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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 9, 11-12 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wei et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2026/0082143 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wei et al. teaches in FIG. 16 and paragraphs [0146]-[0147] an optical line terminal (OLT) (paragraph [0146]: the first communication node may be an OLT), comprising: at least one processor (process 60 of FIG. 16); and at least one memory (memory 61 of FIG. 16) storing instructions (paragraph [0148]: the memory 61 may be configured to store a software program, a computer-executable program, and a module, such as a program instruction/module corresponding to the method according to the embodiments of the present application) which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the OLT to at least: determine an optical communication capability of the OLT, wherein the optical communication capability comprises: at least two upstream wavelength options supported by the OLT (Table 1 teaches that 50GPON supports three wavelength options: The wavelength range for option1 is 1260 nm to 1280 nm, the wavelength range for option2 is 1290 nm to 1310 nm, and the wavelength range for option3 is 1284 nm to 1288 nm), and at least one of: a passive optical network (PON) mode associated with the OLT, or an upstream modulation format used by the OLT; and transmit, to an optical network unit (ONU), at least one indicator indicating the optical communication capability (Wei et al. teaches in FIG. 3 that the OLT transmits wavelength indication to a second communication node—the ONU, see paragraph [0048]; Wei et al. teaches in paragraph [0063] and Table 3 a third implementation where a Broadcast Alloc-ID message, which indicates the wavelength and line rate information, is sent to the ONUs; Table 3 teaches that the various Alloc-IDs indicate the wavelength options and the upstream line rates that are supported; in particular, the Alloc-ID 1012-1015 are used to indicate wavelength option3 with various upstream line rates of ρ0Φ0, ρ0Φ1 and ρ0Φ2 which are respectively represent line rates of 49.7664 Gbit/s, 24.8832 Gbit/s and 12.4416 Gbit/s, Alloc-ID 1016-1019 are used to indicate wavelength option2 with various upstream line rates, Alloc-ID 1020-1023 are used to indicate wavelength option1 with various upstream line rates; the upstream line rate is equivalent to the upstream modulation format of instant claim).
Regarding claim 3, Wei et al. teaches in paragraphs [0052]-[0053] that the OLT sends the wavelength indication information to the second communication node via a first message; and the first message can be a Broadcast Allocation-ID (Broadcast Alloc-ID) message.
Regarding claim 4, Wei et al. teaches in Table 3 to use broadcast Alloc-IDs to indicate the upstream line rates (i.e. the modulation format).
Regarding claim 6, Wei et al. teaches in FIG. 16 and paragraph [0146] an optical network unit (ONU) (paragraph [0146]: the second communication node may be an ONU), comprising: at least one processor (process 60 of FIG. 16); and at least one memory (memory 61 of FIG. 16), wherein the at least one memory stores instructions (paragraph [0148]: the memory 61 may be configured to store a software program, a computer-executable program, and a module, such as a program instruction/module corresponding to the method according to the embodiments of the present application), and the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the ONU to at least: receive, from an optical line terminal (OLT), at least one indicator (Wei et al. teaches in FIG. 3 transmit wavelength indication information to a second communication node—the ONU, see paragraph [0048]) indicating an optical communication capability of the OLT, wherein the optical communication capability comprises: at least two upstream wavelength options supported by the OLT, and at least one of: a passive optical network (PON) mode associated with the OLT, or an upstream modulation format used by the OLT (Wei et al. teaches in FIG. 3 that the OLT transmits wavelength indication to a second communication node—the ONU, see paragraph [0048]; Wei et al. teaches in paragraph [0063] and Table 3 a third implementation where a Broadcast Alloc-ID message, which indicates the wavelength and line rate information, is sent to the ONUs; Table 3 teaches that the various Alloc-IDs indicate the wavelength options and the upstream line rates that are supported; in particular, the Alloc-ID 1012-1015 are used to indicate wavelength option3 with various upstream line rates of ρ0Φ0, ρ0Φ1 and ρ0Φ2 which are respectively represent line rates of 49.7664 Gbit/s, 24.8832 Gbit/s and 12.4416 Gbit/s, Alloc-ID 1016-1019 are used to indicate wavelength option2 with various upstream line rates, Alloc-ID 1020-1023 are used to indicate wavelength option1 with various upstream line rates; the upstream line rate is equivalent to the upstream modulation format of instant claim); and perform optical communication between the ONU and the OLT based on the at least one indicator (Wei et al. teaches in FIG. 2 operating state O5 where the ONU and the OLT communicate under normal operating condition).
Regarding claim 9, Wei et al. teaches in paragraphs [0052]-[0053] that the OLT sends the wavelength indication information to the second communication node via a first message; and the first message can be a Broadcast Allocation-ID (Broadcast Alloc-ID) message.
Regarding claim 11, Wei et al. teaches in FIG. 11, step S1102 that the ONU selects an upstream line rate for transmitting upstream data to the OLT.
Regarding claim 12, Wei et al. teaches in paragraph [0063] that the OLT transmits a Broadcast Alloc-ID message to the ONUs.
Claim 14 is rejected based on the same reason for rejecting claim 1 because an apparatus implies the method of using the apparatus.
Claim 15 is rejected based on the same reason for rejecting claim 6 because an apparatus implies the method of using the apparatus.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2018/0343065 A1) in view of Wei et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2026/0082143 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Li et al. teaches in FIG. 2 a passive optical network (PON) comprising an optical line terminal (OLT) and in FIG. 9 the structure of an OLT. The OLT comprises: at least one processor (902 of FIG. 9); and at least one memory (904 of FIG. 9) storing instructions (see paragraph [0077]) which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the OLT to at least: determine an optical communication capability of the OLT, wherein the optical communication capability comprises: an upstream modulation format used by the OLT; and transmit, to an optical network unit (ONU), at least one indicator indicating the optical communication capability (Li et al. teaches in step 301 of FIG. 3A that the OLT transmits to an ONU all supported modulation formats; inherently, the OLT knows all the supported modulation formats). The difference between Li et al. and the claimed invention is that Li et al. does not teach that the optical communication capability comprises: at least two upstream wavelength options supported by the OLT. Wei et al. teaches in Table 1 that a 50GPON system supports three wavelength options: the wavelength range for option1 is 1260 nm to 1280 nm, the wavelength range for option2 is 1290 nm to 1310 nm, and the wavelength range for option3 is 1284 nm to 1288 nm. Wei et al. teaches in Table 2 and paragraph [0060] that the OLT specifies the upstream wavelength as the option1, the option2 and the option3, in the Burst_Profile PLOAM message issued by the OLT, the Burst Profile Index 0 and 3 may be bound to the option1, the Burst Profile Index 1 may be bound to the option2, and the Burst Profile Index 2 may be bound to the option3. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Wei et al. with the system of Li et al. because the additional capability allows the OLT to work effectively with different kinds of ONUs and increases the capacity of the PON. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to indicate to the ONUs the wavelength options that are supported by the OLT, as taught by Wei et al., in the system of Li et al.
Regarding claim 3, Wei et al. teaches in FIG. 2 that the burst profiles are sent within an activation period (in initial state O1.2).
Regarding claim 4, Li et al. teaches in FIG. 3 and paragraph [0036] that the OLT delivers all supported modulation formats to the ONUs before the ONUs are being registered, i.e., within an activation period.
Regarding claim 5, Wei et al. teaches in paragraph [0060] and Table 2 PLOAM message.
Regarding claim 6, Li et al. further teaches in FIG. 10 the structure of an ONU comprising processor 1002 and memory 1004 for storing instructions (see paragraph [0082]).
Regarding claim 7, Wei et al. teaches in paragraph [0088] and Table 7 that the ONU compares the upstream wavelength option supported by the ONU and sends a SN PLOAM message to the OLT.
Regarding claim 9, Wei et al. teaches in FIG. 2 state O1.2 where the ONU learned upstream profile. O1.2 is within an activation period of the ONU.
Regarding claim 11, it is understood that the ONU selects an upstream line rate for transmitting upstream data to the OLT.
Regarding claim 12, Li et al. teaches in paragraph [0037] that the messages are sent to the ONU through broadcasting.
Regarding claim 13, Wei et al. teaches in claim 3 that the message containing wavelength indication information can be a PLOAM message.
Claim 14 is rejected based on the same reason for rejecting claim 1 because an apparatus implies the method of using the apparatus.
Claim 15 is rejected based on the same reason for rejecting claim 6 because an apparatus implies the method of using the apparatus.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 6, 9, 11-12 and 14-15 above, and further in view of Cheng. et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2010/0226649 A1).
Wei et al. has been discussed above in regard to claims 1, 3-4, 6, 9, 11-12 and 14-15. The difference between Wei et al. and the claimed invention is that Wei et al. does not teach that the OLT is caused to: determine, based on a receiver band of the OLT, the at least two upstream wavelength options within the receiver band. Cheng. et al. teaches in FIG. 2 a passive optical network comprising OLT which has receivers 212 and 217. The first receiver 212 is configured to receive upstream wavelength channel from 1290-1330 nm and the second receiver is configured to receive wavelength channels from 1260-1280 nm (see paragraphs [0034] and [0036] and FIG. 6A). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Cheng. et al. with the system of Wei et al. because Cheng et al. teaches the details of implementation that are missing from Wei et al. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the upstream wavelength options based on the receiver band, as taught by Cheng et al., in the system of Wei et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 10 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 September 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues:
As discussed during the interview, the Office Action relies on 301 of FIG. 3A of Li, which shows, "An OLT delivers all supported modulation formats," as disclosing, "an upstream modulation format used by the OLT," but does not cite Li as disclosing, "the optical communication capability comprises...at least two upstream wavelength options supported by the OLT," as recited in claims 1, 6, 14, and 15, as amended.
The argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Wei et al. teach “comprises: at least two upstream wavelength options supported by the OLT” as recited in claim 1.
The argument continues:
As also discussed during the interview, while the Office Action relies on paragraph [0133] of Wei as disclosing, "the optical communication capability comprises...at least two upstream wavelength options supported by the OLT" ("paragraph [0133] teaches that the wavelength indication information contains three options"), paragraph [0133] describes, "the wavelength indication information is used to indicate an option of a wavelength...". Paragraph [0133] then describes three possible options ("The wavelength range for option[1] is 1260 nm to 1280 nm, the wavelength range for option2 is 1290 nm to 1310 nm, and the wavelength range for option3 is 1284 nm to 1288 nm"), one of which will be indicated as the "option of a wavelength that the second communication node should use when transmitting information to the first communication node." Applicant respectfully submits that Table 2, presented after paragraph [0057] of Wei, shows the bit codes (00-Upstream wavelength option1; 01-Upstream wavelength option2, 10-Upstream wavelength option3) indicating "The upstream wavelength indication identifies an upstream wavelength that the ONU must use" (emphasis added). Paragraph [0057] describes, "the G.9804.3 standard only specifies 3 upstream wavelength options...the two indication bits cannot be in an undefined state." Thus, Wei discloses indicating only a single uplink wavelength option, and does not disclose, "the optical communication capability comprises.. .at least two upstream wavelength options supported by the OLT," as recited in claims 1, 6, 14, and 15, as amended.
The argument is not persuasive. Wei et al. teaches in paragraph [0060] that the OLT can specify the upstream wavelength as the option1, the option2, and the option3, in the Burst_Profile message issued by the OLT, the Burst Profile Index 0 and 3 may be bound to the option1, the Burst Profile Index 1 may be bound to the option2, and the Burst Profile Index 2 may be bound to the option3. Furthermore, Wei et al. teaches in paragraph [0063] and Table 3 a third implementation where a Broadcast Alloc-ID message, which indicates the wavelength and line rate information, is sent to the ONUs; Table 3 teaches that the various Alloc-IDs indicate the wavelength options and the upstream line rates that are supported; in particular, the Alloc-ID 1012-1015 are used to indicate wavelength option3 with various upstream line rates of ρ0Φ0, ρ0Φ1 and ρ0Φ2 which are respectively represent line rates of 49.7664 Gbit/s, 24.8832 Gbit/s and 12.4416 Gbit/s, Alloc-ID 1016-1019 are used to indicate wavelength option2 with various upstream line rates, Alloc-ID 1020-1023 are used to indicate wavelength option1 with various upstream line rates; the upstream line rate is equivalent to the upstream modulation format of instant claim.
The Applicant further notes:
Applicant further notes that the Office Action has not shown that the Chinese application, 202310617343.1, to which Wei claims priority, discloses the limitations of the claims. Applicant notes that the priority date of the Application, June 12, 2023, is before the filing date of the U.S. publication Wei (2026/0082143, filed November 25, 2025), as well as the PCT application of which the U.S. publication Wei is a continuation (PCT/CN2024/087185, filed April 11, 2024). Applicant respectfully submits that the Office Action has not met the burden of showing that Chinese application, 202310617343.1 discloses the limitations of the claims, and therefore submits that 2026/0082143 is not available as a reference against this Application.
In response to the comments, the Examiner includes WO2024244709 which is the publication of PCT/CN2024/087185 and CN119052681A which is the publication of the Chinese application 202310617343.1.
The Application further argues:
Applicant further requests withdrawal of the rejection of claim 2 for the additional reason that the first OLT RX 212 and second OLT RX 217 of Cheng are not part of the same OLT (and therefore are not part of "a passive optical network comprising OLT which has receivers 212 and 217)-FIG. 2 shows the first OLT RX 212 as being included in GPON OLT 210 and the second OLT RX 217 as being included in XGPON or NGA PON OLT 215 (described in paragraphs [0028-30]). Applicant therefore submits that Cheng does not disclose or suggest, "the OLT is caused to: determine, based on a receiver band of the OLT, the at least two upstream wavelength options within the receiver band," as recited in claim 2.
The Examiner disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that OLT Rx 212 and OLT Rx 217 are not part of the same OLT, it has been held that the use of a single structure or separate structure would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Furthermore, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
The Applicant argues:
Applicant further submits that any § 103 rejection based on a combination of Li and Wei would be improper because Li and Wei are directed to different technologies and different problems. Applicant notes that paragraphs [0054-57] of Li describe Li as being related to Multi- Point Control Protocol (MPCP), and paragraphs [0004] and [0034] describe Li as being directed to the problem of how to register an ONU and switch modulation where several modulation schemes exist. Paragraphs [0004], [0057], and [0064] of Wei describe Wei as being related to G.9804.2, and paragraph [0006] describes Wei as addressing the problem of "upstream conflicts with the conventional PON system." Thus, Li and Wei are directed to different protocol environments and different technical problems.
The argument is not persuasive. Li et al. and Wei et al. both try to solve the capability compatibility problems between the OLT and the ONU in passive optical network applications. Li et al. teaches in paragraph [0056] that the MPCP message can be replaced by other mechanisms. Furthermore, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Finally, according to KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007), “One errs to limit the prior art references to only those that addresses the precise problem that the patentee was trying to solve.” “A combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” “When a work is available in one field, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or in another.”
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 SHI K LI whose telephone number is (571)272-3031. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:53 a.m. -3:23 p.m.
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.
skl11 October 2026
/SHI K LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
