DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 11/18/2024 and 02/18/2024 have been considered.
Double Patenting
3. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1of U.S. Patent No. 11558137. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as reproduced below.
Claim 1 of current 18/936951
Claim 1 of US Patent 11558137
A method, comprising:
A method configured to control an optical transmitter subsystem, the method comprising:
determining a start position of an upstream timeslot; and
determining a start position of an upstream timeslot for transmitting optical signals;
enabling one or more transmitter subsystem components in advance of the start position of the upstream timeslot.
See note below
determining an amount of time necessary to enable a current source in the optical transmitter subsystem to transition from a reduced energy state to a ready state where the current source is capable of providing current to a component in the optical transmitter subsystem; generating a set of instructions that instructs the current source to activate at a time corresponding to the amount of time prior to the start position of the upstream timeslot, wherein the set of instructions instructs a component in the optical transmitter subsystem different from the current source to activate at a second time prior to the start position of the upstream timeslot; and providing the set of instructions to the current source.
It has been held that the omission of an element and its function is obvious
expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson,
136 USPQ 184 (CCPA). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (bd. App. 1969); the
omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art. Claim 1 of 18/936951 does not explicitly disclose two different time prior to start position of the upstream time slot, and transition from a reduced energy state to a ready state. However, it has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 103a as being unpatentable over Zou et al. (US 2009/0226170) in view of Kenny et al. (US 2003/0007210).
Regarding claim 1, Zou discloses a method, comprising: determining a start position of an upstream timeslot; (an optical network unit with transmission convergence unit adapted to retrieve the upstream timeslot indication and determine upstream bandwidth position, see page 8 and paragraph 104, lines 8-14 and figure 8, based on start position of upstream time slot in the upstream bandwidth map, see page 2, paragraph 11 and figure 2); enabling a one or more transmitter component subsystem components , (an ONU with interface unit adapted to enable the laser before sending the burst data according to the set laser enable time overhead, see page 9 and paragraph 104, lines 18-23 and figure 2).
However, Zou does not explicitly disclose in advance of the start position of the upstream timeslot.
In a related field endeavor, Kenny discloses in advance of the start position of the upstream timeslot; (after the dead time (enabling) 715 the bias or power level circuit 910 produces the electrical current need to power the laser transmitter 905, see page 11, paragraph 134 and figure 9 where the biasing is done during the start 710 of the time slot page 9,paragrapgh 112 and figure 7 as reproduced below).
PNG
media_image1.png
352
766
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would be obvious to combine the optical transmitter operated according to predetermined timing of Kenny with Zou to transmit the upstream data in TDMA time slots according to a predetermined timing scheme and the motivation is increased speed at which the upstream data is handled between the subscriber and the data hub.
Conclusion
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is reproduced below.
a. Kramer et al (US 2005/0041682) discloses an apparatus that reduces data burst in Ethernet passive optical network, see figure 8.
b. Kwon et al (US 2007/0116467) discloses a passive optical network in which the upstream modulated data is transmitted in a designated time slot, see figure 1.
c. Zhang et al (Scheduling hybrid WDM/TDM Passive Optical networks with Nonzero laser tuning time – 2011 attached) disclose a method to minimize packet delay and schedule length for the ONU by using non- zero laser tuning time, see figure 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMRITBIR K SANDHU whose telephone number is (571)270-1894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm.
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 on 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.
/AMRITBIR K SANDHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights