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 .
DETAILED OFFICE ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2024-11-20 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 has been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Status
Claims 1-12 are pending in this application and are under examination in this Office Action. No claims have been allowed.
Specification
The specification is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required. Any correction must comply with 37 CFR 1.121 and must not introduce new matter:
Paragraph [0007]
recites "an optical transceiver including comprising" and later recites "wavelength filter having a transmission wavelength." The duplicated "including comprising" wording and the omitted article before "wavelength filter" are grammatical informalities that should be corrected.
Paragraph [0011]
The heading "BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS" appears twice immediately before paragraph [0011]. One of the duplicate headings should be removed.
Paragraph [0064]
identifies "Step 25," whereas Figure 7 identifies the corresponding step as "S25." The step designation should be made consistent.
Paragraph [0085]
recites "optical communication in an optical front hole." The phrase "optical front hole" appears to be a typographical or terminological informality and should be corrected to the intended terminology, consistent with the originally filed disclosure and without introducing new matter.
Paragraph [0087]
recites "the optical signal IN1 the is wavelength-multiplexed to the main signal." The phrase "the is" is grammatically incorrect and should be corrected.
Paragraph [0091]
recites that a GPU "may be provided to perform performs various processes." The phrase "perform performs" is grammatically incorrect and should be corrected.
Paragraph [0102]
recites that "the determination unit determines performs determination whether" the optical transceiver is specified. This wording contains overlapping verbs and should be corrected so that the intended determination is stated in full, clear, concise, and exact terms.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 10 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 2,
Claim 2 recites the phrase "the determination unit determines performs determination whether" and later recites "as determination whether." The wording contains duplicated and overlapping verbs and is grammatically informal. In view of paragraph [0027], the intended determination is reasonably ascertainable, but the claim language should be corrected so that the additional limitation is stated clearly and consistently.
Regarding claim 10,
Claim 10 first recites "optical signal distribution unit" and later recites "the optical signal distribution unit means." The added word "means" is inconsistent with the previously introduced terminology and should be corrected so that the same element is identified consistently throughout the claim.
Regarding claim 11,
Claim 11 introduces "a determination unit" but later recites "in a case where the determination means determines." The specification states that the determination unit may also be referred to as determination means, so the intended element is reasonably ascertainable; however, the terminology in the claim is inconsistent and should be corrected for clarity and consistency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 9,
Claim 9 recites, in pertinent part: "an optical branching unit configured to wavelength-separate the first optical signal from a third optical signal in which at least the first optical signal and the second optical signal, which have different wavelengths, output the separated first optical signal to the first reception means, and output optical signals other than the first optical signal to the
wavelength filter."
The quoted limitation does not grammatically define the relationship between the "third optical signal" and the recited first and second optical signals. After the phrase "a third optical signal in which at least the first optical signal and the second optical signal, which have different wavelengths," the claim supplies no verb or other language stating whether those first and second optical signals are included in, wavelength-multiplexed in, carried by, or otherwise related to the third optical signal.
The defect also makes the following "output" clauses uncertain. Grammatically, "output the separated first optical signal" may be read as continuing the function of the optical branching unit, but the immediately preceding relative clause can also be read as making the first and second optical signals the grammatical subject of "output." The claim therefore does not distinctly identify the structure and signal relationship that the optical branching unit is required to implement.
The detailed description at paragraph [0049] discloses an embodiment in which WDM optical branching unit 21 selectively wavelength-separates optical signal IN1 from optical signal IN, outputs the separated IN1 to reception unit 1, and sends optical signals of other wavelengths to wavelength-tunable filter 4. Paragraph [0087] further states that the fourth example embodiment may use a WDM coupler to receive optical signal IN1 wavelength-multiplexed to the main signal. These passages indicate possible intended subject matter, but they do not cure the missing grammatical relationship in the claim itself. Further, Supplementary Note 9 at paragraph [0109] contains substantially the same incomplete construction.
Because the claim fails to state what relationship the first and second optical signals have to the third optical signal and fails to state unambiguously what subject performs the recited output operations, the metes and bounds of claim 9 cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. Claim 9 is therefore indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Accordingly, claim 9 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for the 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.
As reiterated by the Supreme Court in KSR, and as set forth in MPEP 2141 (R-01.2024), II, the factual inquiries of Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103, are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and content of the prior art;
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
Considering objective evidence indicative of obviousness or non-obviousness, if present.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wright et al. (US6411410B1) in view of Wen et al. (US20150365190A1).
Claim 1
Wright expressly teaches the core wavelength-selective optical-receiver architecture and a separate optical wavelength-control signal delivered to the receiver over the same passive optical network. The abstract of Wright states:
“An optical line termination (OLT) device (12) generates a plurality of optical signals having different respective wavelengths (λ1, λ2), each optical signal carrying data, and wavelength-division-multiplexes the optical signals. A plurality of optical network units (ONUs 14₁-14₅) are connected to the OLT device (12) by way of a passive optical network (6) so as to receive the wavelength-division multiplexed optical signals. Each ONU (14) has a wavelength selection unit operable in dependence upon control information sent from the OLT (12) to the ONU (14) concerned by way of the passive optical network (6) to select one of the optical signals of the plurality, and also has a detector for processing the selected optical signal to derive therefrom the data carried thereby.” [Wright, Abstract; FIGS. 1-2].
More particularly, Wright discloses the claimed wavelength filter, second reception unit, control-processing function, and control-signal-to-filter instruction path. Wright explains:
“The ONU 14 includes a tunable filter 42 connected to the downstream PON for receiving the wavelength-division multiplexed optical signals S1 to SN, an optical receiver 44, a wavelength control extraction unit (WCEU) 46, and a transmitter 48... In use of the ONU 14 the wavelength-division multiplexed optical signals S1 to SN produced by the OLT 12 are received by the tunable filter 42 which, based on a control signal CS applied thereto by the WCEU 46 specifying one of the downstream wavelengths λ1 to λN, selects the optical signal Ssel having the specified wavelength and passes it to the optical receiver 44... Any overhead information is passed by the optical receiver 44 to the WCEU 46. The WCEU 46 processes the overhead information, extracts from it any control information relevant to its ONU, and generates in dependence upon the relevant control information the control signal CS applied to the tunable filter 42.” [Wright, cols. 9-10; FIG. 7].
Thus, the tunable filter 42 corresponds to the claimed wavelength filter having a tunable transmission wavelength; receiver 44 corresponds to the claimed second reception unit; WCEU 46 performs the control/determination and instruction functions; and control signal CS constitutes an instruction causing tunable filter 42 to use the wavelength identified by the received control information.
Wright further expressly teaches a separate first optical signal carrying the wavelength-setting control information. In the second embodiment:
“It is also possible, however, to use a separate signaling optical signal SC having its own dedicated wavelength λC to convey the control information... The signaling optical signal SC generated by the transmitter 28C is applied to the WDM combiner unit 30 and wavelength-division-multiplexed with the data-carrying optical signals S1 to SN... The ONU 114 ... employs the tunable filter 42, receiver 44, wavelength control extraction unit (WCEU) 46... [and] a fixed wavelength (non-tunable) optical filter 50 which separates out from the data-carrying optical signals S1 to SN the signaling optical signal SC and passes it to a detector 52 which detects the control information carried by the signaling optical signal SC... The detected control information is passed to the WCEU 46 which processes the control information to extract therefrom any control information relevant to its ONU and generate the necessary control signal CS to tune the tunable filter 42 to select the appropriate incoming wavelength λ1 to λN.” [Wright, cols. 13-14; FIGS. 15-17].
The detector 52 therefore corresponds to the claimed first reception unit receiving the first optical signal, while receiver 44 corresponds to the claimed second reception unit receiving the selected second optical signal.
Wright further expressly teaches that the received wavelength-control information is receiver-specific and that the ONU tests its received identifier information before carrying out the wavelength selection. In the FIG. 8 technique, Wright explains:
“Each entry is an ONU designation number designating one of the ONUs, each of the ONUs 14 has its own unique ONU designation number... When each ONU receives overhead information... the overhead information is passed to the WCEU 46... which examines each OH field in order. If it finds, in an OH field, its own ONU designation number it determines that its ONU must tune in the relevant time slot to the optical signal whose wavelength corresponds to that field.” [Wright, cols. 10-11; FIG. 8].
Wright also discloses an address-matching implementation using VPI/VCI information:
“Each ONU recognizes those ATM cells which are destined for it on the basis of the addressing information (VCI and VPI bytes) carried by each cell... if the WCEU 46 in an ONU detects, in either OH field, VPI and VCI address information which matches address information held by the ONU, the WCEU 46 can tell, from the position (field) in which the matching VPI and VCI address information appears within the cell OH, which wavelength the cell concerned will be arriving on.” [Wright, cols. 11-12; FIG. 9].
These disclosures directly correspond to the claimed determination whether the identification information satisfies a predetermined condition: Wright compares receiver-identifying information with identification/address information associated with the local ONU, and the successful match determines the wavelength on which the ONU is to receive the subsequent optical signal. Wright’s second embodiment expressly states that all wavelength-control information is conveyed on the separate signaling optical signal SC to detector 52 and WCEU 46. Thus, the identification test and wavelength-selection information can be carried by the first/control optical signal received on the separate control path.
Wen independently reinforces the same limitation in an even more explicit wavelength-configuration message that carries both receiver identification and the receive/downlink wavelength. Wen states:
“[A] wavelength configuration message ... includ[es] a correct uplink wavelength indication message, a correct downlink wavelength indication message, a Vendor-ID of the optical network unit and a Vendor-specific serial number of the optical network unit; ... judging whether the Vendor-ID ... and the Vendor-specific serial number ... in the wavelength configuration message are consistent respectively with a Vendor-ID of the optical network unit itself and a Vendor-specific serial number of the optical network unit itself; and ... tuning a current uplink wavelength and a current downlink wavelength ... according to the correct uplink wavelength indication message and the correct downlink wavelength indication message, if they are consistent.” [Wen, ¶ [0018]; see also claim 6].
Wen further identifies the message fields as the “correct downlink wavelength indication message The wavelength to be used by the ONU’s receiver,” the “correct uplink wavelength indication message The wavelength to be used by the ONU’s transmitter,” Vendor-ID, and VSSN. [Wen, ¶ [0043], Table 1].
Wen then explains that the ONU compares the received Vendor-ID/VSSN with its own identifiers and proceeds to the wavelength-tuning step only when they are consistent. [Wen, ¶¶ [0045]-[0046]; FIG. 2].
Accordingly, the combined teachings map every limitation of claim 1.
Wright provides detector 52 as the first reception unit for the separate signaling optical signal SC; WCEU 46 as the control-processing/instruction circuitry; tunable filter 42 as the tunable wavelength filter; and optical receiver 44 as the second reception unit. Wright further teaches receiver-identifier matching tied to the wavelength to be selected. Wen independently provides an addressed wavelength-configuration message containing identification information and explicit receive/downlink wavelength information, and conditions wavelength tuning on a successful identity match. The received wavelength information is therefore used, upon satisfaction of the identification condition, to set the wavelength-selective receive path and pass the selected data optical signal to the second receiver.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Wright with Wen because both references solve the same WDM/PON engineering problem of automatically assigning and changing the wavelength used by an ONU. Wright already requires receiver-specific wavelength-control information and already teaches checking the local ONU designation/address before selecting the corresponding wavelength. Wen provides a standardized and explicit way to package that same control function in a message containing the ONU’s identifying fields together with the correct downlink and uplink wavelength indications. Applying Wen’s explicit identifier-and-wavelength message format to Wright’s separate signaling channel SC would have predictably made Wright’s receiver-specific control more robust and easier to administer in a shared multi-drop network, while leaving Wright’s tunable-filter architecture and principle of operation unchanged. The skilled artisan would have expected the combination to work because both references use conventional optical-network control messaging to set tunable transmit/receive wavelengths, and each element would perform the same known function it performs in the cited reference.
Claim 1 therefore would have been obvious.
Claim 2
With respect to claim 2, all limitations of claim 1 are taught by Wright and Wen for the reasons stated above, except wherein claim 2 additionally specifies that the predetermined-condition determination is a determination whether the optical transceiver containing the determination unit is the optical transceiver specified to receive the first optical signal.
However, within analogous art, Wen expressly teaches this exact receiver-identity decision.
Wen states: “[T]he ONU ... judges whether the Vendor-ID of the optical network unit and the Vendor-specific serial number of the optical network unit in the received wavelength configuration message are consistent respectively with the Vendor-ID of the ONU itself and the Vendor-specific serial number of the ONU itself. If they are consistent, then it indicates that the wavelength configuration message is sent to the ONU ... If they are not consistent, then it indicates that the wavelength configuration message is not sent to the ONU.” [Wen, ¶ [0045]; FIG. 2].
This is the same logical test recited by claim 2: the receiving transceiver determines whether the identification information designates itself as the intended recipient of the wavelength-setting first optical signal. Wright independently teaches the same test. In the FIG. 8 implementation, the WCEU examines the received overhead fields and, “If it finds, in an OH field, its own ONU designation number it determines that its ONU must tune in the relevant time slot to the optical signal whose wavelength corresponds to that field.” [Wright, cols. 10-11; FIG. 8]. In the FIG. 9 implementation, the WCEU acts when the received VPI/VCI address information “matches address information held by the ONU.” [Wright, cols. 11-12; FIG. 9].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Wen et al.’s explicit identifier-consistency test in Wright’s receiver because Wright already depends on receiver-addressed control information. A local comparison of the received receiver identifier with the ONU’s stored identifier is a straightforward and well-known way to determine whether a control message is intended for that receiver before changing a tunable optical filter. The expected result is precisely the claimed condition: retuning occurs only when the first optical signal identifies the particular optical transceiver.
Claim 2 therefore would have been obvious.
Claim 3
With respect to claim 3, all limitations of claim 1 are taught by Wright and Wen for the reasons stated above, except wherein claim 3 additionally requires an optical branching unit that receives a third optical signal containing the first/control optical signal and the second/data optical signal and branches that third optical signal toward the first reception unit and the wavelength filter.
However, within analogous art, Wright expressly teaches this combined-signal and separation/branching topology in the second embodiment:
“The signaling optical signal SC generated by the transmitter 28C is applied to the WDM combiner unit 30 and wavelength-division-multiplexed with the data-carrying optical signals S1 to SN generated by the transmitters 28₁ to 28N.” [Wright et al., col. 14; FIG. 15]. “The ONU 114 ... includes a fixed wavelength (non-tunable) optical filter 50 which separates out from the data-carrying optical signals S1 to SN the signaling optical signal SC and passes it to a detector 52 ... [and] employs the tunable filter 42 [and] receiver 44.” [Wright, col. 14; FIG. 16].
The WDM-combined optical input containing SC and S1-SN corresponds to the claimed third optical signal. In FIG. 16, filter 50 divides that composite input into a control branch carrying SC to detector 52 (the first reception unit) and a remaining data-wavelength branch that continues through tunable filter 42 to receiver 44. Claim 3 broadly recites an optical branching unit that branches the third optical signal toward the first reception unit and the wavelength filter; it does not require the branching element of claim 3 to be wavelength-insensitive. Wright’s FIG. 16 arrangement therefore satisfies the added branching relationship, while claim 6 separately recites the narrower wavelength-separation feature.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this branching arrangement because Wright itself explains the benefit of a separate signaling wavelength: control information can be conveyed without consuming overhead capacity in the data-bearing wavelengths, while the receiver-side filter 50 separates the control wavelength for independent processing. Using a branching/separating optical element to deliver the control signal to the control receiver and the data wavelengths to the tunable data filter is the natural and expressly taught implementation of that architecture. Claim 3 therefore would have been obvious.
Claim 5
With respect to claim 5, all limitations of claim 1 are taught by Wright and Wen for the reasons stated above, except wherein claim 5 additionally requires that the first optical signal and second optical signal be input at different timings and that the first reception unit receive the first optical signal according to an input timing.
However, within analogous art, Wright expressly teaches time-separated wavelength-control information and payload data. In the first embodiment:
“Each cell payload has associated with it control information (cell OH) which is transmitted immediately before the cell payload.” [Wright, col. 12; FIG. 9].
Wright further teaches:
“[O]verhead blocks OH1 and OH2 ... have been inserted between time slots of the frames to provide the ONUs with advance wavelength hop information one cell prior to each required hop.” [Wright, col. 14; FIG. 14].
Wright explains that the control information is intentionally delivered before the associated payload so that the ONU can retune at the specified later time slot. Wright further states that control information may arrive several frames ahead of the cells to which it relates, thereby providing “advance tuning information.” [Wright, cols. 11-12].
Thus, Wright expressly teaches a first/control information interval occurring at a different timing from the associated second/data interval.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply Wright’s advance-timing technique to the separate signaling-channel embodiment used for claim 1. Wright presents overhead-carried control and the separate signaling optical signal SC as alternative ways to convey the same wavelength-control information. Transmitting the SC control information in a defined control interval before the corresponding data interval would have given WCEU 46 and tunable filter 42 the same settling time that Wright expressly seeks in the overhead embodiment, while detector 52 would receive the first/control optical signal according to that control timing. This is a predictable use of Wright’s own timing solution with Wright’s own alternative control-signal transport and would have provided the known benefit of completing filter retuning before reception of the payload. Claim 5 therefore would have been obvious.
Claim 12
Claim 12 recites the method counterpart of the receiver architecture of claim 1. Wright in view of Wen teaches each recited method step.
For “receiving a first optical signal including identification information and reception wavelength information,” Wright teaches detector 52 receiving the separate signaling optical signal SC, while the control-information format contains an ONU designation/ID and a wavelength field.
Wright states: “The first field (5 bits) is an ONU ID field, the second field (two bits) is a wavelength field...” [Wright et al., col. 13; FIG. 11], and “filter 50 ... separates out ... the signaling optical signal SC and passes it to a detector 52 which detects the control information.” [Wright, col. 14; FIG. 16].
For “determining whether the identification information satisfies a predetermined condition,” Wen et al. teaches: “[T]he ONU ... judges whether the Vendor-ID ... and the Vendor-specific serial number ... in the received wavelength configuration message are consistent respectively with the Vendor-ID of the ONU itself and the Vendor-specific serial number of the ONU itself.” [Wen, ¶ [0045]; FIG. 2].
For instructing the tunable wavelength filter based on the reception-wavelength information when the condition is satisfied, Wright teaches that WCEU 46 generates control signal CS to tune tunable filter 42 to the appropriate incoming wavelength, while Wen teaches executing the wavelength change “if they are consistent.” [Wen, ¶¶ [0018], [0045]-[0046]].
For “receiving the second optical signal,” Wright teaches that the tunable filter selects the designated data optical signal and “passes it to the optical receiver 44.” [Wright, cols. 9-10; FIG. 7].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the method steps together for the same reasons explained for claim 1: Wright supplies the known method of receiving control information and using it to tune a wavelength-selective receiver, and Wen supplies the known identity-validation step that gates execution of the received wavelength command. Combining the two known method sequences would have predictably prevented an ONU from acting on a wavelength command addressed to a different ONU while preserving automatic wavelength selection. Claim 12 therefore would have been obvious.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wright et al. in view of Wen et al. and further in view of Suzuki et al. (WO2017104075A1).
Claim 4
With respect to claim 4, all limitations of claim 3 are taught by Wright and Wen for the reasons stated above, except wherein claim 4 additionally requires that the third optical signal be obtained by superimposing the first/control optical signal by modulating an optical signal that includes the second/data optical signal.
However, within analogous art, Suzuki expressly teaches superimposing low-rate wavelength-control information on the optical main/data signal by optical intensity modulation in a WDM-PON system.
Suzuki states that the “AMCC signal generation circuit 12 superimposes the AMCC signal generated based on the wavelength control information ... on the optical signal output from the wavelength multiplexer 11, that is, the main signal. The main signal on which the AMCC signal is superimposed arrives at the ONUs 2-1 to 2-n via the upstream/downstream wavelength band separation filter 18, the optical fiber, and the power splitter 3.” [Suzuki, p. 10; FIGS. 1, 2 and 6].
Suzuki further explains the physical superposition mechanism:
“The light intensity modulator 121 modulates the intensity of the optical signal output from the wavelength multiplexer 11 based on the input electrical signal and outputs the optical signal. That is, the light intensity modulator 121 modulates the light intensity of the main signal ... based on the downstream AMCC signal.” [Suzuki, pp. 10-11; FIG. 6].
On the receiving side, Suzuki also teaches an optical branching arrangement compatible with the inherited claim-3 architecture:
“The AMCC signal reception circuit 26 includes an optical coupler 261, a BPF 262, and a data reception circuit 263. The optical coupler 261 branches the optical signal ... into two, outputs one to the coherent receiver 25, and outputs the other to the BPF 262.” [Suzuki, p. 8; FIG. 3].
Suzuki’s AMCC wavelength-control content corresponds to the first/control optical signal; the optical main signal corresponds to the optical signal including the second/data optical signal; and the intensity-modulated output carrying both corresponds to the claimed third optical signal. Suzuki’s optical coupler 261 further demonstrates the conventional branching of such a composite optical signal into a control-processing branch and a main-signal receive branch.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Suzuki’s superimposed AMCC transport in the Wright/Wen receiver because Wright expressly treats the manner of carrying wavelength-control information as an implementation choice: control information may be carried with data as overhead or on a separate signaling optical signal. Suzuki teaches a known WDM-PON alternative in which wavelength-control information is superimposed on the optical main signal at low modulation depth and then separated for control processing at the receiver. Replacing Wright’s dedicated control wavelength with Suzuki’s known in-band/superimposed control transport would have reduced the need for a dedicated signaling wavelength while preserving the same receiver-specific wavelength-setting function. Wright’s tunable filter 42 can remain in the main-data branch, and Suzuki’s optical coupler/BPF control branch can provide the first-reception path. The modification therefore uses known optical control-signaling and branching techniques for their established purposes and would have yielded the claim-4 superimposed third optical signal with a reasonable expectation of success. Claim 4 would have been obvious.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wright et al. in view of Wen et al. and further in view of Dai (US20160105736A1).
Claim 6
With respect to claim 6, all limitations of claim 1 are taught by Wright and Wen for the reasons stated above, except wherein claim 6 additionally requires a wavelength-separating optical branching unit that separates the first/control optical signal from a third optical signal in which the first and second optical signals have different wavelengths, sends the separated first optical signal to the first reception unit, and sends the other optical signals to the wavelength filter.
However, within analogous art, Dai expressly teaches that exact control-wavelength/data-wavelength separation at an ONU. Dai states:
“Example embodiments of ONUs 760, 770 employ a dedicated O band control channel. In ONU 760, 770, the O band control wavelength is separated from the C band and/or L band by WDM filter 757, 777. O band receiver 766, 776 constantly receives the control signal while OLT 705 instructs ONU 760, 770 to tune to a wavelength in C band and/or L band for receiving downstream data.” [Dai, ¶ [0046]; FIGS. 7-8].
Dai further states:
“WDM filter 757, 777 separates the O band control channel from the rest of the C band and/or L band channels. O band receiver 766, 776 decodes the control signal. One part of the decoded control signal is used to control tunable filter 764, 774 for selecting the wavelength assigned to ONU 760...770 by the OLT. The downstream light containing multiple wavelength channels from WDM filter 757, 777 is sent to the optical circulator and is passed to tunable filter 764, 774 which selects the assigned wavelength.” [Dai, ¶ [0047]; FIGS. 7-8].
The combined downstream optical input containing the O-band control wavelength and C/L-band data wavelengths is the claimed third optical signal. WDM filter 757/777 is the claimed wavelength-separating optical branching unit. The separated O-band control signal is delivered to receiver 766/776, which is the first reception unit. The remaining C/L-band optical signals are delivered to tunable filter 764/774, which selects the assigned second/data wavelength.
Thus, Dai expressly supplies every added structural and routing limitation of claim 6.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Dai with Wright and Wen because all three references address automatic wavelength selection in WDM/PON receivers. Wright already teaches a separate signaling wavelength and a tunable filter, while Dai provides a particularly explicit implementation in which a WDM filter first removes a dedicated control band and routes the remaining multi-wavelength data light to a tunable data filter. Replacing or implementing Wright’s fixed separation filter 50 with Dai’s standard WDM filter/control-receiver arrangement would have been a predictable optical-routing choice that cleanly isolates management traffic from payload traffic. Wen’s identity check remains fully compatible with the decoded control stream. The combination would therefore have predictably produced the claimed wavelength-separated control/data branching architecture with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wright et al. in view of Wen et al. and further in view of Sugiyama (US10103809B2).
Claim 7
With respect to claim 7, all limitations of claim 1 are taught by Wright and Wen for the reasons stated above, except wherein claim 7 additionally requires a wavelength-tunable light source, a drive unit responsive to external data, a modulator that modulates the light from the tunable source to output a fourth optical signal, transmission-wavelength information in the first optical signal, and conditional instruction of the tunable source based on that transmission-wavelength information.
The transmission-wavelength-information and conditional tuning aspects are expressly taught by Wen.
Wen’s wavelength configuration message carries both receive/downlink and transmit/uplink wavelength information together with the receiver-identification fields:
“5-8 correct downlink wavelength indication message The wavelength to be used by the ONU’s receiver ... 9-12 correct uplink wavelength indication message The wavelength to be used by the ONU’s transmitter ... 13-16 Vendor-ID ... 17-20 VSSN...” [Wen, ¶ [0043], Table 1].
And when the identity condition is met, Wen teaches:
“[T]he ONU tunes the current uplink wavelength and the current downlink wavelength respectively to the correct uplink wavelength and the correct downlink wavelength according to the correct uplink wavelength indication message and the correct downlink wavelength indication message.” [Wen, ¶ [0046]; FIG. 2].
Thus, the same received first/control optical signal contains both reception-wavelength and transmission-wavelength information, and the transmitter wavelength is set only after the received identifying fields have been determined to match the ONU.
Sugiyama expressly teaches the claimed wavelength-tunable source, data-responsive driver, and modulator in an optical transceiver. Sugiyama states:
“FIG. 9 is a schematic diagram of an optical transceiver 1 using a wavelength tunable light source 10... The optical transceiver 1 includes an optical transmitter 2 [and] an optical receiver 6... The optical transmitter 2 has a wavelength tunable light source 10, an optical modulator 3, and a driver 4 that drives the optical modulator 3.” [Sugiyama, col. 7; FIG. 9].
Sugiyama further expressly maps the signal-flow relationship required by claim 7:
“A light beam emitted at a predetermined wavelength from the wavelength tunable light source 10 is input to the optical modulator 3. Drive signals generated by the driver 4 based upon data signals are supplied to the optical modulator 3 to modulate the light input from the wavelength tunable light source 10. The modulated light of the designated wavelength is output as a light signal from the optical modulator 3.” [Sugiyama, col. 7; FIG. 9].
Sugiyama additionally states that “The DSP 50 generates data signals to be input to the driver 4 of the optical transmitter 2.” [Sugiyama, col. 7].
Thus, Sugiyama directly teaches a wavelength-tunable light source, a drive unit responsive to data, and a modulator that modulates light from the tunable source in response to the drive signal and outputs the modulated optical signal.
Wen supplies the remaining transmission-wavelength-control relationship. Wen’s wavelength-configuration message places the “correct uplink wavelength indication message. The wavelength to be used by the ONU’s transmitter” in the same addressed message that contains the receive/downlink wavelength and ONU-identifying fields. [Wen, ¶ [0043], Table 1].
After the Vendor-ID/VSSN match is satisfied, Wen tunes both the current uplink/transmit wavelength and current downlink/receive wavelength to the indicated correct wavelengths. [Wen, ¶¶ [0045]-[0046]; FIG. 2].
Accordingly, the first/control optical signal in the Wright/Wen combination includes transmission-wavelength information as well as reception-wavelength information and identification information; the identification match gates execution of the wavelength settings; and Sugiyama provides the exact transmitter-side hardware by which the assigned transmission wavelength is implemented while external/main data drives the modulator.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Sugiyama’s transmitter implementation with the Wright/Wen wavelength-setting transceiver because Wen expressly commands both the receive/downlink wavelength and the transmit/uplink wavelength, while Sugiyama provides a known optical-transmitter structure designed to generate a data-modulated optical signal at a designated tunable wavelength. Implementing Wen’s assigned uplink wavelength using Sugiyama’s wavelength-tunable light source, driver, and optical modulator is the direct and predictable physical implementation of the received transmit-wavelength command. The combination would permit the same addressed wavelength-control message that configures Wright’s receive filter to configure the local tunable transmitter, thereby establishing a bidirectional wavelength-configured optical transceiver. Each component performs its ordinary disclosed function, the electrical data/driver/modulator interfaces are conventional, and a skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 7 therefore would have been obvious.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wright et al. in view of Wen et al. and further in view of Sugiyama and further in view of Dai.
Claim 8
With respect to claim 8, all limitations of claim 7 are taught by Wright, Wen and Sugiyama for the reasons stated above, except wherein claim 8 additionally requires an optical branching unit that branches the received input optical signal toward the first reception unit and wavelength filter, and an optical distribution unit using a common input/output port to receive the third optical signal from a communication partner and to output the locally generated fourth optical signal back through that port.
However, within analogous art, Dai expressly teaches a single-fiber bidirectional ONU optical interface in which received light is separated/branched to control and tunable-filter paths and an optical circulator combines/separates downstream and upstream signals.
Dai states: “The same wavelength may be used for downstream and upstream transmissions on single fiber 740.” [Dai, ¶ [0042]; FIG. 7].
Dai further states: “An optical circulator (between WDM 757, 777 and tunable filter 764, 774) may be used to separate and combine modulated downstream and upstream signals.” [Dai, ¶ [0046]; FIGS. 7-8].
And Dai teaches the receiver-side branching/routing in the same optical path:
“WDM filter 757, 777 separates the O band control channel from the rest of the C band and/or L band channels. O band receiver 766, 776 decodes the control signal... The downstream light containing multiple wavelength channels from WDM filter 757, 777 is sent to the optical circulator and is passed to tunable filter 764, 774 which selects the assigned wavelength.” [Dai, ¶ [0047]; FIGS. 7-8].
Dai’s single-fiber connection corresponds to the claimed common input/output port connected to the communication partner. Its WDM filter/control-receiver plus tunable-filter topology provides the claimed branching of the received third signal, while the circulator provides the bidirectional optical distribution function that accepts downstream light from that port and directs locally generated upstream/modulated light back to the same port/fiber.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add Dai’s single-fiber circulator/distribution arrangement to the claim-7 combination because bidirectional WDM transceivers routinely seek to reduce fiber count and optical connector count. Dai expressly teaches that a circulator separates and combines upstream and downstream signals on a single fiber, while the existing combined architecture already has receive-side wavelength selection and a local wavelength-tunable transmitter. Connecting those known transmit and receive paths through a circulator to a common I/O port is the predictable way to provide full-duplex or time-division bidirectional operation through one physical optical interface. The modification does not alter the wavelength-control logic and would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Claim 8 therefore would have been obvious.
Claim 9
With respect to claim 9, all limitations of claim 7 are taught by Wright, Wen and Sugiyama as stated above. For prior-art examination only, and without withdrawing the above 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection, the additional branching limitation of claim 9 is interpreted as requiring wavelength separation of the first/control optical signal from a composite third optical signal containing first and second optical signals at different wavelengths, with the separated control signal sent to the first reception path and the remaining optical signals sent toward the tunable wavelength filter, together with a common bidirectional input/output port.
However, within analogous art, Dai expressly teaches those added limitations: “In ONU 760, 770, the O band control wavelength is separated from the C band and/or L band by WDM filter 757, 777.” [Dai, ¶ [0046]]. “WDM filter 757, 777 separates the O band control channel from the rest of the C band and/or L band channels. O band receiver 766, 776 decodes the control signal... The downstream light containing multiple wavelength channels from WDM filter 757, 777 is sent to the optical circulator and is passed to tunable filter 764, 774 which selects the assigned wavelength.” [Dai, ¶ [0047]; FIGS. 7-8].
Dai also teaches the common I/O path: “The same wavelength may be used for downstream and upstream transmissions on single fiber 740,” and “[a]n optical circulator ... may be used to separate and combine modulated downstream and upstream signals.” [Dai, ¶¶ [0042], [0046]; FIG. 7].
Thus, the O-band control signal corresponds to the first optical signal; the C/L-band data signal corresponds to the second optical signal; their combined downstream light is the third optical signal; WDM filter 757/777 wavelength-separates the control wavelength and sends it to the control receiver while passing the remaining wavelengths toward tunable filter 764/774; and the circulator/single-fiber connection performs the claimed bidirectional distribution at the input/output port.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the same reasons stated for claims 6 and 8. Dai provides a known, compact way to isolate an always-available control wavelength from payload wavelengths while reusing one fiber interface for both downstream reception and upstream transmission. That arrangement is directly compatible with Wen’s addressed wavelength-setting information, Wright’s tunable receive-filter/control architecture, and Sugiyama’s tunable data transmitter. The result would predictably be the interpreted claim-9 arrangement, with a dedicated control wavelength directed to the first reception path, data wavelengths directed toward the tunable filter, and the local modulated output returned through the same bidirectional optical port.
Claim 9 therefore would have been obvious under the foregoing interpretation.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wright et al. in view of Wen et al. and further in view of Oe et al. (US20230327769A1).
Claim 10
With respect to claim 10, all limitations of claim 1 are taught by Wright and Wen for the reasons stated above, except wherein claim 10 additionally requires a plurality of optical transceivers connected to an optical signal distribution unit, transmission of the first optical signal to that distribution unit from an optical transceiver of a communication partner or an optical transceiver used for transmitting the first optical signal, and distribution of the first optical signal to the plurality of optical transceivers.
Wright expressly teaches the claimed shared optical distribution topology. Wright states:
“A plurality of optical network units (ONUs 14₁-14₅) are connected to the OLT device (12) by way of a passive optical network (6) so as to receive the wavelength-division multiplexed optical signals.” [Wright, Abstract; FIGS. 1-2].
Wright further explains that the passive optical network “consists of optical fibre links 8 and optical splitters 10.” [Wright, cols. 1-2; FIG. 1].
Those optical splitters physically distribute the downstream optical signal, including the wavelength-control signaling, toward the plurality of ONUs.
Oe expressly supplies the claim’s source relationship in which a channel-setting optical signal is transmitted by another optical transceiver in the communication-partner apparatus. Oe teaches first and second optical transmission apparatuses, each containing a plurality of optical transceivers and a multiplexing/demultiplexing unit, connected by an optical cable. [Oe, ¶ [0013]; FIGS. 1-2].
Oe further states that the first optical transceiver is configured such that, “when the first optical transceiver receives a second channel setting optical signal from the second optical transceiver,” second channel information contained in that setting optical signal is transferred and used by the control unit to set the receiving channel. [Oe, ¶ [0013]; see also claims 8-9].
Accordingly, Oe teaches the claimed alternative in which the first/control optical signal originates from an optical transceiver of the communication partner, while Wright teaches distributing downstream control signaling through optical splitter(s) 10 to a plurality of receiver/transceiver units. Wen supplies the receiver-identification content and conditional action so that a control signal distributed over the shared optical medium is acted upon by the intended transceiver.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Oe’s peer-transceiver channel-setting source with Wright’s multi-drop optical distribution network because both references address automatic wavelength/channel configuration in systems having multiple optical transceivers. Wright already broadcasts/distributes optical control information through a passive splitter to multiple ONUs; Oe teaches generating and exchanging the setting optical signal at an optical transceiver in the opposite communication apparatus. Using Oe’s transceiver-originated setting signal as the control signal distributed through Wright’s known shared optical distribution structure would have been a straightforward integration of compatible WDM control architectures, permitting a partner transceiver to initiate wavelength setting while retaining Wright’s efficient one-to-many optical distribution.
Wen’s identity-match teaching supplies the predictable addressing safeguard for that shared distribution: all transceivers may physically receive the distributed first optical signal, but only the transceiver whose identification information matches acts on the associated wavelength information. The combination therefore teaches every limitation of claim 10 with a reasonable expectation of success, and claim 10 would have been obvious.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Oe et al. in view of Wright et al. and further in view of Wen et al.
Claim 11
Claim 11 is an independent optical-communication-system claim.
Oe expressly teaches the recited two-communication-apparatus / plurality-of-transceivers system topology and a channel-setting optical signal transmitted from a transceiver of one apparatus to a transceiver of the other apparatus.
Oe states: “An optical communication system ... includes: a first optical transmission apparatus including: a plurality of optical transceivers including a first optical transceiver; and a first optical multiplexing/demultiplexing unit configured to multiplex and output optical signals output from the plurality of optical transceivers, and demultiplex a received optical signal into optical signals for the plurality of optical transceivers according to a channel; a second optical transmission apparatus including: a plurality of optical transceivers including a second optical transceiver; and a second optical multiplexing/demultiplexing unit configured to multiplex and output optical signals output from the plurality of optical transceivers, and demultiplex a received optical signal into optical signals for the plurality of optical transceivers according to the channel; and an optical cable connecting the first and second optical transmission apparatuses with each other.” [Oe, ¶ [0013]; see also ¶¶ [0030]-[0034], FIGS. 1-2].
Oe further teaches, within that system: “[T]he first optical transceiver includes: a wavelength variable optical transmitting unit configured to be able to transmit a first channel setting optical signal including first channel information ...; a wavelength variable optical receiving unit configured to, when the first optical transceiver receives a second channel setting optical signal from the second optical transceiver, transfer second channel information contained in the second channel setting optical signal ...; and a control unit ... [that] sets, based on the second channel information ... a first channel indicated by the second channel information as a channel through which the wavelength variable optical receiving unit receives an optical signal.” [Oe, ¶ [0013]; see also ¶ [0012] and claims 1, 8-9].
This establishes the first and second communication apparatuses, a plurality of optical transceivers in each apparatus, and a first/control optical signal output from one of the transceivers of the opposite apparatus to configure a receiving transceiver. It also establishes a controller that changes the receiving channel based on information carried by the received setting signal.
Oe does not expressly provide the particular “identification information satisfies a predetermined condition” gate or a distinct tunable optical filter followed by a second reception unit in the precise form recited. Wright supplies the claimed filter/dual-reception arrangement, while Wen supplies the express identification-condition logic.
As discussed for claim 1, Wright et al. teaches a separate signaling optical signal SC that is separated by filter 50 and received by detector 52, with WCEU 46 extracting relevant control information and generating CS to tune tunable filter 42, which then passes the selected data wavelength to receiver 44. [Wright, cols. 13-14; FIGS. 15-17].
Wright further teaches that the control information identifies the intended ONU and the wavelength it is to select: in the FIG. 8 implementation, if WCEU 46 finds its own ONU designation number, it determines that the ONU must tune to the optical signal whose wavelength corresponds to that control field. [Wright, cols. 10-11; FIG. 8].
Wen teaches the predetermined-condition test and conditional execution:
“[T]he ONU ... judges whether the Vendor-ID ... and the Vendor-specific serial number ... in the received wavelength configuration message are consistent respectively with the Vendor-ID of the ONU itself and the Vendor-specific serial number of the ONU itself. If they are consistent, then it indicates that the wavelength configuration message is sent to the ONU...” [Wen, ¶ [0045]; FIG. 2], followed by tuning to the correct receive/downlink wavelength in ¶ [0046].
Accordingly, the combination maps every limitation of claim 11. Oe supplies both communication apparatuses, the plurality of transceivers in each, the inter-apparatus optical link, and receipt by one transceiver of setting information from a transceiver of the opposite apparatus. Wright supplies the separate first reception path, tunable wavelength filter, instruction/control path, and second data receiver. Wen supplies the explicit determination that the received identification information matches the local transceiver and gates execution of the wavelength instruction on that condition.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Oe with Wright and Wen because all three references solve closely related wavelength-configuration problems in systems containing multiple optical transceivers. Oe establishes the exact multi-transceiver, two-apparatus network context and autonomous exchange of channel-setting optical signals. Wright provides a known tunable-filter receiver implementation for acting on such control information, and Wen provides a known address/identity check so that only the intended receiver acts on a broadcast or shared control message. Combining these teachings would predictably make Oe’s automatic channel-setting system more robust when many transceivers share multiplexing/demultiplexing infrastructure: the message identifies its target, the target validates that identity, and the receiver tunes a filter to the instructed wavelength. The references are in the same field, use compatible WDM/PON/transceiver control concepts, and the combination would not change their basic principles of operation.
Claim 11 therefore would have been obvious.
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammed Abdelraheem, whose telephone number is (571) 272-0656. The examiner can normally be reached Monday–Thursday.
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.
/MOHAMMED ABDELRAHEEM/Examiner, Art Unit 2635
/OMAR S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights