Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, and 10-17 under 35 U.S.C. § (insert 102 or 103 or both) 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) 1, 6-7, 10, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyama (US 20200169320) in view of Miyaji (US 8483560) and further in view of Yano (US 20080089681).
Consider Claim 1, Miyaji 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: 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/power to a predetermined level) but does not disclose a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory configured to: power or a number of wavelengths of a first signal communicated by the optical signal, switching 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 based on the power or the number of wavelengths 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 reference power or the predetermined reference number of wavelengths. While the reference does not explicitly disclose a case where the monitoring result of the communicated first signal exceeds a predetermined reference power or a predetermined reference number of wavelengths, 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 power/number of wavelengths 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 313); and a processor coupled to the memory (Figure 8B, where element 311 is coupled to element 313 via bus line) and configured to: monitor power (Figure 7, element 134 monitors WDM signal and paragraph 0056, where element 110 receives power from element 134); 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 reference power (Paragraph 0037, where monitored power is less than a threshold value and APSD report is transmitted to control device after fiber disconnection has occurred) monitoring result of the first signal and based on the power or the number of wavelengths of the first 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 Miyaji to prevent power levels from exceeding threshold and further damaging system.
However, Yano discloses switching 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 based on the power or the number of wavelengths of the first signal (Paragraph 0069, where threshold value of alarm is automatically updated due to monitoring of input power of first signal and Paragraph 0057, where optical power is based on number of wavelengths).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of Yano into Kiyama and Miyaji to dynamically adjust threshold levels without manual intervention.
Consider Claim 6, Miyaji does not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Kiyama discloses 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 incorporate the teachings of Yano into Kiyama and Miyaji to dynamically adjust threshold levels without manual intervention.
Consider Claim 7, Miyaji and Kiyama do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Yano discloses wherein the processor is configured to set the threshold level according to the number of wavelengths of the communicated first signal (Paragraph 0069, where threshold value of alarm is automatically updated due to monitoring of input power of first signal and Paragraph 0057, where optical power is based on number of wavelengths).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of Yano into Kiyama and Miyaji to dynamically adjust threshold levels without manual intervention.
Consider Claim 10, Miyaji 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 (Paragraph 0049 where power of WDM band is compared to threshold to see if it is lower and paragraph 0122, where WDM band can be C band 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 incorporate the teachings of Yano into Kiyama and Miyaji to dynamically adjust threshold levels without manual intervention.
Consider Claim 13, Miyaji 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 predetermined 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 incorporate the teachings of Yano into Kiyama and Miyaji to dynamically adjust threshold levels without manual intervention.
Consider Claim 15, Miyaji 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: 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/power to a predetermined level) but does not disclose a processor, monitoring power or a number of wavelengths of a first signal communicated by the optical signal, switching 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 based on the power or the number of wavelengths 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 reference power or the predetermined reference number of wavelengths. While the reference does not explicitly disclose a case where the monitoring result of the communicated first signal exceeds a predetermined reference power or a predetermined reference number of wavelengths, 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 power/number of wavelengths had to be exceeded in order for APR to be perform reducing signal back to a predetermined level.
However, Kiyama discloses a processor (Figure 8, element 311), monitoring power (Figure 7, element 134 monitors WDM signal and paragraph 0056, where element 110 receives power from element 134); 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 reference power (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 Miyaji to prevent power levels from exceeding threshold and further damaging system.
However, Yano discloses switching 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 based on the power or the number of wavelengths of the first signal (Paragraph 0069, where threshold value of alarm is automatically updated due to monitoring of input power of first signal and Paragraph 0057, where optical power is based on number of wavelengths).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of Yano into Kiyama and Miyaji to dynamically adjust threshold levels without manual intervention.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyaji in view of Kiyama in view of Yano and further in view of Iizuka (US 8548321).
Consider Claim 11, Miyaji discloses the Raman amplification device according to claim 1 (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 Miyaji does not explicitly disclose where the power of the communicated first signal is larger than the predetermined 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 Miyaji 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, 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 Miyaji, Kiyama, and Yano to prevent unnecessary shutdown.
Claims(s) 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyaji in view of Kiyama in view of Yano in view of Mori (US 7515829) and further in view of Iizuka.
Consider Claim 12, Miyaji 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, in a case where the number of wavelengths of the communicated first signal is larger than the predetermined 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.
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 predetermined 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 Miyaji 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 predetermined 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 Miyaji, Kiyama, and Yano 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 Miyaji, Kiyama, Yano, and Mori to prevent unnecessary shutdown.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyaji in view of Kiyama in view of Yano and further in view of Shimizu (US 20060044646).
Consider Claim 14, Miyaji does not disclose the limitations of this 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, 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 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 Kiyama into Miyaji 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 predetermined 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 represent 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 Miyaji, Kiyama, and Yano to ensure that power levels are not exceeded to protect system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 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.
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