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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 06/28/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 6-7 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 2, claim 2 recites “M (a natural number equal to or more than 1) input ports and N (a natural number equal to or more than 2) output ports”. However, the use of parentheses in a claim is reserved for reference characters so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. Additionally, characters within parentheses do not affect the scope of a claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Regarding Claim 6, claim 6 recites “M (a natural number equal to or more than 1) input ports and N (a natural number equal to or more than 2) output ports”. However, the use of parentheses in a claim is reserved for reference characters so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. Additionally, characters within parentheses do not affect the scope of a claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Regarding Claim 7, claim 7 depends from claim 6 and is therefore objected to for the same reason(s) as indicated above.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-21 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.
Regarding Claim 1, claim 1 recites the limitation “a normal state” in line 19. The term “normal” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “normal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such, it is unclear what is meant by “a normal state”.
Claims 3-5 depend from claim 1 and are therefore rejected for the same reason(s) of indefiniteness as stated above.
Regarding Claim 2, claim 2 recites “M (a natural number equal to or more than 1) input ports and N (a natural number equal to or more than 2) output ports”. However, the use of parentheses in a claim is reserved for reference characters so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. Additionally, characters within parentheses do not affect the scope of a claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). As such, the variables M and N are not properly defined by claim 2.
Additionally, claim 2 recites the limitation “a normal state” in line 21. The term “normal” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “normal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such, it is unclear what is meant by “a normal state”.
Regarding Claim 6, claim 6 recites “M (a natural number equal to or more than 1) input ports and N (a natural number equal to or more than 2) output ports”. However, the use of parentheses in a claim is reserved for reference characters so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. Additionally, characters within parentheses do not affect the scope of a claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). As such, the variables M and N are not properly defined by claim 6.
Additionally, claim 6 recites the limitation “a normal state” in line 22. The term “normal” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “normal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such, it is unclear what is meant by “a normal state”.
Claims 7 depends from claim 6 and is therefore rejected for the same reason(s) of indefiniteness as stated above.
Regarding Claim 8, claim 8 recites the limitation “a normal state” in line 31. The term “normal” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “normal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such, it is unclear what is meant by “a normal state”.
Claims 9-21 depend from claim 8 and are therefore rejected for the same reason(s) of indefiniteness as stated above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Independent Claims 1, 2, 6, and 8, Lee at el. US 2004/0101233 A1 (hereinafter Lee) is considered to be the closest prior art reference of record. Lee teaches switching availability diagnostic device (Abst.; Fig. 3) comprising: a detector (optical detecting and output power transition sensing units 350, Fig. 3) to receive a partial optical communication signal branched from an optical communication signal (second WDM couples 340, Fig. 3) on which a diagnostic optical signal (generated by optical monitoring signal generator 310 and superimposed on input optical signals via first WDM couplers 330, Fig. 3) output from an output port of an optical switch element is superimposed (output ports 1-8 of optical switch 300, Fig. 3), the optical switch element having an optical path from an input port to an output port, the optical path being switchable (optical switch providing switchable paths from input ports 1-8 to output ports 1-8, Fig. 3), convert the input partial optical communication signal into an electric signal, and extract an electric signal as a diagnostic electric signal (via optical detecting and output power transition sensing units 350, Fig. 3; Par. 29-31); and a determination circuit (fault determiner 360, Fig. 3) to compare a difference value between an amplitude value of the diagnostic electric signal extracted by the detector with a set threshold (compared to optical switch setting information, Fig. 3; Par. 29-31), the determination circuit determining that a normal state is established when the difference value between amplitude values is equal to or greater than the threshold and determining that there is a possibility that switching of the optical path is impossible when the difference value between amplitude values is less than the threshold (“The fault determiner 360 compares the detected output power transitions of the optical monitoring signals with optical switch setting information received from the optical switch controller 380. The fault determiner 360 determines that the optical switch 300 normally operates if the detected output transitions of the optical monitoring signals coincide with the optical switch setting information. If not, the fault determiner 360 determines that the optical switch 300 operates abnormally”, Par. 31). Additionally, Lee teaches the optical switch element including M input ports (input ports 1-8, Fig. 3) and N output ports (output ports 1-8, Fig. 3).
Lee does not explicitly teach the diagnostic optical signal having a frequency lower than a frequency of an optical communication signal, and the corresponding electric signal having a frequency equal to or lower than a set frequency from the converted electric signal as a diagnostic electric signal. However, Lee teaches that Conventional arts methods for monitoring the fault of an optical switch include applying different frequency tones in a frequency band of several kHz to several tens of kHz to each of the optical signals to be transmitted to input ports of the optical switch, where actual information to be transmitted is transmitted with an amplitude-modulated portion of several tens of MHz to several GHz of the optical signal (i.e. a diagnostic optical signal, and corresponding electrical signal, having a frequency lower than a frequency of an optical communication signal) (Par. 4-8).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Lee does not teach or suggest the detector receiving a partial optical communication signal branched from an optical communication signal to be input to an input port corresponding to the output port of the optical switch element from which the diagnostic electric signal has been extracted, converting the input partial optical communication signal into an electric signal, and extracting an electric signal having a frequency equal to or lower than a set frequency from the converted electric signal as a reference electric signal; and comparing an amplitude value of the reference electric signal with a set threshold.
Regarding Independent Claim 2, Lee does not teach or suggest the optical switching element being switchable to either of two states that are an add/drop state and a bypass state; the detector receiving a partial optical communication signal branched from an optical communication signal to be input to an input port corresponding to the output port of the optical switch element from which the diagnostic electric signal has been extracted, converting the input partial optical communication signal into an electric signal, and extracting an electric signal having a frequency equal to or lower than a set frequency from the converted electric signal as a reference electric signal; and a calculator to obtain a difference value between an amplitude value of the diagnostic electric signal extracted by the detector and an amplitude value of the reference electric signal.
Regarding Independent Claim 6, Lee does not teach or suggest a waveguide configuration circuit that is switchable to either of two states that are an add/drop state and a bypass state, and includes M waveguides corresponding to the M input ports and N waveguides corresponding to the N output ports, and a state setting circuit to cause the waveguide configuration circuit to hold either of the two states when receiving a drive signal and cause the waveguide configuration circuit to superimpose a diagnostic optical signal on an optical communication signal output from at least one of the N output ports when receiving a diagnostic drive signal.
Regarding Independent Claim 8, Lee does not teach or suggest an optical switch element including a waveguide configuration circuit that has a first input port connected to a first optical communication network, a first add port connected to a second optical transceiver, a second input port connected to a second optical communication network, a second add port connected to a first optical transceiver, a first output port connected to the first optical communication network, a first drop port connected to the first optical transceiver, a second output port connected to the second optical communication network, and a second drop port connected to the second optical transceiver, forms an add/drop optical path including an optical path from the first input port to the first drop port, an optical path from the first add port to the first output port, an optical path from the second input port to the second drop port, and an optical path from the second add port to the second output port in an add/drop state, and forms a bypass optical path including an optical path from the first input port to the first output port and an optical path from the second input port to the second output port in a bypass state, and a state setting circuit to cause the waveguide configuration circuit to hold either the add/drop state or the bypass state when receiving a drive signal, and cause the waveguide configuration circuit to superimpose a diagnostic optical signal on an optical communication signal output from at least one of the first output port, the first drop port, the second output port, and the second drop port when receiving a diagnostic drive signal.
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
Prosecution Insights