DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea in the form of a mental process without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) "validation of pre-requirements of the FTTH network" and "once the pre-requirements are validated, a set of verification rules is applied to each network element in a path between the ODP and the OLT", such that these limitations do not recite details as to the validation or verification rules, such that these verification or validation techniques are currently very vague and could include an human user checking the equipment for some verification or validation status in pertaining to being connected to the network and “mental process” abstract idea grouping is defined as concept performed, and examples of mental process include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions”, such as verification and validation could be considered mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the step of "if the set of verification rules is compiled by all network elements, a splitting ratio and a cumulative attenuation of the network are monitored periodically" such that the next steps do not include any steps that would cause any exception or practical application as monitoring the splitting and attenuation within the network is additional information gathering, which could be considered another mental process as gathering information that could considered. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps, whe
Claim 3, which is dependent upon claim 1, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) wherein the network element may be of at least three types of equipment, port, or cable, and wherien, a set of verification rules is applied to each network type. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the application of a verification rule, such as proper transmission or communication, could be observed by a user as verification through a mental process, such that it does not constitute more than an abstract idea and does not result of affect the overall network such as to result in a practical applicationl . The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in combination with network components, does not seem to be more than that which can be observed and verified accordingly by a user and does not result in additional consequence or changes that are significantly more.
Claim 4, which is dependent upon claim 3, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of verification without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the equipment has at least a cable in the OTL direction except when the equipment is the OLT, the equipment has ports, the equipment is one of a follow; OLT, ODF, OSJ, OS, or ODP; and the equipment is at planned or installed status. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the verification rules stated within claim, which revolve around ensuring proper equipment and status of said equipment, does not result in any practical effect that would result in a practical application of the system (the claim does not even require that the equipment is installed and operating) such that it does not seem that the idea is integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when these steps of verification are considered separately and in combination, it does not require more than the verification of equipment, which is an abstract idea as it is something can be observed by a .
Claim 5, which is dependent upon claim 4, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the verification stapes of a port type element which are not detail enough to suggest it is something beyond observation steps that would suggest an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the set of verification rules of a cable-type element includes criter. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the verification rules stated within claim, which revolve around ensuring proper equipment and status of said equipment, does not result in any practical effect that would result in a practical application of the system (the claim does not even require that the equipment is installed and operating) such that it does not seem that the idea is integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when these steps of verification are considered separately and in combination, it does not require more than the verification of equipment, which is an abstract idea as it is something can be observed by a human and there is not significantly more.
Claim 7 and 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the further defining of step of determining the splitting ratio or the determining the cumulative attenuation without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) formulas for calculating the splitting ratio and the cumulative attenuation. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the formulas are akin to the mathematical formula for calculating an alarm limit (Parker v Flook 437), but in this case it is for calculating the splitting ratio and noise, which are part of the grouping under abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these acts can be performed by a human using their mind and does not require anything beyond the abstract idea of impart any consequences that would affect the system or network that would result in something significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) wherein the cumulative attenuation , wherein this limitation seems to only further describe the result calculation step disclosed within claim 7, which is an abstract idea, such that it does not remedy the issue of the abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it only describes at best, the operation of the network, but does not impart any practical effects or changes within the network or calculation. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the calcuation and the description of the result of the calcuation are considered separately or togeahter, they do not affect the network in a way that would be signficnatly more such as to push it out of the realm of an abstract idea.
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 1-9 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.
Re claim 1, the claim recites a “method for validating an as-built FTTH network having at least one Optical Line Termination (OLT), one Optical distribution frame (ODF), and one Optical Distirubtion point (ODP) comprising steps:
Validation of pre-requirements of the FTTH network;
Once the pre-requirements are validated, a set of verification rules is applied to each network element in a path between the ODP and the OLT;
If the set of verification rules is complied by all network elements, a splitting ratio and a cumulative attenuation of the network are monitored periodically.
However, many of the limitations present within the claim are conditional, specifically “once the pre-requirements are validated, a set of verification rules is applied to each network element in a path between the ODP and the OLT” and it is conditional of the pre-requirements being validates, such that if there is no validation, a set of verification rules is not applied. Additionally, the limitation of “if the set of verification rules is complied by all network elements, a splitting ratio and a cumulative attenuation of the network are monitored periodically” is also conditional of the set of verification rules is complied by all network elements. However, the conditional statements results in the claim scope changing by whether or not conditions are met, and due to the fact that the claim scope can vary and the limitations are not always required makes the claim indefinite as it is unclear what the meets and bounds of the invention are.
Re claim 2, the claim is dependent upon claim 1, and does not remedy the issues present within claim 1 such that the claims that depend from it also suffer from the issues previously stated.
Re claim 3, the claim is dependent upon claim 1, and does not remedy the issues present within claim 1 such that the claims that depend from it also suffer from the issues previously stated. Additionally recites “wherein a network element may be at least three types: equipment, port, or cable” and then states “wherein, a set of verification rules is applied to each network element type”. However, claim 1, form which the claim depends recites “once the pre-requirements are validated, a set of verification rules is applied to each network element in a path between the ODP and the OLT”, such that it is unclear whether “a set of verification rules is applied to each network element type” is the same group of “a set of verification rules applied to each network element” that was mentioned within claim 1. The fact that there are two sets of “verification rules” that applies to “each network element” makes the claim scope confusing.
Re claim 4 and 5, these claims are both dependent upon claim 3, and wherein claim 3 recites “wherein a network element may be at least three types: equipment, port, or cable”, such as to suggest the claim scope only requires one of the options and claims 4 and 5 would pertain to one of the categories (e.g. claim 4 is drawn to the verification rules of an equipment type element and claim 5 is drawn to the verification rules of a port type element). However, in the instance where claim is drawn to the other elements, the claim limitations would not apply, and therefore the limitations would be moot, such that these claims, when the type of equipment is not applied, the limitations of these dependent claims may not be required. If the limitations are not required, then the dependent claims do not require the claim scope
Re claim 6, the claim is dependent upon claim 2, but recites “wherein the set of verification rules of a cable-type element”, but there is no mention of a cable type element in claim 2 or 1, such that the limitation of “the set of verification rules of a cable-type element”, it is unclear if this is the same “set of verification rules is applied to each network element”, wherein the network element is applied to a cable type element”, which is mention in claim 3, such as to suggest the claim scope make more sense being dependent upon claim 3. Additionally, if it where dependent upon claim 3, in the instance where claim is drawn to the other elements, the claim limitations would not apply, and therefore the limitations would be moot, such that these claims, when the type of equipment is not applied, the limitations of these dependent claims may not be required. If the limitations are not required, then the dependent claims do not require the claim scope
Re claim 7, the claim is dependent upon claim 1 and additionally recites “wherein the splitting ratio is determined according to formula:
∏
i
=
1
n
1
/
r
i
wherein, r is the ratio of each splitter across the path, n is a number of splitters across the path.
However, in accordance with the ratio of the splitter across the path, there are multiple ratios that could be considered. One ratio is the number or inputs and output of the splitter, such as 1:N splitter, and another ratio is the power ratio split between certain output ports, such as 90% to one output vs 10% to another output. Within the claim scope, there is no description of the ratio beyond its relation to the splitter element, such that the entirety of the claim scope is indefinite.
Re claim 8, this claims are dependent upon claim 7 and 1, and suffer from the issues previously stated.
Re claim 9, the claim recites “wherein the cumulative attenuation is within a range of 20db to 28db.” It is unclear whether the db is meant to be decibels, which is a common measure of attenuation, but is commonly notated as dB. It is unclear whether another unit of measure is being used or a typo.
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, 3, and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vilela de Faria et al (herein Vilela de Faria) US Patent 9,344,189, Doherty et al (herein Doherty) US PG PUB 2002/0181685.
Re claim 1, Vilela de Faria discloses a method for validating an as-built FTTH network having at least one Optical Line Termination (OLT), one Optical Distribution Frame (ODF) and one Optical Distribution Point (ODP) (the present disclosure related to passive optical networks and generally the passive optical network contains a CO 100 comprises an optical link terminal, OLT 120, which transmits data signals towards ONUs 170a-170N, wherein Fig. 1 discloses that the network also contains a splitter 140 and isolator 150 which together could be considered the distribution point), comprising the following steps:
iii. If the set of verification rules is complied by all network elements, a splitting ratio and a cumulative attenuation of the network are monitored periodically (the system discloses a method that includes generating at OTDR device, N+1 OTDR signals with individual wavelengths and inserting signals into fiber links at step 410 and results in step 440 of receiving, at wavelength isolator, backscattered light from fiber links and forward towards OTDR device, backscattered light constituting N+1 traces at OTDR device, Fig. 4a, wherein each respective transmission of an OTDR signal of a specific wavelength will result in a respective trace. By transmitting N+1 different OTDR signals each having an individual wavelength, N+1 different or individual traces are obtained, one for each specific wavelength of the OTDR signal Col 12, lines 14-19, .
Vilela de Faria does not explicitly disclose the step of validation and verification that is performed prior to the monitoring. However, Doherty discloses
i. Validation of pre-requirements of the FTTH network (Fig. 3 is a block diagram showing the principal functions performed by the SPA during pre-installation and post-installation processing of service provisioning and service assurance, wherein Fig. 3 includes the steps of that would result in the equipment being order and alerting an technician to install and results in the CPE being installed ¶ [0028]);
ii. Once the pre-requirements are validated, a set of verification rules is applied to each network element in a path between the ODP and the OLT (powering the CPE 40 commences the post-installation process outlined in steps 116-122. In step 116, the CPE 40 sends an auto-discovery identification message through the wide area network 54 to the SPA 50 (FIG. 2) on power-on. The SPA 50 uses information associated with the auto-discovery message (terminal address, card and port number) to retrieve the customer record created in step 108. If the customer record is located, the CPE 40 is enabled to receive video content in step 18 (assuming video content was subscribed to, of course). The SPA 50 then waits for the technician to post an installation-complete notification (step 120). On receipt of the notification, the SPA 50 generates and posts a positive-completion report to each service provider contributing to the customer subscription. ¶ [0029], such that the system is able to identify the components associated with the subscription as transmit said subscription data such that the matching of the information auto-discovery message to the customer record is the set of verification rules applied to the elements, such as to ensure that only the subscribed data is transmitted).
Vilela de Faria analogous and Doherty art because they are from the same field of endeavor, optical communication networks. At the time filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Vilela de Faria and Doherty before him or her, to modify the optical communication network of Vilela de Faria to include the pre-installation elements and post installation steps of Doherty because it combines prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield predictable results, in this case, enabling the proper set up of equipment and ensuring proper transmission across the network.
Re claim 3, Vilela de Faria and Doherty disclose all the elements of claim 1, which claim 3 is dependent. Furthermore, Vilela de Faria discloses ,wherein a network element may be of at least three types: equipment, port or cable (the present disclosure related to passive optical networks and generally the passive optical network contains a CO 100 comprises an optical link terminal, OLT 120, which transmits data signals towards ONUs 170a-170N, wherein Fig. 1 discloses that the network also contains a splitter 140 and isolator 150 which together could be considered the distribution point, such that the connection between these components would result in the presence equipment connected to a cable through a port); and
wherein, a set of verification rules is applied to each network element type (powering the CPE 40 commences the post-installation process outlined in steps 116-122. In step 116, the CPE 40 sends an auto-discovery identification message through the wide area network 54 to the SPA 50 (FIG. 2) on power-on. The SPA 50 uses information associated with the auto-discovery message (terminal address, card and port number) to retrieve the customer record created in step 108. If the customer record is located, the CPE 40 is enabled to receive video content in step 18 (assuming video content was subscribed to, of course ¶ [0029], such that the application of a specific transmission according to the port and address would receive the desired transmission).
Re claim 4, Vilela de Faria and Doherty disclose all the elements of claim 3, which claim 4 is dependent. Furthermore, Vilela de Faria and Doherty disclose wherein the set of verification rules of an equipment-type element includes criteria:
- The equipment has at least a cable in the OLT direction except when the equipment is the OLT (Vilela de Faria discloses the use of a central office with an OLT and that there are is an ONU equipment that is connected through a fiber with the ONU, Fig. 1, such that the connection enable connection with the OLT, such that it is in the OLT direction) ;
- The equipment has ports (the equipment inherently has ports to connect said fibers, Fig. 1);
- The equipment type is one of a following: OLT, ODF, OSJ, OS, or ODP (Vilela discloses that the network also includes an optical splitter, Fig. 1, such that the equipment could be considered as part of the network installation); and
- The equipment is at Planned or Installed status (is combination with Doherty discloses that the elements could be listed as a plane or installed state).
Claim(s) 2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vilela de Faria and Doherty as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Whittaker et al (herein Whittaker) US Patent 11,271,819.
Re claim 2, Vilela de Faria and Doherty disclose all the elements of claim 1, which claim 2 is dependent. Additionally, it is disclose that wherein the pre-requirements relate to:
- ODP's assignment to supply at least one customer premises (steps of that would result in the equipment being order and alerting an technician to install and results in the CPE being installed ¶ [0028] of Doherty, such that with the combination of the system of Vilela de Faria would result in the equipment being connected to the whole network including being installed at the customer premise and connected to the ODP).
Doherty discloses the use of distribution equipment and while the subscriber terminal has an address, Doherty does not explicitly disclose ODP's address that must be defined. However, Whittaker discloses that PON access path 380 depicts a logical connection between network equipment of hut 315 (e.g. splitter 344) and network equipment of customer premises 320, e.g. ONT 322 and RG 324. To facilitate this connection, network equipment that includes, but is not limited to splitter 334, PFP 336, FST 370, fiber drop 323, ONT 322, and RG 324 can be configured, e.g., by configuring ports, IP address, etc. Col. 9, lines 23-26.
Vilela de Faria, Doherty, and Whittaker, are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, network communications. At the time filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Doherty and Whittaker before him or her, to modify the distribution elements of Vilela de Faria and Doherty to include the designating address and configuring ports of Whittaker because it combines prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield predictable results, in this case, enables better communication by resulting in the elements being able to address and better communicate with each other.
Re claim 6, Vilela de Faria, Doherty, and Whittaker disclose all the elements of claim 2, which claim 6 is dependent. Furthermore, the claim additionally recites wherein the set of verification rules of a cable-type element, includes criteria:
- The cable includes at least on optical fibre (Vilela de Faria disclose the use of optical fibers are used to connect the different elements within the system, Fig. 1);
- The cable is at Planned or Installed status (Doherty discloses the verification of connection, which would result in the cable being on an installed status).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vilela de Faria and Doherty as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Kumaran et al (herein Kumaran) US PG PUB 2004/0220886.
Re claim 5, Vilela de Faria and Doherty disclose all the elements of claim 3, which claim 5 is dependent. Furthermore, Vilela de Faria and Doherty disclose, wherein the set of verification rules of a port-type element, includes criteria:
- The port is in an equipment or a splitter (Vilela de Faria discloses the network with an OLT and that there are is an ONU equipment that is connected through a fiber with the ONU via a splitting element, Fig. 1, such that the user equipment is attached to a splitter through a port);
- The port is connected to a fibre or patch-cord (the ONU is connected through a fiber, Fig. 1);
- The port is optical (the ONU would have an optical port);
- The port is at Planned or Installed status (is combination with Doherty discloses that the elements could be listed as a plane or installed state).
While the prior art of Vilela de Faria and Doherty disclose the use of optical fiber cables, it does not explicitly disclose the a physical interface of the OLT port is defined as class B or class C. However, Kumaran discloses the use of class B optical fibers as a way to connection channels over a link ¶ [0076].
Vilela de Faria, Doherty, and Kumaran are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, communication networks. At the time filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Vilela de Faria, Doherty, and Kumaran before him or her, to modify the optical fibers and ports of Vilela de Faria and Doherty to include the fact that they be within class B of Kumaran because it combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, in this case, enabling the transmission of multiple signals or channels across the system if needed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANYA MOTSINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-7488. The examiner can normally be reached 9-4.
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, David Payne can be reached at (571)272-3024. 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.
TANYA MOTSINGER
Examiner
Art Unit 2637
/TANYA T MOTSINGER/Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights