DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 - Indefinite
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 6, 11, 13, 16, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5, line 16, recites “quick descent”. It is not clear how to interpret this term. For example, it is not clear how quickly the descent must be to be within the scope of the claim.
Claim 11, lines 7 and 16, recites “the alarm information is proper”. It is not clear how to interpret “proper”.
Claims 5, 6, 11, 13, 16, and 18-22 include elements that begin with “if” or “when”. It is not clear if these are required limitations or if they are optional/conditional (e.g., they are not required when the “if” or “when” condition is not satisfied).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 – Scope of Enablement
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a limited scope based on the teachings in the application, does not reasonably provide enablement for the full scope recited in the claims. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
MPEP 2164.08 states: “The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that ‘the specification must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without ‘undue experimentation’.” In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Teachings of the Application.
FIGS. 36A-C of the application illustrate the algorithm to determine fault type information based on the difference between the first sampled parameters at the initial and last moments, and relative to first and second thresholds. Step S601 compares sample parameters to determine which algorithm path to take.
FIG 36A illustrates the algorithm path for Case 1 in which the difference between the first sampled parameters at the initial and last moments is less than the first threshold (see the box between steps S601 and S602).
PNG
media_image1.png
648
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG 36B is a continuation from FIG. 36A and illustrates the algorithm path for Case 2 in which the difference between the first sampled parameters is greater than the first threshold, and the first sampled parameter at the last moment is less than a second threshold.
PNG
media_image2.png
700
522
media_image2.png
Greyscale
FIG 36C is a continuation from FIG. 3A and illustrates the algorithm path for Case 3 in which the difference between the sampled parameters is greater than the first threshold, and the first sampled parameter at the last moment is greater than a second threshold. .
PNG
media_image3.png
616
466
media_image3.png
Greyscale
See also:
[0204] FIG. 36A to FIG. 36C are a flowchart of determining fault type information by a first processing unit according to an embodiment of this application;
[0342] In some embodiments of this application, for example, in the several fault scenarios shown in FIG. 16 to FIG. 29, the first sampled parameter may include a photogenerated current or an optical signal amplitude. In some cases, the first sampled parameter may alternatively be another parameter. This is not limited herein. FIG. 36A to FIG. 36C are a flowchart of determining fault type information by a first processing unit according to an embodiment of this application. As shown in FIG. 36A to FIG. 36C, that the first processing unit determines, based on the read first sampled parameters, the fault type information corresponding to the alarm information may include the following operations.
This is discussed in more detail in the written description at [0343]-[0357]. In other words, the application teaches how to make and use the inventions using particular steps to implement the functionality and achieve the results.
Scope of the Claims.
Claim 19, last paragraph, recites:
when identifying alarm information, reading the first sampled parameters in the sampled information storage unit, determining, based on the first sampled parameters, fault type information corresponding to the alarm information, and storing the fault type information in the a fault information storage unit.
This broadly recites determining the fault type information without requiring any particular steps. Contrast this with the teachings of the application, particularly with regard to FIGS. 36A-C and the corresponding written description, which teaches to determine the fault type information using particular steps in a particular order. In other words, the scope of the claim is broad and not limited to the teachings of the application.
Furthermore, this claim language recites to determine the fault type information “based on the first sampled parameters”, which is broad and has a scope that includes any use (i.e., “based on” in any way) of the first sampled parameter. In contrast, the application teaches to use values of the first sampled parameter in particular ways in order to determine the fault type information. In particular, the algorithm begins at step S601 (the first step in FIG. 36A) by comparing the values of the first sample parameter at particular times to determine which path of the algorithm to execute. In addition, all three branches of the algorithm calculate the “difference” between values of the first sampled parameter at particular moments, and compare that difference to predefined thresholds. See, for example, the unlabeled step (before step S602) in FIG. 36A, and see the unlabeled step (before step S604) in FIG. 36B, and see the unlabeled step (before step S610) in FIG. 36C. See also:
[0307] In an embodiment, values of the first threshold, the second threshold, the third threshold, and the preset time window may be set according to factors such as an application scenario of the network system.
In other words, the scope of the claim is broad and not limited to the teachings of the application.
As a result, the claim has a broad scope that includes practically all steps/algorithms to achieve the recited functionality, and the Examiner can find no teaching or guidance in the application to support such a broad scope.
Claim 20 depends from claim 19 and recites additional functionality including a further step for determining the fault type information “based on the read first sampled parameters”.
Claim 21 depends from claim 20 and recites steps for determining the fault type information based on the read first sampled parameters. This claims determining the fault type parameter based on a difference between the sampled parameter and thresholds. However, it does not appear to teach the other steps of the method for determining the fault type information. Contrast this claim with FIGS. 36A-C and the corresponding written description.
Claim 22 depends from claim 20 and recites steps for determining the fault type information based on the read first sampled parameters. This claim determining the fault type parameter based on a difference between the sampled parameter and thresholds. However, it does not appear to teach the other steps of the method for determining the fault type information. Contrast this claim with FIGS. 36A-C and the corresponding written description.
In summary, the claims recite broad functional language without particular steps to accomplish the function or achieve the result as taught in the application.
No Recitation of the Particular Structure, Materials, or Steps.
As discussed above, the application teaches how to make and use the invention using particular structure, materials, and steps to implement determining fault type information. As also discussed above, the claim recites the desired functionality/results, but does not recite the particular structure, materials, or steps that accomplish the claimed functionality/results. This results in claims having a scope that is much broader than the teachings of the application.
When considering the teachings of the application and the scope of the claims, as discussed above, see MPEP 2173.05(g), 4th paragraph:
… Further, without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim. Ariad Pharmaceuticals., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Unlimited functional claim limitations that extend to all means or methods of resolving a problem may not be adequately supported by the written description or may not be commensurate in scope with the enabling disclosure, both of which are required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714, 218 USPQ 195, 197 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1340, 94 USPQ2d at 1167. …
This supports a finding that the broad scope of the claims may not be commensurate with the teachings in the disclosure.
No Teaching of a General Case for the Full Scope of the Claims.
The Examiner also notes that there is no teaching of a method that can produce the claimed results/functionality without being limited to particular steps beyond that which is recited in the claims. For example, there is no teaching of a general case that can determine fault type information using the first sampled parameters in any way (e.g., not limited to the use cases discussed in the application) and without requiring any more than what is recited in the claim (e.g., see claim 19).
If such a general case were contemplated or discovered by the inventors, its disclosure and a description of its operation would be expected as part of the application in order to support broad claims, such as claim 19. This is particularly true because, as discussed above, the embodiments that are disclosed in the application require fairly complex and particular algorithms. These algorithms would be unnecessary if a general case had been known by the inventors, and yet the application does not include a disclosure of a general case. This supports a conclusion that the scope of the claims is not commensurate with the teachings of the application.
Other Considerations.
The nature of the invention is signal processing for optical communications systems and methods. The components used in the various embodiments were known to one of ordinary skill. For example, one or ordinary skill would be familiar with components such as signal processors and memory storing instructions and other data. Therefore, no teachings of how to make these individual components is required.
The application teaches how to arrange these elements with other elements in particular combinations in order to achieve the desired results (e.g., see FIGS. 36A-C). These combinations are particular and complex. Nonetheless, one or ordinary skill would know how to make and use the disclosed embodiments of the invention from the teachings of the application.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious that some elements may be modified or replaced with other elements known to have the same or similar functionality, and to make some modifications to the particular structures disclosed.
Similarly, one of ordinary skill would also know how to perform other tasks in the present technological area and related to the invention, such as providing power to components (although power supplies and power specifications are not explicitly taught in the application), and splicing/coupling the electrical and optical components together (although this is not explicitly taught in the application), and managing the temperature of electrical and optical components which are susceptible to performance degradation and undesirable operational variations based on temperature (although this is not explicitly taught in the application), and shielding components from EM interference that can be generated by such devices (although this is not explicitly taught). Although this is not an exhaustive list, the obvious modifications based on the disclosure and the knowledge of one or ordinary skill are nonetheless of a limited scope.
However, these modifications do not address the issues raised above regarding the disparity between the scope of the claims and the teachings of the application.
Experimentation.
As discussed above, the application does not teach the full scope of the claims. As a result, the claims include many possible algorithms, and not all possibilities within the scope of the claims will produce the desired results or functions.
As a result, if one of ordinary skill were to attempt to make and use the full scope of the claims, it would require making, testing, or otherwise evaluating a large number of possible combination of steps/programming to find what algorithms works to perform the desired functionality. For example, all possible algorithms to determine the fault type information corresponding to the alarm information “based on” the first sampled parameters (e.g., see claim 19). This results in a practically unlimited number of algorithms or combinations of steps that would need to be made, tested, or otherwise evaluated to determine which embodiments are operative and which are inoperative. In other words, this would require almost infinite experimentation.
This supports a finding that undue experimentation would be required to make and use the full scope of the claims.
Conclusion.
After careful consideration the Examiner has concluded that the specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. In other words, the specification fails to teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without ‘undue experimentation’.
Claim Interpretation - Means Plus Function
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “first processing unit” and “sampling unit” introduced in claim 1, “alarm information generation unit” introduced in claims 2 and 3, “first processing unit” and “sampling unit” and “second processing unit” introduced in claim 7,”network management device” introduced in claim 15, .
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 7-10, 12, 14, 15, and 17 are allowed.
Claims 5, 6, 11, 13, 16, and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. The prior art of record teaches the general subject matter of the claims (see the discussion of the art below), but does not appear to teach the particular embodiments recited in the claims.
US 2022/0311512 (Magri) is the closest art of record. Magri at FIG. 2 illustrates an optical module 106 including a signal processor 190 and controller 202.
PNG
media_image4.png
532
686
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Magri teaches to sample and store signals. See:
[0058] The analog signal received on the line 204 can to be used to measure the received optical power. Optical power monitoring is available on all state-of-art optical modules. Specifically, the photo-current is applied to one or more resistor 210 to give a voltage signal, which is digitized by an analog-digital (A/D) converter 212. Aspects of the disclosure provide for sampling of the received optical power, and storing the samples for analysis in association with a detected fault. In some examples, the sampling is at a rate of the order of hundreds of Hz or a few kHz, for example. As such, the processing circuitry 202 is configured to obtain data on how the received optical signal power varies with time. The data sample rate is fast, allowing for fast variations in received optical signal power to be measured and stored.
FIG. 12 illustrates the partition of functionality including generating and logging alarms.
PNG
media_image5.png
456
794
media_image5.png
Greyscale
See also:
[0104] Further, in each of FIGS. 10-14, the incident management function 404 is located in a network management system that is dedicated to alarms collection, communication and management, for example in the network controller 140 of FIG. 1. The incident management function receives its alarm notification inputs from the location where the classification takes place.
The classification model 444 generates information about the failure corresponding to each fault, and stores this information. See:
[0111] In this configuration, the classification model 444 is stored in the host unit 104, and so the classification process generates information about the failure classes 446 corresponding to each fault, and information about the faults is stored in a host alarm log 448, and information about the failure classes and the host alarms is sent to the incident management block 404 in the network controller 140.
The classification model is used to compare logs of each failure event with classification models. See:
[0078] This gives a classification model 250. Then, when a log 244 is generated during operation of the device, it can be compared with the classification model 250. If multiple logs are generated during each failure event, the event can be classified by comparing the multiple logs with the fingerprints of the classification model.
[0101] As mentioned above, different elements of the method can be performed in different locations, depending on the available resources, etc. The classification model that is used to identify the specific event, using the data stored in the log, can be a Machine Learning model, whose complexity and accuracy depend on the actual physical partitioning of the solution and the available computational resources.
Magri teaches that different levels of classification complexity can be used, depending on the degree of certainty desired and the available processing power available. See:
[0080] Thus, the received signal failure pattern is classified against a set of well-known signal failure patterns with the intention of generating a decision with a reasonable certainty level, where the complexity of the classification mechanism is determined by the required certainty level, and will depend on the available processing power. For example, where an artificial neural network is used for the classification, a neural network with a larger number of layers may be used in situations where more processing power is available.
It also teaches that a fault is determined when the received signal power is below a threshold value. See:
[0068] In some aspects, an event relating to a fault on the link is determined when the received power is measured to be below a threshold value. As such, a fault is detected when the optical power is measured to be below the threshold value. The threshold value is set below the average optical power expected at the receiving side. For example, the threshold may be set to a value in the range of 20%-80% of the average optical power received during normal link operations, for example 50%. In one embodiment of this disclosure it is also possible to monitor the average optical power received during a predefined period of time and use it to adapt the threshold value accordingly (adaptive mode).
However, it does not appear to teach the particular algorithm for determine fault type information as taught in the present application.
US 2019/0013628 (Zhang) teaches that it was known to determine a fault by measuring the difference between first and second parameters, and comparing the difference to thresholds. See, for example:
[0016] If the difference between the first parameter and the second parameter is greater than a first threshold, the first controller 11 of the first device 1 is further configured to output a fault signal, but the power supply continues to supply power.
[0017] When the first device 1 is a load and the second device 2 is a power supply, if the difference between the first parameter and the second parameter is greater than a second threshold, the first controller 11 of the first device 1 is further configured to generate a fault signal and transmit the fault signal to a second controller 21 of the power supply, and the second controller controls the power supply to stop supplying power in response to the fault signal.
[0035] Optionally, the method further includes the following step. In response to the difference between the first parameter and the second parameter being greater than a first threshold, the first controller outputs a fault signal, but the power supply continues to supply power normally.
[0036] Optionally, the method further includes the following step. If the first device 1 is a load and the second device 2 is a power supply, in response to the difference between the first parameter and the second parameter being greater than a second threshold, the first controller 11 generates a fault signal and transmits the fault signal to a second controller 21 of the power supply, and the second controller 21 controls the power supply to stop supplying power in response to the fault signal.
However, it does not appear to teach the particular algorithm of fault detection taught in the present application.
US 2007/0065151 (Dybsetter) at FIG. 1 illustrates an optical device including a controller 105 and memory 106.
PNG
media_image6.png
279
540
media_image6.png
Greyscale
FIG. 2 illustrates the control module 105 in more detail including processors 203 and memory 206:
PNG
media_image7.png
516
483
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Dybsetter teaches that the control module 105 performs various functionality, including monitoring, determining, and providing information for storage. Dybsetter also teaches sensors 211 in FIG. 2 to monitor signals from the transceiver. See, for example:
[0028]: “… the optical transceiver 100 includes a control module 105, which may evaluate temperature and voltage conditions and other operational circumstances, and receive information from the post-amplifier 102 (as represented by arrow 105A) and from the laser driver 103 (as represented by arrow 105B). This allows the control module 105 to optimize the dynamically varying performance, and additionally detect when there is a loss of signal.”
[0032]: “… includes sensors 211A, 211B, 211C amongst potentially others as represented by the horizontal ellipses 211D. Each of these sensors may be responsible for measuring operational parameters that may be measured from the control module 200 such as, for example, supply voltage and transceiver temperature. The control module may also receive external analog or digital signals from other components within the optical transceiver that indicate other measured parameters such as, for example, laser bias current, transmit power, receive power, laser wavelength, laser temperature, and Thermo Electric Cooler (TEC) current. Two external lines 212A and 212B are illustrated for receiving such external analog signals although there may be many of such lines.)
Dybsetter also teaches that the control module evaluates the monitored interactions (i.e., the monitored signals or feedback) and determines whether they satisfy an event condition (i.e., whether the monitored signal is supposed to be logged). See [0041].
Dybsetter also teaches to detect a loss of signal:
[0028]: “… This allows the control module 105 to ... detect when there is a loss of signal.”
Dybsetter at [0017] teaches to cause the optical transceiver to log the operational information to a specific memory location, and at [0041] teaches to allow a user to specify which operational information to log. See also:
[0024]: … the optical transceiver logs the information to the corresponding storage locations … may specify one or more actions to be performed when the identified information is logged. If one or more actions are specified, the optical transceiver performs the specified actions when the information is logged …
However, it does not appear to teach the particular algorithm for determine fault type information as taught in the present application.
US 2004/0197101 (Sasser) at FIG. 2 teaches an apparatus for predicting a fault or failure of an optical transceiver module 100 including memory (EEPROM 120, LUT 122, and storage 128) and a processor (logic 134, logic 131, logic and fault control 133, controller IC 110; see also controller IC 110 in FIG. 1).
PNG
media_image8.png
884
567
media_image8.png
Greyscale
See also
[0068]: “to automatically, periodically convert the monitored signals into digital signals, and to store these signal values in memory device 128.”)
[0069]: “compare these values to predefined limit values”
Sasser teaches a plurality of samples associated with different classification identifiers. See, for example, [0070]:
[0070] The limit flags are also sometimes called alarm and warning flags. The host device, or end user, can monitor these flags to determine whether conditions exist that are likely to have caused a transceiver link to fail, an alarm flag, or whether conditions exist which predict that a failure is likely to occur relatively soon, a warning flag. An example of an alarm flag condition is a laser bias current which has fallen to zero, which is indicative of an immediate failure of the transmitter output. An example of a warning flag condition is a laser bias current, in a constant power mode, which exceeds a nominal value by more than 50%, indicating a laser end-of-life condition. Of course, any other limit values, and corresponding flags, may be defined and implemented as well.
In other words, for the bias current example provided in Sasser, there are at least two classification samples (corresponding to the bias = 0; and the bias exceeds nominal by > 50%), each of which is associated with a classification identifier (e.g., failed or end-of-life).
US 2004/0047635 (Aronson) teaches to monitor and set flags (i.e., alarm and warning flags). See:
[0058] The limit flags are also sometimes call alarm and warning flags. The host device (or end user) can monitor these flags to determine whether conditions exist that are likely to have caused a transceiver link to fail (alarm flags) or whether conditions exist which predict that a failure is likely to occur soon. Examples of such conditions might be a laser bias current which has fallen to zero, which is indicative of an immediate failure of the transmitter output, or a laser bias current in a constant power mode which exceeds its nominal value by more than 50%, which is an indication of a laser end-of-life condition. Thus, the automatically generated limit flags are useful because they provide a simple pass-fail decision on the transceiver functionality based on internally stored limit values.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARREN WOLF whose telephone number is (571)270-3378. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KENNETH N. VANDERPUYE can be reached at 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.
/DARREN E WOLF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights