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 05/24/2024 has beenconsidered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “other than one wave under other conditions” in claim 5 renders the claim indefinite. The term “under other conditions” is not defined but the claim. However, paragraph 0077 of the specification states “Therefore, when the total power of the monitored main signal is twice the reference power, the monitoring unit 603 counts the total power as two waves. When the power of the main signal is smaller than the reference power, the number of wavelengths may be counted as the number of wavelengths smaller than one wave, for example, 0.5 waves”. For the sake of prosecution, “under other conditions” will be interpreted as when the power of the main signal is greater than that of the reference power and the power of the main signal is less than that of the reference power, respectively.
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) 1-2, 6, 10, 13, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyahi (US 8483560) in view of Kiyama (US 20200169320)
Consider Claim 1, Miyahi discloses a Raman amplification device that Raman-amplifies an optical signal in a transmission line by Raman pumping (Figure 1 where element 20 and element 10 are Raman amplifiers), the Raman amplification device comprising: monitor a first signal communicated by the optical signal (Figure 1, element 27 monitors signal) determine whether auto power shut down (APSD) control is performed by using a first APSD determination condition based on integration of optical supervisory channel (OSC) disconnection and the alarm (Figure 3, element 14 and Column 2, Lines 21-32 where in event of disconnection of fiber, a supervisory alarm is sent out and element 14 performs APR to reduce signal to a predetermined level) but does not disclose a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to: set a threshold level of an alarm (WDMLOS) detection for determining whether the alarm is output at a time of transmission line disconnection in accordance with a monitoring result of the first signal; and determine whether the APSD control is performed by using a second APSD determination condition based on the OSC disconnection, in a case where the monitoring result of the communicated first signal is lower than the predetermined condition. While the reference does not explicitly disclose a case where the monitoring result of the communicated first signal exceeds a predetermined condition, it would be obvious to one of skill in the ordinary art that if the APR is performed to reduce signal to a predetermined level, then a predetermined level/condition had to be exceeded in order for APR to be perform reducing signal back to a predetermined level.
However, Kiyama discloses a memory (Figure 8B, element 113); and a processor coupled to the memory (Figure 8, where element 111 is coupled to element 113 via bus line) and configured to: monitor a first signal communicated by the optical signal (Figure 7, element 134 monitors WDM signal); set a threshold level of an alarm (WDMLOS) detection for determining whether the alarm is output at a time of transmission line disconnection in accordance with a monitoring result of the first signal (Paragraph 0068, where alarm signal is “1” and monitored power level is compared to is lower than a threshold power level at a fiber disconnection); and determine whether the APSD control is performed by using a second APSD determination condition based on the OSC disconnection, in a case where the monitoring result of the communicated first signal is lower than the predetermined condition (Paragraph 0037, where monitored power is less than a threshold value and APSD report is transmitted to control device after fiber disconnection has occurred).
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 Kiyama into Miyahi to prevent power levels from exceeding threshold and further damaging system.
Consider Claim 2, Miyahi does not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Kiyama discloses the Raman amplification device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to monitor power of the communicated first signal (Figure 8B and paragraph 0056, where element 110 receives power from element 134), and wherein the predetermined condition is a predetermined reference power (Paragraph 0037, where power is compared to specified threshold).
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 Kiyama into Miyahi to prevent power levels from exceeding threshold and further damaging system.
Consider Claim 6, Miyahi does not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Kiyama discloses the Raman amplification device according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to set the threshold level according to the power of the communicated first signal (Paragraph 0037, where threshold power is designed to be lower than received power of WDM 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 teachingsof Kiyama into Miyahi to prevent power levels from exceeding threshold and further damaging system.
Consider Claim 10, Miyahi does not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Kiyama discloses wherein the threshold level is set to a value based on at least one combination of, least one combination of a wavelength band of the transmission line (Pargrapgh 0049 where power of WDM band is compared to threshold to see if it is lower and paragrapgh 0122, where WDM band can be C abnd or L band), (Paragraph 0037, where threshold power is designed to be lower than received power of WDM 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 teachingsof Kiyama into Miyahi to prevent power levels from exceeding threshold and further damaging system.
Consider Claim 13, Miyahi does not disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Kiyama discloses wherein the processor is configured to set the threshold level to a second set value (Paragraph 0037, where threshold value is set to be value based on receiving power) and determine whether the APSD control is performed by using the second APSD determination condition, in a case where the power of the communicated first signal is smaller than the reference power (Paragraph 0037, where monitored power is less than threshold value and APSD report is transmitted to control device), and wherein the APSD control is performed at a time of the OSC disconnection (Paragraph 0037, where APSD report is generated after fiber disconnection has occurred).
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 Kiyama into Miyahi to prevent power levels from exceeding threshold and further damaging system.
Consider Claim 15, Miyahi discloses a Raman amplification method of a Raman amplification device that Raman-amplifies an optical signal in a transmission line by Raman pumping (Figure 3 where element 20 and element 10 are Raman amplifiers), the Raman amplification method comprising: monitoring a first signal communicated by the optical signal (Figure 1, element 27 monitors signal); determining whether auto power shut down (APSD) control is performed by using a first APSD determination condition based on integration of optical supervisory channel (OSC) disconnection and the alarm (Figure 3, element 14 and Column 2, Lines 21-32 where in event of disconnection of fiber, a supervisory alarm is sent out and element 14 performs APR to reduce signal to a predetermined level) but does not disclose setting a threshold level of an alarm (WDMLOS) detection for determining whether the alarm is output at a time of transmission line disconnection in accordance with a monitoring result of the first signal; and determining whether the APSD control is performed by using a second APSD determination condition based on the OSC disconnection, in a case where the monitoring result of the communicated first signal is lower than the predetermined condition, by a processor. While the reference does not mention explicitly a case where the monitoring result of the communicated first signal exceeds a predetermined condition, it would be obvious to one of skill in the ordinary art that if the APR is performed to reduce signal to a predetermined level, then a predetermined level/condition had to be exceeded in order for APR to reduce signal back to a predetermined level.
However, Kiyama discloses setting a threshold level of an alarm (WDMLOS) detection for determining whether the alarm is output at a time of transmission line disconnection in accordance with a monitoring result of the first signal (Paragraph 0068, where alarm signal is “1” and monitored power level is compared to is lower than a threshold power level at a fiber disconnection); and determining whether the APSD control is performed by using a second APSD determination condition based on the OSC disconnection, in a case where the monitoring result of the communicated first signal is lower than the predetermined condition (Paragraph 0037, where monitored power is less than threshold value and APSD report is transmitted to control device), by a processor (Figure 8, where element 111).
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 Kiyama into Miyahi to prevent power levels from exceeding threshold and further damaging system.
Consider Claim 16, Miyahi does not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Kiyama discloses the Raman amplification method according to claim 15, wherein the processor monitors power of the communicated first signal (Figure 8B and paragraph 0056, where element 110 receives power from element 134), and wherein the predetermined condition is a predetermined reference power (Paragraph 0037, where power is compared to specified threshold).
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 Kiyama into Miyahi to prevent power levels from exceeding threshold and further damaging system.
Claim(s) 3, 7, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyahi in view of Kiyama in view of Ozawa (US 20060216028) and further in view of Shimizu (US 20060044646).
Consider Claim 3, Kiyama and Miyahi do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Ozawa discloses the Raman amplification device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to monitor a number of wavelengths of the communicated first signal (Paragraph 0089, where element 60C monitors wavelength number information of incoming signal) but does not disclose the Raman amplification device according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined condition is a predetermined reference number of wavelengths.
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 Ozawa into Kiyama and Miyahi to accurately measure power levels in the system.
However, Shimizu discloses wherein the predetermined condition is a predetermined reference number of wavelengths (Paragraph 0046, where controller sets a marginal number of wavelengths value).
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 Shimizu into into Kiyama and Miyahi, and Ozawa to ensure that power levels are not exceeded to protect system.
Consider Claim 7, Kiyama, Miyahi, and Ozawa do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
While Shimizu does not explicitly disclose the processor is configured to set the threshold level according to the number of wavelengths of the communicated first signal, paragraph 0046 of Miyahi does disclose that the device control element 40 states the number of detectable wavelengths that is used for comparison; this is later used as a comparison metric in Figure 8, element 206. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that setting the detectable number of wavelengths (threshold) to be based on the number of wavelengths in the first signal would be a matter of design choice.
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 Shimizu into Miyahi, Kiyama, and Ozawa to ensure that power levels are not exceeded to protect system.
Consider Claim 14, Miyahi and Ozawa do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, wherein the processor is configured to set the threshold level to a second set value (Paragraph 0037, where threshold value is set to be value based on receiving power) and determine whether the APSD control is performed by using the second APSD determination condition, and wherein the APSD control is performed at a time of the OSC disconnection (Paragraph 0037, where APSD report is generated after fiber disconnection has occurred) but does not disclose in a case where the number of wavelengths of the communicated first signal is smaller than the reference number of wavelengths.
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 Kiyama into Miyahi to prevent power levels from exceeding threshold and further damaging system.
However, Shimizu discloses a case where the number of wavelengths of the communicated first signal is smaller than the reference number of wavelengths (Figure 8 element 206 where S wavelengths is compared to be less than number of interaction wavelengths and paragraph 0046 where S wavelengths represents number of wavelengths used).
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 Shimizu into Miyahi, Kiyama, and Ozawa to ensure that power levels are not exceeded to protect system.
Consider Claim 17, Kiyama and Miyahi do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Ozawa discloses he Raman amplification method according to claim 15, wherein the processor monitors a number of wavelengths of the communicated first signal (Paragraph 0089, where element 60C monitors wavelength number information of incoming signal) but does not disclose wherein the predetermined condition is a predetermined reference number of wavelengths.
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 Ozawa into Miyahi and Kiyama to accurately measure power levels in the system.
However, Shimizu discloses wherein the predetermined condition is a predetermined reference number of wavelengths (Paragraph 0046, where controller sets a marginal number of wavelengths value).
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 Shimizu into Miyahi, Kiyama, and Ozawa to ensure that power levels are not exceeded to protect system.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyama in view of Miyahi and further in view of Iizuka (US 8548321).
Consider Claim 11, Miyahi discloses the Raman amplification device according to claim 2 (Figure 3 where element 20 and element 10 are Raman amplifiers), and determine whether the APSD control is performed by using the first APSD determination condition (Figure 3, element 14 and Column 2, Lines 21-32 where in event of disconnection of fiber, a supervisory alarm is sent out and element 14 performs APR to reduce signal to a predetermined level) but does not disclose wherein the processor is configured to set the threshold level to a first set value and wherein the processor is configured not to perform the APSD control at a time of the OSC disconnection in a state where the first signal is in a communication state. While Miyahi does not explicitly disclose where the power of the communicated first signal is larger than the reference power, it would be obvious to one of skill in the ordinary art that if the APR is performed to reduce signal to a predetermined level, then a first signal had to exceed a reference/predetermined power in order for APR to reduce signal back to a predetermined level.
However, Kiyama discloses wherein the processor is configured to set the threshold level to a first set value (Paragraph 0037, where threshold value is set to be value based on receiving power) but does not disclose wherein the processor is configured not to perform the APSD control at a time of the OSC disconnection in a state where the first signal is in a communication state.
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 Kiyama into Miyahi to prevent power levels from exceeding threshold and further damaging system.
However, Iizuka discloses processor is configured not to perform the APSD control at a time of the OSC disconnection in a state where the first signal is in a communication state (Column 8, Lines 63-67, whereAPSD control is not performed when OSC in unusual disconnection and Column 3, Lines 4-5 where unusual connection comprises disconnection related to OSC element 151).
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 Iizuka into Miyahi and Kiyuma to prevent unnecessary shutdown.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyama in view of Miyahi in view of Ozawa in view of Shimizu in view of Mori (US 7515829) and further in view of Iizuka.
Consider Claim 12, Miyahi discloses the Raman amplification device according to claim 2 (Figure 3 where element 20 and element 10 are Raman amplifiers), and determine whether the APSD control is performed by using the first APSD determination condition (Figure 3, element 14 and Column 2, Lines 21-32 where in event of disconnection of fiber, a supervisory alarm is sent out and element 14 performs APR to reduce signal to a predetermined level) but does not disclose wherein the processor is configured to set the threshold level to a first set value and wherein the processor is configured not to perform the APSD control at a time of the OSC disconnection in a state where the first signal is in a communication state.
However, Kiyama discloses wherein the processor is configured to set the threshold level to a first set value (Paragraph 0037, where threshold value is set to be value based on receiving power) but does not disclose a case where the number of wavelengths of the communicated first signal is larger than the reference number of wavelengths and wherein the processor is configured not to perform the APSD control at a time of the OSC disconnection in a state where the first signal is in a communication state.
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 Kiyama into Miyahi to prevent power levels from exceeding threshold and further damaging system.
However, Mori discloses a case where the number of wavelengths of the communicated first signal is larger than the reference number of wavelengths (Column 3, Lines 4-9, where number of wavelengths are increased and power of increased wavelength exceeds a predetermined threshold/input level) but does not disclose wherein the processor is configured not to perform the APSD control at a time of the OSC disconnection in a state where the first signal is in a communication state.
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 Mori into Miyahi, Kiyama, Ozawa, and Shimizu to determine the number of wavelengths that could damage system.
However, Iizuka discloses processor is configured not to perform the APSD control at a time of the OSC disconnection in a state where the first signal is in a communication state (Column 8, Lines 63-67, where APSD control is not performed when OSC in unusual disconnection and Column 3, Lines 4-5 where unusual connection comprises disconnection related to OSC element 151).
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 Iizuka into Miyahi, Kiyuma, Ozawa, Shimizu, and Mori to prevent unnecessary shutdown.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 8-9, and 18 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.
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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
Prosecution Insights