DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 – Scope of Enablement
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a limited scope based on the teachings in the application, does not reasonably provide enablement for the full scope recited in the claims. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
MPEP 2164.08 states: “The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that ‘the specification must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without ‘undue experimentation’.” In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Scope of the Claims and Teachings of the Application.
Claim 1 recites:
1. A calculation apparatus including
one or more processors configured to
calculate an input power to an optical fiber transmission path of each channel in two adjacent bands,
wherein the calculation apparatus is configured to assume that a transition of span incoming power due to an influence of stimulated Raman scattering depends on the number of existing channels in an optical fiber transmission path, and
calculate input power for eliminating a slope of the span incoming power using a coefficient r indicating a power ratio of a target channel and an adjacent channel.
The “calculate” steps have a broad scope that includes the calculation of input power to an optical fiber transmission path for each channel in two adjacent bands, and for the calculation of input power for eliminating slope of the span incoming power “using a coefficient r” indicating a power ratio of a target channel and an adjacent channel. In other words, the claim broadly recites desired results from calculation without limiting the calculation other than using the coefficient r.
In contrast, the present application teaches a particular equation for calculating this input power. See:
[0065] The calculation apparatus 30 calculates an input power to the optical fiber transmission path of each channel in two adjacent bands. The calculation apparatus 30 assumes that a span incoming power transition due to an influence of stimulated Raman scattering depends on the number of existing channels in the optical fiber transmission path, and calculates the input power for eliminating the slope of the span incoming power by using a coefficient r indicating the power ratio of the target channel and the adjacent channel.
[0066] The calculation apparatus 30 executes calculation of the input power of each channel on the basis of Equation (1) below. Here, i indicates a number indicating the channel (1≤i≤M). f.sub.i indicates a center frequency of channel i (f.sub.M≤f.sub.i≤f.sub.1 and 4 THz≤f.sub.1−f.sub.M≤15 THz). f indicates a center frequency interval of adjacent channels. P.sub.i(0) indicates input power (0.1 mW≤P.sub.i(0)≤10 mW) to the optical fiber transmission path of channel i. r indicates a coefficient for controlling P.sub.i(0) [dBm]. ρ.sub.1 indicates a channel occupancy rate of a high frequency short wavelength side band 1. ρ.sub.2 indicates the channel occupancy rate of a low frequency long wavelength side band 2. L indicates a span length of the optical fiber transmission path. α indicates a loss coefficient of the optical fiber transmission path. k indicates a slope of the Raman gain coefficient.
PNG
media_image1.png
100
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In other words, the application teaches to calculate the input power using a particular equation that includes coefficient “r” in a particular way (see Equation 1, above). This teaching does not support the broad scope recited in the claim.
The application also teaches variations of this equation that can be used in particular situations. For example, Equation 1B is a simplification of Equation 1 when certain conditions are met.
PNG
media_image2.png
50
428
media_image2.png
Greyscale
See [0067]-[0068]. Similarly, Equation 1C is a simplification of Equation 1B when certain conditions are met.
PNG
media_image3.png
50
414
media_image3.png
Greyscale
See [0069]-[0070]. Similarly, Equation 1D is a simplified form of Equation 1 when certain conditions are met.
PNG
media_image4.png
66
456
media_image4.png
Greyscale
See [0105]-[0106]. As with Equation 1, these teachings do not support the broad scope recited in the claim because the claim does not recite any of simplified Equations 1B-1D, and the claim does not require the conditions taught for the use of those equations.
The Remaining Claims.
Independent claim 5 recites an apparatus with the analogous functionality and the same broad scope as claim 1.
Independent claim 6 recites a method with analogous functionality and the same broad scope as claim 1.
Claims 2 and 7 depend from claims 1 and 6, respectively, and recite equation 1 and related limitations from the application, and limit their scope to be commensurate with the teachings of the application. These claims are not rejected.
Claims 3 and 4 depend from claim 2 and are also commensurate with the teachings of the application. These claims are not rejected.
The Claims do not Recite the Particular Structure, Materials, or Steps.
As discussed above, the application teaches how to make and use the invention using a particular algorithm (i.e., Equation 1) to implement the calculation as recited in the claim. As also discussed above, the rejected claims broadly recite the desired functionality/results, but do not recite the particular structure, materials, or steps that accomplish the claimed functionality/results. This results in claims having a scope that is much broader than the teachings of the application.
When considering the teachings of the application and the scope of the claims, as discussed above, see MPEP 2173.05(g), 4th paragraph:
… Further, without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim. Ariad Pharmaceuticals., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Unlimited functional claim limitations that extend to all means or methods of resolving a problem may not be adequately supported by the written description or may not be commensurate in scope with the enabling disclosure, both of which are required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714, 218 USPQ 195, 197 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1340, 94 USPQ2d at 1167. …
This supports a finding that the broad scope of the claims is not commensurate with the teachings in the disclosure.
No Teaching of a General Case for the Full Scope of the Claims.
The Examiner also notes that there is no teaching of an apparatus/method with the broad scope recited in the claims. In particular, there is no teaching of a general case that can calculate input power for eliminating a slope of the span incoming power using the coefficient “r” in the broad scope recited in the claim (i.e., without being limited to the use of “r” in the equations as taught in the application).
If such a general case were contemplated or discovered by the inventors, its disclosure and a description of its operation would be expected as part of the application in order to support broad claims, such as claim 1. This is particularly true because, as discussed above, the embodiments that are disclosed in the application require complex and particular equations that use “r” in a particular way (i.e., Equation 1). These equations would be unnecessary if a general case had been known by the inventors (e.g., any use of “r” to achieve the desired results), and yet the application does not include a disclosure of a general case. This supports a conclusion that the scope of the claims is not commensurate with the teachings of the application.
Other Considerations.
The nature of the invention is optical transmission and reception apparatuses and methods. The components used in the various embodiments were known to one of ordinary skill. For example, one or ordinary skill would be familiar with components such as processors, PDs, multiplexers, demultiplexers, modulators, splitters, and combiners in the context of the invention. Therefore, no teachings of how to make these individual components is required.
The application teaches how to calculate the input power in order to achieve the desired results (e.g., see Equation 1). These teachings are particular and complex. Nonetheless, one or ordinary skill would know how to make and use the disclosed embodiments of the invention from the teachings of the application.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious that some elements may be modified or replaced with other elements known to have the same or similar functionality, and to make some modifications to the particular structures disclosed. For example, the modified equations 1B and 1C when particular conditions are met.
Similarly, one of ordinary skill would also know how to perform other tasks in the present technological area and related to the invention, such as providing power to components (although power supplies and power specifications are not explicitly taught in the application), and splicing/coupling the electrical and optical components together (although this is not explicitly taught in the application), and managing the temperature of electrical and optical components which are susceptible to performance degradation and undesirable operational variations based on temperature (although this is not explicitly taught in the application), and shielding components from EM interference that can be generated by such devices (although this is not explicitly taught). Although this is not an exhaustive list, the obvious modifications based on the disclosure and the knowledge of one or ordinary skill are nonetheless of a limited scope.
However, these modifications do not address the issues raised above regarding the disparity between the scope of the claims and the teachings of the application.
Experimentation.
As discussed above, the application does not teach the full scope of the claims. As a result, the claims include many possible structures/steps/functions, and not all possibilities within the scope of the claims will produce the desired results or functions.
As a result, if one of ordinary skill were to attempt to make and use the full scope of the claims, it would require making, testing, or otherwise evaluating a large number of possible algorithms using “r” to find what works to perform the desired functionality. This results in a practically unlimited number of embodiments that would need to be made, tested, or otherwise evaluated to determine which embodiments are operative and which are inoperative. In other words, this would require almost infinite experimentation.
This supports a finding that undue experimentation would be required to make and use the full scope of the claims.
Conclusion.
After careful consideration the Examiner has concluded that the specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. In other words, the specification fails to teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without ‘undue experimentation’.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 7 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. The prior art of record teaches the general subject matter but does not teach the particular embodiments recited in the claims.
US 6,859,622 (Jiang) at FIG. 3 illustrates a method of SRS effect estimating.
PNG
media_image5.png
648
1000
media_image5.png
Greyscale
See also col. 5:
(13) The DWDM system 100 (FIG. 1) is assumed to be an equally-spaced N-channel DWDM system. Furthermore, channel 1 has the lowest wavelength, channel N has the highest wavelength and the wavelengths of the channels increase monotonically with reference number. For a generic ith channel, there will be an increase in power as each channel with a shorter wavelength transfers power to the ith channel due to SRS. Similarly, the ith channel transfers power to those channels with longer wavelengths due to SRS.
(14) The amount of power transfer (crosstalk), x, over the length of the fiber 104 due to SRS between any two channels may be computed (step 302) using the undepleted pump assumption as:
PNG
media_image6.png
42
410
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(15) where .DELTA..lambda. is wavelength spacing between the two channels, .DELTA..lambda..sub.R is Raman bandwidth, L.sub.e is an effective length of the fiber 104 and P.sub.0 represents launch power. By default, launch power is equal for each channel. The superscript [1] denotes the result is from the 1.sup.st iteration. Notably, equation 5 is related to equation 3, in that
PNG
media_image7.png
50
588
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(16) Equation 6 allows equation 5 to be simplified to
PNG
media_image8.png
32
592
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(18) The power at the output of the ith channel in the N-channel system 100, given SRS, may then be estimated as follows (step 304): ##EQU8##
US 2021/0211218 (Hamaoka) at FIG. 2 illustrates a process for optimizing input power to an optical fiber transmission line in the optical transmission system
PNG
media_image9.png
664
284
media_image9.png
Greyscale
See also:
[0030] FIG. 2 is a flowchart illustrating a process of optimizing the input power to the optical fiber transmission line in the optical transmission system 1.
The process of FIG. 2 is discussed in more detail in [0030]-[0039]. However, it does not appear to teach the process/algorithm taught in the present application.
However, it does not appear to teach the particular process/algorithm taught in the present application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARREN WOLF whose telephone number is (571)270-3378. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM.
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 N. 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.
/DARREN E WOLF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights