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 Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “gigabite” should read “gigabit”; in line 2, “ten-gigabyte” should read “ten-gigabit” (see, e.g., ITU-T G.9807.1 (02/2023)). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “gigabite” should read “gigabit”; in line 2, “ten-gigabyte” should read “ten-gigabit” (see, e.g., ITU-T G.9807.1 (02/2023)). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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(s) 1-2, 4-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2025/0038856 A1) in view of Wang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2024/0288640 A1) and Iovanna et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2025/0047406 A1). The effective priority date of claim 1 is taken to be 09/26/2023.
Regarding claim 1, Hsieh et al. teaches in FIG. 4 a network interface device, comprising: a first laser driver (the laser driver 412 and OE-EO converter 4143 of FIG. 4); a second laser driver (the laser driver 413 and the OE-EO converter); a receiving multiplexer (high speed switch 415), operatively connected to the first laser driver and the second laser driver and configured to transmit either a first electrical signal received from the first laser driver or a second electrical signal received from the second laser driver; a processing circuit (processor 411), wherein the processor receives a configuration signal from a provider network indicating that the network interface device should operate according to a first passive-optical-network (PON) protocol (Hsieh et al. teaches in paragraph [0045] that when the laser driver 412 receives the first downlink electrical signal, the receiving terminal 4121 sends the loss-of-signal to the LOS terminal 4114 which controls the switch to the signal received from the first laser driver to the processor); provide a first control signal to the receiving multiplexer based on the configuration signal to cause the receiving multiplexer to transmit the first electrical signal to the processing circuit; and extract, from the first electrical signal and based on the first PON protocol, downstream data; and at least one user port (the port between the network module 4117 and local area network 210), operatively connected to the at least one processing circuit, configured to transmit the downstream data to a user device (it is understood that the local area network connects user devices). The differences between Hsieh et al. and the claimed invention are (a) Hsieh et al. does not teach an optical splitter, and (b) Hsieh et al. does not teach that the processing circuit comprises memory storing instructions. Wang et al. teaches in FIG. 3 a combo bidirectional optical subassembly (BOSA). The combo BOSA has a splitting system comprising filters 61-65. The transmitter 2 and receiver 4 correspond to the first laser driver of instant claim and the transmitter 1 and receiver 3 correspond to the second laser driver of instant claim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Wang et al. with the system of Hsieh et al. because Wang et al. teaches the details of implementation that are missing from Hsieh et al. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the splitting system, as taught by Wang et al., in the system of Hsieh et al.
Furthermore, Wang et al. teaches in paragraph [0034] that the transmitter 2 and the receiver 4 support GPON Protocol.
The combination of Hsieh et al. and Wang et al. still fails to teach that the processing circuit comprises memory storing instructions. Iovanna et al. teaches in FIG. 1 an ONU (equivalent to the network interface device of instant claim) comprising a controller 130 which correspond to the processor 411 of FIG. 4 of Hsieh et al. Iovanna et al. teaches in FIG. 1 that the controller comprises processor 132 and memory 134 which includes instructions 136 to be executed by the processor for carrying out a process. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Iovanna et al. with the modified system of Hsieh et al. and Wang et al. because Iovanna et al. teaches details of implementation that are missing from Hsieh et al. and Wang et al. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include memory for storing instruction to be executed by the processor for implementing a process, as taught by Iovanna et al., in the modified system of Hsieh et al. and Wang et al.
Regarding claim 2, Hsieh et al. teaches in FIG. 4 that the first laser driver includes O/E converter 4143 for converting first optical signal to first electrical signal, and the second laser driver includes O/E converter 4144 for converting second optical signal to second electrical signal.
Regarding claim 4, Hsieh et al. teaches in paragraph [0047] that when the passive optical network 220 provides the second downlink optical signal to the light emitting and receiving component 414, the laser driver 413 receives the second downlink electrical signal, the receiving terminal 4131 sends the loss-of-signal to the LOS terminal 4115 which controls the switch to the signal received from the second laser driver to the processor.
Regarding claim 5, Wang et al. teaches in paragraph [0034] that the transmitter 1 and the receiver 3 support XGS-PON Protocol.
Regarding claim 7, Wang et al. teaches in paragraph [0034] that the first PON protocol is a gigabit PON (GPON) protocol and the second PON protocol is a ten-gigabit symmetric PON (XGS-PON) protocol.
Claim(s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh et al., Wang et al. and Iovanna et al. as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5 and 7 above, and further in view of Zheng (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2017/0093623 A1).
Hsieh et al., Wang et al. and Iovanna et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 1-2, 4-5 and 7. The difference between Hsieh et al., Wang et al. and Iovanna et al. and the claimed invention is that Hsieh et al., Wang et al. and Iovanna et al. do not teach virtual port number. Zheng teaches in FIG. 2 the concept of a virtual access node (AN) and in paragraph [0128] that a port of a AN corresponds to a virtual port of the virtual AN. The virtual port is assigned a virtual port identifier. Zheng teaches in paragraph [0344] that a packet that is sent to the Remote AN carries a virtual port ID which can be the same as the physical port ID as explained in paragraph [0345]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Zheng with the modified system of Hsieh et al., Wang et al. and Iovanna et al. because Zheng teaches the details of implementation that are missing from Hsieh et al., Wang et al. and Iovanna et al. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a virtual port ID in packets destinated for the port, as taught by Zheng, in the modified system of Hsieh et al., Wang et al. and Iovanna et al.
Regarding claim 6, Zheng teaches in FIG. 19 that AN1 has a plurality of ports.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh et al., Wang et al. and Iovanna et al. as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5 and 7 above, and further in view of Kazawa et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2012/0008948 A1) and Peeters (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 20180262463 A1).
Hsieh et al., Wang et al. and Iovanna et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 1-2, 4-5 and 7. The difference between Hsieh et al., Wang et al. and Iovanna et al. and the claimed invention is that Hsieh et al., Wang et al. and Iovanna et al. do not teach a first user port and a second user port, operatively connected to the at least one processing circuit and configured with a physical (PHY) layer that is adapted for a higher speed Ethernet transmission than the first user port. Kazawa et al. teaches in FIG. 1 that ONU 300-1 has two ports one for a telephone which is a low-speed device and the other for a PC. Peeters teaches in paragraph [0051] that a PC is connected to a ONT (equivalent to ONU) via an Ethernet port which has higher speed than a telephone port. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Kazawa et al. and Peeters with the modified system of Hsieh et al., Wang et al. and Iovanna et al. because Kazawa et al. and Peeters teach details of implementation that are missing from Hsieh et al., Wang et al. and Iovanna et al. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a first user port for connecting to a phone and a second user port with ethernet connection, as taught by Kazawa et al. and Peeters, in the modified system of Hsieh et al., Wang et al. and Iovanna et al.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh et al., Wang et al. and Iovanna et al. as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5 and 7 above, and further in view of Garbelman et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2022/0272007 A1).
Hsieh et al., Wang et al. and Iovanna et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 1-2, 4-5 and 7. The difference between Hsieh et al., Wang et al. and Iovanna et al. and the claimed invention is that Hsieh et al., Wang et al. and Iovanna et al. do not teach a housing. Garbelman et al. teaches in FIG. 3A a housing for a network interface device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Garbelman et al. with the modified system of Hsieh et al., Wang et al. and Iovanna et al. because Garbelman et al. teaches details of implementation that are missing from Hsieh et al., Wang et al. and Iovanna et al. and a housing secures and protects the components of the network interface device. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a housing for the network interface device, as taught by Garbelman et al., in the modified system of Hsieh et al., Wang et al. and Iovanna et al.
Claim(s) 10-13 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh et al., Wang et al. and Iovanna et al. as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5 and 7 above, and further in view of Wang060 (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2023/0262060 A1).
Hsieh et al., Wang et al. and Iovanna et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 1-2, 4-5 and 7. The high-speed switch 415 of FIG. 4 of Hsieh et al. is equivalent to the transmitting multiplexer of instant claim. The network interface device taught by Hsieh et al. is a Combo ONU which may operate in one band at a time (i.e. cannot operate as XGS-PON and GPON simultaneously). The difference between Hsieh et al., Wang et al. and Iovanna et al. and the claimed invention is that Hsieh et al., Wang et al. and Iovanna et al. do not teach receiving a configuration signal from a provider network indicating whether the network interface device should operate according to a first passive-optical-network (PON) protocol or a second PON protocol; generating, from the upstream data and based on the first PON protocol or the second PON protocol, a first electrical signal. Wang060 teaches in FIG. 1 configuring a PON with a low-delay band (high speed channel) and a non-low-delay band (low speed channel) and use the low-speed channel for ONU registration/configuration. Wang060 teaches in paragraph [0084] that the OLT sends a ranging request to the ONU (which is equivalent to the configuration signal of instant claim), and the ONU sends an uplink optical signal after receiving the ranging request (the optical signal is based on the upstream electrical signal generated by the processor in the case of FIG. 4 of Hsieh et al.). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Wang060 with the modified system of Hsieh et al., Wang et al. and Iovanna et al. because Wang060 teaches the details of operation of the network interface device that are missing from Hsieh et al., Wang et al. and Iovanna et al. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow the registration/configuration procedure, as taught by Wang060, in the modified system of Hsieh et al., Wang et al. and Iovanna et al.
Regarding claim 11, Wang060 teaches in FIG. 1 that during the first registration/configuration phrase, the ONU (i.e. the network interface device) operate in the low-speed channel which is the first passive-optical-network protocol.
Regarding claim 12, Wang060 teaches in paragraph [0084] that the OLT generates a band switching instruction after receiving the band switching request sent by the ONU, and sends the band switching instruction to the ONU. The ONU switches the operating band to the low-delay band according to the band switching instruction.
Regarding claim 13, Wang et al. teaches in paragraph [0034] that the first PON protocol is a gigabit PON (GPON) protocol and the second PON protocol is a ten-gigabit symmetric PON (XGS-PON) protocol.
Regarding claim 16, Iovanna et al. teaches in paragraph [0004] that ONT is also known as ONU.
Claims 17-18 are rejected based on the reasons for rejecting claims 10-12 because an apparatus implies the method of using the apparatus.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Hsieh et al., Wang et al., Iovanna et al. and Wang060 teaches causing, in response to the first configuration signal, a receiving multiplexer of the NID to transmit a first downstream electrical signal comprising downstream data from the first laser driver to the processing circuit (Wang060 teaches that the first configuration signal is transmitted using GPON which goes to the first laser driver of Hsieh et al.); and extracting, by the processing circuit, the downstream data from the first downstream electrical signal according to the first PON protocol (it is understood that the data processing unit 4116 of FIG. 4 of Hsieh et al. processes the received electrical signal and forwards to the output port via the network module).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Hsieh et al., Wang et al., Iovanna et al. and Wang060 teaches causing, in response to the second configuration signal, the receiving multiplexer to transmit a second downstream electrical signal comprising downstream data from the second laser driver to the processing circuit (Wang060 teaches that the second configuration switch the protocol to XGS-PON and signal goes through the second laser driver of Hsieh et al.); and extracting, by the processing circuit, the downstream data from the second downstream electrical signal according to the second PON protocol (it is understood that the data processing unit 4116 of FIG. 4 of Hsieh et al. processes the received electrical signal and forwards to the output port via the network module).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh et al., Wang et al., Iovanna et al. and Wang060 as applied to claims 10-13 and 16-20 above, and further in view of Kazawa et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2012/0008948 A1) and Peeters (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 20180262463 A1).
Hsieh et al., Wang et al., Iovanna et al. and Wang060 have been discussed above in regard to claims 10-13 and 16-20. The difference between Hsieh et al., Wang et al., Iovanna et al. and Wang060 and the claimed invention is that Hsieh et al., Wang et al., Iovanna et al. and Wang060 do not teach a first user port and a second user port, operatively connected to the at least one processing circuit and configured with a physical (PHY) layer that is adapted for a higher speed Ethernet transmission than the first user port. Kazawa et al. teaches in FIG. 1 that ONU 300-1 has two ports one for a telephone which is a low-speed device and the other for a PC. Peeters teaches in paragraph [0051] that a PC is connected to a ONT (equivalent to ONU) via an Ethernet port which has higher speed than a telephone port. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Kazawa et al. and Peeters with the modified system of Hsieh et al., Wang et al., Iovanna et al. and Wang060 because Kazawa et al. and Peeters teach details of implementation that are missing from Hsieh et al., Wang et al., Iovanna et al. and Wang060. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a first user port for connecting to a phone and a second user port with ethernet connection, as taught by Kazawa et al. and Peeters, in the modified system of Hsieh et al., Wang et al., Iovanna et al. and Wang060.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh et al., Wang et al., Iovanna et al. and Wang060 as applied to claims 10-13 and 16-20 above, and further in view of Garbelman et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2022/0272007 A1).
Hsieh et al., Wang et al., Iovanna et al. and Wang060 have been discussed above in regard to claims 10-13 and 16-20. The difference between Hsieh et al., Wang et al., Iovanna et al. and Wang060 and the claimed invention is that Hsieh et al., Wang et al., Iovanna et al. and Wang060 do not teach a housing. Garbelman et al. teaches in FIG. 3A a housing for a network interface device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Garbelman et al. with the modified system of Hsieh et al., Wang et al., Iovanna et al. and Wang060 because Garbelman et al. teaches details of implementation that are missing from Hsieh et al., Wang et al., Iovanna et al. and Wang060 and a housing secures and protects the components of the network interface device. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a housing for the network interface device, as taught by Garbelman et al., in the modified system of Hsieh et al., Wang et al., Iovanna et al. and Wang060.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHI K LI whose telephone number is (571)272-3031. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:53 a.m. -3:23 p.m.
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, David Payne can be reached at 571 272-3024. 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.
skl10 August 2026
/SHI K LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights