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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “first connection port,” “optical transponder,” and “connection port” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the “first connection port,” “optical transponder,” and “connection port” as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “a first optical signal adjustor configured to adjust light intensity of an input light signal for each wavelength” as described in the specification. In the present instance, “a first optical signal adjustor” refers to the box 1110 of Fig. 1. However, this box seems in capable of performing the claimed limitation. Likewise, the drawings fail to show “a second optical signal adjustor.” Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a first optical signal adjustor configured to adjust light intensity” of claim 1 and “a second optical signal adjustor configured to adjust light intensity” of claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Claim limitation “a first optical signal adjustor configured to adjust light intensity” of claim 1 and “a second optical signal adjustor configured to adjust light intensity” of claim 6 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “optical signal adjustor” coupled with functional language “configured to adjust” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1, 23, 24, and 59-61 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: the “first optical signal adjustment unit 1110" of Fig. 1 and the “second optical signal adjustment unit 2240” of Fig. 5.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 requires “a first optical signal adjustor configured to adjust light intensity of an input light signal for each wavelength.” However, the specification as filed does not provide an adequate explanation as to how this is performed. More specifically, the specification, Para. 22, states, “In this case, the first optical signal adjustment unit 1110 is allowed to pass a transmitted light signal by the bandwidth variable function and the attenuation amount adjustment function included in the
wavelength selectable switch (WSS).” However, this statement does not provide an adequate explanation as to how the applicant has modified the wavelength selectable switch to adjust the light intensity of the input light signal for each wavelength. The fundamental purpose of a WSS is to route or block specific wavelengths (or spectral slices) from an input port to one or more output ports.
While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) en banc. The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement." Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
In the present instance, the claim limitation defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved.
The written description requirement under 112(a) is not satisfied by stating that one of ordinary skill in the art could device an algorithm to perform the specialized programmed functions. For written description, the specifications filed must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. An original claim may lack written description when the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the inventor has devised the function to be performed or result achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient).
The dependent claims 2-10 are rejected for being dependent on the rejected claim 1.
Claim 6 requires “a second optical signal adjustor configured to adjust light intensity.” However, the specification as filed does not provide an adequate explanation as to how this is performed. More specifically, the specification, Para. 48, states, “As the second optical signal adjustment unit 2240, typically, a wavelength selective switch (WSS) can be used.” However, this statement does not provide an adequate explanation as to how the applicant has modified the wavelength selectable switch to adjust the light intensity of the light signal for each wavelength. The fundamental purpose of a WSS is to route or block specific wavelengths (or spectral slices) from an input port to one or more output ports.
While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) en banc. The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement." Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
In the present instance, the claim limitation defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved.
The written description requirement under 112(a) is not satisfied by stating that one of ordinary skill in the art could device an algorithm to perform the specialized programmed functions. For written description, the specifications filed must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. An original claim may lack written description when the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the inventor has devised the function to be performed or result achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient).
The dependent claims 7 and 9 are rejected for being dependent on the rejected claim 8.
Claim 11 requires “adjusting light intensity for each wavelength” However, the specification as filed does not provide an adequate explanation as to how this is performed. More specifically, the specification, Para. 22, states, “In this case, the first optical signal adjustment unit 1110 is allowed to pass a transmitted light signal by the bandwidth variable function and the attenuation amount adjustment function included in the wavelength selectable switch (WSS).” However, this statement does not provide an adequate explanation as to how the applicant has modified the wavelength selectable switch to adjust the light intensity of the input light signal for each wavelength. The fundamental purpose of a WSS is to route or block specific wavelengths (or spectral slices) from an input port to one or more output ports.
While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) en banc. The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement." Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
In the present instance, the claim limitation defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved.
The written description requirement under 112(a) is not satisfied by stating that one of ordinary skill in the art could device an algorithm to perform the specialized programmed functions. For written description, the specifications filed must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. An original claim may lack written description when the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the inventor has devised the function to be performed or result achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient).
The dependent claims 12-20 are rejected for being dependent on the rejected claim 11.
Claim 16 requires “adjusting light intensity of each of the first transmitted light signal and the second transmitted light signal for each wavelength.” However, the specification as filed does not provide an adequate explanation as to how this is performed. More specifically, the specification, Para. 48, states, “As the second optical signal adjustment unit 2240, typically, a wavelength selective switch (WSS) can be used.” However, this statement does not provide an adequate explanation as to how the applicant has modified the wavelength selectable switch to adjust the light intensity of the light signal for each wavelength. The fundamental purpose of a WSS is to route or block specific wavelengths (or spectral slices) from an input port to one or more output ports.
While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) en banc. The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement." Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
In the present instance, the claim limitation defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved.
The written description requirement under 112(a) is not satisfied by stating that one of ordinary skill in the art could device an algorithm to perform the specialized programmed functions. For written description, the specifications filed must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. An original claim may lack written description when the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the inventor has devised the function to be performed or result achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient).
The dependent claims 17 and 19 are rejected for being dependent on the rejected claim 16.
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 limitation “a first optical signal adjustor configured to adjust light intensity” of claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The claim limitations "optical signal adjustor configured to adjust light intensity” of claim 1 uses a generic placeholder coupled with functional language, without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Although a review of the specification shows that the “a first optical signal adjustment unit 1110" of Fig. 1 is the corresponding structures, it is unclear whether the recited structure, material, or acts are sufficient for performing the claimed function because the written description fails to link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function. Further, there is no disclosure (or insufficient disclosure) of structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
A bare statement that known techniques or methods can be used would not be a sufficient disclosure to support a means-plus-function limitation. Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Techs. Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 953, 83 USPQ2d 1118, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The dependent claims
The dependent claims 2-10 are rejected for being dependent on the rejected claim 1.
Claim limitation “a second optical signal adjustor configured to adjust light intensity” of claim 6 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The claim limitations "optical signal adjustor configured to adjust light intensity” uses a generic placeholder coupled with functional language, without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Although a review of the specification shows that the “second optical signal adjustment unit 2240" of Fig. 5 is the corresponding structures, it is unclear whether the recited structure, material, or acts are sufficient for performing the claimed function because the written description fails to link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function. Further, there is no disclosure (or insufficient disclosure) of structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
A bare statement that known techniques or methods can be used would not be a sufficient disclosure to support a means-plus-function limitation. Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Techs. Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 953, 83 USPQ2d 1118, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The dependent claims
The dependent claims 7 and 9 are rejected for being dependent on the rejected claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaneko et al. (US20140286635A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kaneko et al. discloses An optical transmission system (Fig. 7 and Fig. 10) comprising:
a first optical device (Fig. 7; the optical transmission apparatus 21) including a first optical signal adjustor (Fig. 7; the VOA 39) configured to adjust light intensity of an input light signal for each wavelength (Fig. 7; Para. 64; The variable optical attenuators 39 are respectively connected one by one to the output ports of the first wavelength demultiplexing device 37 and the output ports of the second wavelength demultiplexing device 38. Based on a level adjustment signal output from the control signal interface unit 42, the variable optical attenuators 39 respectively adjust the transmission levels of the sub-band dummy lights output from the first wavelength demultiplexing device 37 and the transmission levels of the channel dummy lights output from the second wavelength demultiplexing device 38), and a first controller (Fig. 7; the control unit 41) configured to control the first optical signal adjustor (Fig. 7; Para. 64; Based on a level adjustment signal output from the control signal interface unit 42, the variable optical attenuators 39 respectively adjust the transmission levels of the sub-band dummy lights output from the first wavelength demultiplexing device 37 and the transmission levels of the channel dummy lights output from the second wavelength demultiplexing device 38); and
a second optical device (Fig. 10; the optical transmission apparatus 25) including a second controller (Fig. 10; the monitoring unit 64), wherein the second controller is configured to send, to the first controller, transmitted light information being information relating to a transmitted light signal (Fig. 10; Para. 89; The monitoring unit 64 monitors characteristics of the input light and, measures and outputs the OSNR values of the respective channels to the signal light transmitting units 71, 72. The monitoring unit 64 has an optical measuring unit 65, a measurement information receiving unit 66, a CPU 67, memory 68, and an OSNR information inserting unit 69), and the first controller is configured to control the first optical signal adjustor in such a way that the transmitted light signal is allowed to pass by using the transmitted light information (Fig. 7; Para. 72-73; The CPU 43 is connected to the opposing-station OSNR information receiving unit 45. The CPU 43 uses the OSNR information of the opposing station and output from the opposing-station OSNR information receiving unit 45, to execute a program that implements a dummy light inserting method. The CPU 43 obtains an average of the OSNR values for each sub-band and determines the state of the sub-band, for example, the linear state or the nonlinear state, from relationship between a transmission level value and the average of the OSNR values and thereby, determines the type of the dummy light, based on the determined state of the sub-band. The wavelength multiplex signal is passed from optical transmission apparatus 21 to the optical transmission apparatus 25 as shown).
Regarding claim 2, the present system discloses The optical transmission system according to claim 1, as described and applied above, wherein the second controller is configured to send the transmitted light information to the first controller via an optical transmission path through which the transmitted light signal propagates from the first optical device to the second optical device (Fig. 7; Fig. 6; Para. 57; The optical amplification relay apparatuses 22, 23, and 24 amplify optical signals transmitted from the optical transmission apparatus 21 or the optical amplification relay apparatuses 22, 23 upstream and transmit the optical signals to the optical amplification relay apparatuses 23, 24, or the optical transmission apparatus 25 downstream. Each of the apparatuses 21 to 25 is connected through the transmission path 26).
Regarding claim 11, the present system teaches a device that necessarily perform this method claim in light of the rejection described and applied in Claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the present system teaches a device that necessarily perform this method claim in light of the rejection described and applied in Claim 2.
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) 3-5 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko et al. (US20140286635A1) in view of Inoue (US10680738B2).
Regarding claim 3, the present system discloses The optical transmission system according to claim 2, as described and applied above, wherein the second optical device further includes a light monitor configured to monitor light intensity of received input light for each wavelength (Fig. 10; Para. 90; The optical measuring unit 65 measures the spectrum of the wavelength multiplexed light input to the monitoring unit 64 to measure and output to the measurement information receiving unit 66, an OSNR value for each channel. (OSNR measures the ratio of signal power to background noise power and therefore requires knowledge of the signal power)), and generate light monitor information (Fig. 10; Para. 90; The measurement information receiving unit 66 delivers the OSNR values of the respective channels output from the optical measuring unit 65 to the CPU 67), and the second controller includes storage (Fig. 10; the memory 68) configured to store light intensity setting information for compensating an optical transmission characteristic (Fig. 10; Para. 91; The CPU 67 stores the OSNR values of the respective channels into the memory 68 and manages the values as a table).
However, Kaneko et al. does not expressly disclose a dummy light generator configured to generate dummy light, and a submarine optical transmission path to which the second optical device is connected.
Inoue discloses a dummy light generator (Fig. 4; the generation unit 711) configured to generate dummy light (Fig. 4; Column 11, lines 41-50; The generation unit 711 generates dummy light used to control the signal transmission intensity (power). The generation unit 711 generates dummy light to maintain the intensity (power) of a signal to be transmitted from the transport apparatus 7 (that is, light obtained by multiplexing together signals from the plurality of light transmission/reception units 70) constant), and a submarine optical transmission path to which the second optical device is connected (Fig. 1; Column 5, lines 42-47; the trunk station A and trunk station B is shown. The trunk stations 1 and the branch station 2 serve as, for example, landing stations in a submarine cable system. Each of the trunk stations 1 and the branch station 2 includes transport apparatuses).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the dummy light generator for both transmitting end and receiving end, as taught by Inoue, in the present system in order to maintain the intensity of a signal to be transmitted through a submarine cable.
Regarding claim 4, the present combination discloses The optical transmission system according to claim 3, as described and applied above, wherein the light monitor is configured to receive the transmitted light signal and the dummy light (Kaneko et al., Fig. 10; Para. 90; Fig. 7; The optical measuring unit 65 measures the spectrum of the wavelength multiplexed light input to the monitoring unit 64 to measure and output to the measurement information receiving unit 66, an OSNR value for each channel. The wavelength multiplexed light transmitted from optical transmission apparatus 21 includes dummy light as shown in Fig. 7), and generate first light monitor information being the light monitor information (Kaneko et al., Fig. 10; Para. 90; The measurement information receiving unit 66 delivers the OSNR values of the respective channels output from the optical measuring unit 65 to the CPU 67), the second controller is configured to send the first light monitor information and the light intensity setting information to the first controller via the optical transmission path (Kaneko et al., Fig. 10; Para. 89; The monitoring unit 64 monitors characteristics of the input light and, measures and outputs the OSNR values of the respective channels to the signal light transmitting units 71, 72), and the first controller is configured to control the first optical signal adjustor in such a way that light intensity of the transmitted light signal is made compatible with the light intensity setting information by using the first light monitor information (Kaneko et al., Fig. 7; Para. 72-73; The CPU 43 is connected to the opposing-station OSNR information receiving unit 45. The CPU 43 uses the OSNR information of the opposing station and output from the opposing-station OSNR information receiving unit 45, to execute a program that implements a dummy light inserting method. The CPU 43 obtains an average of the OSNR values for each sub-band and determines the state of the sub-band, for example, the linear state or the nonlinear state, from relationship between a transmission level value and the average of the OSNR values and thereby, determines the type of the dummy light, based on the determined state of the sub-band).
Regarding claim 5, the present combination discloses The optical transmission system according to claim 4, as described and applied above, wherein the second controller is configured to control the dummy light generator in such a way that light intensity of the dummy light is made compatible with the light intensity setting information by using the first light monitor information (Inoue, Fig. 4; Column 12, lines 23-29; The monitor unit 72 requests the generation unit 711 to start to generate dummy light in response to a request from an opposed transport apparatus 7).
Regarding claim 13, the present combination teaches a device that necessarily perform this method claims in light of the rejection described and applied in Claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, the present combination teaches a device that necessarily perform this method claims in light of the rejection described and applied in Claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, the present combination teaches a device that necessarily perform this method claims in light of the rejection described and applied in Claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAI M LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:5:30 PM.
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.
JAI M. LEE
Examiner
Art Unit 2634
/JAI M LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2634