DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claim 14 is 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 14 recites a “second” ONU activation program. There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-5, 7, 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (“Lee”) (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0161461) in view of Khotimsky et al. (“Khotimsky”) (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0006608).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses an Optical Network Unit (ONU) activation method, comprising: activating, by a first Optical Line Terminal (OLT), a new-system ONU, and acquiring activation information of the new-system ONU, wherein the first OLT is an OLT in an existing system (paragraphs 0051-0052 and 0065 in light of fig. 1 and paragraph 0006, for existing TDM-PON OLT, and for ONU added, and where second-generation and expand a transmission capacity also reads on new-system); and sending, by the first OLT, the activation information of the new-system ONU to a second OLT in a new system through a predefined channel between the first OLT and the second OLT (paragraphs 0050 and 0065, the OLTs communicate with one another and fig. 5 and paragraphs 0057-0058 and 0066-0071). Lee does not disclose that the activation process of the ONU with the first OLT is specifically through a DAW channel. Khotimsky discloses a dedicated activation wavelength for ONU activation (paragraphs 0030-0031). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a dedicated activation wavelength for the ONU activation with a first TDM-PON OLT in Lee, since the dedicated activation wavelength allows the ONU to tune to communicate with the OLT without having to receive instructions from the OLT in advance.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lee and Khotimsky discloses the ONU activation method of claim 1, wherein the activation information comprises at least one of ONU identification information or a ranging result (Lee: paragraph 0053 in light of paragraph 0014).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Lee and Khotimsky discloses the ONU activation method of claim 2, wherein activating, by the first OLT, the new-system ONU through the DAW channel comprises: receiving, by the first OLT, ONU identification information sent by the new-system ONU through the DAW channel (Lee: paragraph 0053 in light of paragraph 0014, as applicable for the combination); sending, by the first OLT, a ranging request to the new-system ONU, and receiving a ranging response returned by the new-system ON, and calculating, by the first OLT, a corresponding ranging result according to the ranging response (fig. 3 and paragraphs 0045-0046 and 0052, where the ONU responding to ranging grants is a response to the OLT).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Lee and Khotimsky discloses the ONU activation method of claim 1, wherein the predefined channel comprises any one of: an internal channel of a chip to which the first OLT and the second OLT belong, an internal channel of a line card to which the first OLT and the second OLT belong, an internal channel of a device to which the first OLT and the second OLT belong, a directly connected channel, or a channel established through a third-party system (fig. 4 and paragraphs 0052-0054, OLT communicators directly connected with each other).
Regarding claim 5. An ONU activation method, comprising: receiving, by a second OLT, activation information of a new-system ONU activated on a first OLT in an existing system (paragraphs 0051-0052 and 0065 in light of fig. 1 and paragraph 0006, for existing TDM-PON OLT, and for ONU added, and where second-generation and expand a transmission capacity also reads on new-system) through a predefined channel between the first OLT and the second OLT (paragraphs 0050 and 0065, the OLTs communicate with one another and fig. 5 and paragraphs 0057-0058 and 0066-0071), wherein the second OLT is an OLT in a new system (paragraphs 0052 and 0065, for existing TDM-PON OLT communicating with a TWDM-PON OLT, in light of fig. 1 and NGPON2 OLT [i.e., TWDM-PON OLT] and paragraphs 0006 and 0011 where second-generation and expand a transmission capacity read on new-system) and the activation information is generated in an activation process of the new-system ONU on the first OLT (paragraph 0065, ONU already registered to a TDM-PON OLT reads on having been activated for that OLT), and activating, by the second OLT, the new-system ONU according to the activation information (paragraph 0052). Lee does not disclose that the activation process of the ONU with the first OLT is through a DAW channel. Khotimsky discloses a dedicated activation wavelength for ONU activation (paragraphs 0030-0031). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a dedicated activation wavelength for the ONU activation with a first TDM-PON OLT in Lee, since the dedicated activation wavelength allows the ONU to tune to communicate with the OLT without having to receive instructions from the OLT in advance.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Lee and Khotimsky discloses the ONU activation method of claim 5, wherein the predefined channel comprises any one of: an internal channel of a chip to which the first OLT and the second OLT belong, an internal channel of a line card to which the first OLT and the second OLT belong, an internal channel of a device to which the first OLT and the second OLT belong, a directly connected channel, or a channel established through a third-party system (fig. 4 and paragraphs 0052-0054, OLT communicators directly connected with each other).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Lee and Khotimsky discloses a network device, including a processor, a memory and a communication bus, wherein the communication bus is configured to enable connection and communication between the processor and the memory, the processor is configured to execute a first ONU activation program stored in the memory, so as to implement the ONU activation method of claim 1 (Lee: paragraph 0097, where the communication between processor and memory is inherently over some kind of bus).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Lee and Khotimsky discloses a network device, including a processor, a memory and a communication bus, wherein the communication bus is configured to enable connection and communication between the processor and the memory, the processor is configured to execute a second ONU activation program stored in the memory, so as to implement the ONU activation method of claim 5 (Lee: paragraph 0097, where the communication between processor and memory is inherently over some kind of bus).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Lee and Khotimsky discloses a PON system, comprising an existing system and a new system, wherein the existing system comprises a first OLT, and the new system comprises a second OLT and a plurality of ONUs (Lee: paragraphs 0051-0052 and 0065 in light of fig. 1 and paragraph 0006, for existing TDM-PON OLT, and for ONU added, and where second-generation and expand a transmission capacity also reads on new-system, and for existing TDM-PON OLT communicating with a TWDM-PON OLT, in light of fig. 1 and NGPON2 OLT [i.e., TWDM-PON OLT] and paragraphs 0006 and 0011 where second-generation and expand a transmission capacity read on new-system), the first OLT is the network device where the processor executes the first ONU activation program according to claim 13 (Lee: paragraph 0097).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Lee and Khotimsky discloses a PON system, comprising an existing system and a new system, wherein the existing system comprises a first OLT, and the new system comprises a second OLT and a plurality of ONUs (Lee: paragraphs 0051-0052 and 0065 in light of fig. 1 and paragraph 0006, for existing TDM-PON OLT, and for ONU added, and where second-generation and expand a transmission capacity also reads on new-system, and for existing TDM-PON OLT communicating with a TWDM-PON OLT, in light of fig. 1 and NGPON2 OLT [i.e., TWDM-PON OLT] and paragraphs 0006 and 0011 where second-generation and expand a transmission capacity read on new-system), the second OLT is the network device where the processor executes the second ONU activation program according to claim 14 (Lee: paragraph 0097).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Lee and Khotimsky discloses a non-transitory storage medium having a first ONU activation program stored therein, wherein when the first ONU activation program is executed by at least one processor, the at least one processor implements the ONU activation method of claim 1 (Lee: paragraph 0097).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Lee and Khotimsky discloses a non-transitory storage medium having a second ONU activation program stored therein, wherein when the second ONU activation program is executed by at least one processor, the at least one processor implements the ONU activation method of claim 5 (Lee: paragraph 0097).
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, 5, 6 and 8-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12120474. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims are anticipated by the patent claims.
Regarding claim 1, the patent claims an Optical Network Unit (ONU) activation method, comprising: activating, by a first Optical Line Terminal (OLT), a new-system ONU through a Dedicated Activation Wavelength (DAW) channel, and acquiring activation information of the new-system ONU, wherein the first OLT is an OLT in an existing system; and sending, by the first OLT, the activation information of the new-system ONU to a second OLT in a new system through an activation agent ONU or a predefined channel between the first OLT and the second OLT, wherein the activation agent ONU is one new-system ONU which has been activated on the second OLT (claims 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 5, the patent claims an ONU activation method, comprising: receiving, by a second OLT, activation information of a new-system ONU activated on a first OLT in an existing system through an activation agent ONU by a service channel, or through a predefined channel between the first OLT and the second OLT, wherein the second OLT is an OLT in a new system and the activation information is generated in an activation process of the new-system ONU on the first OLT through a DAW channel, the activation agent ONU is one new-system ONU which has been activated on the second OLT, and activating, by the second OLT, the new-system ONU according to the activation information (claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, the patent claims the ONU activation method of claim 5, wherein the activation information sent by the activation agent ONU to the second OLT is acquired by the activation agent ONU by checking the activation process of the new-system ONU on the first OLT, or the activation information sent by the activation agent ONU to the second OLT is received by the activation agent ONU from the first OLT (claim 2).
Regarding claim 8, the patent claims the ONU activation method of claim 5, before receiving, by the second OLT, the activation information of the new-system ONU activated on the first OLT in the existing system through the activation agent ONU by the service channel, or through the predefined channel between the first OLT and the second OLT, further comprising: activating, by the second OLT, one new-system ONU; and appointing, by the second OLT, the activated one new-system ONU as the activation agent ONU (claim 3).
Regarding claim 9, the patent claims the ONU activation method of claim 8, before appointing, by the second OLT, the activated one new-system ONU as the activation agent ONU, further comprising: determining, by the second OLT, whether the first OLT exists in a Passive Optical Network (PON) system (claim 4).
Regarding claim 10, the patent claims the ONU activation method of claim 9, wherein determining, by the second OLT, whether the first OLT exists in the PON system comprises: determining, by the second OLT, whether the first OLT exists in the PON system by determining whether the predefined channel exists between the second OLT and the first OLT or by determining whether the new-system ONU has received a message sent by the first OLT; and determining, by the second OLT, that the first OLT exists in the PON system in response to a case where the second OLT determines that the predefined channel exists between the second OLT and the first OLT or in response to a case where the second OLT determines that the new-system ONU has received a message sent by the first OLT (claim 5).
Regarding claim 11, the patent claims the ONU activation method of claim 5, before receiving, by the second OLT, the activation information of the new-system ONU activated on the first OLT in the existing system through the activation agent ONU by the service channel, or through the predefined channel between the first OLT and the second OLT, further comprising: notifying, by the second OLT, each new-system ONU of one piece of the following information through the service channel: information about a current activation agent ONU, information that the activation agent ONU is determined, or information about carrying out activation on the first OLT through the DAW channel (claim 6).
Regarding claim 12, the patent claims the ONU activation method of claim 5, wherein activating, by the second OLT, the new-system ONU according to the activation information comprises: determining, by the second OLT, a difference between activation information of the activation agent ONU activated on the second OLT and activation information of the activation agent ONU activated on the first OLT, wherein the activation agent ONU has been activated on the second OLT before the second OLT acquires the activation information of the new-system ONU activated on the first OLT; determining, by the second OLT, activation information of a non-activation agent ONU among new-system ONUs activated on the second OLT according to the difference and activation information of the non-activation agent ONU activated on the first OLT; and activating, by the second OLT, the non-activation agent ONU among the new-system ONUs according to the activation information of the non-activation agent ONU activated on the second OLT (claim 7).
Claims 13-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12120474 in view of Lee (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0161461).
Regarding claims 13-18, the corresponding patent claims 1 and 5 claim a network device and the ONU activation method of claim 1 (claims 1 and 2), but do not claim a processor, a memory and a communication bus, wherein the communication bus is configured to enable connection and communication between the processor and the memory, the processor is configured to execute a first ONU activation program stored in the memory, so as to implement the ONU activation method of claim 1. However, Lee discloses such a computer control approach (paragraph 0097, where the communication between processor and memory is inherently over some kind of bus, in light of paragraphs 0050-0052 and 0065 and fig. 1 and paragraph 0006, and fig. 5 and paragraphs 0057-0058 and 0066-0071). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to claim a processor, a memory and a communication bus, to execute the ONU activation program, since this provides the benefit of generic computer architecture automation and programmability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN M CORS whose telephone number is (571)272-3028. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
/NATHAN M CORS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights