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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 01/08/2025 is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 7, and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: each preamble recites “a network” but the claim bodies recite another instance of “a network” when it should read “the network”. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
Figures 1, 2, and 8 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated (see paragraphs [0008], [0027], and [0047] of the present published application which recites that each of these figures shows “conventional optical transmission systems”). See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-8 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.
Regarding independent claims 1, 5, 7, and 8, each recite a singular optical signal (via “the optical signal” being repeated throughout) as traversing an optical system. However, this does not appear to make sense as the first clause of each states that “the optical signal” is input and output to a same client terminal. A similar issue exists in the second clause of which recites that the wavelength multiplexing separators send “the optical signal” to and from a network. When looking to Figures 3 and 5 and the supporting text of the present published application, it appears that an optical signal is transported either
solely upstream from a client terminal 30 to a multiplexing/demultiplexing unit 12, then to processors 20, wavelength multiplexing separation unit(s) 12, and finally to the network or
in an opposite downstream configuration from the network to a client terminal.
It is unclear why an optical signal would traverse the system of Figures 3 and 4 only to end up at the same client terminal or why an optical signal would be sent by a network and be rerouted back to the same network.
Furthermore, claims 1, 5, 7, and 8 recite an “own device”. It is unclear from the wording of the claims or the Specification what “own device” is referring to. When looking to the Specification, the sections that use the term merely repeat the claim language and no element in the Figures is ever identified as such an “own device”. It is possible that the optical transmission device of the preamble of claims 1 and 5 and device 10 of Figures 3 and 5 is the “own device” but this is not clear.
In addition, the final clause of claims 1 and 7 refers to “the predetermined wavelength multiplexing separator” and the final clause of claims 5 and 8 recite “the predetermined multiplexer/demultiplexer. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims
Regarding claim 1, the third clause recites “the multiplexer/demultiplexer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as a plurality were previously recited.
Regarding t claim 5, the third clause recites “the wavelength separator”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as a plurality were previously recited.
Regarding both claims 1 and 5, as noted above, the first clause of both states that a plurality of multiplexers/demultiplexers are coupled to a communication terminal. When again looking to Figures 3 and 5, it is apparent that each client terminal 30 is only coupled to one multiplexer/demultiplexer 12 leading to the proper interpretation of the clause to be unclear.
Dependent claims 2-4 and 6 do not cure claims 1 and 5 of these issues and are similarly rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 5, 7, and 8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Conclusion
The Examiner attempted twice to reach an attorney of record to discuss the issues noted above but was unable to contact one in a timely fashion.
Liu et al, U.S. Publication No. 2010/0196011 generally teaches a system comprising communication terminal devices (see Figure 1, ONUs) sending upstream optical signals to and receiving downstream optical signals from one of a plurality of multiplexer/demultiplexers (see Figure 1, POC for each signal line from AOWC2), the multiplexer/demultiplexers being connected to an upstream signal demultiplexer/multiplexer (see Figure 1, AOWC2 and Figure 3 which is an embodiment of AOWC2, WDMB1-n) which outputs upstream signals from the communication terminal devices to electrical processors (see Figure 3, OWCs. Paragraph [0038] of the published application indicates that wavelength conversion is performed by electrical processing units) and inputs downstream signals (see Figure 3 λDs), and an upstream signal multiplexer/demultiplexer which outputs the processed upstream signals and inputs downstream signals (see Figure 3, WDMB).
However, Liu does not teach the network nor the network side elements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY L KRETZER whose telephone number is (571)272-5639. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-7:00 PM Pacific Time.
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.
/CASEY L KRETZER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights