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 Objections
Claims 1-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: throughout the set of claims, the word “spliter” is used to mean “splitter”. “Splitter” is the commonly acceptable spelling. All occurrences of “spliter” should be changed to “splitter”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 6 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 6 recites the limitation “The reconfigurable optical add-drop multiplexer according to claim” in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In the following art rejection, it is assumed that claim 6 depends upon claim 3.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2012/0114332 A1) in view of Molex (“OptoConnect Aggregation Fiber Shuffle Boxes”, Molex, 2020) and Seawell (Seawell, “Field-Installable MPO Splice-On Connector Technology”, BICSI News Magazine 2013).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang et al. teaches in FIG. 3 a module (e.g. dropping unit) comprising: a splitter (coupler), the module is provided with a first fiber connection splice for connecting with a line direction unit (the unit connected to input in direction 1) and a second fiber connection splice for connecting with a local add-drop unit (receiver Rx), the splitter is connected between the first fiber connection splice and the second fiber connection splice, and the number of wire cores of the second fiber connection splice is smaller than the number of wire cores of the first fiber connection splice. The differences between Zhang et al. and the claimed invention are (a) Zhang et al. does not teach shuffle module as shuffle box, and (b) Zhang et al. does not teach connection splice. Molex teaches shuffle boxes (see title) and the MPO and LC connectors (see Specifications Section on page 2), Seawell teaches splice-on connector technology. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teaching of Molex and Seawell with the system of Zhang et al. because it is a simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results. Furthermore, it has been held that use of a one-piece construction or several pieces would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to put the splitter in a box as built in component, as taught by Molex and Seawell, in the system of Zhang et al.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., Molex and Seawell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shu (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2009/0310975 A1).
Zhang et al., Molex and Seawell have been discussed above in regard to claim 1. The difference between Zhang et al., Molex and Seawell and the claimed invention is that Zhang et al., Molex and Seawell do not teach that the first fiber connection splice uses a private transmission protocol, the second fiber connection splice uses a standard transmission protocol. Shu teaches in paragraph [0080] “The information transmission among different nodes can be realized by mature communication protocol and also can be realized by private protocol or method.” A mature communication protocol is equivalent to standard protocol. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Shu with the modified system of Zhang et al., Molex and Seawell because Shu teaches the details of implementation that are missing from Zhang et al., Molex and Seawell. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to private protocol and standard protocol, as taught by Shu, in the modified system of Zhang et al., Molex and Seawell.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsukawa et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2014/0147121 A1) in view of Molex (“OptoConnect Aggregation Fiber Shuffle Boxes”, Molex, 2020) and Seawell (Seawell, “Field-Installable MPO Splice-On Connector Technology”, BICSI News Magazine 2013).
Regarding claim 3, Matsukawa et al. teaches in FIG. 3 a reconfigurable optical add-drop multiplexer (see paragraph [0100]), comprising: a line direction unit (e.g. degree 1 comprising amplifier unit 511, SPL 512 and WSS 513), a fiber shuffle module (WSS 514, 524, CPL 525 and SPL 530) and a local add-drop unit (DMUX 526, MUX 529 and OXC 527), wherein the line direction unit is connected with a first fiber connection splice of the fiber shuffle module through a connection line, the local add-drop unit is connected with a second fiber connection splice of the fiber shuffle module through another connection line, a splitter (e.g. splitter 530#1) is part of the fiber shuffle module, and the splitter is connected with the second fiber connection splice in one-to-one correspondence. The difference between Matsukawa et al. and the claimed invention are (a) Matsukawa et al. does not teach shuffle module as shuffle box, and (b) Matsukawa et al. does not teach MPO connection and LC connection. Molex teaches shuffle boxes (see title) and the MPO and LC connectors (see Specifications Section on page 2), Seawell teaches splice-on connector technology. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teaching of Molex and Seawell with the system of Matsukawa et al. because it is a simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results. Furthermore, it has been held that use of a one-piece construction or several pieces would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to put the splitters in a box as built in components and use MPO and LC connectors as appropriate, as taught by Molex and Seawell, in the system of Matsukawa et al.
Regarding claim 4, the line direction unit and the local add-drop unit are different types of components, therefore, they are heterogeneous. Furthermore, the combination of Matsukawa et al., Molex and Seawell has the same structure as the claimed invention, therefore, they have the same characteristics.
Claim(s) 5 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsukawa et al., Molex and Seawell as applied to claims 3-4 above, and further in view of Kilper et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2018/0287697 A1).
Matsukawa et al., Molex and Seawell have been discussed above in regard to claims 3-4. Regarding claims 5 and 11, Matsukawa et al. further teaches in FIG. 3 that the line direction unit comprises an outgoing power amplifier, an incoming power amplifier (amplifiers 511#1), an outgoing wavelength selective switch (513#1) and an incoming splitter (512#1), the outgoing power amplifier is connected with the outgoing wavelength selective switch, and the incoming power amplifier is connected with the incoming splitter. The difference between Matsukawa et al., Molex and Seawell and the claimed invention is that Matsukawa et al., Molex and Seawell do not teach an incoming wavelength selective switch (WSS). Kilper et al. teaches in FIG. 3 that an incoming splitter can be replaced with an incoming WSS. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teaching of Kilper et al. with the modified system of Matsukawa et al., Molex and Seawell because it is a simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to an incoming WSS instead of a splitter, as taught by Kilper et al., in the modified system of Matsukawa et al., Molex and Seawell.
Claim(s) 6-8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsukawa et al., Molex and Seawell as applied to claims 3-4 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2012/0114332 A1).
Matsukawa et al., Molex and Seawell have been discussed above in regard to claims 3-4. Regarding claims 6 and 12, Matsukawa et al. further teaches in FIG. 3 an uplink multiplexer (MUX 529#1) and a downlink multiplexer (DMUX 526#1). The difference between Matsukawa et al., Molex and Seawell and the claimed invention is that Matsukawa et al., Molex and Seawell do not teach an uplink power amplifier and a downlink power amplifier. Zhang et al. teaches in FIG. 2 uplink optical amplifier (OA) in the adding unit and a downlink OA in the dropping unit. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Zhang et al. with the modified system of Matsukawa et al., Molex and Seawell because an amplifier boosts the signal and improves the signal quality. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include uplink optical amplifier and downlink optical amplifier, as taught by Zhang et al., in the modified system of Matsukawa et al., Molex and Seawell.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Matsukawa et al., Molex, Seawell and Zhang et al. teaches performing multiplexing on optical waves to be sent by using a multiplexer to obtain an optical wave signal (Matsukawa et al. teaches in FIG. 3 uplink MUX 529#1); performing multiplexing loss compensation processing on the optical wave signal by using an uplink power amplify to obtain a compensated optical wave signal (Zhang et al. teaches in FIG. 2 uplink OA in the adding unit); and sending the compensated optical wave signal to a splitter (Matsukawa et al. teaches in FIG. 3 splitter 530#1) of a fiber shuffle box through a lucent connector (LC) connection line (Molex and Seawell teach shuffle box and LC connection line), so that the splitter divides the compensated optical wave signal into N uplink signals and sends the N uplink signals to corresponding line direction units in one-to-one correspondence, wherein a value of N is matched with the number of the line direction units (Matsukawa et al. teaches in FIG. 3 that the number of output ports of the splitter equals the number of degrees).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Matsukawa et al., Molex, Seawell and Zhang et al. teaches acquiring, from a plurality of line direction units, partial optical wave signals corresponding to wavelengths of wavelength selection switches of the line direction units (Matsukawa et al. teaches in FIG. 3 SPL 512#1 in combination of WSS 514#1); performing, by using a splitter (Matsukawa et al. teaches in FIG. 3 coupler CPL 525#1), multiplexing processing on the partial optical wave signals acquired from the plurality of line direction units to form a multiplexed signal; and sending the multiplexed signal to the local add-drop unit by using a lucent connector (LC) connection line (Molex and Seawell teach LC connection line).
Claim(s) 9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsukawa et al., Molex, Seawell and Zhang et al. as applied to claims 6-8 and 12 above, and further in view of Schmogrow et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2020/0028765 A1).
Matsukawa et al., Molex, Seawell and Zhang et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 6-8 and 12. The difference between Matsukawa et al., Molex, Seawell and Zhang et al. and the claimed invention is that Matsukawa et al., Molex, Seawell and Zhang et al. do not teach a non-transitory computer storage medium, having a computer program stored thereon, wherein when the computer program is executed by a processor, the method according to claim 7 is implemented. Schmogrow et al. teaches in paragraphs [0060] and [0062] computer program stored in computer-readable storage device such that when the program is executed by a computer, together with the hardware, a method can be implemented. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Schmogrow et al. with the modified system of Matsukawa et al., Molex, Seawell and Zhang et al. because stored program control is flexible and cost effective. 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 stored program control, as taught by Schmogrow et al., in the modified system of Matsukawa et al., Molex, Seawell and Zhang et al.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Matsukawa et al., Molex, Seawell, Zhang et al. and Schmogrow et al. teaches a non-transitory computer storage medium, having a computer program stored thereon, wherein when the computer program is executed by a processor, the method according to claim 8 is implemented.
Conclusion
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.
skl8 June 2026
/SHI K LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights