DETAILED ACTION
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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 2-3, 14, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al, US Pub. 2019/0115715, in view of Mizuno, WO 2020013096.
Hasegawa et al disclose an optical amplifier and multicore optical fiber comprising: a first transmission MCF 7 and an amplification MCF 1 a that is connected to the first transmission MCF 7 with a coupling MCF 3a and a multiplexer/demultiplexer 4 interposed therebetween, wherein the first transmission MCF 7 has a number of cores and a core interval that substantially match the amplification MCF, connecting the respective transmission paths/cores of a multi-core optical transmission system to corresponding amplification cores of a multi-core optical amplifier (paragraphs [0027]-[0044], fig. 1-4).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Hasegawa et al fail to explicitly disclose wherein the multi-core optical amplifier includes a plurality of the multi-core optical amplifier provided with different numbers of the plurality of amplification cores, wherein the connecting circuit connects the multi-core optical amplifier and the optical transmission paths according to operation mode of the light amplification device.
However, using different numbers of amplification cores is common in the art for effective power distribution, that is more amplification cores to produce higher total amplification capacity and for general channel management. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by Hasegawa et al as modified by Mizuno et al.
Mizuno et al disclose an optical amplification relay system comprising: a multi-core optical amplifier 121-1 that amplifies six single-mode lights and a multi-core optical amplifier 121-2 that amplifies four single-mode lights, including a multicore optical amplification in which amplification resources and excitation conditions are selected or controlled according to the optical signals/modes being amplified (see Fig. 1 and the corresponding English translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, when providing a plurality of available amplification resources for the multi-core arrangement of Hasegawa et al, to provide an optical switching/connection circuit for selective connecting the signal carrying transmission paths to the amplification resources appropriate to the selected operating condition. Such selective connection would permit the amplification resources required for the selected operating condition to be used while unnecessary amplification resources remain unused. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, Hasegawa et al fail to disclose wherein the multi-core optical amplifier includes a plurality of the multi-core optical amplifier provided with different numbers of the plurality of amplification cores.
Mizuno et al disclose an optical amplification relay system comprising: a multi-core optical amplifier 121-1 that amplifies six single-mode lights and a multi-core optical amplifier 121-2 that amplifies four single-mode lights, including a multicore optical amplification in which amplification resources and excitation conditions are selected or controlled according to the optical signals/modes being amplified (see Fig. 1 and the corresponding English translation).
In view of the teachings of Mizuno et al, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to easily have conceived of employing the configuration described in Mizuno et al in the teachings of Hasegawa et al for ensuring a required number of channels for communication is available for connection. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Regarding claim 14, Hasegawa et al as modified by Mizuno et al fail to explicitly disclose wherein each of the plurality of amplification cores contains rare-earth ions, and the multi-core optical amplifier includes a double clad structure. However, the type of material is a matter of choice for meeting specific customer requirements. Furthermore, such material is common in the art. Therefore, a person skilled in the art could easily have conceived of employing such common configuration as the fiber structure of the amplification MCF as described in Hasegawa et al as modified by Mizuno et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-13, 15-16, and 19-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The applicant teaches a light amplification device and a method thereof which includes a multi-core optical amplifier including a plurality of amplification cores, and a connection circuit for connecting the multi-core optical amplifier and a multi-core optical transmission path including a plurality of transmission path cores, wherein a total number of the plurality of amplification cores is equal to or greater than a number of transmission cores through which signal light propagates, among the plurality of transmission path cores, wherein the connection circuit connects the multi-core optical amplifier and the multi-core optical transmission path according to an operation mode of the light amplification device for minimizing power consumption, the connection circuit connects the multi-core optical amplifier and the multi-core optical transmission path in a connection form in which a total of excitation light intensity for each of the multi-core optical amplifier is minimized. These limitations in conjunction with other limitation in the claims were not shown by the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See examiner remarks.
Remarks:
In response to the applicant’s argument regarding claim 1 that the prior art (Hasegawa et al) fails to disclose the connection circuit connects the multicore optical amplifier and the multicore optical transmission path according to an operation mode of the light amplification device, the examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Hasegawa et al disclose connecting the respective transmission paths/cores of a multi-core optical transmission system to corresponding amplification cores of a multi-core optical amplifier and Mizuno et al disclose a multicore optical amplification in which amplification resources and excitation conditions are selected or controlled according to the optical signals/modes being amplified. It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan, when providing a plurality of available resources for the multicore transmission arrangement of Hasegawa et al, to provide an optical switching/connection circuit for selectively connecting the signal carrying transmission paths to the amplification resources appropriate to the selected operating condition in order to permit the amplification resources required for the selected operating condition to used while unnecessary amplification resources remain unused. The applicant argument is not persuasive. Refer to the rejection above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DANIEL ST CYR whose telephone number is (571)272-2407. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:00-8:00.
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, Pham Thomas can be reached at 571-272-3689. 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.
DANIEL ST CYR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2876
/DANIEL ST CYR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights