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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 16, 19-25 and 28-34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 6, 7 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11637635. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims are anticipated by, or obvious in view of, the patent claims.
Present Claims
Patent Claims
16. A method of calibrating a Raman amplifier on a fiber span an optical network, the method comprising steps of:
performing a calibration of the Raman amplifier on the fiber span independent of knowledge of fiber-types associated with the fiber span;
and setting a gain of pump lasers in the Raman amplifier based on the calibration, wherein the set gain is a gain level based on adverse intermodulation effects caused by the pump lasers as a result of the fiber-types, wherein the adverse intermodulation effects are determined in the calibration.
wherein the calibration includes measurements at different spectrum locations to analyze the adverse intermodulation effects.
wherein the measurements are used to determine the fiber-types.
1. A calibration system comprising: a processing device, and a memory device configured to store a computer program having instructions that, when executed, enable the processing device to set gain of a plurality of pump lasers of a Raman amplifier to a safe level, wherein the pump lasers operate at different wavelengths, wherein the Raman amplifier is connected to a fiber span having a specific fiber-type, and
wherein the safe level is a level that keeps adverse intermodulation effects below a predetermined threshold regardless of the specific fiber-type [setting a level reads on calibration and setting the safe level regardless of fiber-type reads on independent of knowledge of fiber-type],
increase the gain of the pump lasers while keeping the adverse intermodulation effects below the predetermined threshold [where the intermodulation level based on the pump lasers is inherently a result of those laser wavelengths and fiber type, and where keeping the effect below a threshold reads on determining what the effects are],
obtain a first measurement of a noise floor of a spectrum associated with operation of an Optical Multiplex Section (OMS) that includes at least the Raman amplifier and the fiver span when the gain is set to the safe level, set the first measurement as a baseline noise profile, obtain a second measurement of the noise floor of the spectrum after the gain is increased, and compare the second measurement with the baseline noise profile.
6. The calibration system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further enable the processing device to observe the severity of the adverse intermodulation effects on the spectrum, categorize a plurality of sub-bands in the spectrum based on the severity of adverse intermodulation effects, and block one or more sub-bands based on the categorizing of the sub-bands before obtaining the second measurement.
7. The calibration system of claim 6, wherein the instructions further enable the processing device to infer the fiber-type based on the sub-bands more severely impacted by the adverse intermodulation effects.
19. The method of claim 16, wherein the measurements include comparisons of a first measurement at a first gain level that keeps the adverse intermodulation effects below a predetermined threshold regardless of the fiber-types, with one or more measurements at higher gain levels relative to the first gain level.
[from claim 1] …increase the gain of the pump lasers while keeping the adverse intermodulation effects below the predetermined threshold, obtain a first measurement… set the first measurement as a baseline noise profile, obtain a second measurement of the noise floor of the spectrum after the gain is increased, and compare the second measurement with the baseline noise profile [where the noise floor comparisons are measurements of the results of safe versus increased gain levels].
Regarding claim 20, the patent claim set of patent claim 1 does not recite that the different spectrum locations include locations in both C-band and L-band. However, the patent recites for a different claim set for the same invention, that the spectrum includes C-band wavelengths and L-band wavelengths (claim 14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the C-band and L-bands since this is claimed for the other claim set of the patent, and because these are ITU-T standards.
21. The method of claim 16, wherein the adverse intermodulation effects are caused by different wavelengths of the pump lasers.
2. The calibration system of claim 1, wherein the adverse intermodulation effects are caused by the different wavelengths of the pump lasers.
22. The method of claim 16, wherein the adverse intermodulation effects are Four Wave Mixing (FWM) effects.
3. The calibration system of claim 2, wherein the adverse intermodulation effects are caused by a Four Wave Mixing (FWM) phenomenon.
Regarding claim 23, the patent claims do not recite that the fiber span includes more than one fiber-type. However, the claimed 2nd or more fiber type is not distinguished from the first in any functional sense. The office takes Official notice that legacy fiber types were known such as SMF, DSF, NZDSK etc., installed in real world networks, and are not all the same fiber type. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have more than one fiber type because real world networks are installed at different times, owned by different entities, and may have different transmission goals or parameters, resulting in more than one fiber type.
24. The method of claim 16, wherein the fiber-types are not known in advance of the calibration.
[from claim 1] …the safe level is a level that keeps adverse intermodulation effects below a predetermined threshold regardless of the specific fiber-type [not regarding the fiber type reads on not knowing it in advance – nevertheless, not knowing fiber type in advance is a non-limiting intended use; it is not a functional limitation].
25. A system for calibrating a Raman amplifier on a fiber span an optical network, the system comprising steps of: a processing device and a memory device configured to store a computer program having instructions that, when executed, enable the processing device to
cause performance of a calibration of the Raman amplifier on the fiber span independent of knowledge of fiber-types associated with the fiber span,
and configure a gain of pump lasers in the Raman amplifier based on the calibration, wherein the configured gain is a gain level based on adverse intermodulation effects caused by the pump lasers as a result of the fiber-types, wherein the adverse intermodulation effects are determined in the calibration,
wherein the calibration includes measurements at different spectrum locations to analyze the adverse intermodulation effects, and
wherein the measurements are used to determine the fiber-types
1. A calibration system comprising: a processing device, and a memory device configured to store a computer program having instructions that, when executed, enable the processing device to
set gain of a plurality of pump lasers of a Raman amplifier to a safe level, wherein the pump lasers operate at different wavelengths, wherein the Raman amplifier is connected to a fiber span having a specific fiber-type, and
wherein the safe level is a level that keeps adverse intermodulation effects below a predetermined threshold regardless of the specific fiber-type [setting a level reads on calibration and setting the safe level regardless of fiber-type reads on independent of knowledge of fiber-type],
increase the gain of the pump lasers while keeping the adverse intermodulation effects below the predetermined threshold [where the intermodulation level based on the pump lasers is inherently a result of those laser wavelengths and fiber type, and where keeping the effect below a threshold reads on determining what the effects are],
obtain a first measurement of a noise floor of a spectrum associated with operation of an Optical Multiplex Section (OMS) that includes at least the Raman amplifier and the fiver span when the gain is set to the safe level, set the first measurement as a baseline noise profile, obtain a second measurement of the noise floor of the spectrum after the gain is increased, and compare the second measurement with the baseline noise profile.
6. The calibration system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further enable the processing device to observe the severity of the adverse intermodulation effects on the spectrum, categorize a plurality of sub-bands in the spectrum based on the severity of adverse intermodulation effects, and block one or more sub-bands based on the categorizing of the sub-bands before obtaining the second measurement.
7. The calibration system of claim 6, wherein the instructions further enable the processing device to infer the fiber-type based on the sub-bands more severely impacted by the adverse intermodulation effects.
28. The system of claim 25, wherein the measurements include comparisons of a first measurement at a first gain level that keeps the adverse intermodulation effects below a predetermined threshold regardless of fiber-types with one or more measurements at higher gain levels relative to the first gain level.
[from claim 1] …increase the gain of the pump lasers while keeping the adverse intermodulation effects below the predetermined threshold, obtain a first measurement… set the first measurement as a baseline noise profile, obtain a second measurement of the noise floor of the spectrum after the gain is increased, and compare the second measurement with the baseline noise profile [where the noise floor comparisons are measurements of the results of safe versus increased gain levels].
Regarding claim 29, the claim set of patent claim 1 does not recite that the different spectrum locations include locations in both C-band and L-band. However, the patent recites for a different claim set for the same invention, that the spectrum includes C-band wavelengths and L-band wavelengths (claim 14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the C-band and L-bands since this is claimed for the other claim set of the patent, and because these are ITU-T standards.
30. The system of claim 25, wherein the adverse intermodulation effects are caused by different wavelengths of the pump lasers.
2. The calibration system of claim 1, wherein the adverse intermodulation effects are caused by the different wavelengths of the pump lasers.
31. The system of claim 25, wherein the adverse intermodulation effects are Four Wave Mixing (FWM) effects.
3. The calibration system of claim 2, wherein the adverse intermodulation effects are caused by a Four Wave Mixing (FWM) phenomenon.
Regarding claim 32, the patent claims do not recite that the fiber span includes more than one fiber-type. However, the claimed 2nd or more fiber type is not distinguished from the first in any functional sense. The office takes Official notice that legacy fiber installed in real world network are not all the same fiber type. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have more than one fiber type because real world networks are installed at different times, owned by different entities, and may have different transmission goals or parameters, resulting in more than one fiber type.
33. The system of claim 25, wherein the fiber-types are not known in advance of the calibration.
[from claim 1] …the safe level is a level that keeps adverse intermodulation effects below a predetermined threshold regardless of the specific fiber-type [not regarding the fiber type reads on not knowing it in advance – nevertheless, not knowing fiber type in advance is a non-limiting intended use; it is not a functional limitation].
34. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a computer program having instructions that, when executed, enable a processing device to perform steps of:
performing a calibration of a Raman amplifier on a fiber span of an optical network independent of knowledge of fiber-types associated with the fiber span;
and setting a gain of pump lasers in the Raman amplifier based on the calibration, wherein the set gain is a gain level based on adverse intermodulation effects caused by the pump lasers as a result of the fiber-types, wherein the adverse intermodulation effects are determined in the calibration.
Wherein the calibration includes measurements at different spectrum locations to analyze the adverse intermodulation effects; and
wherein the measurements are used to determine the fiber-types
1. A calibration system comprising: a processing device, and a memory device configured to store a computer program having instructions that, when executed [the memory device configured to store a computer program reads on thenon-transitory computer-readable medium], enable the processing device to
set gain of a plurality of pump lasers of a Raman amplifier to a safe level, wherein the pump lasers operate at different wavelengths, wherein the Raman amplifier is connected to a fiber span having a specific fiber-type, and
wherein the safe level is a level that keeps adverse intermodulation effects below a predetermined threshold regardless of the specific fiber-type [setting a level reads on calibration and setting the safe level regardless of fiber-type reads on independent of knowledge of fiber-type],
increase the gain of the pump lasers while keeping the adverse intermodulation effects below the predetermined threshold [where the intermodulation level based on the pump lasers is inherently a result of those laser wavelengths and fiber type, and where keeping the effect below a threshold reads on determining what the effects are],
obtain a first measurement of a noise floor of a spectrum associated with operation of an Optical Multiplex Section (OMS) that includes at least the Raman amplifier and the fiver span when the gain is set to the safe level, set the first measurement as a baseline noise profile, obtain a second measurement of the noise floor of the spectrum after the gain is increased, and compare the second measurement with the baseline noise profile.
6. The calibration system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further enable the processing device to observe the severity of the adverse intermodulation effects on the spectrum, categorize a plurality of sub-bands in the spectrum based on the severity of adverse intermodulation effects, and block one or more sub-bands based on the categorizing of the sub-bands before obtaining the second measurement.
7. The calibration system of claim 6, wherein the instructions further enable the processing device to infer the fiber-type based on the sub-bands more severely impacted by the adverse intermodulation effects.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to the double patenting rejections. The arguments refer to a terminal disclaimer, but Applicant has not provided one.
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 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
Prosecution Insights