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 § 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.
Claims 6, 10-11, and 17-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the first optical fiber" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the second optical fiber" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 depends from claim 6 and is therefore rejected for the same reason(s) of indefiniteness as stated above.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the first optical fiber" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the second optical fiber" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 depends from claim 10 and is therefore rejected for the same reason(s) of indefiniteness as stated above.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the cloud server" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 3-5, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. CN102164006A (hereinafter Chen; machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 1, Chen teaches an optical communication module (Fig. 1; Par. 56), comprising: an electrical communication unit (20PIN electrical interface circuit board, Fig. 1; Par. 51; Par. 56), an exchanging communication mainboard connected with the electrical communication unit (microcontroller, Fig. 1; Par. 44-45; Par. 56), and a first optical transceiving unit and a second optical transceiving unit respectively connected with the exchanging communication mainboard (two sets of transceiver chips, two general-purpose optical transceiver module components, Fig. 1; Par. 44-45; Par. 56), wherein the first optical transceiving unit is configured to receive an optical signal from and/or send an optical signal to a first device and complete conversion from or to the optical signal (Par. 30); the second optical transceiving unit is configured to receive an optical signal from and/or send an optical signal to a second device and complete conversion from or to the optical signal (Par. 30); the exchanging communication mainboard is configured to process data transmitted by the electrical communication unit, the first optical transceiving unit and the second optical transceiving unit (Par. 44-45; Par. 63); and devices connected with the electrical communication unit, the first device and the second device are formed into a network by the first optical transceiving unit and the second optical transceiving unit (communication between multiple devices inherently forms a network, Fig. 1; Par. 2; Par. 13).
Regarding Claim 3, Chen teaches the optical communication module according to claim 1, wherein the exchanging communication mainboard is further configured to monitor working states of the devices connected with the electrical communication unit (Par. 45; Par. 59).
Regarding Claim 4, Chen teaches the optical communication module according to claim 1, further comprising: a first optical fiber and a second optical fiber (respective fiber connected to each optical transceiver 1 and 2, Fig. 1; Par. 58), wherein the first optical transceiving unit is configured to receive the optical signal from and/or send the optical signal to the first device through the first optical fiber and complete conversion from or to the optical signal (Par. 30; Par. 58); and the second optical transceiving unit is configured to receive the optical signal from and/or send the optical signal to the second device through the second optical fiber and complete conversion from or to the optical signal (Par. 30; Par. 58).
Regarding Claim 5, Chen teaches the optical communication module according to claim 4, wherein the exchanging communication mainboard is further configured to monitor working states of the first optical fiber, the second optical fiber and the devices connected with the electrical communication unit (Par. 45; Par. 59).
Regarding Claim 21, Chen teaches the optical communication module according to claim 1, wherein the electrical communication unit is configured to transmit data between the exchanging communication mainboard and the devices connected with the optical communication module (Fig. 1; Par. 20; Par. 44-45; Par. 63).
Regarding Claim 22, Chen teaches the optical communication module according to claim 1, wherein the devices connected with the electrical communication unit are any modules or apparatuses that can monitor data in an optical fiber communication system (Par. 45; Par. 59).
Regarding Claim 23, Chen teaches the optical communication module according to claim 1, wherein the first device is any one of an external device, equipment, a system or a network connected with the first optical transceiving unit, and the second device is any one of an external device, equipment, a system or a network connected with the second optical transceiving unit (via respective fiber connected to each optical transceiver 1 and 2, Fig. 1; Par. 58).
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of YAMAMOTO US 2009/0257744 A1 (hereinafter YAMAMOTO).
Regarding Claim 6, Chen teaches the optical communication module according to claim 3, wherein the exchanging communication mainboard further comprises: a tester, configured to monitor working states of the first optical fiber, the second optical fiber and the devices connected with the electrical communication unit (Par. 45; Par. 59); and a microprocessor (microcontroller, Fig. 1; Par. 44-45; Par. 56).
Chen does not teach the microprocessor configured to send an alarm prompt when the tester monitors abnormal work. However, YAMAMOTO teaches a transceiver control apparatus (Abst.) configured to send an alarm prompt when the tester monitors abnormal work (generates an alarm unit control signal g to output to the alarm unit 16, Par. 26), because this allows a user to be notified of an abnormal state (Par. 36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Chen to include the microprocessor configured to send an alarm prompt when the tester monitors abnormal work, because this allows a user to be notified of an abnormal state.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Mentovich et al. US 2017/0288770 A1 (hereinafter Mentovich).
Regarding Claim 7, Chen teaches a device internally provided with an optical communication module, comprising: the optical communication module according to claim 1 (Fig. 1).
Chen does not teach a main casing, wherein the optical communication module is internally provided in the main casing. However, Mentovich teaches that an electro-optic interface typically includes a main casing, wherein the optical communication module is internally provided in the main casing (housing 10, Fig. 1; Par. 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Chen to include a main casing, wherein the optical communication module is internally provided in the main casing, because such features are typical for an electro-optic interface, therefore no unexpected results would occur.
Regarding Claim 8, Chen teaches the device internally provided with an optical communication module according to claim 7, wherein the main casing is further provided therein with a core module, and the optical communication module is fixed on the core module (Mentovich, an electro-optic interface, which includes an electro-optic transceiver module as well as other components (not shown for clarity), is typically enclosed in a housing; inside of housing 10 may be interpreted as “core module”; Par. 28).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 9, 12-13, and 19-20 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.
Claims 10-11 and 17-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 DAVID W LAMBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-7692. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10-6.
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.
/DAVID W LAMBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 2634