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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite.
The claims fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, in part, that:
“at least two first-direction wavelength channels and at least one second-direction wavelength channel are located in the ZDW region, or at least two second-direction wavelength channels and at least one first-direction wavelength channel are located in the ZDW region,” and
“the at least two first-direction wavelength channels or the at least one first-direction wavelength channel, and the at least one second-direction wavelength channel or the at least two second-direction wavelength channels, that are in the ZDW region are mixedly distributed such that, in the ZDW region, a quantity of consecutive adjacent first-direction wavelength channels is less than or equal to two and a quantity of consecutive adjacent second-direction wavelength channels is less than or equal to two.”
The foregoing language renders the scope of claim 1 unclear. In particular, it is not reasonably clear whether the claim requires:
at least two first-direction wavelength channels and at least one second-direction wavelength channel in the ZDW region,
at least two second-direction wavelength channels and at least one first-direction wavelength channel in the ZDW region, or
either of the foregoing alternatives.
Further, the recitation “the at least two first-direction wavelength channels or the at least one first-direction wavelength channel, and the at least one second-direction wavelength channel or the at least two second-direction wavelength channels, that are in the ZDW region are mixedly distributed” is internally inconsistent and ambiguous. The use of alternative groups without clear antecedent structure leaves the metes and bounds of the claim uncertain.
Accordingly, claim 1 is indefinite.
Claim 3 recites that “distribution of the N first-direction wavelength channels and the N second-direction wavelength channels meets any of” certain listed conditions.
The phrase “meets any of” is unclear and indefinite. It is not reasonably apparent whether applicant intends that the distribution satisfy one, some, or all of the listed conditions. The use of “any of” in this context fails to clearly define the scope of the claim.
Claims 4 and 5 recite “a smallest frequency spacing between the channels of the N first-direction wavelength channels and the channels of the N second-direction wavelength channels that are mixedly distributed.”
The language “the channels of the N first-direction wavelength channels and the channels of the N second-direction wavelength channels that are mixedly distributed” does not clearly identify the set of channels from which the smallest frequency spacing is determined. It is unclear whether the smallest spacing is measured:
between adjacent channels in the combined set,
only among channels located in the ZDW region,
among all 2N channels, or
in some other manner.
As a result, the scope of the claimed limitation is ambiguous.
Claim 12 recites “five wavelength channels with longest wavelengths in the six first-direction wavelength channels and six second-direction wavelength channels that are mixedly distributed.”
This language is unclear because it is not reasonably apparent whether the “five wavelength channels with longest wavelengths” are selected from:
the six first-direction wavelength channels,
the six second-direction wavelength channels, or
the combined set of twelve wavelength channels.
The phrase therefore fails to distinctly identify the referenced set and renders the scope of the claim uncertain.
Claim 15 recites, in relevant part, that:
“a first optical transceiver of the N first optical transceivers corresponds to a first-direction wavelength channel and a second-direction wavelength channel, and the first-direction wavelength channel and the second-direction wavelength channel that correspond to the same first optical transceiver are adjacent to each other; or
a second optical transceiver of the N second optical transceivers corresponds to one first-direction wavelength channel and a second-direction wavelength channel, and the first-direction wavelength channel and the second-direction wavelength channel that correspond to the same second optical transceiver are adjacent to each other.”
The claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether the recited limitation requires the first transceiver arrangement, the second transceiver arrangement, or either arrangement. The use of “or” between two distinct structural arrangements, without clearly defining whether the alternatives are mutually exclusive or cumulative, leaves the scope of the claim uncertain.
Claim 16 recites that “at least two first-direction wavelength channels or at least two second-direction wavelength channels are located in the ZDW region,” and further recites that “the at least two first-direction wavelength channels and the at least two second-direction wavelength channels that are in the ZDW region are mixedly distributed.”
The claim is indefinite because the first clause is stated in the alternative, while the subsequent clause appears to require both first-direction and second-direction wavelength channels to be present in the ZDW region. It is unclear whether claim 16 is intended to cover:
only first-direction wavelength channels in the ZDW region,
only second-direction wavelength channels in the ZDW region, or
both first-direction and second-direction wavelength channels in the ZDW region.
The shifting use of “or” and “and” creates ambiguity as to the required scope of the claim.
Claims 17-20 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 16 and therefore inherit the indefiniteness of claim 16.
In addition, claim 20 recites that “a ratio of a quantity of ports at the first end of the first multiplexer/demultiplexer and a quantity of ports at the second end of the first multiplexer/demultiplexer is N-to-1.”
This limitation is unclear because it is not apparent whether the claimed ratio is exact, approximate, minimum, or exemplary. Furthermore, the claim does not expressly recite the actual number of ports at each end, leaving the scope of the limitation uncertain.
Claims 2, 6-11, 13-14 are rejected for their dependency since they inherit the indefiniteness of the dependent claims.
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 in vention 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 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over JPH11-186969A (provided in IDS filed on 10/24/2024).
Regarding Claim 1, JPH11-186969A discloses a system corresponding to the claimed first node, second node, and optical fiber. The disclosed transmission optical fiber connects optical transmission and reception sections and carries upstream and downstream wavelength channels in opposite directions over the same fiber. See claim 1 and paragraph [0011].
The upstream and downstream channels of JPH11-186969A correspond respectively to the claimed second-direction and first-direction wavelength channels. The reference expressly discloses three or more wavelength channels in one or both directions. See claim 1.
JPH11-186969A also teaches selecting the channel arrangement in a region where the chromatic dispersion of the transmission fiber is small to suppress four-wave mixing. See claim 3 and paragraphs [0002], [0006], and [0024]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the zero-dispersion wavelength is located within, or defines the relevant portion of, such a low-dispersion region.
The reference further teaches distributing bidirectional wavelength channels among available wavelength positions to increase channel utilization and reduce nonlinear interaction. See paragraphs [0006], [0011], and the discussion of FIGS. 4 and 5.
To the extent JPH11-186969A does not expressly disclose that the wavelength channels are mixedly distributed such that no more than two consecutive same-direction channels occur in the ZDW region, that arrangement would have been an obvious channel-allocation design choice. A skilled artisan would have recognized that alternating or partially alternating the upstream and downstream channels increases the separation between channels traveling in the same direction and reduces the number of same-direction channel combinations capable of producing four-wave mixing.
The claimed ZDW range of 1300–1324 nm would likewise have been an obvious selection when using a conventional standard single-mode fiber. Selecting a known fiber having a known ZDW range for use in the disclosed low-dispersion WDM system would have been a routine design choice motivated by the same objective of reducing nonlinear signal degradation.
Accordingly, claim 1 would have been obvious over JPH11-186969A.
Regarding Claim 2, JPH11-186969A teaches selecting wavelength-channel arrangements in a low-dispersion region to suppress four-wave mixing. See claim 3 and paragraphs [0003], [0006], and [0024].
A skilled artisan seeking to suppress four-wave mixing would have had reason to avoid four same-direction wavelength channels having the frequency-symmetry relationship associated with generation of a four-wave-mixing product centered in the low-dispersion or zero-dispersion region. Such an arrangement would have been an obvious application of the reference’s channel-allocation teachings. Claim 2 would therefore have been obvious over JPH11-186969A.
Regarding Claim 3, JPH11-186969A expressly teaches unequal channel spacing in a low-dispersion region. See claim 3 and paragraph [0006]. The selection of channel spacings that avoids three equally spaced same-direction channels, at least two of which are located in the low-dispersion/ZDW region, would have been an obvious implementation of the disclosed unequal-spacing technique. The skilled artisan would have expected such a distribution to reduce degenerate four-wave mixing. Claim 3 would therefore have been obvious over JPH11-186969A.
Regarding Claims 4 and 5, JPH11-186969A teaches selecting wavelength-channel spacing to suppress four-wave mixing while maintaining transmission capacity. See paragraphs [0003], [0006], [0011], and [0024]. Selecting a minimum channel spacing of 800 GHz or 400 GHz would have been an obvious optimization of a result-effective variable. The values represent conventional WDM grid spacings and would have been selected according to the desired balance between:
Four-wave-mixing suppression;
Crosstalk;
Available spectrum; and
Aggregate transmission capacity.
Claims 4 and 5 would therefore have been obvious over JPH11-186969A.
Regarding Claim 6, JPH11-186969A discloses wavelength channels arranged in upstream and downstream groups and teaches both equal-grid and unequal-spacing arrangements. See claim 4 and paragraphs [0006] and [0011]. Using equal spacing within each directional group would have been an obvious implementation of a regular wavelength-grid arrangement. Claim 6 would therefore have been obvious over JPH11-186969A.
Regarding Claim 7, JPH11-186969A discloses at least three wavelength channels in a bidirectional single-fiber system. See claim 1. Selecting six first-direction channels and six second-direction channels would have been an obvious choice to increase aggregate transmission capacity. Alternating the directional assignments in ascending wavelength order would have been an obvious way to increase spacing between same-direction channels and reduce four-wave mixing. Reversing the directional assignment of the alternating sequence would have been an equally obvious alternative because the upstream and downstream designations are interchangeable at the system level. Claim 7 would therefore have been obvious over JPH11-186969A.
Regarding Claim 8, JPH11-186969A expressly discloses unequal wavelength-channel intervals in the upstream and downstream groups. See claim 3 and paragraph [0006]. Thus, the limitation requiring different wavelength spacings in at least one directional group is taught by, or at least obvious in view of, JPH11-186969A. Claim 8 would therefore have been obvious.
Claims 9–11 recite particular six-channel directional assignments obtained by reversing the directions of selected adjacent wavelength channels. JPH11-186969A teaches selecting channel assignments and unequal spacings to suppress four-wave mixing, reduce crosstalk, and minimize unused wavelength channels. See claim 3 and paragraphs [0006], [0011], and the discussion of FIGS. 4 and 5. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered reversing the directional assignment of selected adjacent channels to be a predictable modification of the disclosed channel-allocation arrangements. The artisan would have been motivated to evaluate such finite channel sequences to increase same-direction channel separation and reduce four-wave-mixing combinations. Claims 9–11 would therefore have been obvious over JPH11-186969A.
Regarding Claim 12, JPH11-186969A teaches selecting the operating wavelength region and channel allocation based on the dispersion characteristic of the transmission fiber. See paragraphs [0006], [0011], and [0024]. For a 12-channel system, placing the five longest-wavelength channels in the low-dispersion/ZDW region would have been an obvious result of selecting the fiber, operating band, and channel grid. The relative placement of the fiber’s ZDW and the channel grid is a routine system-design variable. Claim 12 would therefore have been obvious over JPH11-186969A.
Regarding Claim 13, JPH11-186969A discloses use of a transmission optical fiber selected according to its dispersion characteristics and discusses a dispersion-shifted fiber. See paragraph [0011]. Using a standard single-mode fiber would have been an obvious alternative because such fibers were conventional transmission media for WDM optical systems. The selection would have been the use of a known fiber for its known purpose, with a reasonable expectation of success. Claim 13 would therefore have been obvious over JPH11-186969A.
Regarding Claim 14, JPH11-186969A discloses wavelength multiplexing/demultiplexing units connected between the wavelength-channel signal paths and the common transmission optical fiber. See claim 1 and the descriptions of FIGS. 8 and 9. Providing N optical transceivers at each node and connecting the transceivers to respective multiplexer/demultiplexer ports would have been an obvious implementation of the disclosed WDM architecture. Claim 14 would therefore have been obvious.
Regarding Claim 15, JPH11-186969A discloses separate upstream and downstream wavelength-channel paths and optical multiplexing/demultiplexing circuitry for combining and separating those channels. See claims 1 and 2 and the descriptions of FIGS. 8 and 9. Associating an oppositely directed pair of adjacent wavelength channels with a common bidirectional optical transceiver would have been an obvious packaging and routing arrangement. The arrangement would reduce component count and facilitate bidirectional transmission through the common optical fiber. Claim 15 would therefore have been obvious.
Regarding Claim 16, JPH11-186969A discloses a node or transmission-side apparatus having optical components configured to transmit wavelength channels in one direction and receive wavelength channels in the opposite direction over a common optical fiber. See claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 and the descriptions of FIGS. 8 and 9. The disclosed system includes at least three wavelength channels, oppositely directed wavelength-channel propagation, and wavelength multiplexing/demultiplexing. The ZDW-region and mixed-distribution limitations would have been obvious for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. Claim 16 would therefore have been obvious over JPH11-186969A.
Regarding Claim 17, JPH11-186969A discloses optical wavelength multiplexing/demultiplexing units connected to multiple wavelength-channel paths and to the transmission optical fiber. See the descriptions of FIGS. 8 and 9. Connecting a first multiplexer/demultiplexer between the N first optical transceivers and the optical fiber would have been an obvious implementation of the disclosed multiplexing architecture. Claim 17 would therefore have been obvious.
Regarding Claim 18, JPH11-186969A discloses bidirectional wavelength-channel paths associated with transmission over a single optical fiber. See claims 1 and 2 and paragraphs [0011]–[0012].
Associating one first-direction channel and one second-direction channel with the same optical transceiver would have been an obvious arrangement for simplifying bidirectional transmission and reducing component count. Claim 18 would therefore have been obvious.
Regarding Claim 19, JPH11-186969A expressly discloses optical isolators that control propagation direction in the wavelength-channel paths. See claims 2 and 6 and the descriptions of FIGS. 8 and 9. An optical fiber circulator is a known optical component that provides directional routing and isolation. Replacing or incorporating the disclosed optical-isolator arrangement with an optical fiber circulator would have been an obvious substitution of a known equivalent component performing the same directional-routing function. Claim 19 would therefore have been obvious.
Regarding Claim 20, JPH11-186969A discloses wavelength multiplexing/demultiplexing units having multiple wavelength-channel ports and a common port connected to the transmission optical fiber. See the descriptions of FIGS. 8 and 9. Providing N wavelength-channel ports at one end of the multiplexer/demultiplexer and one common optical-fiber port at the other end would have been an obvious implementation of the disclosed WDM arrangement. Claim 20 would therefore have been obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUAN ZHEN WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 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.
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.
/QUAN ZHEN WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2685
