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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marcoccia (US. Pat. 10,447,422 B2).
Regarding Claims 1 and 8, Marcoccia, teaches A communication control device (FIG. 1: 120) that controls setting of an optical path between a first communication device (FIG. 1: 101) and a second communication device (FIG. 1: 131), the communication control device comprising: a detector that detects a transmission timing of an uplink control signal by detecting a main signal on which the uplink control signal transmitted from the first communication device is superimposed (FIG. 1: 113; col. 5, l. 60-65 (“portion of the optical Rx signal is detected in the optical detector 113”)) ; a determination controller that determines a transmission timing of a downlink control signal so as not to overlap with the transmission timing of the uplink control signal on a basis of the transmission timing of the uplink control signal detected by the detector (FIG. 1: 111; col. 6, l. 40-45 (“The VOA 111 modulates the optical signal based on the low frequency electrical signal and produces a modulated optical signal carrying the data information and control information”)) and a predetermined control signal transmission rule (FIGs. 3 and 4); and a transmitter that transmits the downlink control signal to the second communication device at the transmission timing of the downlink control signal determined by the determination controller (FIG. 1: 111).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marcoccia (US. Pat. 10,447,422 B2) in light of Berner (US Pat. App. Pub. 2021/0344419 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Marcoccia, teaches The communication control device according to claim 1,
Marcoccia does not teach wherein the predetermined control signal transmission rule is a rule that sets a timing after a control signal maximum transmission period has elapsed since a timing at which the detector has detected the uplink control signal as a transmission start timing of the downlink control signal, and the control signal maximum transmission period is a period that is an upper limit length allowed per transmission of the uplink control signal.
Berner teaches wherein the predetermined control signal transmission rule is a rule that sets a timing after a control signal maximum transmission period has elapsed since a timing at which the detector has detected the uplink control signal as a transmission start timing of the downlink control signal, and the control signal maximum transmission period is a period that is an upper limit length allowed per transmission of the uplink control signal. (FIG. 7; [0225])
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to integrate Berner’s timing technique into the hardware taught in Marcoccia. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. Wherein the predictable result is a controller that can place timing constraint on transmitting and receiving modulated control instructions.
Marcoccia and Berner both relate to optical communication systems and are therefore analogous art.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marcoccia (US. Pat. 10,447,422 B2) in light of Berner (US Pat. App. Pub. 2021/0344419 A1) and in further light of 536’ (JP6679536B2).
Regarding Claim 3, The combination of Marcoccia and Berner teaches The communication control device according to claim 2,
The combination of Marcoccia and Berner does not teach wherein the uplink control signal is transmitted from the first communication device in a cycle that is twice a length of the control signal maximum transmission period.
536’ teaches wherein the uplink control signal is transmitted from the first communication device in a cycle that is twice a length of the control signal maximum transmission period. (p. 12, ¶ 5 (“The value of the transfer characteristic inΔT2_PMT is set to 16 or 18 by citing the value of the transfer characteristics of the VUI of the video signal after the time T1. Note that Δt1 is preferably 200 ms, which is twice the maximum value of the PMT Transmission cycle.”))
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to integrate the timing technique taught by 536’ into the hardware taught in Marcoccia. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. Wherein the predictable result is a controller where the transmission period is twice the length of the maximum possible transmission period.
Marcoccia and 536’ both relate to communication transmissions and are therefore analogous art.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marcoccia (US. Pat. 10,447,422 B2) in light of Hanaoka (JP 2022/132094 A).
Regarding Claim 4, Marcoccia teaches The communication control device according to claim 1,
Marcoccia does not teach wherein the predetermined control signal transmission rule is a rule that sets a timing after a predetermined period has elapsed since a timing at which the detector has no longer detected the uplink control signal as a transmission start timing of the downlink control signal.
Hanaoka teaches wherein the predetermined control signal transmission rule is a rule that sets a timing after a predetermined period has elapsed since a timing at which the detector has no longer detected the uplink control signal as a transmission start timing of the downlink control signal. (p. 6, ¶ 5 (“In the timing detection step (step S14), when it is detected that a predetermined period of time has elapsed since the previous transmission of the device status information (step S14: Yes), the timer 260 sends a signal to the transmission means 230”))
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to integrate Hanaoka’s timing technique into Marcoccia’s hardware. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. Wherein, the predictable result is a controller capable of determining that a downlink can be received once an uplink transmission has creased.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marcoccia (US. Pat. 10,447,422 B2) in light of Hanaoka (JP 2022/132094 A) and in further light of 536’ (JP6679536B2).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Marcoccia and Hanaoka teaches the communication control device according to claim 4,
the combination of Marcoccia and Hanaoka does not teach wherein the uplink control signal is transmitted from the first communication device after a control signal maximum transmission period has elapsed since a timing at which previous transmission of the uplink control signal has been completed in the first communication device, and the control signal maximum transmission period is a period that is an upper limit length allowed per transmission of the uplink control signal.
536’ teaches wherein the uplink control signal is transmitted from the first communication device after a control signal maximum transmission period has elapsed since a timing at which previous transmission of the uplink control signal has been completed in the first communication device, and the control signal maximum transmission period is a period that is an upper limit length allowed per transmission of the uplink control signal. (p. 12, ¶ 5 (“The value of the transfer characteristic inΔT2_PMT is set to 16 or 18 by citing the value of the transfer characteristics of the VUI of the video signal after the time T1. Note that Δt1 is preferably 200 ms, which is twice the maximum value of the PMT Transmission cycle.”))
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to integrate the timing technique taught by 536’ into the hardware taught in Marcoccia. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. Wherein the predictable result is a controller where the transmission period is an upper limit length allowed per transmission.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marcoccia (US. Pat. 10,447,422 B2) in light of Song (CN 1525658 A).
Regarding Claim 6, Marcoccia teaches the communication control device according to claim 1,
Marcoccia does not teach further comprising: a retransmission instruction controller that instructs the transmitter to retransmit the downlink control signal in a case where a collision between the uplink control signal and the downlink control signal occurring in the second communication device is detected.
Song teaches a retransmission instruction controller that instructs the transmitter to retransmit the downlink control signal in a case where a collision between the uplink control signal and the downlink control signal occurring in the second communication device is detected. (p. 8-9, ¶ 5 (“For example, when a collision occurs, the 802.11 protocol will automatically established in the downlink and/or uplink transmission collision has occurred, the result is a station or access point to retransmit the information in a subsequent time slot.”))
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to integrate Song’s collision technique into Marcoccia’s hardware. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. Wherein, the predictable result is a communication controller that can retransmit with a uplink/downlink collision has occurred.
Marcoccia and Song are both relate to transmitting information and are therefore analogous art.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marcoccia (US. Pat. 10,447,422 B2) in light of Haraguchi (US Pat. App. Pub. 2022/0094459 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Marcoccia teaches the communication device according to claim 1,
Marcoccia does not teach wherein a first wavelength that is a wavelength of the optical signal that carries the downlink control signal is set such that a beat component generated when the first wavelength and a second wavelength that is a wavelength of the optical signal that carries the main signal are collectively detected does not overlap with a component of the main signal and a component of the control signal.
Haraguchi teaches wherein a first wavelength that is a wavelength of the optical signal that carries the downlink control signal is set such that a beat component generated when the first wavelength and a second wavelength that is a wavelength of the optical signal that carries the main signal are collectively detected does not overlap with a component of the main signal and a component of the control signal. ([0034]).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to integrate Haraguchi’s beat component into Marcoccia’s transmitter. Such a combination would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Wherein the predictable result is a transmitter capable of producing a beat component.
Marcoccia and Haraguchi both relate to optical communication systems and are therefore analogous art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL M BROCK whose telephone number is (571)272-7257. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30pm.
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.
/PAUL MORGAN BROCK/ Examiner, Art Unit 2634 May 29, 2026
/KENNETH N VANDERPUYE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights