DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 5-8 are 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.
Claim 5, and thus each of claims 6-8 by way of dependence, recites the processor “outputs the sixth signal light, based on the input second signal light and the input third signal light.” The phrase “based on” makes the output dependent on both signals. This is not consistent with the supporting disclosed subject matter of a wavelength selective switch, which outputs one or the other of two options. The disclosed output is not based on two signals, as one has is inherently not selected during the selecting act. It appears the intended scope is: …outputs the sixth signal light, selecting between the input second signal light and the input third signal light… The claim has been examined accordingly.
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.
Claims 1-4, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawahara et al. (“Kawahara”) (US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0275667).
Regarding claim 1, Kawahara discloses a light multiplexing/demultiplexing device comprising: a first demultiplexer configured to demultiplex input first wavelength-multiplexed signal light into first signal light of a first wavelength band and second signal light of a second wavelength band, and outputting each of the first signal light and the second signal light (fig. 6 element 11a and paragraph 0004, L-band output and C-band output); a first amplifier configured to amplify the second signal light being input from the first demultiplexer (fig. 6 element 24a and paragraph 0005, for C-band element 22); a light processor configured to output fourth signal light, based on the input second signal light (fig. 6 element 22 and paragraph 0005, where the output of 25a for element 22 reads on fourth signal light based on the second signal light) and input third signal light of the second wavelength band (fig. 6 element 22, C-band input from 11b) and a first multiplexer configured to multiplex the first signal light being output from the first demultiplexing means and the fourth signal light (fig. 6 element 12b and paragraph 0004), wherein a gain of the first amplifier is set in such a way that there is a difference between optical power of the first signal light being output from the first multiplexer and optical power of the fourth signal light being output from the first multiplexer (fig. 6 and paragraph 0005, there is an inherent non-zero difference between the amplified C-band and the amplified L-band levels). Kawahara does not disclose that the difference is equal to or less than a predetermined value. However, Kawahara recognizes wavelength band dependency of the transmission bands and optical loss in the WSSs and the optical amplifiers (paragraph 0020), provides attenuation options as well (paragraph 0013), and desires to eliminate differences in transmission performance for respective optical signals due to different wavelength bands (paragraph 0022). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the amplifiers such that there is a predetermined difference in amplification that accounts for the wavelength band dependency of the transmission bands and optical loss in the WSSs and the optical amplifiers, to reduce differences in transmission performance for respective optical signals due to different wavelength bands, as taught by Kawahara.
Regarding claim 2, Kawahara discloses the light multiplexing/demultiplexing device according to claim 1, wherein the first wavelength band is an L-band (fig. 6 element 11a, L-band output), and the second wavelength band is a C-band (fig. 6 element 11a, C-band output).
Regarding claim 3, Kawahara the light multiplexing/demultiplexing device according to claim 1, wherein the light processor is a wavelength selective switch (fig. 6 element 22 and paragraph 0005).
Regarding claim 4, Kawahara discloses the light multiplexing/demultiplexing device according to claim 1, further comprising a first optical attenuator that attenuates optical power of the first signal light being output from the first multiplexer, wherein attenuation by the first optical attenuator is set in such a way that a difference between optical power of the first signal light being output from the first multiplexer and optical power of the fourth signal light being output from the first multiplexer is equal to or less than the predetermined value (fig. 6 element 25a and paragraph 0013, for L-band).
Regarding claim 9, Kawahara discloses a light multiplexing/demultiplexing method comprising: demultiplexing, by a demultiplexer, input first wavelength- multiplexed signal light into first signal light of a first wavelength band and second signal light of a second wavelength band (fig. 6 element 11a and paragraph 0004, L-band output and C-band output); amplifying the second signal light (fig. 6 element 24a and paragraph 0005, for C-band element 22); outputting fourth signal light, based on the amplified second signal light (fig. 6 element 22 and paragraph 0005, where the output of 25a for element 22 reads on fourth signal light based on the second signal light) and input third signal light of the second wavelength band (fig. 6 element 22, C-band input from 11b); and multiplexing, by a multiplexer, the fourth signal light and the first signal light being output from the demultiplexing means (fig. 6 element 12b and paragraph 0004), wherein a gain of amplification of the second signal light is set in such a way that there is a difference between optical power of the first signal light being output from the multiplexer and optical power of the fourth signal light being output from the multiplexer (fig. 6 and paragraph 0005, there is an inherent non-zero difference between the amplified C-band and the amplified L-band levels). Kawahara does not disclose that the difference is equal to or less than a predetermined value. However, Kawahara recognizes wavelength band dependency of the transmission bands and optical loss in the WSSs and the optical amplifiers (paragraph 0020), provides attenuation options as well (paragraph 0013), and desires to eliminate differences in transmission performance for respective optical signals due to different wavelength bands (paragraph 0022). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the amplifiers such that there is a predetermined difference in amplification that accounts for the wavelength band dependency of the transmission bands and optical loss in the WSSs and the optical amplifiers, to reduce differences in transmission performance for respective optical signals due to different wavelength bands, as taught by Kawahara.
Regarding claim 10, Kawahara discloses the light multiplexing/demultiplexing method according to claim 9, further comprising attenuating optical power of the first signal light demultiplexed by the demultiplexer in such a way that a difference between optical power of the first signal light being output from the multiplexer and optical power of the fourth signal light being output from the multiplexer is equal to or less than a predetermined value (fig. 6 element 25a and paragraph 0013, for L-band).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 would be allowable if rewritten to reflect the suggested change noted above, 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Optical amplification and wavelength selective switching – US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0244356.
Splitting for C- and L-band amplification with partial C-band blocking – US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0067622.
Optical add/drop with branching – US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0149663.
Wavelength selecting switching between different directions – US Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0019034.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN M CORS whose telephone number is (571)272-3028. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
/NATHAN M CORS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634