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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 – Scope of Enablement
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 32 and 35-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a limited scope based on the teachings in the application, does not reasonably provide enablement for the full scope recited in the claims. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
MPEP 2164.08 states: “The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that ‘the specification must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without ‘undue experimentation’.” In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Scope of the Claims and Teachings of the Application.
Claim 32 is an apparatus claim that corresponding to the operation of an ONU and performing FEC encoding on data that is sent. The last paragraph recites:
perform a FEC encoding on a communication data sent to the OLT based on the target FEC type and the configuration information for information to be deleted.
The “configuration information” is claimed to indicate “a length of deletion content” (see lines 7-8 in claim 32). As a result, the claim has a broad scope that includes performing FEC encoding “based on” the length of deleted context and does not require other information about the deleted content. It is not clear how this can be made and used because it seems that more information defining the particular deleted information is required.
The application teaches to send, receive, and use information on a deletion mode of content in an ECC. See:
[0067] In a possible implementation, the target ECC information includes a target ECC type and configuration information for information to be deleted, where the configuration information for information to be deleted is used to indicate a deletion mode of content in an ECC. The sending the target ECC information to an ONU, such that by using the target ECC information, the ONU performs ECC encoding on communication data sent to the OLT in S120 includes:
[0068] sending the target ECC type and the configuration information for information to be deleted to the ONU through ECC configuration parameter information, such that by using the target ECC type and the configuration information for information to be deleted, the ONU performs ECC encoding on the communication data sent to the OLT.
The application teaches to use PLOAM information to carry burst profile control and configuration information for the information to be deleted. See:
[0090] Refer to Table 1 below, which presents new “Upstream FEC Code Configuration” Physical Layer Operations, Administration and Maintenance (PLOAM) information added to carry burst profile control information and configuration information for information to be deleted. Here, byte 5 carries the burst profile control information, and bytes 6 to 40 carry the configuration information for information to be deleted. Specifically, in the configuration information for information to be deleted, bytes 7 to 11 constitute a deletion configuration unit. In an embodiment, this unit indicates a basic type upon which deletion is based, whether the unit of information deletion is bit-based or column-based, whether an information deletion region is located in a payload region or a check region, a start position of deletion, a length of deletion, and the like. Byte 6 is N, indicating that N deletion configuration units are configured in the PLOAM information. Bytes 12 to 40 contain remaining (N-1) deletion configuration units, each with the same structure as the deletion configuration unit constituted by bytes 7 to 11. If there are any remaining byte in bytes 12 to 40, the remaining byte is padding.
In other words, the application teaches to use more than just the length of deletion content. Table 1 teaches the PLOAM structure/information used, including the burst profile control information (Byte 5), number of deletion configuration units (Byte 6), the delete content (Byte 7), the start position (Bytes 8-9), the length (Bytes 10-11), and (N-1) deletion configuration units with the same structure as Bytes 7-11 (Bytes 12-40).
PNG
media_image1.png
506
420
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
212
416
media_image2.png
Greyscale
See also:
[0091] It should be noted that meanings of the remaining bytes in the PLOAM information are the same as meanings of corresponding bytes in PLOAM information in the existing technology, and will not be repeated herein.
In other words, the bytes in Table 1 are to make and use the invention. See also FIG. 8 which illustrates the bandwidth allocation map.
PNG
media_image3.png
536
1000
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Table 1 is used to teach Embodiment I. Tables 2-5 are similar to Table 1 and correspond to Embodiments II, III, and V-VI.
Embodiment II is taught in the context of a similar table (Table 2) on page 6 of the PG Pub which includes number of deletion (Byte 5), the delete content (Byte 6), the start position (Bytes 7-8), the length (Bytes 9-10), and (N-1) deletion configuration units with the same structure as Bytes 6-10 (Bytes 11-40).
Embodiment III is taught in the context of a similar table (Table 3) on pages 6-7 of the PG Pub which includes number of deletion (Byte 9), the delete content (Byte 10), the start position (Bytes 11-12), the length (Bytes 13-14), and (N-1) deletion configuration units with the same structure as Bytes 10-14 (Bytes 15-40).
Embodiment IV uses an OMCI and sets the code type at the start from a “specific” superframe. In particular, an attribute of Upstream FEC Code Configuration is defined in an OMCI management entity OLT-G, including particular fields defined in [0106]-[0109].
Embodiment V is taught in the context of a similar table (Table 4) on page 7 of the PG Pub and includes number of deletion (Byte 9), the delete content (Byte 10), the start position (Bytes 11-12), the length (Bytes 13-14), and (N-1) deletion configuration units with the same structure as Bytes 10-14 (Bytes 15-40).
Embodiment VI is taught in the context of a similar table (Table 5) on page 7 of the PG Pub and includes number of deletion (Byte 6), the delete content (Byte 7), the start position (Bytes 8-9), the length (Bytes 10-11), and (N-1) deletion configuration units with the same structure as Bytes 7-11 (Bytes 12-40).
In other words, the application teaches the invention in the context of several embodiments, each of which use particular information about the deleted content, and none of which teach to make and use the invention “based on” the length of deletion content without more information about the deleted content.
Claim 35 is a method claim analogous to claim 32, and has a similar scope.
Claim 42 is a method claim that is similar to claim 32, but it corresponds to the operation of the OLT and performs FEC decoding on received data “based on” a length of deletion content in the target FEC code. This has a broad scope for reasons similar to that discussed in claim 32.
Claim 51 is an apparatus claim analogous to claim 42, and has a similar scope.
The Claims do not Recite the Particular Structure, Materials, or Steps.
As discussed above, the application teaches how to make and use the invention using particular structure, materials, and steps to implement FEC encoding and FEC decoding at the ONU and OLT. As also discussed above, the claims recite the desired functionality/results, but do not recite the particular structure, materials, or steps that accomplish the claimed functionality/results. This results in claims having a scope that is much broader than the teachings of the application.
When considering the teachings of the application and the scope of the claims, as discussed above, see MPEP 2173.05(g), 4th paragraph:
… Further, without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim. Ariad Pharmaceuticals., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Unlimited functional claim limitations that extend to all means or methods of resolving a problem may not be adequately supported by the written description or may not be commensurate in scope with the enabling disclosure, both of which are required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714, 218 USPQ 195, 197 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1340, 94 USPQ2d at 1167. …
This supports a finding that the broad scope of the claims may not be commensurate with the teachings in the disclosure.
No Teaching of a General Case for the Full Scope of the Claims.
The Examiner also notes that there is no teaching of an apparatus/method with the broad scope recited in the claims. In particular, there is no teaching of a general case that can perform FEC encoding or decoding “based on” a length of deletion content without more information about the deletion content without requiring any more than what is recited in the claim.
If a general case such as that recited in the claims were contemplated or discovered by the inventors, its disclosure and a description of its operation would be expected as part of the application in order to support broad claims, such as claim 32. This is particularly true because, as discussed above, the embodiments that are disclosed in the application require fairly complex and particular structures/information/algorithms. These structures/information/algorithms would be unnecessary if a general case had been known by the inventors, and yet the application does not include a disclosure of a general case. This supports a conclusion that the scope of the claims is not commensurate with the teachings of the application.
Other Considerations.
The nature of the invention is optical transmission and reception apparatuses and methods. The components used in the various embodiments were known to one of ordinary skill. For example, one or ordinary skill would be familiar with components such as ONU, OLTs, memory, processors, and programming in the context of the invention.
The application teaches how to arrange elements and perform algorithms using particular information in order to achieve the desired results (e.g., see the teachings of the application, discussed above). Although these combinations are particular and complex, one or ordinary skill would know how to make and use the disclosed embodiments of the invention from the teachings of the application.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious that some elements may be modified or replaced with other elements known to have the same or similar functionality, and to make some modifications to the particular structures disclosed.
Similarly, one of ordinary skill would also know how to perform other tasks in the present technological area and related to the invention, such as providing power to components (although power supplies and power specifications are not explicitly taught in the application), and splicing/coupling the electrical and optical components together (although this is not explicitly taught in the application), and managing the temperature of electrical and optical components which are susceptible to performance degradation and undesirable operational variations based on temperature (although this is not explicitly taught in the application), and shielding components from EM interference that can be generated by such devices (although this is not explicitly taught). Although this is not an exhaustive list, the obvious modifications based on the disclosure and the knowledge of one or ordinary skill are nonetheless of a limited scope.
However, these modifications do not address the issues raised above regarding the disparity between the scope of the claims and the teachings of the application.
Experimentation.
As discussed above, the application does not teach the full scope of the claims. As a result, the claims include many possible structures/steps/functions/algorithm/information, and not all possibilities within the scope of the claims will produce the desired results or functions.
As a result, if one of ordinary skill were to attempt to make and use the full scope of the claims, it would require making, testing, or otherwise evaluating a large number of possible combination of structures and/or programming to find what works to perform the desired functionality. This results in a practically unlimited number of embodiments that would need to be made, tested, or otherwise evaluated to determine which embodiments are operative and which are inoperative. In other words, this would require almost infinite experimentation.
This supports a finding that undue experimentation would be required to make and use the full scope of the claims.
Conclusion.
After careful consideration the Examiner has concluded that the specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. In other words, the specification fails to teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without ‘undue experimentation’.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 - Indefinite
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 32 and 35-53 are 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 32, line 6 recites “target FEC code”. It is not clear what is being claimed. This is a new limitation added to the claims, and the original disclosure does not appear to use this term.
Claim 32, line 7 recites “target FEC type”. It is not clear what is being claimed. This is a new limitation added to the claims, and the written description does not appear to use this term. The Examiner notes that the original disclosure does mention a “target ECC type” (e.g., see [0046]), but the application appears to distinguish between ECC and FEC (i.e., they do not appear to be interchangeable in the disclosure).
Claim 32, line 10-11 recites:
perform a FEC encoding on a communication data sent to the OLT based on the target FEC type and the configuration information for information to be deleted.
It is not clear what is being claimed with “based on” in the context of this claim. In other words, it is not clear what FEC encoding is “based on the target FEC type and the configuration information for information to be deleted”, and what is not.
Claim 32, line 10-11 recites:
perform a FEC encoding on a communication data sent to the OLT based on the target FEC type and the configuration information for information to be deleted.
The “communication data sent” is inferentially claimed and it is not clear how to interpret it. In particular, it is not clear if it is required or if it is non-limiting intended use, because the claim does not recite actually sending the communication data. If the communication data is not actually sent (i.e., if it is non-limiting intended use), then it is not clear how to interpret the “encoding on a communication data sent”. For the purposes of this claim, it is interpreted as being a required limitation of the claim.
Claim 35, line 4 recites “target FEC code”. It is not clear what is being claimed. This is a new limitation added to the claims, and the original disclosure does not appear to use this term.
Claim 35, line 5 recites “target FEC type”. It is not clear what is being claimed. This is a new limitation added to the claims, and the written description does not appear to use this term.
Claim 35, line 8-9 recites:
performing, by the ONU, a FEC encoding on a communication data sent to the OLT based on the target FEC type and the configuration information for information to be deleted.
It is not clear what is being claimed with “based on” in the context of this claim. In other words, it is not clear what FEC encoding is “based on the target FEC type and the configuration information for information to be deleted”, and what is not.
Claim 35, line 8-9 recites:
performing, by the ONU, a FEC encoding on a communication data sent to the OLT based on the target FEC type and the configuration information for information to be deleted.
The “communication data sent” is inferentially claimed and it is not clear how to interpret it. See the discussion of claim 32. For the purposes of this claim, it is interpreted as being a required limitation of the claim.
Claims 36-41 are rejected because they depend from claim 32 and fail to further limit the scope in a manner to overcome the rejection.
Claim 42, line 4 recites “target FEC code”. It is not clear what is being claimed. This is a new limitation added to the claims, and the original disclosure does not appear to use this term.
Claim 42, line 5 recites “target FEC type”. It is not clear what is being claimed. This is a new limitation added to the claims, and the written description does not appear to use this term.
Claim 42, line 8-9 recites:
performing, by the OLT, a FEC decoding on a communication data received from the ONU based on the target FEC type and the configuration information for information to be deleted.
It is not clear what is being claimed with “based on” in the context of this claim. In other words, it is not clear what FEC encoding is “based on the target FEC type and the configuration information for information to be deleted”, and what is not.
Claim 42, line 8-9 recites:
performing, by the OLT, a FEC decoding on a communication data received from the ONU based on the target FEC type and the configuration information for information to be deleted.
The “communication data received” is inferentially claimed and it is not clear how to interpret it. See the discussion of claim 32. For the purposes of this claim, it is interpreted as being a required limitation of the claim.
Claims 43-50 are rejected because they depend from claim 42 and fail to further limit the scope in a manner to overcome the rejection.
Claim 51, line 5 recites “target FEC code”. It is not clear what is being claimed. This is a new limitation added to the claims, and the original disclosure does not appear to use this term.
Claim 51, lines 5-6 recites “target FEC type”. It is not clear what is being claimed. This is a new limitation added to the claims, and the written description does not appear to use this term.
Claim 51, line 9-10 recites:
perform a FEC decoding on a communication data received from the ONU based on the target FEC type and the configuration information for information to be deleted.
It is not clear what is being claimed with “based on” in the context of this claim. In other words, it is not clear what FEC encoding is “based on the target FEC type and the configuration information for information to be deleted”, and what is not.
Claim 51, line 9-10 recites:
perform a FEC decoding on a communication data received from the ONU based on the target FEC type and the configuration information for information to be deleted.
The “communication data received” is inferentially claimed and it is not clear how to interpret it. See the discussion of claim 32. For the purposes of this claim, it is interpreted as being a required limitation of the claim.
Claims 52 and 53 are rejected because they depend from claim 51 and fail to further limit the scope in a manner to overcome the rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2008/0226294 (Sakai) teaches that it was known to use FEC in PONs. See:
[0018] In the passive optical network system as described above, in the optical line terminal, the downstream optical signal which has been subjected to FEC encoding processing in the optical line terminal, and to which has been added the check bit, is transmitted to the optical transmission line, and the downstream optical signal is respectively received in the first and second optical network units via the branching device. In the second optical network unit on the high speed side, by performing forward error correction processing of the received data row, an improvement in the receiver sensitivity that was deficient compared to the first optical network unit on the low speed side, is achieved. Furthermore, before and after encoding processing of the FEC in the optical line terminal, without changing the data array inside the frame, the check bit of the FEC is added to the position previously set inside the frame. Therefore the reception processing of the data in the first optical network unit on the low speed side is not influenced by performing encoding processing of the FEC in the optical line terminal.
In other words, it was known for PONs to encode and decode data with FEC codes.
US 2010/0021158 (Kanno) teaches that it was known to use FEC in PONs. See:
[0008] Various related arts of the present invention are already known. By way of example, Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication (Translation of PCT Application) No. 2006-510311 or JP-A 2006-510311 (which will be also called Patent Document 1), which corresponds to U. S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2008/0260378, discloses a method of managing forward error correction (FEC) in an Ethernet passive optical network (PON) including at least one optical network unit (ONU). The method disclosed in Patent Document 1 comprises the steps of monitoring, in the OLT, communications quality from the at least one ONU, thereby determining a figure of merit of the communications of each ONU, of carrying out communications with non-FEC data to the ONU where the figure of merit is sufficient, and of carrying out communications with FEC data to the ONU where the figure of merit is insufficient.
In other words, it was known for PONs to utilize FEC.
US 2017/0126320 (Cho) at FIG. 3 illustrates a PON including an OLT, ODN, and ONUs.
PNG
media_image4.png
282
410
media_image4.png
Greyscale
See:
[0052] FIG. 3 is a diagram illustrating a star-shaped point-to-multipoint configuration of an RoF transmission system 300 according to an example embodiment. Referring to FIG. 3, the point-to-multipoint configuration of the RoF transmission system 300 is a configuration in which a plurality of ONUs are connected to an ODN. The RoF transmission system 300 has a configuration in which a single our is connected to the plurality of ONUs via the single ODN. The ODN of the RoF transmission system 300 may distribute an optical signal to the plurality of ONUs using an optical splitter of the OLT. The optical signal output from the OLT may be transmitted to all the ONUs, and an optical signal output from an ONU may be received by only the OLT.
FIG. 4 illustrates a ring-shaped PON.
PNG
media_image5.png
318
380
media_image5.png
Greyscale
See:
[0053] FIG. 4 is a diagram illustrating a ring-shaped point-to-multipoint configuration of an RoF transmission system 400 according to an example embodiment. Referring to FIG. 4, an OLT may be connected to a plurality of ONUs via a plurality of ODNs that comply with a ring-shaped network topology.
[0054] The configurations of the RoF transmission system described with reference to FIGS. 2 through 4 may be logical link or physical link topologies of the RoF transmission system.
FIG. 5 illustrates a more detailed embodiment of a single channel system including an RF upconverter.
PNG
media_image6.png
306
922
media_image6.png
Greyscale
FIG. 6 illustrates a more detailed embodiment of a single channel system including an IF upconverter.
PNG
media_image7.png
337
1028
media_image7.png
Greyscale
See also FIGS. 7 and 8 which illustrate multi-channel systems including RF and IF upconverters, respectively.
US 2010/0221000 (Yang) at FIG. 1 teaches the general structure of a PON.
PNG
media_image8.png
539
584
media_image8.png
Greyscale
FIGS. 4 and 5 teach the use of PDs, TIAs, LAs, CDR, SerDes, MAC, and other control circuitry.
PNG
media_image9.png
830
483
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
691
406
media_image10.png
Greyscale
See also, for example:
[0040] Referring to FIG. 4, the functions of the optical signal receiving module include converting an optical signal to an electrical signal, amplifying an electrical signal, as well as other functions. Specifically, in the optical signal receiving module, the function of converting an optical signal to an electrical signal may be completed by a positive intrinsic negative (PIN) and an avalanche photodiode (APD), and the function of amplifying an electrical signal may be completed by a trans-impedance amplifier (TIA) and/or a limiting amplifier (LA).
[0041] The recovery module may be formed by a clock and data recovery (CDR) or a burst clock and data recovery (BCDR), serializer/deserializer (SerDes), and a media access control (MAC). The CDR or BCDR performs data and clock recovery on the electrical signal amplified by the optical signal receiving module. Then, the SerDes performs a series-parallel conversion on the electrical signal, and sends the electrical signal to the MAC for performing a PON physical layer frame protocol process, so as to perform the normal service.
[0042] The power measurement module may be formed by a current sampler (for example, a mirror current source), an amplifier, an analogue to digital converter (AD converter), and a storage region (for example, a random access memory (RAM)). The current sampler samples the electrical signal output from the PIN or the APD, so as to acquire a current signal indicating the power of the input optical signal, thereby acquiring a mirror electrical signal. Then, the mirror electrical signal is sent to the amplifier and the AD converter for being amplified, conditioned (for example, filtered), and sampled, so that the data indicating the power of the input optical signal is acquired, and stored in the storage region (for example, RAM) under the control of the control module.
US 2003/0058497 (Park) teaches that FEC was known to be used in optical systems. See, for example,
[0006] The distance between regeneration points (i.e., the reach of a channel) may be extended using many known techniques such as Raman pumping and forward error correction encoding schemes. These techniques permit channels to carry signals in all-optical networks over distances far in excess of one optical fiber link. It is therefore desirable to use all-optical switching to relay signals over multiple optical fiber links.
US 2004/0208614 (Price) at FIG. 15 illustrates an optical transmitter 20.
PNG
media_image11.png
567
475
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Price also teaches that the transmitter 20 can be used with error correction. See, for example:
[0056] … The transmitters 20 and receivers 22 can also include or be associated with other components to perform other signal processing, such as reshaping, retiming, error correction, protocol processing, pre-emphasis, and optical and/or electrical pre- and post-dispersion and distortion compensation. …
[0067] The transmitter 20 can also include components other than those illustrated herein, such as phase shifters, isolators, filters, signal distorters, error correction devices, protocol processors, format converters, and other electrical, optical, and electro-optical components.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARREN WOLF whose telephone number is (571)270-3378. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM.
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 N. 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.
/DARREN E WOLF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights