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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as
being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,113,579 (Maniloff et al). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations recited in claims 1-20 of the instant application are encompassed by claims 1-20 of US Patent No. 12,113,579 (Maniloff et al).
Instant Application No. 18/826,276 (Claims 1 and 11)
US Patent No. 12,113,579 (Claims 1 and 8-14)
An optical modem comprising:
a transmitter and a receiver communicatively coupled to another optical modem on a current link; and
A receiver (Rx) digital signal processor (DSP) in an optical receiver, the Rx DSP comprises circuitry, wherein corresponding optical transmitters on the two different links are configured for fast turn off and turn on;
wherein a transmitter for the current link and a transmitter for protection link settings are adjusted such that there is no need to adjust
the Rx DSP when switching between links (i.e., see Claims 1 and 8-14 of US Patent No. 12,113,579); and
circuitry configured to detect an interruption on the current link based on a received optical signal at the receiver, and perform fast recovery at the receiver based on the interruption while holding off any notification of the interruption to a host device associated with the optical
modem, thereby avoiding the host device acting on a fault associated with the interruption.
the Rx DSP comprises circuitry configured to: detect traffic is interrupted on a current link associated with the optical receiver,
enter a holdoff period where no loss of signal (LOS) or loss of light (LOL) is
reported while an optical signal associated with the traffic i) is switched to a new link or ID recovers from disruption on the current link, and one of i) receive good traffic during the holdoff period and ii) have the holdoff period expire that a) causes a notification to a host device and b) retrain the RX DSP to acquire
[[an]] the optical signal to receive the traffic on the new link or the current link, wherein the Rx DSP is retrained to determine various settings on the optical receiver (i.e., see Claims 1 and 8-14 of US Patent No. 12,113,579).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, as similarly described above, Maniloff et al discloses the host device acts on the fault by implementing a protection switch (i.e., see Claims 1-14 of US Patent No. 12,113,579).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, as similarly described above, Maniloff et al discloses wherein the interruption is due to an optical protection switch causing one or more of, on the received optical signal, a short duration loss of light, a loss of clock, a loss of frame, and an unstable signal (i.e., see Claims 1-14 of US Patent No. 12,113,579).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, as similarly described above, Maniloff et al discloses wherein the fast recovery allows the receiver to adapt to the optical protection switch and not report the interruption to the host device (i.e., see Claims 1-14 of US Patent No. 12,113,579).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, as similarly described above, Maniloff et al discloses wherein the fast recovery includes a certain set of settings of the receiver to determine if the received optical signal is recovered, and, if not, the circuitry is further configured to perform a full recovery and to notify the host device of the interruption (i.e., see Claims 1-14 of US Patent No. 12,113,579)
Regarding claims 6 and 16, as similarly described above, Maniloff et al discloses wherein the optical modem is a pluggable module in the host device (i.e., see Claims 1 and 8-14 of US Patent No. 12,113,579).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, as similarly described above, Maniloff et al discloses wherein the optical signal includes non-return-to-zero (NRZ) modulation (i.e., see Claim 11 of US Patent No. 12,113,579).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, as similarly described above, Maniloff et al discloses wherein the optical signal includes pulse amplitude modulation (PAM)(i.e., see Claim 12 of US Patent No. 12,113,579).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, as similarly described above, Maniloff et al discloses wherein the optical signal includes coherent modulation (i.e., see Claim 13 of US Patent No. 12,113,579).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, as similarly described above, Maniloff et al discloses wherein the notification includes one or more of loss of signal (LOS) and loss of light (LOL)(i.e., see Claim 5 of US Patent No. 12,113,579).
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.
Claims 1-6, 10-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Bhatnagar et al (Pub. No.: US 2020/0228197 cited by applicant) in view of Anderson et al (US Patent No. 5,838,924 cited by applicant) OR Aprile et al in Pub. No.: 2009/0103915).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, referring to Figure 1, Bhatnagar et al
teaches an optical modem (i.e., optical modem 14, Fig. 1) comprising:
a transmitter and a receiver (i.e., transmitter Tx and receiver Rx, Fig. 1) communicatively coupled to another optical modem (i.e., another modem 12, Fig. 1) on a current link (i.e., links 16 and 18, Fig. 1); and
circuitry (i.e., processor 26, Fig. 1) configured to detect an interruption on a current link (i.e., fiber pair path 1, Fig. 1) based on a received optical signal at the
receiver (i.e., Figure 1, page 2, paragraphs [0030]-[0031], page 3, paragraphs [0032]-[0036], and page 7, paragraph [0073]).
Bhatnagar et al differs from claims 1 and 15 in that he fails to specifically
Teach perform fast recovery at the receiver based on the interruption while holding off any notification of the interruption to a host device associated with the optical interruption. However, Anderson et al in US Patent No. 5,838,924 teaches perform fast recovery at the receiver based on the interruption while holding off any notification of the interruption to a host device associated with the optical modem, thereby avoiding the host device acting on a fault associated with the interruption (i.e., Figure 5, col. 7, lines 4-67, and col. 8, lines 1-67). OR, Aprile et al in Pub. No.: 2009/0103915 teaches perform fast recovery at the receiver based on the interruption while holding off any notification of the interruption to a host device associated with the optical modem, thereby avoiding the host device acting on a fault associated with the interruption (i.e., Figures 1 and 2A-2N, page 1, paragraph [0013], and page 2, paragraphs [0014]-[0021]). Based on this teaching, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the perform fast recovery at the receiver based on the interruption while holding off any notification of the interruption to a host device associated with the optical modem, thereby avoiding the host device acting on a fault associated with the interruption as taught by Anderson et al OR Aprile et al in the system of Bhatnagar et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this since allowing for fast restoration with a minimum of processing.
Regarding claims 2 and 16, the combination of Bhatnagar et al and
Anderson et al OR Aprile et al teaches wherein the host device acts on the fault by
implementing a protection switch (i.e., protection switch 34, Fig. 1 of Bhatnagar et al, and protection switch 17, Fig. 1 of Aprile et al).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, the combination of Bhatnagar et al and
Anderson et al OR Aprile et al teaches wherein the interruption is due to an optical protection switch (i.e., protection switch 34, Fig. 1 of Bhatnagar et al, and protection switch 17, Fig. 1 of Aprile et al) causing one or more of, on the received optical signal, a short duration loss of light, a loss of clock, a loss of frame, and an unstable signal.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the combination of Bhatnagar et al and
Anderson et al OR Aprile et al teaches wherein the fast recovery allows the receiver to adapt to the optical protection switch (i.e., protection switch 34, Fig. 1 of Bhatnagar et al, and protection switch 17, Fig. 1 of Aprile et al) and not report the interruption to the host device.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the combination of Bhatnagar et al and
Anderson et al OR Aprile et al teaches wherein the fast recovery includes a certain set of settings of the receiver to determine if the received optical signal is recovered, and, if not, the circuitry is further configured to perform a full recovery and to notify the host device of the interruption (i.e., Figures 1 and 2A-2N, page 2, paragraphs [0014]-[0021])
Regarding claims 6 and 16, the combination of Bhatnagar et al and
Anderson et al OR Aprile et al teaches wherein the optical modem is a pluggable module in the host device (i.e., Fig. 1 of Bhatnagar et al, and Fig. 1 of Aprile et al).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, the combination of Bhatnagar et al and
Anderson et al OR Aprile et al teaches the notification includes one or more of loss of signal (LOS) and loss of light (LOL)(i.e., Figures 1 and 2A-2N, page 2, paragraphs [0014]-[0021], and Fig. 1 of Aprile et al).
Claims 7-9 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable Over Bhatnagar et al (Pub. No.: US 2020/0228197 cited by applicant) in view of Anderson et al (US Patent No. 5,838,924 cited by applicant) OR Aprile et al in Pub. No.: 2009/0103915) and further in view of Zhang et al (US Patent No. 10,944,478 cited by applicant).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the combination of Bhatnagar et al and Anderson et al OR Aprile et al teaches differs from claims 7 and 17 in that it fails to specifically teach the optical signal includes non-return-to-zero (NRZ) modulation. However, Zhang et al in US Patent No. 10,944,478 teaches the optical signal includes non-return-to-zero (NRZ) modulation (i.e., Fig. 14, col. 26, lines 8-62). Based on this teaching, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the optical signal includes non-return-to-zero (NRZ) modulation as taught by Zhang et al in the system of the
combination of Bhatnagar et al and Anderson et al OR Aprile et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this since allowing reducing the error signal and improving the performance of the system.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, the combination of Bhatnagar et al, Anderson et al OR Aprile et al , and Zhang et al teaches wherein the optical signal includes pulse amplitude modulation (PAM)(i.e., Fig. 5 of Zhang et al, col. 16, lines 33-67, and col. 17, lines 1-25).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, the combination of Bhatnagar et al, Anderson et al OR Aprile et al , and Zhang et al teaches wherein the optical signal includes coherent modulation (i.e., Fig. 1 of Bhatnagar et al, and Fig. 1 of Aprile et al, and Fig. 5 of Zhang et al).
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications
from the examiner should be directed to Hanh Phan whose telephone
number is (571)272-3035. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone
are unsuccessful the examiner's supervisor, Kenneth Vanderpuye, can be
reached on (571)272-3078. The fax phone number for the organization
where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300. Any
inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or
proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number
is (703)305-4700.
/HANH PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights