DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. he claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is reciting a program per se without any structural recitations (see MPEP § 2106.03). The computer and remote control device are only what the program is intended to be used for, they are not features of the claimed program.
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.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (“Lee”) (US Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0101233) in view of Palacharla (US Patent No. 8131151).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a remote control device that is connected to an optical node (fig. 3 as optical node and paragraph 0029, in view of paragraphs 0010-0014, the external source for the optical switch setting is the remote control device), a plurality of optical switches provided in the optical node are connected to each other (fig. 4 MEMS switches of element 100, paragraph 0039), a test beam is transmitted to one of the plurality of optical switches (fig. 3 element 310 and paragraph 0030), and whether or not an abnormality occurs in the plurality of optical switches is determined based on whether or not the test beam has been detected in the plurality of optical switches (fig. 3 element 360 and paragraphs 0031-0038). Lee is directed to an optical switch and its operation, not directed to an encompassing network, and thus does not disclose that the remote control device is connected to an optical fiber network in which a plurality of optical nodes are connected to each other and performs connection switching of the optical fiber network by remote operation using optical switches provided in the optical nodes. However, using optical switches in respective optical nodes of an optical network is conventional. Palacharla discloses an optical mesh network of optical switching nodes, with GMPLS control plane signaling for setting up light paths used for testing (figs. 1 and 3 and col. 2 lines 30-51, col. 6 lines 37-58 and col. 7 lines 27-52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to network plural of the Lee nodes into a mesh network, with a central controller providing control plane signaling for externally sourcing the optical switch settings for the respective nodes, to provide the advantage of communicating between different locations with multiple signaling path options.
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses a method for detecting an abnormality which is executed by a remote control device that is connected to an optical node (fig. 3 as optical node and paragraph 0029, in view of paragraphs 0010-0014, the external source for the optical switch setting is the remote control device), the method comprising: connecting a plurality of optical switches provided in the optical node to each other (fig. 4 MEMS switches of element 100, paragraph 0039); transmitting a test beam to one of the plurality of optical switches (fig. 3 element 310 and paragraph 0030); and determining whether or not an abnormality occurs in the plurality of optical switches based on whether or not the test beam has been detected in the plurality of optical switches (fig. 3 element 360 and paragraphs 0031-0038). Lee is directed to an optical switch and its operation, not directed to an encompassing network, and thus does not disclose that the remote control device is connected to an optical fiber network in which a plurality of optical nodes are connected to each other and performs connection switching of the optical fiber network by remote operation using optical switches provided in the optical nodes. However, using optical switches in respective optical nodes of an optical network is conventional. Palacharla discloses an optical mesh network of optical switching nodes, with GMPLS control plane signaling for setting up light paths used for testing (figs. 1 and 3 and col. 2 lines 30-51, col. 6 lines 37-58 and col. 7 lines 27-52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to network plural of the Lee nodes into a mesh network, with a central controller providing control plane signaling for externally sourcing the optical switch settings for the respective nodes, to provide the advantage of communicating between different locations with multiple signaling path options.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0101233) in view of Palacharla (US Patent No. 8131151), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ashwood-Smith (US Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0094577).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Lee and Palacharla discloses the remote control device according to claim 1, including with GMPLS control plane signaling for setting up optical mesh network light paths used for testing (Palacharla: figs. 1 and 3 and col. 2 lines 30-51, col. 6 lines 37-58 and col. 7 lines 27-52, as applicable for the combination) but does not disclose a program for causing a computer to function as the remote control device. Ashwood-Smith discloses implementing GMPLS signaling using a programmed computer (claims 14 and 15). 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 programmed computer for the GMPLS signaling of the combination, since a programmable computer will be readily available and less expensive than custom hardware.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Optical switch/crossconnect management and/or testing – US Patent No. 6704508; US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0224033
Optical network connection testing – US Patent No. 7181138; US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0099099.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN M CORS whose telephone number is (571)272-3028. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
/NATHAN M CORS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights