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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Takuya fails to teach the claims as amended (5.28.26 Remarks p. 10, ¶ 5). Applicant is correct that Takuya does not teach an accommodation module that can be inserted and removed as the amended limitations further include. Nothing in Takuya suggests that it’s connectors and adapters can be inserted and removed. Thus, the claims now stand rejected under the combination of Takuya with Suzuki 1 and 2. These prior arts disclose pluggable adapters that are compatible for single and two-core transceivers. These pluggable adapters could be used in place of the fixed adapter taught in Takuya.
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.
In light of the amendments made to claims 1 and 7, the 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takuya (WO2021131202A1) in light of Suzuki 1 (US Pat. App. Pub. 2015/0286014 A1) and Suzuki 2 (US Pat. App. Pub. 2015/0288447 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 7, Takuya teaches An optical transmission device comprising: a connector (FIG. 35: 522, 521; FIG. 2: 11-1-1); an optical switch configured to switch paths for up light (FIG. 2: 10a; FIG. 35: 210), which is from the connector to an up wavelength multiplexer/demultiplexer, and down light, which is from a down wavelength multiplexer/demultiplexer to the connector, respectively; an optical switch controller that controls the optical switch (FIG. 2: 20; FIG. 35: 300); the up wavelength multiplexer/demultiplexer that multiplexes up light of a plurality of wavelengths output from the optical switch and outputs the multiplexed up light to a transmission line (FIG. 35: 244); and the down wavelength multiplexer/demultiplexer that demultiplexes down light input from the transmission line and outputs the demultiplexed down light to the optical switch (FIG. 35: 245),
Takuya does not teach with one or more sockets that allow an accommodation module accommodating an optical fiber to be inserted and removed wherein the connector allows any one of a one-core and a two-core accommodation module as the accommodation module to be inserted and removed
Suzuki 1 teaches with one or more sockets that allow an accommodation module accommodating an optical fiber to be inserted and removed (FIG. 1; [0008-09] wherein the connector allows any one of a one-core module as the accommodation module accommodation module to be inserted and removed (Id.)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to replace Takuyas fixed adapter (FIG. 35: 220) with Suzuki 1s pluggable adapter. Such a combination would merely be a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Takuya and Suzuki 1 both relate to optical communication systems and are therefore analogous art.
Suzuki 1 does not teach and a two-core accommodation
Suzuki 2 teaches and a two-core accommodation (FIG. 1; [0008-09])
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to replace Takuyas fixed adapter (FIG. 35: 220) with Suzuki 2s pluggable adapter. Such a combination would merely be a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Takuya and Suzuki 2 both relate to optical communication systems and are therefore analogous art.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Takuya Suzuki 2 and Suzuki 1 teaches The optical transmission device according to claim 1, wherein the connector is able to directly connect an optical fiber without passing through the accommodation module. (Takuya, FIG. 2: 11-1-1).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to replace Takuyas fixed adapter (FIG. 35: 220) with Suzuki 1s and 2s pluggable adapter. Such a combination would merely be a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Takuya Suzuki 2 and Suzuki 1 teaches The optical transmission device according to claim 1, wherein the connector is connected to the accommodation module through one port (Takuya, FIG. 35: 220)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to replace Takuyas fixed adapter (FIG. 35: 220) with Suzuki 1s and 2s pluggable adapter. Such a combination would merely be a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Takuya Suzuki 2 and Suzuki 1 teaches The optical transmission device according to claim 1, further comprising a wavelength management controller that dynamically allocates a wavelength to be used by a communication destination connected via the accommodation module. (Takuya, FIG. 52: 335)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to replace Takuyas fixed adapter (FIG. 35: 220) with Suzuki 1s and 2s pluggable adapter. Such a combination would merely be a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Takuya Suzuki 2 and Suzuki 1 teaches The optical transmission device according to claim 1, comprising a plurality of connectors ( Takuya, FIG. 2; FIG. 35); and an identification part that is able to identify the connector to which the accommodation module connecting an optical fiber is connected, among the plurality of connectors. (Takuya, p. 5, ¶ 11)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to replace Takuyas fixed adapter (FIG. 35: 220) with Suzuki 1s and 2s pluggable adapter. Such a combination would merely be a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Takuya Suzuki 2 and Suzuki 1 teaches The optical transmission device according to claim 5, wherein the identification part is an LED lamp, and a state of the LED lamp is remotely controllable.
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to replace Takuyas fixed adapter (FIG. 35: 220) with Suzuki 1s and 2s pluggable adapter. Such a combination would merely be a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Takuya Suzuki 2 and Suzuki 1 teaches The optical transmission device according to claim 1, wherein the optical switch is configured to receive the up light from the connector and output the up light to the (Takuya, FIG. 35: 210) up wavelength multiplexer/demultiplexer (Takuya, FIG. 35: 245), and receive the down light from the down wavelength multiplexer/demultiplexer and output the down light to the connector (Id.).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to replace Takuyas fixed adapter (FIG. 35: 220) with Suzuki 1s and 2s pluggable adapter. Such a combination would merely be a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Takuya Suzuki 2 and Suzuki 1 teaches The optical transmission device according to claim 1, wherein the connector is connected to a subscriber device (Takuya, FIG. 35: 40) via a single optical fiber through the one-core accommodation module (Suzuki 1, FIG. 1), and is connected directly to another subscriber device via optical fibers without going through the accommodation module (Takuya, FIG. 35: 220).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to replace Takuyas fixed adapter (FIG. 35: 220) with Suzuki 1s and 2s pluggable adapter. Such a combination would merely be a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Takuya Suzuki 2 and Suzuki 1 teaches The optical transmission device according to claim 1, wherein the one-core accommodation module includes a 1-2 core converter that performs conversion from one core to two cores (Suzuki 1, FIG. 2), and from two cores to one core, the 1-2 core converter including either a WDM filter or a circulator. (Id.)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to replace Takuyas fixed adapter (FIG. 35: 220) with Suzuki 1s and 2s pluggable adapter. Such a combination would merely be a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Takuya Suzuki 2 and Suzuki 1 teaches The optical transmission device according to claim 1, wherein the connector allows either the one-core accommodation module (Suzuki 1, FIG. 1) or the two-core accommodation module to be inserted and removed (Suzuki 2, FIG. 1).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to replace Takuyas fixed adapter (FIG. 35: 220) with Suzuki 1s and 2s pluggable adapter. Such a combination would merely be a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Takuya Suzuki 2 and Suzuki 1 teaches he optical transmission device according to claim 1, wherein the accommodation module connects to a subscriber device without passing through a WDM filter that is installed in a transmission path between the connector and the subscriber device. (Takuya, FIG. 35: 560)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL M BROCK whose telephone number is (571)272-7257. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30pm.
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.
/PAUL MORGAN BROCK/Examiner, Art Unit 2634 July 14, 2026
/KENNETH N VANDERPUYE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights