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 .
Election/Restrictions
The Applicant’s election with traverse of Specie I comprising Fig 2A and Fig 2B and claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 8/24/2026 is acknowledged. The Applicant argues that the restriction is improper. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement because of the following. First, the restriction is proper because Specie I (Fig 2A and Fig 2B) requires a structure (as shown in Fig 2A) where an optical signal passes through a WSS Pass1, a WSS Pass2, a WSS Pass3, a WSS Pass4 and then an optical amplification (as shown in Fig 2B) and Specie II (Fig 4A and Fig 4B) requires a structure (as shown in Fig 4A) where an optical signal passes through a WSS Pass1, a WSS Pass2, an optical amplification, a WSS Pass3, a WSS Pass4, a WSS Pass5, a WSS Pass6, an optical amplification, a WSS Pass7, and then a WSS Pass8 (as shown in Fig 4B). Here, each species, as claimed, requires mutually exclusive limitations (e.g. different configurations and steps of operation), and the species, as claimed, are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record. Also, each of the species generates different results (see Fig 5A of the Applicant’s disclosure). Furthermore, it is evident that there are multiple patentably distinct embodiments of the invention being claimed, and there is a serious burden to the Examiner to examine all of them within the time being allocated. As an example, the prior art applicable to Specie I is not likely applicable to Specie II (see rejection below). In conclusion, for at least these reasons, the restriction is proper.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al (US Pat 9793999) in view of Filer et al (N-degree ROADM Architecture Comparison: Broadcast and-Select versus Route-and-Select in 120 Gb/s DP-QPSK Transmission Systems).
Regarding Claim 1. Yu discloses a method of filtering a broadband optical signal comprising:
(a) outputting a broadband optical signal (Fig 1, where an optical signal source (e.g. 22, 28, 30, 32, 36) outputs a broadband optical signal (e.g. having a 100GHz spectral width));
(b) filtering the broadband optical signal (Fig 1, where a re-circulating loop (40) filters (e.g. at WSS 44) the broadband optical signal (e.g. having a 100GHz spectral width));
(c) optically amplifying the broadband optical signal (Fig 1, where an amplifier (e.g. between Switch and OBPF 52) optically amplifies the broadband optical signal (e.g. having a 100GHz spectral width)); and
(d) providing the filtered and amplified broadband optical signal to an optical receiving device (Fig 1, where the filtered and amplified broadband optical signal (e.g. having a 100GHz spectral width) is provided to an optical receiving device (e.g. Co. Rx 50)).
Yu fails to explicitly disclose the broadband optical signal being filtered a plurality of times.
However, Filer discloses
an optical signal being filtered a plurality of times (Fig 1c, where an optical signal in a recirculating loop is filtered (e.g. at WSS) a plurality of times (e.g. 6 times / six traversals)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the re-circulating loop (40) as described in Yu, with the teachings of the recirculating loop as described in Filer. The motivation being is that as shown an optical signal in a recirculating loop is filtered (e.g. at WSS) a plurality of times (e.g. 6 times / six traversals) and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the re-circulating loop (40) as described in Yu and better show and illustrate that the broadband optical signal (e.g. having a 100GHz spectral width) in the re-circulating loop (40) is filtered (e.g. at WSS 44) a plurality of times (e.g. 6 times / six traversals) i.e. because the re-circulating loop (40) is performing bandwidth narrowing filtering caused by cascaded WSSs along a transmission path and where such cascaded WSSs are filtering an optical signal a plurality of times in order to create a better filter selectivity/passband and bandwidth utilization and which combination is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. re-circulating loops) and which combination is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known recirculating loop into another similar re-circulating loop (40), namely, for better clarifying its operation/configuration and which combination yields predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2. Yu as modified by Filer also discloses the method, wherein step (c) includes, optically amplifying the broadband optical signal after the plurality of times in step (b) (Yu Fig 1, where step (c) includes, optically amplifying (e.g. at an amplifier between Switch and OBPF 52) the broadband optical signal (e.g. having a 100GHz spectral width) after the plurality of times (e.g. 6 times / six traversals) in step (b) (i.e. after the traversals in the re-circulating loop 40)).
Regarding Claim 3. Yu as modified by Filer also discloses the method, wherein step (c) includes, optically amplifying the broadband optical signal between a pair of the plurality of times in step (b) (Yu Fig 1, where step (c) includes, optically amplifying (e.g. at an amplifier between Switch and WSS 44) the broadband optical signal (e.g. having a 100GHz spectral width) between a pair of the plurality of times (e.g. 6 times / six traversals) in step (b) (i.e. between the traversals in the re-circulating loop 40)).
Regarding Claim 4. Yu as modified by Filer also discloses the method, wherein step (b) includes, filtering the broadband optical signal with the same filtering function each of the plurality of times (Yu Fig 1, where step (b) includes, filtering (e.g. at WSS 44) the broadband optical signal (e.g. having a 100GHz spectral width) with the same filtering function each of the plurality of times (e.g. 6 times / six traversals)).
Regarding Claim 5. Yu as modified by Filer also discloses the method, wherein:
step (b) includes, filtering the broadband optical signal a first plurality of times using a first filtering function each time (Yu Fig 1, where step (b) includes, filtering (e.g. at WSS 44) the broadband optical signal (e.g. having a 100GHz spectral width) a first plurality of times (e.g. 6 times / six traversals) using a first filtering function each time); and
step (c) includes optically amplifying the broadband optical signal between one pair of the first plurality of times (Yu Fig 1, where step (c) includes optically amplifying (e.g. at amplifier between Switch and WSS 44) the broadband optical signal (e.g. having a 100GHz spectral width) between one pair of the first plurality of times (e.g. 6 times / six traversals)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 is/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.
Conclusion
The additional prior art considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure and not relied upon is the following:
Jia et al (US Pub 20170170993) and more specifically Fig 3B.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DIBSON J SANCHEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0868. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 10:00-6:00.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, Kenneth Vanderpuye can be reached on 5712723078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DIBSON J SANCHEZ/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634
