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 .
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.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “optical splitter” in claims 1, 10, and 19 is used by the claim to convey a unit that performs optical to electrical conversion (and vice versa) via receiving optical subassemblies and a multiplexing component to receive transmitted signals from other devices. The unit also happens to take in multiple signals and output them on one fiber and vice versa. However, the accepted meaning of an “optical splitter” is a component (usually made of quartz or glass) used to take one input signal and divide or “split” them into multiple signals in a determined ratio/proportion; there is usually no optical to electrical (or vice versa) conversion within an optical splitter. One of skill in the ordinary art would use this definition when seeing the term “optical splitter”. The term, as used in the application, is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term to include the added elements. It is recommended that another term besides “optical splitter” is used. For the sake of prosecution, the examiner interprets “optical splitter” to mean a generic unit that is capable of taking an input and dividing it into multiple outputs.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taguchi (US 10250331) in view of Way (US 7092642), and in further view of Iovanna (US 11424847).
Consider Claim 1, Taguchi discloses a method comprising: receiving of an optical splitter (Figure 3, element 11), an incoming optical transmission from a far end optical transceiver (Figure 3, where element 11 receives transmission from OLT and Figure 1, where OLT includes transmitter and receiver); and wherein the tunable wavelength division multiplexing multiplexer is positioned between an optical interface of the optical splitter and a receiving optical subassembly of the optical splitter (Figure 3, where WDM element 11 is in between element 12 and receiving interface from OLT) but does not disclose cycling a tunable wavelength division multiplexing multiplexer through a plurality of potential wavelengths for the incoming optical transmission until a wavelength of the incoming optical transmission is detected, isolating the wavelength of the incoming optical transmission subsequent to the detecting, and disclose a processing system including at least one processor.
However, Way discloses: cycling, a tunable wavelength division multiplexing multiplexer through a plurality of potential wavelengths for the incoming optical transmission until a wavelength of the incoming optical transmission is detected (Figure 4, elements 104 are tunable filters operating at selected passbands corresponding to spectrum width of the channel, see also Fig 6) and isolating the wavelength of the incoming optical transmission subsequent to the detecting (Figure 4, elements 104 are tunable filters operating at selected passbands to distinguish wavelengths, see also fig 6) but does not disclose receiving, by a processing system of an optical splitter including at least one processor.
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 Way into Taguchi to accommodate dynamic changes in the incoming transmitting wavelength.
However, Iovanna discloses a processing system of an optical splitter including at least one processor (Figure 6, element 602).
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 Iovanna into Way and Taguchi to automate functions within the system.
Consider Claim 2, Taguchi discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the optical splitter is a 1:N optical splitter (Figure 3, element 11 takes one input and splits into multiple signals).
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 Iovanna into Way and Taguchi to automate functions within the system.
Consider Claim 3, Taguchi discloses the method of claim 1, wherein optical splitter resides within a primary flexibility point cabinet of an optical distribution network (Figure 3, where element 11 is inside of an ONU).
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 Iovanna into Way and Taguchi to automate functions within the system.
Consider Claim 6, Taguchi discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the wavelength of the incoming optical transmission is isolated within the optical splitter (Figure 3, element 11 11 splits transmission signal into four different wavelengths) before the incoming optical transmission enters the receiving optical subassembly of the optical splitter (Figure 3, where signals from element 11 go into ROSA unit element 12).
Consider Claim 7, Taguchi does not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Way discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the tunable wavelength division multiplexing multiplexer is programmed to self-tune by scanning through a predetermined spectrum of wavelengths comprising the plurality of potential wavelengths. (Column 7, Lines 58-61, where tuning filter elements 114 are tuned by management system 60).
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 Iovanna into Way and Taguchi to automate functions within the system.
Consider Claim 8, Taguchi discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: converting the incoming optical transmission into an electrical signal (Figure 3, where element 12 converts light signals into electrical signals); and delivering the electrical signal to a native service interface at a customer site (Figure 3, element 21 transfers electrical signal to user) but does not disclose the processing system.
However, Iovanna discloses the processing system (Figure 6, element 602).
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 Iovanna into Way and Taguchi to automate functions within the system.
Consider Claim 9, Taguchi discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the electrical signal is delivered via an electrical interface of the optical splitter (Figure 3, element 21 transfers electrical 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 Iovanna into Way and Taguchi to automate functions within the system.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taguchi in view of Way in view of Iovanna, and further in view of Kaneko (US 9479284).
Consider Claim 4, Taguchi, Way, and Iovanna do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Kaneko discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the far end transceiver (Figure 3, element 51 contains transceiver for transmission) is part of another optical splitter that resides within a central office of the optical distribution network (Figure 1, where transmission from element 51 goes through splitting element 151 which is contained within element 100a).
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 Kaneko into Taguchi, and Iovanna to provide protection to splitter from environmental factors.
Consider Claim 5, Taguchi, Way, and Iovanna do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Kaneko discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the another optical splitter is a 1:N optical splitter (Figure 3, where element 151 is a 1:N splitter).
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 Kaneko into Taguchi, and Iovanna to provide protection to splitter from environmental factors.
Claim(s) 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Way in view of Taguchi, and in further view of Iovanna.
Consider Claim 10, Taguchi discloses wherein a wavelength division multiplexing multiplexer is positioned between an optical interface of the optical splitter (Figure 3, element 11) and a receiving optical subassembly of the optical splitter (Figure 3, where element 11 is in between element 12 and receiving interface from OLT) but does not disclose a tunable wavelength division multiplexer, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by a processing system of an optical splitter including at least one processor, cause the processing system to perform operations.
Way discloses a tunable wavelength division multiplexer (Figure 4, element 100), cycling through a plurality of potential wavelengths for the incoming optical transmission until a wavelength of the incoming optical transmission is detected (Figure 4, elements 104 are tunable filters operating at selected passbands corresponding to spectrum width of the channel) and isolating the wavelength of the incoming optical transmission subsequent to the detecting (Figure 4, elements 104 are tunable filters operating at selected passbands to distinguish wavelengths) but does not disclose non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by a processing system of an optical splitter including at least one processor, cause the processing system to perform operations.
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 Way into Taguchi to accommodate dynamic changes in the incoming transmitting wavelength.
However, Iovanna discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Figure 6, element 604) storing instructions (Figure 6, where element 606 is inside of element 604)which, when executed by a processing system of an optical splitter including at least one processor (Figure 6, element 602), cause the processing system to perform operations.
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 Iovanna into Way and Taguchi to automate functions within the system.
Consider Claim 11, Taguchi discloses, wherein the wavelength of the incoming optical transmission is isolated within the optical splitter (Figure 3, element 11 splits transmission signal into four different wavelengths) before the incoming optical transmission enters the receiving optical subassembly of the optical splitter (Figure 3, where signals from element 11 go into ROSA unit element 12) but does not disclose the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 10.
However, Iovanna discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 10 (Figure 6, element 606).
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 Iovanna into Way and Taguchi to automate functions within the system.
Consider Claim 12, Taguchi discloses converting the incoming optical transmission into an electrical signal (Figure 3, where element 12 converts optical signal into electrical signal); and delivering the electrical signal to a native service interface at a customer site (Figure 3, where element 21 transfers electrical signal to user device).
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 Iovanna into Way and Taguchi to automate functions within the system.
Claim(s) 13-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taguchi in view of Way and further in view of Wang (US 11218221).
Consider Claim 13, Taguchi discloses an apparatus (Figure 3, element 301) comprising: an optical interface to receive an optical transmission (Figure 1, where element 11 receives transmission); an optical transceiver (Figure 3, element 301 can receive and transmit signals) the optical transceiver comprising: receiving optical subassembly to convert the optical transmission to an electrical signal (Figure 3, where element 12 convers light signals into electrical signals), wherein the wavelength division multiplexing multiplexer is positioned between the optical interface and the receiving optical subassembly (Figure 3, where DEMUX element 11 is in between element 12 and receiving interface from OLT), an electrical interface to transmit the electrical signal (Figure 3, element 21 transfers electrical signal) but does not disclose a tunable wavelength division multiplexing multiplexer to isolate a wavelength of the optical transmission; and a transmitting optical subassembly
However, Way discloses a tunable wavelength division multiplexing multiplexer to isolate a wavelength of the optical transmission (Figure 4, elements 104 are tunable filters operating at selected passbands to distinguish wavelengths) but does not disclose a transmitting optical subassembly.
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 Way into Taguchi to accommodate dynamic changes in the incoming transmitting wavelength.
However, Wang discloses disclose a transmitting optical subassembly (Figure 3, element 82 and Column 6, Lines 26-29 where element 82 includes a transceiver sub-optical assembly).
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 Wang into Taguchi and Way to provide increased bandwidth capacity.
Consider Claim 14, Taguchi discloses the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the apparatus comprises an optical splitter (Figure 3, element 11 takes one input and splits into multiple signals).
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 Wang into Taguchi and Way to provide increased bandwidth capacity.
Consider Claim 15, Taguchi discloses The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the optical splitter is a 1:N optical splitter Figure 3, element 11 takes one input and splits into multiple signals).
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 Wang into Taguchi and Way to provide increased bandwidth capacity.
Consider Claim 16, Taguchi discloses the apparatus of claim 14, wherein the optical splitter resides within a primary flexibility point cabinet of an optical distribution network (Figure 3, where element 11 is inside of an ONU).
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 Wang into Taguchi and Way to provide increased bandwidth capacity.
Consider Claim 19, Taguchi discloses the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the tunable wavelength division multiplexing multiplexer is positioned to isolate the wavelength of the optical transmission within the apparatus (Figure 3, element 11 splits transmission signal into four different wavelengths) before the optical transmission enters the receiving optical subassembly of the optical splitter (Figure 3, where signals from element 11 go into ROSA unit element 12).
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 Wang into Taguchi and Way to provide increased bandwidth capacity.
Consider Claim 20, Taguchi does not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Way discloses the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the tunable wavelength division multiplexing multiplexer is self-tuning (Column 7, Lines 58-61, where tuning filter elements 114 are tuned by management system 60).
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 Way into Taguchi to accommodate dynamic changes in the incoming transmitting wavelength.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taguchi in view of Way in view of Wang, and further in view of Kaneko.
Consider Claim 17, Taguchi, Way, and Wang do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Kaneko discloses the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the optical transmission is received from a far end transceiver (Figure 3, element 51 contains transceiver for transmission) that is part of another optical splitter that resides within a central office of the optical distribution network (Figure 1, where transmission from element 51 goes through splitting element 151 which is contained within element 100a).
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 Kaneko into Taguchi, and Wang to provide protection to splitter from environmental factors.
Consider Claim 18, Taguchi, Way, and Wang do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Kaneko discloses The apparatus of claim 17, wherein the another optical splitter is a 1:N optical splitter (Figure 3, where element 151 is a 1:N splitter).
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 Kaneko into Taguchi, and Wang to provide protection to splitter from environmental factors.
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