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 § 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 3-4 and 7 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 3 recites the limitation “the device power control unit” in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the limiting amplifier” in line 6 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the detected pattern” in lines 3-4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2017/0302380 A1) in view of Senoo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2024/0056709 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Liu et al. teaches in FIG. 10 an apparatus for use in an OLT communicatively connected to a plurality of ONUs (Liu et al. teaches in FIG. 2 an OLT communicatively connected to a plurality of ONUs), comprising: at least one memory (memory 1002 of FIG. 10) configured to store instructions (see paragraph [0046]): and at least one processor (processor 1001 of FIG. 10) configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to perform, sending a FWI (forced wakeup indication) to the ONU wherein the ONU is in a sleep state (see paragraph [0036] and FIG. 1). The difference between Liu et al. and the claimed invention is that Liu et al. does not teach varying an average output power of a PON downstream signal for a duration based on a determination of waking up at least one ONU from a deep sleep mode. Senoo et al. teaches in FIG. 32 that a control signal can be sent from OLT to ONU by modulating a high-speed data signal which varies an average output power of a PON downstream signal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Senoo et al. with the system of Liu et al. because it enables a reliable transmission of control signals which are critical to the operation of the PON. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to transmit control signals by adding a low-data-rate intensity modulation to the envelope of the main signal, as taught by Senoo et al., in the system of Liu et al.
Regarding claim 10, it is obvious to assume that when there is no control signal, the average power of the main signal is at a low power level. It is obvious because it does not involve undue experimentation.
Claim 13 is rejected based on the same reason for rejecting claim 9.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. and Aronson et al. as applied to claims 9-10 and 13 above, and further in view of Hirth et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2013/0294775 A1).
Liu et al. and Aronson et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 9-10 and 13. The difference between Liu et al. and Aronson et al. and the claimed invention is that Liu et al. and Aronson et al. do not teach varying the average output power of the PON downstream signal in a pattern corresponding to the first ONU. Hirth et al. teaches in paragraph [0009] that each ONU is assigned one or more logical link identifiers (LLIDs) and packet transmitted by the OLT specifies an LLID of the destination ONU. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Hirth et al. with the modified system of Liu et al. and Aronson et al. because the identifier allows the OLT to wake up a particular ONU among the plurality of ONUs. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the ONU identifier in the message for waking up a particular ONU, as taught by Hirth et al., in the modified system of Liu et al. and Aronson et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8 and 12 are allowed.
Claims 3-4 and 7 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHI K LI whose telephone number is (571)272-3031. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:53 a.m. -3:23 p.m.
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.
skl17 September 2026
/SHI K LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights