7Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/05/26 for the rejection of Claim 1, 4-5, and 7-11 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues “Applied reference relates generally to an add/drop multiplexer (ADM). In particular, the rejection relies on Hoshida to teach the claimed breaker. Hoshida, however, drops a wavelength channel corresponding to a signal identifier. Hoshida does not teach or suggest dropping a signal because its intensity exceeds a predetermined threshold. Uda merely determines the number of wavelengths multiplexed together based on transmitted light intensity and thus does not cure this deficiency. For at least this reason, it is respectfully submitted that Claim 1, along with claims depending therefrom, defines patentable subject matter over this combination of references”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner does not use Hoshida “teach or suggest dropping a signal because its intensity exceeds a predetermined threshold”. This is already stated in the rejection of Claim 3 in the Non-Final Rejection and Uda is used to disclose a “predetermined intensity in advance or more”. Uda discloses “predetermined intensity in advance or more” in cited portions Column 7, Lines 53-55 where element 42 detects intensity of signal light for monitoring purposes and Column 8, Lines 46-50, where element 20 performs intensity control so monitored light becomes predetermined light intensity. Applicant’s statement that Uda “merely determines the number of wavelengths multiplexed together based on transmitted light intensity” does not change that the cited portions of Uda discloses a detector detecting a signal with predetermined intensity. Regardless of what Uda’s intended invention, “the use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” (See MPEP § 2123 I.). Therefore, the usage of Uda is justified.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Applicants’ arguments are rendered moot in view of the present 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 5 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 5 recites the limitation “a breaker that blocks the input optical signal or the first signal when the second detector detects the input optical signal with a predetermined intensity determined in advance or more” in Lines 4-6. However, Claim 1 already recites a limitation of “a breaker that blocks the input optical signal or the first signal when the detector detects the second signal with a predetermined intensity determined in advance or more” in Lines 6-7. It is unclear whether the breaker in Claim 5 is a separate breaker from the breaker recited in Claim 1 or if it is the same breaker in both claims. In the case that if it is the same breaker, the breaker already has a defined function in claim 1 of detecting blocking the signal based on the detection of the second signal. Since the breaker operates based on this detection, the same breaker in claim 5 cannot be written to block an input signal based on the detection of a second signal; this would be considered an additional/different function of the same element. Therefore, the function of the breaker in the Claim 5 in relation to Claim 1 is unclear. For the sake of prosecution, the examiner will instead interpret Claim 5 as dependent on independent Claim 2.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4,7-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao (US 8452180) in view of Danagher (US 7014326) in view of Hoshida (US 9071378) and further in view of Uda (US 8121486).
Consider Claim 1, Gao discloses a separation system comprising: a separator (Figure 17, element 272) that separates a first signal having a first wavelength (Figure 17, where element 272a1 separates λ1) and a second signal having a second wavelength that is a wavelength excluding the first wavelength from an input optical signal Figure 17, where element 272a2 separates λ2) but does not disclose a detector that detects intensity of the second signal and a breaker that blocks the input optical signal or the first signal when the detector detects the second signal with a predetermined intensity determined in advance or more.
However, Danagher discloses a detector that detects intensity of the second signal (Figure 8A and Column 12, Lines 11-17, where element 860 measures intensity of signal) but does not disclose a breaker that blocks the input optical signal or the first signal when the detector detects the second signal with a predetermined intensity determined in advance or more.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Danagher into Gao to ensure power levels for each channel to reduce the risk of high power in the device.
However, Hoshida discloses the separation system according to claim 1, further comprising a breaker (Figure 14, element 63) that blocks the input optical signal or the first signal when the detector detects the second signal (Figure 14 and Column 15, Lines 54-60, where element 81 controls wavelength to be blocked by element 63 based on result of element 43) but does not disclose a predetermined intensity determined in advance or more.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Hoshida into Gao and Danagher to improve control processes for wavelength blocking.
However, Uda discloses a predetermined intensity determined in advance (Column 7, Lines 53-55 where element 42 detects intensity of signal light for monitoring purposes and Column 8, Lines 46-50, where element 20 performs intensity control so monitored light becomes predetermined light intensity).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Uda into Gao, Danagher, and Hoshida to prevent excess light in system for safety concerns.
Consider Claim 4, Gao and Danagher do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Hoshida discloses the separation system according to claim 1, further comprising: a second detector that detects intensity of the input optical signal (Figure 14, element 42)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Hoshida into Gao and Danagher to improve control processes for wavelength blocking.
However, Uda discloses wherein the second detector makes a predetermined notification determined in advance to a predetermined device (Column 7, Lines 53-55 where element 42 detects intensity of signal light for monitoring purposes and Column 8, Lines 46-50, where element 20 performs intensity control so monitored light becomes predetermined light intensity) when the second detector detects the input optical signal with a predetermined intensity determined in advance or more Column 7, Lines 53-55 where element 42 detects intensity of signal light for monitoring purposes and Column 8, Lines 46-50, where element 20 performs intensity control so monitored light becomes predetermined light intensity).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Uda into Gao, Danagher, and Hoshida to prevent excess light in system for safety concerns.
Consider Claim 7, Gao discloses the separation system according to claim 1, wherein the first wavelength is, at a time of initial connection of user equipment that is a transmission source of the optical signal, a wavelength used at the time of initial connection (Figure 17, where element 282 contains wavelengths λ1-λn before entering element 280), and is a set wavelength after a wavelength is set for the user equipment (Figure 17, where element 280 processes and outputs λ1-λn them via element 284).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Uda into Gao, Danagher, and Hoshida to prevent excess light in system for safety concerns.
Consider Claim 8, Gao does not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Danagher discloses the separation system according to claim 1, wherein the separator includes a grating (Figure 8A, element 840) (Figure 8A and Column 11, Lines 63-66, where element 840 transmits a dispersed a beam of a selected wavelength on to element 830), and transmits or reflects the second signal to output the second signal to a path connected to the detector (Figure 8A and Column 11, Lines 63-66, where element 840 transmits a dispersed a beam of a selected wavelength on to element 880 which eventually reaches detector element 860).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Uda into Gao, Danagher, and Hoshida to prevent excess light in system for safety concerns.
Consider Claim 9, Gao does not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Danagher discloses the separation system according to claim 1, further comprising includes a grating (Figure 8A, element 840) that reflects or transmits the first signal to output the first signal to a path connected to a device different from the detector (Figure 8A and Column 11, Lines 63-66, where element 840 transmits a dispersed a beam of a selected wavelength on to element 830), and transmits or reflects the second signal to output the second signal to a path connected to the detector (Figure 8A and Column 11, Lines 63-66, where element 840 transmits a dispersed a beam of a selected wavelength on to element 880 which eventually reaches detector element 860).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Uda into Gao, Danagher, and Hoshida to prevent excess light in system for safety concerns.
Consider Claim 11, Gao discloses the separation system according to claim 1, wherein the separator further includes a multiplexer (Figure 17, element 288 is a MUX that multiplexes signals) configured to receive a plurality of input signal (Figure 17, element 288 has multiple wavelengths at input), multiplex a subset of the plurality of input signals and output a multiplexed signal (Figure 17, element 288 multiplexes input signals and outputs multiplexed signal including wavelengths from input).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Uda into Gao, Danagher, and Hoshida to prevent excess light in system for safety concerns.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao in view of Uda and further in view of Shatz (US 10523907).
Consider Claim 2, Gao discloses Gao discloses a separation system comprising: a separator (Figure 17, element 272) that separates a first signal having a first wavelength (Figure 17, where element 272a1 separates λ1) and a second signal having a second wavelength that is a wavelength excluding the first wavelength from an input optical signal Figure 17, where element 272a2 separates λ2) but does not disclose a detector that detects intensity of the second signal wherein when the detector detects the second signal with a predetermined intensity determined in advance or more, the detector makes a predetermined notification determined in advance to a user device.
However, Uda discloses a detector that detects intensity of the second signal wherein when the detector detects the second signal with a predetermined intensity determined in advance or more (Column 7, Lines 53-55 where element 42 detects intensity of signal light for monitoring purposes and Column 8, Lines 46-50, where element 20 performs intensity control so monitored light becomes predetermined light intensity) but does not disclose the detector makes a predetermined notification determined in advance to a user device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Uda into Gao to prevent excess light in system for safety concerns.
However, Shatz discloses detector makes a predetermined notification determined in advance to a user device (Column 30, Lines 17-19, where element 106 includes optical detectors and Column 29, Lines 30-35, where receiver assembly element 106 transfers/notifies data to user device element 108).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Shatz into Gao and Uda to notify user of changes in detected signal.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao in view of Uda in view of Shatz and further in view of Hoshida.
Consider Claim 5, Gao does not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Uda discloses a predetermined intensity determined in advance (Column 7, Lines 53-55 where element 42 detects intensity of signal light for monitoring purposes and Column 8, Lines 46-50, where element 20 performs intensity control so monitored light becomes predetermined light intensity) but does not disclose a second detector that detects intensity of the input optical signal or a separated first signal, and a breaker that blocks the input optical signal or the first signal when the second detector detects the input optical signal.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Uda into Gao to prevent excess light in system for safety concerns.
However, Hoshida discloses further comprising: a second detector that detects intensity of the input optical signal (Figure 14, element 42) (Figure 14 and Column 15, Lines 54-60, where element 81 controls wavelength to be blocked by element 63 based on detected intensity of element 42 and result of element 43) but does not disclose a predetermined intensity determined in advance or more.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Hoshida into Gao, Uda, and Shatz to improve control processes for wavelength blocking.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao in view of Danagher in view of Hoshida in view of Uda and further in view of Presley (US 7720329).
Consider Claim 10, Gao does not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Danagher discloses the separation system according to claim 1, wherein the separator includes a grating (Figure 8A, element 840) (Figure 8A and Column 11, Lines 63-66, where element 840 transmits a dispersed a beam of a selected wavelength on to element 830), and outputs the second signal to a path Figure 8A and Column 11, Lines 63-66, where element 840 transmits a dispersed a beam of a selected wavelength on to element 880 which eventually reaches detector element 860) but does not disclose a diffraction grating or a spatial modulation element or an interferometric ring having a different angle of a transmission or reflection wavelength according to a wavelength.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Danagher into Gao to ensure power levels for each channel to reduce the risk of high power in the device.
However, Presley discloses a diffraction grating (Column 11, Lines 59-61, where element 62 separates multi-wavelength beams into wavelengths propagating in different directions).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao in view of Danagher in view of Hoshida in view of Uda and further in view of Moslehi (US 6895132).
Consider Claim 12, Gao, Donagher, Hoshida, and Uda do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Moslehi discloses the separation system of claim 1 wherein the first wavelength of the first signal falls in a desired wavelength range (Column 9, Lines 2-5, where output 235 of separator of element 236 has range λ1) and the second wavelength of the second signal is outside of the desired wavelength range (Column 9, Lines 2-5, where output 235 of separator of element 236 has range λ2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Moslehi into Gao, Danagher, Hoshida, and Uda to so that multiple sensors for each unique wavelength are shared on a signal fiber.
Consider Claim 13, Gao, Donagher, Hoshida, and Uda do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Moslehi discloses the separation system of claim 5 wherein the first wavelength of the first signal falls in a desired wavelength range (Column 9, Lines 2-5, where output 235 of separator of element 236 has range λ1) and the second wavelength of the second signal is outside of the desired wavelength range (Column 9, Lines 2-5, where output 235 of separator of element 236 has range λ2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Moslehi into Gao, Danagher, Hoshida, and Uda to so that multiple sensors for each unique wavelength are shared on a signal fiber.
Consider Claim 14, Gao, Donagher, Hoshida, and Uda do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Moslehi discloses the separation system of claim 11 wherein the first wavelength of the first signal falls in a desired wavelength range (Column 9, Lines 2-5, where output 235 of separator of element 236 has range λ1) and the second wavelength of the second signal is outside of the desired wavelength range (Column 9, Lines 2-5, where output 235 of separator of element 236 has range λ2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Moslehi into Gao, Danagher, Hoshida, and Uda to so that multiple sensors for each unique wavelength are shared on a signal fiber.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao in view of Uda in view of Shatz and further in view of Sakurai (US 10935727).
Consider Claim 15, Gao, Uda, and Shatz do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Sakurai discloses the separation system of claim 2 wherein the notification indicates (Column 5, Line 66 and Column 6, Lines 1-3, where wavelength adjustment is performed by controller element 10 based on intensity detected by optical detector element 180).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Sakurai into Gao, Uda, and Shatz to reduce error associated with signal.
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 ASIF SHAMEEM whose telephone number is (571)272-6576. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM EST-5:00 PM EST.
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.
/ASIF SHAMEEM/Examiner, Art Unit 2634
/KENNETH N VANDERPUYE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights