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) 1-2, 4-5 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (U.S. Patent 12,170,569) in view of G.987.2 (G.987.2, “10-Gigabit-capable passive optical networks (XG-PON): Physical media dependent (PMD) layer specification”, ITU-T, 2016) and Honda et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2021/0083778 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Xu et al. teaches in FIG. 2 an optical network unit (ONU) in a passive optical network (PON), comprising: a receiver, at the ONU, configured to receive a downstream signal from an optical line terminal (OLT) (inherently the ONU has a receiver for receiving downstream signal from the OLT); a detector configured to measure a link quality parameter in the downstream signal (Xu et al. teaches in col. 3, line 10 downlink signals and in FIG. 8 determining NGMI for each channel); and a processing device configured to: identify a link quality parameter target (Xu et al. teaches in col. 9, lines 3-4 NGMI threshold), wherein the link quality parameter target is a value that achieves a target error probability (Xu et al. teaches in FIG. 6B and FIG. 6C the relation between error rate and NGMI); compute a link quality parameter margin between the measured link quality parameter and the link quality parameter target; and adjust a transmission parameter based on the link quality parameter margin (Xu et al. teaches col. 9, lines 49-51 adjust the modulation format such that the data rate is maximize while a certain amount of margin is preserved to guarantee error-free performance). The differences between Xu et al. and the claimed invention are (a) Xu et al. does not teach that the receiver is a physical media dependent (PMD) receiver, and (b) Xu et al. does not teach generating a report comprising the measured link quality parameter and the link quality parameter margin; and causing the report to be transmitted to the OLT. G.987.2 teaches PMD layer for XG-PON which is cited as an example by Xu et al. (see col. 12, lines 60-67). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of G.987.2 with the system of Xu et al. because G.987.2 is an international standard. 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 PMD receiver, as taught by G.987.2, in the system of Xu et al.
The combination of Xu et al. and G.987.2 still fails to teach generating a report comprising the measured link quality parameter and the link quality parameter margin; and causing the report to be transmitted to the OLT. Honda et al. teaches in FIG. 1 and paragraph [0034] that an ONU comprises a supervisory controller 33 which reports measurement results to the OLT. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Honda et al. with the modified system of Xu et al. and G.987.2 because the approach keeps the OLT and ONU in synchronization about the link status and parameters. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to report measurement results and parameters to the OLT, as taught by Honda et al., in the modified system of Xu et al. and G.987.2.
Regarding claim 2, Xu et al. teaches in claim 2 GMI.
Regarding claim 4, Xu et al. teaches FEC coding and the GMI is calculated based on measurement at the output of the FEC decoder.
Regarding claim 5, Xu et al. teaches in FIGs. 5A-5C SNR and in FIGs. 6A-6C NGMI. They are mathematically equivalent and can be converted between each other.
Regarding claim 7, Xu et al. teaches in col. 2, line 22-23 FEC.
Regarding claim 8, Xu et al. teaches in FIG. 8 modulation format.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al., G.987.2 and Honda et al. as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5 and 7-8 above, and further in view of Ye et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2021/0211205 A1).
Xu et al., G.987.2 and Honda et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 1-2, 4-5 and 7-8. The difference between Xu et al., G.987.2 and Honda et al. and the claimed invention is that Xu et al., G.987.2 and Honda et al. do not teach that the ONU comprises a non-linear equalizer. Ye et al. teaches in FIG. 4 a downlink system in a PON comprising an OLT and an ONU 420. Ye et al. teaches in paragraph [0043] that the ONU has a second equalizer 4220 which may be a nonlinear equalizer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Ye et al. with the modified system of Xu et al., G.987.2 and Honda et al. because a nonlinear equalizer tackles non-linear effects caused by the transmission system and improves quality of the received signal. 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 a non-linear equalizer in the ONU, as taught by Ye et al., in the modified system of Xu et al., G.987.2 and Honda et al.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al., G.987.2 and Honda et al. as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5 and 7-8 above, and further in view of Krampl et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2023/0208542 A1).
Xu et al., G.987.2 and Honda et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 1-2, 4-5 and 7-8. Xu et al. teaches in FIG. 8 measuring link quality for each channel of a plurality of channels whereas channels include downlink channels as taught by Xu et al. in col. 3, line 10. The difference between Xu et al., G.987.2 and Honda et al. and the claimed invention is that Xu et al., G.987.2 and Honda et al. do not teach how to determine the transmit signal. Krampl et al. teaches in paragraph [0068] hard-decision LDPC for recovering the transmit signal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Krampl et al. with the modified system of Xu et al., G.987.2 and Honda et al. because Krampl et al. teaches the details of implementation that are missing from Xu et al., G.987.2 and Honda et al. 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 hard decision to recover the transmit signal, as taught by Krampl et al., in the modified system of Xu et al., G.987.2 and Honda et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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.
Claims 10-20 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9 September 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that independent claim 1 recites features not taught or suggested by any cited combination of references. The argument is not persuasive. Honda et al. teaches in FIG. 1 and paragraph [0034] that an ONU comprises a supervisory controller 33 which reports measurement results to the OLT. This reads on the newly added limitation in claim 1. Therefore, claim 1 is obvious in view of Honda et al. in combination of Xu et al. and G.987.2.
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.
skl29 September 2026
/SHI K LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
