Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-12, 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abedin (US Pat. App. Pub. 2011/0220776 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Abedin teaches, A method, comprising: at an optical signal amplification device including an optical amplifier (FIG. 3: 12) that is configured to amplify an optical signal (Id.), receiving an indication that optical power generated by the optical amplifier is not being received at a downstream optical coupler/splitter that is in communication with the optical signal amplification device (FIG. 3: 14, 24, 28); and in response to receiving the indication, causing the optical amplifier to reduce amplification of the optical signal ([0058] (“Without completely stopping the amplification operation of the optical amplifier 12, the warning circuit 28 may be made to reduce the amplification factor of the optical amplifier 12”)).
Regarding Claim 2, Abedin teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising receiving the indication via a fiber optic cable at the optical signal amplification device. (FIG. 3: 28, 12)
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, Abedin teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the downstream optical coupler/splitter is an optical splitter. (FIG. 3: 14)
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, Abedin teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the downstream optical coupler/splitter is a passive optical device. (FIG. 3: 14)
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, Abedin teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising receiving the indication at a communications check port of the optical signal amplification device. (FIG. 3: 28)
Regarding Claim 7 and 17, Abedin teaches The method of claim 6, further comprising monitoring an output of a photodetector associated with the communications check port, and, when no signal is detected at the photodetector, causing the optical amplifier to reduce amplification of the optical signal. (FIG. 3: 24)
Regarding Claim 8, Abedin teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the optical signal amplification device and the downstream optical coupler/splitter are co-located. (FIG. 3: 12, 14)
Regarding Claim 9, Abedin teaches The method of claim 1, wherein causing the optical amplifier to reduce amplification of the optical signal comprises causing the optical amplifier to cease amplifying the optical signal. (FIG. 3: “STOP SIGNAL”)
Regarding Claim 10, Abedin teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the optical signal amplification device and the downstream optical coupler/splitter are part of a routed optical network (FIG. 3).
Regarding Claims 11 and 18, Abedin teaches An apparatus comprising: an interface configured to enable network communications (FIG. 3: 28); a memory (Id.); an optical amplifier (FIG. 3: 12); and one or more processors coupled to the interface, the memory, and the optical amplifier (FIG. 3: 28), and configured to: receive an indication that optical power of an optical signal generated by the optical amplifier is not being received at a downstream optical coupler/splitter that is in communication with the apparatus (FIG. 3: 14, 24); and in response to receiving the indication, cause the optical amplifier to reduce amplification of the optical signal. ([0058] (“Without completely stopping the amplification operation of the optical amplifier 12, the warning circuit 28 may be made to reduce the amplification factor of the optical amplifier 12”)).
Regarding Claims 12 and 19, Abedin teaches The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive the indication via a fiber optic cable. (FIG. 3: 28)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claim(s) 3, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abedin (US Pat. App. Pub. 2011/0220776 A1) in light of Hu (US Pat. App. Pub. 2019/0158940 A1).
Regarding Claims 3, 13, and 20, Abedin teaches The method of claim 1,
Abedin does not teach wherein the downstream optical coupler/splitter comprises an optical demultiplexer, and the indication is representative of residual optical power remaining after the optical signal is demultiplexed by the optical demultiplexer.
Hu teaches wherein the downstream optical coupler/splitter comprises an optical demultiplexer (FIG. 3: 319-2), and the indication is representative of residual optical power remaining after the optical signal is demultiplexed by the optical demultiplexer (FIG. 3: 352).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Abedin’s upstream transmitter arrangement with the downstream demux and power sensing apparatus taught in Hu. Such a combination would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Wherein, the predictable result is an optical network where the amplification is reduced based on a power detection made on a demuxed signal.
Abedin and Hu both relate to optical communication systems and are therefore analogous art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL M BROCK whose telephone number is (571)272-7257. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kenneth Vanderpuye can be reached 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.
/PAUL MORGAN BROCK/Examiner, Art Unit 2634 July 10, 2026
/KENNETH N VANDERPUYE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights