carriers.
Consider Claim 69, Nuijts and Jayakumar do not disclose the limitations of this claim do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, McNichol discloses the network element of claim 62, wherein the control processor generates the control information (Figure 3, where element 311 retrieves information from control element 217).
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 McNichol into Nuijts and Jayakumar to adjust for frequency errors associated with carriers.
Claims 61 and 70-71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Nuijts over Jayakumar and further in view of Fee (US 7389045).
Consider Claim 61, Nuijts and Jayakumar do not disclose limitations of this claim.
However, Fee discloses the method of claim 52, further comprising: (Figure 9, element 905 and Column 11, Lines 14-17, where ancillary data element 905 is input into signal generator and is represented by electrical signals and Column 11, Table 1, where ancillary data comprises control commands);
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 Fee into Nuijts and Jayakumar to ensure ensure carrier signal is properly retrieved after modulation.
Consider Claim 70, Nuijts and Jayakumar do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Fee discloses the network element of claim 62, further comprising: an electronic control port configured to receive an electrical signal that includes the control information (Figure 9, element 905 and Column 11, Lines 14-17, where ancillary data element 905 is input into signal generator and is represented by electrical signals and Column 11, Table 1, where ancillary data comprises control commands).
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 Fee into Nuijts and Jayakumar ensure carrier signal is properly retrieved after modulation.
Consider Claim 71, Nuijts does not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Jayakumar discloses the network element of claim 62, further comprising: an optical input port configured to receive an optical signal encoded with the control information (Figure 3, where control information entering modulator element 36 via element 34 is wavelength control information) but does not disclose a demodulator configured to decode the control information after modulation.
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 teachingsJayakumar unto Nuijts to enable supervisory channels with control information at a reduced cost.
However, Fee discloses a demodulator configured to decode the control information (Figure 9, where element 920 demodulates signal and recovers/decodes initial and Column 11, Table 1, where ancillary data comprises control commands).
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 Fee into Nuijts and Jayakumar to ensure carrier signal is properly retrieved.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights