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 § 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.
Claims 28-30, 34-36, 39-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ji et al. (“Ji”) (US Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0249969).
Regarding claim 28, Ji discloses an optical switch comprising: a plurality of reconfigurable add/drop multiplexers (ROADMs) (fig. 3, elements 12, 14, 16 and paragraph 0030), each comprising a plurality of optical line ports (fig. 3 outside lines coupled to 12, 14 and 16) and a plurality of add/drop ports (fig. 3, inside lines coupled to 12, 14 and 16); and a connection apparatus connecting, for each ROADM, each add/drop port of the ROADM to a port of each of a respective one or more other ROADMs (fig. 3 the matrix of interconnecting lines between 12, 14 and 16).
Regarding claim 29, Ji discloses the optical switch of claim 28, wherein the ROADMs are configurable such that an optical signal provided to an optical line port of a ROADM is provided to one of the optical line ports of a selected one of the respective one or more other ROADMs (fig. 3, line signal provided to, e.g., element 18 is then split and selectably provided to the other ROADMS lines ports via WSS).
Regarding claim 30, Ji discloses the optical switch of claim 28, wherein the connection apparatus connects, for one or more of the ROADMs, each add/drop port of the ROADM to an add/drop port of each of a plurality of other ROADMs (fig. 3, the matrix of interconnecting lines between 12, 14 and 16).
Regarding claim 34, Ji discloses the optical switch of claim 28 wherein the connection apparatus connects, for each ROADM, each add/drop port of the ROADM to a port on each other ROADM (fig. 3, the matrix of interconnecting lines between 12, 14 and 16).
Regarding claim 35, Ji discloses the optical switch of claim 34, wherein the ROADMs are configurable such that a first signal provided to an optical line port of a ROADM is provided to one of the optical line ports of a selected one of the other ROADMs (fig. 3, line signal provided to, e.g., element 18 is then split and selectably provided to the other ROADMS lines ports via WSS).
Regarding claim 36, Ji discloses the optical switch of claim 28, wherein the connection apparatus is a passive optical network (fig. 3, the matrix of interconnecting lines between 12, 14 and 16 consists of passive waveguides).
Regarding claim 39, Ji discloses the optical switch of claim 28, wherein at least one of the add/drop ports of at least one of the ROADMs is connected to a local termination node (figs. 3 and 4 element 100 and paragraphs 0030 and 0035).
Regarding claim 40, Ji discloses the optical switch of claim 39, wherein the ROADMs are configurable such that an optical signal provided to an optical line port of a selected one of the ROADMs is provided to the local termination node, and/or an optical signal from the local termination node is provided to an optical line port of a selected one of the ROADMs (figs. 3 and 4 element 100 and paragraphs 0030 and 0035).
Regarding claim 41, Ji discloses the optical switch of claim 28, wherein each add/drop port of each of the ROADMs is associated with a respective optical wavelength or range of optical wavelengths (fig. 3 and paragraph 0030 in light of paragraphs 0006 and 0019-0021, the WDM signals inherently have a range of wavelengths).
Regarding claim 42, Ji discloses the optical switch of claim 41, wherein the ROADMs are configurable to select the respective optical wavelength or range of optical wavelengths associated with at least one add/drop port of at least one of the ROADMs (fig. 3 and paragraph 0030, each WSS performs wavelength selection).
Regarding claim 43, Ji discloses the optical switch of claim 41, wherein the ROADMs are configurable such that the add/drop port associated with a first optical wavelength or range of optical wavelengths of at least one of the ROADMs is connected to the add/drop port associated with the first optical wavelength or range of optical wavelengths of at least one other ROADM (fig. 3 and paragraph 0030 in light of paragraphs 0006 and 0019-0021, the matrix of interconnecting lines between 12, 14 and 16 convey the wavelengths and WDM wavelength range of the WDM wavelengths of the system).
Regarding claim 44, Ji discloses a method of configuring an optical switch having a plurality of reconfigurable add/drop multiplexers (ROADMs) (fig. 3, elements 12, 14, 16 and paragraph 0030), each comprising a plurality of optical line ports (fig. 3 outside lines coupled to 12, 14 and 16) and a plurality of add/drop ports (fig. 3, inside lines coupled to 12, 14 and 16), and further having a connection apparatus connecting, for each ROADM, each add/drop port of the ROADM to a port of each of a respective one or more other ROADMs (fig. 3 the matrix of interconnecting lines between 12, 14 and 16), and wherein the method comprises: configuring the ROADMs such that an optical signal provided to an optical line port of a ROADM is provided to one of the optical line ports of a selected one of the respective one or more other ROADMs (fig. 3, line signal provided to, e.g., element 18 is then split and selectably provided to the other ROADMS lines ports via WSS); and/or configuring the ROADMs such that an optical signal provided to an optical line port of a selected one of the ROADMs is provided to a local termination node connected to an add/drop port of one of the ROADMs, and/or an optical signal from the local termination node is provided to an optical line port of a selected one of the ROADMs (figs. 3 and 4 element 100 and paragraphs 0030 and 0035).
Regarding claim 45, Ji discloses the method of claim 44, comprising connecting, using the connection apparatus, for one or more of the ROADMs, each add/drop port of the ROADM to an add/drop port of each of a plurality of other ROADMs (fig. 3, the matrix of interconnecting lines between 12, 14 and 16).
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 31-33, 46, 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji (US Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0249969) in view of Wisseman (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0108267).
Regarding claim 31, Ji discloses the optical switch of claim 30, and discloses the ROADMs with splitters (fig. 3), but does not further disclose the connection apparatus comprising at least one optical splitter connecting, for each of the one or more of the ROADMs, each add/drop port of the ROADM to an add/drop port of each of the plurality of other ROADMs. Wisseman discloses related multi-degree interconnected ROADMs that each have a splitter and WSS, like Ji, and also discloses an intermediary connection apparatus with splitters and WSS (fig. 2 and 214 and paragraphs 0023 and 0028). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an intermediary connection apparatus like that Wisseman, between the ROADMs of Ji, to provide the benefit of increased interconnection configurability that allows flexible growth of the capacity of a ROADM node, as taught by Wisseman.
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Ji and Wisseman discloses the optical switch of claim 31, wherein the optical splitters connect together, for each of the one or more of the ROADMs, each add/drop port of the ROADM and the add/drop port of each of the plurality of other ROADMs (Ji: fig. 3 and Wisseman: fig. 2 element 214 and paragraphs 0023 and 0028 as applicable for the combination, accounting for each interconnection of Ji, provided by the reconfigurability of the intermediary apparatus per the modification based on Wisseman).
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Ji and Wisseman discloses the optical switch of claim 31, wherein the optical splitters connect together, for each ROADM, each of one or more add/drop ports of the ROADM and an add/drop port on each other ROADM (Ji: fig. 3 and Wisseman: fig. 2 element 214 and paragraphs 0023 and 0028 as applicable for the combination, accounting for each interconnection of Ji, provided by the reconfigurability of the intermediary apparatus per the modification based on Wisseman).
Regarding claim 46, Ji discloses the method of claim 45, and discloses the ROADMs with splitters (fig. 3), but does not further disclose that the connection apparatus comprises at least one optical splitter connecting, for each of the one or more of the ROADMs, each add/drop port of the ROADM to an add/drop port of each of the plurality of other ROADMs. Wisseman discloses related multi-degree interconnected ROADMs that each have a splitter and WSS, like Ji, and also discloses an intermediary connection apparatus with splitters and WSS (fig. 2 and 214 and paragraphs 0023 and 0028). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an intermediary connection apparatus like that Wisseman, between the ROADMs of Ji, to provide the benefit of increased interconnection configurability that allows flexible growth of the capacity of a ROADM node, as taught by Wisseman.
Regarding claim 47, the combination of Ji and Wisseman discloses the method of claim 46, wherein the optical splitters connect together, for each of the one or more of the ROADMs, each add/drop port of the ROADM and the add/drop port of each of the plurality of other ROADMs (Ji: fig. 3 and Wisseman: fig. 2 element 214 and paragraphs 0023 and 0028 as applicable for the combination, accounting for each interconnection of Ji, provided by the reconfigurability of the intermediary apparatus per the modification based on Wisseman).
Claims 37, 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji (US Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0249969) in view of Yang et al. (“Yang”) (US Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0237218).
Regarding claim 37, Ji discloses the optical switch of claim 28, but does not disclose that the optical line ports of at least one of the ROADMs are connected to a ring optical network. However, this is merely putting the ROADM(s) in the context of conventional network topology. Yang discloses using ROADMs for ring networks (paragraph 0002). 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 ring network topology with the ROADMs of Ji, since ROADM based ring networks address unpredictable internet traffic requirements, as taught by Yang.
Regarding claim 38, Ji discloses the optical switch of claim 28, but does not disclose that at least one of the optical line ports of at least one of the ROADMs is connected to a meshed optical network. However, this is merely putting the ROADM(s) in the context of conventional network topology. Yang discloses using ROADMs for mesh networks (paragraph 0002). 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 mesh network topology with the ROADMs of Ji, since ROADM based ring networks address unpredictable internet traffic requirements, as taught by Yang.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Related ROADM systems – US Patent Application Publication Nos. 2018/0139005, 2017/0244510, 2014/0147121, 2013/0045006.
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
