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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukagawa et al (US Pat 6671469) in view of Tsushima et al (US Pat 5500756).
Regarding claim 1. Fukagawa discloses a network device of a communication network that transmits user data, the network device comprising:
a processor; and a storage medium having computer program instructions stored thereon, when executed by the processor, perform to (Fig 4, where an optical amplifying and repeating apparatus comprises processors and storage mediums (e.g. as shown in Fig 4 and Fig 5) and it is known that a storage medium comprises computer program instructions that when executed by a processor perform functions):
acquires inter-network-device data which is data superimposed on user data in an out-of-band method and exchanged between network devices included in the communication network from data obtained by splitting or copying data transmitted through a transmission line of the communication network (Fug 4, where the optical amplifying and repeating apparatus in configured to acquire (e.g. via coupler 45, O/E 41) inter-network-device data (e.g. an optical supervisory channel OSC) which is data superimposed on user data (e.g. similar to Nakamoto et al (US Pub 20030011874) Fig 4 paras [29][33]) in an out-of-band method and exchanged between network devices included in a communication network (e.g. as shown in Fig 1) from data obtained by splitting or copying (e.g. via coupler 45) data transmitted through a transmission line of the communication network (e.g. as shown in Fig 1));
outputs the acquired data to a processing unit that performs predetermined processing when a destination of the acquired data which is the inter- network-device data is a host device and discards the acquired data when the destination is not the host device (Fig 4, where the optical amplifying and repeating apparatus is configured to output the acquired data to a processing unit (e.g. at 29) that performs a predetermined processing when a destination (e.g. an address in a supervisory frame) of the acquired data which is the inter-network-device data (e.g. an optical supervisory channel OSC) is a host device (e.g. one’s own address) (col 9 lines 3-13) and is configured to discard the acquired data when the destination (e.g. an address in a supervisory frame) is not the host device (e.g. one’s own address) (e.g. as shown by optical amplifying and repeating apparatus 9 of Fig 2B, col 4 lines 12-13, lines 41-47)); and
superimposes inter-network-device data on user data transmitted through the transmission line in an out-of-band method (Fig 4, where the optical amplifying and repeating apparatus is configured to superimpose (e.g. via E/O 47, coupler 46) inter-network-device data (e.g. an optical supervisory channel OSC) on user data transmitted through the transmission line (e.g. similar to Nakamoto et al (US Pub 20030011874) Fig 4 paras [29][33]) in an out-of-band method).
Fukagawa fails to explicitly disclose the inter-network-device data being addressed from the host device to another network device.
However, Tsushima discloses
inter-network-device data being addressed from a host device to another network device (Fig 36, where an optical repeater is configured to superimpose (e.g. via 429-1, 430-1 and 424-1) an inter-network-device data (e.g. a supervisory and control signal) that is addressed from a host device (e.g. a source ID) to another network device (e.g. a destination ID) (col 30 lines 40-46)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the optical amplifying and repeating apparatus as described in Fukagawa, with the teachings of the optical repeater as described in Tsushima. The motivation being is that as shown an optical repeater superimposes (e.g. via 429-1, 430-1 and 424-1) an inter-network-device data (e.g. a supervisory and control signal) being addressed from a host device (e.g. a source ID) to another network device (e.g. a destination ID) and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the optical amplifying and repeating apparatus as described in Fukagawa and better show and illustrate that the optical amplifying and repeating apparatus superimposes (e.g. via E/O 47, coupler 46) the inter-network-device data (e.g. an optical supervisory channel OSC) being addressed from a host device (e.g. a source ID) to another network device (e.g. a destination ID) i.e. because the optical amplifying and repeating apparatus optimally generates a supervisory frame in order to transmit data and where such supervisory frame requires a source and a destination so as to properly identify the sender and receiver of the data and thus optimally perform end to end communications and which combination is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. optical repeaters,…) and which combination is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known optical repeater into another similar optical amplifying and repeating apparatus, namely, for better clarifying its operation/ configuration and which combination yields predictable results.
Regarding claim 2. Fukagawa as modified by Tsushima also discloses the network device, wherein the network device is a communication device that transmits user data transmitted through the transmission line, or a monitoring control device that monitors or controls the communication network (Fukagawa Fig 4, where the optical amplifying and repeating apparatus is a communication device that transmits user data transmitted through the transmission line).
Regarding claim 3. Fukagawa as modified by Tsushima also discloses the network device, wherein the computer program instructions further perform to:
receives inter-network-device data transmitted by an adjacent network device that is connected to the host device and is another network device that does not transmit user data (Fukagawa Fig 4, where the optical amplifying and repeating apparatus is configured to receive inter-network-device data (e.g. an optical supervisory channel OSC) transmitted by an adjacent network device (e.g. LICA 30) (Fig 8, col 11 lines 33-36) that is connected to the host device (e.g. one’s own address) (as shown in Fig 4) and is another network device that does not transmit user data),
outputs the inter-network-device data when a destination of the inter-network-device data is the host device, and superimposes the inter-network-device data on user data transmitted through the transmission line in an out-of-band method when the destination of the inter-network-device data is another network device (Fukagawa Fig 4, where the optical amplifying and repeating apparatus is configured to output (e.g. towards LICA 30) the inter-network-device data (e.g. an optical supervisory channel OSC) when a destination (e.g. an address in a supervisory frame) of the inter-network-device data (e.g. an optical supervisory channel OSC) is the host device (e.g. one’s own address) (col 9 lines 3-13) and is configured to superimpose (e.g. via E/O 47, coupler 46) the inter-network-device data (e.g. an optical supervisory channel OSC) on user data transmitted through the transmission line in an out-of-band method when the destination (e.g. an address in a supervisory frame) of the inter-network-device data (e.g. optical supervisory channel OSC) is another network device (col 9 lines 15-18)).
Regarding claim 5. Fukagawa as modified by Tsushima also discloses the network device, wherein the host device is a communication device that transmits user data transmitted through the transmission line, and the adjacent network device is a monitoring control device that monitors or controls the communication network (Fukagawa Fig 4, where the host device (e.g. one’s own address) is a communication device that transmits user data transmitted through the transmission line and the adjacent network device (e.g. LICA 30, console 31) is a monitoring control device that monitors or controls the communication network (e.g. as shown in Fig 12A and Fig 12B)).
Regarding claim 6. Fukagawa as modified by Tsushima also discloses the network device, wherein the computer program instructions further perform to superimposes the inter-network-device data on user data transmitted through the transmission line in an out-of-band method using a transmission timing or frequency different from that of other inter-network-device data (Tsushima Fig 36, where the optical repeater is configured to superimpose (e.g. via 429-1, 430-1 and 424-1) the inter-network-device data (e.g. a supervisory and control signal) on user data transmitted through a transmission line in an out-of-band method using a transmission timing (i.e. when a time/turn comes) (col 29 lines 39-43) which is different from that of other inter-network-device data (e.g. a supervisory and control signal)).
Regarding claim 7. Fukagawa as modified by Tsushima also discloses the network device, wherein the transmission line transmits an optical signal (Fukagawa Fig 4, where the transmission line (as also shown in Fig 1) transmits an optical signal).
Regarding claim 8. Claim 8 is similar to claim 1, therefore, claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is/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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DIBSON J SANCHEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0868. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 10:00-6:00.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, Kenneth Vanderpuye can be reached on 5712723078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DIBSON J SANCHEZ/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights