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 § 112
Claims 1-6 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.
Claims 1-6 recite the limitation “an upstream controller” and then later refers to “the controller. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1-2 further recites the limitation “a plurality of optical nodes” but then later refers to “the optical node.” The issue is that the noun is singular. “The optical nodes” is acceptable because it’s plural. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1-6 further recites the limitation “a light beam” and “output one light beam” but then later refers to “the other light beam.” One way to resolve this would be to introduce “an upstream beam” and “a downstream beam.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1, 3, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tadokoro (WO 2017221534 A1) in light of Reitman (US Pat. App. Pub. 2021/0233380 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 3, and 5, Tadokoro teaches An optical communication system in which a plurality of optical nodes (FIG. 1: 3) is connected in series by an optical fiber in a downstream direction from an upstream controller (FIG. 1: 1), and the controller performs optical power feed to the optical nodes (p. 5, ¶ 3 (“In the optical fiber repeater 3, the feed light sent via the optical fiber is converted into electricity by photoelectric conversion and then stored in the battery.”)), wherein the optical node includes: an optical branching unit configured to branch a light beam from an upstream side and output one light beam to a downstream side (FIG. 1: 3) ; a photoelectric conversion unit configured to charge a storage battery with the other light beam branched by the optical branching unit (p. 5, ¶ 3 (“In the optical fiber repeater 3, the feed light sent via the optical fiber is converted into electricity by photoelectric conversion and then stored in the battery.”)); a control unit configured to grasp a power storage status of the storage battery (p. 4, ¶ 3 (“the charging state of the battery 323 is checked in processing step S92”)) and a modulation unit configured to modulate the other light beam and transmit the power storage status to the controller at time indicated by the power storage answer timing code (Id. (“the electric sensor power is turned on, the measurement data is taken in and transmitted”)).
Reitman teaches when an inquiry signal including an identification code and a power storage answer timing code is included in the other light beam and the identification code is the identification code of the optical node ([0048] (“The computing device may also send specific status requests to the one or more sensors 902, such as but not limited to a battery check requests 905. The one or more sensors 902 can then perform a battery check, or other specific sensor check 907, and send a return specific status signal to the computing device 910 that may then record the specific status 909 in a memory and/or storage unit”));
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tadokoro such that its primary controller (FIG. 1: 1) sent out battery status requests based on the technique taught in Reitman. The nodes in Tadokoro are already configured to transmit data on the battery status based on a timer, and in light of Reitman, it would be obvious to a PHOSITA to modify Tadokoro such that the battery status was sent out when requests are received. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result.
Tadokoro and Reitman both relate to communication networks involving a plurality of sensors and are therefore analogous art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, and 6 include allowable subject matter.
For Claims 2, 4, and 6, the combination of Tadokoro and Reitman teaches The optical communication system according to claim 1,
the combination of Tadokoro and Reitman does not teach wherein the optical branching unit is capable of varying a branching ratio, when an adjustment signal including the identification code, a branching ratio instruction code, and an adjustment answer timing code is included in the other light beam, and the identification code is the identification code of the optical node, the control unit adjusts the branching ratio of the optical branching unit to the branching ratio of the branching ratio instruction code, and grasps the power storage status of the storage battery after a predetermined standby time, and the modulation unit transmits the adjustment of the branching ratio of the optical branching unit to the controller at first time indicated by the adjustment answer timing code, and transmits the power storage status of the storage battery to the controller at second time indicated by the adjustment answer timing code.
Wei (CN 108900141 B) teaches wherein the optical branching unit is capable of varying a branching ratio (FIG. 2: 8a and 8b)
Wei does not teach when an adjustment signal including the identification code, a branching ratio instruction code, and an adjustment answer timing code is included in the other light beam, and the identification code is the identification code of the optical node, the control unit adjusts the branching ratio of the optical branching unit to the branching ratio of the branching ratio instruction code, and grasps the power storage status of the storage battery after a predetermined standby time, and the modulation unit transmits the adjustment of the branching ratio of the optical branching unit to the controller at first time indicated by the adjustment answer timing code, and transmits the power storage status of the storage battery to the controller at second time indicated by the adjustment answer timing code.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a). Specifically, the allowable claims need to converted into independent claims and the 112b rejections need to be addressed.
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
/KENNETH N VANDERPUYE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights