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 § 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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Kim et al., “Coverage Extension of Indoor 5G Network Using RoF-Based Distributed Antenna System”, IEEE Access, Vol. 8, 2020) in view of Hattori et al. (Japanese Patent Application Pub. JP2017073812 A), Iovanna et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2021/0328703 A1) and Gao et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2018/0199119 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Kim et al. teaches in FIG. 3 a communication system including a first-stage aggregate station (Kim et al. teaches in FIG. 3(a) MHU-TRx—main hub transceiver) and a plurality of extension stations (RAU#1, RAU#2, etc. of FIG. 3(a)) connected in multiple stages including a last stage (it is understood that there cannot be an infinite number of RAUs; Kim et al. also teaches on page 194995, left col., first paragraph “the last RAU of the IFoF link”), wherein the aggregate station comprises an aggregate-station-specific transmitter (Kim et al. teaches in FIG. 3(b) that the MHU-TRx comprises Tx#1 and Tx#2) configured to transmit downlink optical signals having one or more wavelengths (wavelengths 1550 nm and 1570 nm) including a predetermined reception wavelength to the plurality of extension stations; an aggregate-station-specific receiver (Kim et al. teaches in FIG. 3(b) that the MHU-TRx comprises Rx#1 and Rx#2) configured to acquire uplink optical signals having one or more wavelengths (wavelengths 1510 nm and 1530 nm), including a predetermined transmission wavelength, from the plurality of extension stations; and wherein the extension station comprises a previous-stage transmitter (Kim et al. teaches in FIG. 3(c) 1×2 optical coupler) configured to acquire downlink optical signals having one or more wavelengths including the reception wavelength from a previous stage; a selector (Kim et al. teaches in FIG. 3(c) CWDM—wavelength division multiplexer/demultiplexer) configured to select a downlink optical signal having the reception wavelength.
The differences between Kim et al. and the claimed invention are (a) Kim et al. does not teach an aggregate-station-specific controller configured to generate an allocation control signal indicating allocation of the reception wavelength and the transmission wavelength on the basis of a communication situation signal or an allocation request signal of the extension station and include the allocation control signal in the downlink optical signals having the one or more wavelengths including the reception wavelength; (b) Kim et al. does not teach an extension-station-specific receiver configured to acquire the allocation control signal from the selected downlink optical signal having the reception wavelength; an extension-station-specific controller configured to update the reception wavelength and the transmission wavelength in accordance with the acquired allocation control signal; (c) Kim et al. does not teach an extension-station-specific transmitter configured to transmit the uplink optical signals having the one or more wavelengths including the updated transmission wavelength to the previous stage using the previous-stage transmitter; (d) Kim et al. does not teach the aggregate-station-specific controller is configured to change a priority level for the allocation of the reception wavelength and the transmission wavelength among the plurality of extension stations based on an amount of communication indicated by communication situation signals, and generate the allocation control signal according to the priority level; (e) Kim et al. does not teach that updating the reception wavelength and the transmission wavelength including, in addition to changing at least one of the reception wavelength and the transmission wavelength, adding or deleting the at least one of the reception wavelength and the transmission wavelength. Hattori et al. teaches in FIG. 1 a scheduler SC (equivalent to aggregate-station-specific controller of instant claim) and a plurality nodes Na1 to Na2, Nb1 to Nb2 and Nc1 to Nc4. The nodes communication using WDM/TDM (via fixed-length time slot). Hattori et al. teaches in paragraph [0044] that a node control signal r11 (equivalent to allocation control signal) is sent from the SC to each of the nodes Na1... Nc1. Hattori et al. teaches in FIG. 7 TS control unit 37, multiple TS management unit 38, reference TS synchronization unit 39 and optical switch unit 31, the combination of which corresponds to the extension-station-specific controller of instant claim. Hattori et al. teaches in FIG. 7 that a node comprises control information receiving unit 32 (equivalent to extension-station-specific receiver) for receiving the control signal r11. On the other direction, each access node sends buffer accumulation amount information (equivalent to communication situation signal or allocation request signal) to SC via control information transmission unit 36 (equivalent to extension-station-specific transmitter of instant claim). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Hattori et al. with the system of Kim et al. because the approach of Hattori et al. takes the real-time traffic of each extension station into consideration and balances the bandwidth allocation accordingly. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the bandwidth allocation scheme, as taught by Hattori et al., in the system of Kim et al.
The combination of Kim et al. and Hattori et al. still fails to teach item (d). Iovanna et al. teaches in paragraphs [0040], [0076] and [0077] that that the priority of each ONT is allocated based on the levels of buffer occupancy and the highest priority is given to the most loaded ONTs. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Iovanna et al. with the modified system of Kim et al. and Hattori et al. because the approach reduces congestion. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to assign priority to stations according to the amount of data they have to send, as taught by Iovanna et al., in the modified system of Kim et al. and Hattori et al.
The combination of Kim et al., Hattori et al. and Iovanna et al. still fails to teach item (e). Gao et al. teaches in paragraphs [0092] and [0117] that the updating operation include deleting, adding and modifying wavelength channels. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Gao et al. with the modified system of Kim et al., Hattori et al. and Iovanna et al. because the bandwidth demands of the stations are dynamically changed and deleting unneeded channel saves power. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dynamically add, delete and modify wavelength channels, as taught by Gao et al., in the modified system of Kim et al., Hattori et al. and Iovanna et al.
Regarding claim 3, the communication apparatus corresponds to an extension station of claim 5 and, therefore, is rejected based on the same reason for rejecting claim 5.
Regarding claim 4, Kim et al. teaches in FIG. 3(c) 1×2 optical coupler which combines the functions of subsequent-stage transmitter and previous-stage transmitter.
Claims 1-2 is rejected based on the reason for rejecting claims 3-4 because an apparatus implies the method of using it.
Claim(s) 6, 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., Hattori et al., Iovanna et al. and Gao et al. as applied to claims 1-5 above, and further in view of Li et al. (Li et al., “A Novel TWDM-PON Architecture with Control Channel”, The 12th International Conference on Optical Internet Proceedings, IEEE, 2014).
Kim et al., Hattori et al., Iovanna et al. and Gao et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 1-5. The difference between Kim et al., Hattori et al., Iovanna et al. and Gao et al. and the claimed invention is that Kim et al., Hattori et al., Iovanna et al. and Gao et al. do not teach that a downlink signal line for a main signal and the signal line for an apparatus control signal to update the reception wavelength and the transmission wavelength are independent of each other. Li et al. teaches in FIG. 1 a dedicated control message wavelength channel for sending downlink control messages. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Li et al. with the modified system of Kim et al., Hattori et al., Iovanna et al. and Gao et al. because the control message wavelength channel solves the problems presented in the first paragraph of the Introduction Section. Thus 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 control message wavelength channel for updating wavelength information, as taught by Li et al., in the modified system of Kim et al., Hattori et al., Iovanna et al. and Gao et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 9 and 11 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 22 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that neither nor Hattori does not disclose the features “the acquired allocation control signal is generated according to priority level for the allocation of the wavelengths among the plurality of communication apparatuses, the priority level being changed based on an amount of communication indicated by the transmitted communication situation signal, the updating includes, in addition to changing at least one of the reception wavelength and the transmission wavelength, adding or deleting the at least one of the reception wavelength and the transmission wavelength.” as recited in claim 1.
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, Iovanna et al. and Gao et al., in combination of Kim et al. and Hattori et al. teach these features.
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.
skl16 August 2026
/SHI K LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights