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 .
Claim Interpretation
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.
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: “optical device that transmits” “monitoring device” “optical device that reflects” “test light detecting device” that in claims 1, 5, 6 , 7, 8, 11, 12, 14,15,16, 17, & 19.
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.
Applicant teaches the optical device is a beam splitter (0049).
Applicant teaches monitoring device include may each include a lens or a group of lenses 164, 174
and an optical sensor array (0065).
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.
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 11-15 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. In regards to claim 11, the claimed subject matter “test light detecting device” is rendered indefinite. Examiner notes the specification does not provide the structure for the “test light detecting device” to perform the claimed functions. Applicant teaches the at least one test light detecting device determines a measured insertion loss change for each of the test light beams is greater than a predetermined threshold (00142). Based upon the specification there is no way to determine the metes and bounds of this limitation, since there are no limits imposed by structure, material or acts, and can therefore be performed by any means capable of performing the function, both known and unknown. Clarification is required.
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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu US 11506884 in view of HUANG WO03058313.
With respect to claim 11, Hu teaches a monitoring system for an optical circuit switch device, the monitoring system
comprising:
a first collimator array (fig 1A, 110) (col 1, lines 53-55) with two or more input ports (fig 1, 112n) that receive test light beams (fig 1A, 113) from at least one test light source that generates the test light beams;
a first micro-electro-mechanical (MEMS) array (fig 1A, 132) and a second MEMS array (fig 1A, 134) which receives the test light beams from the two or more input ports and directs the received test light beams to a
second collimator array (fig 1A, 150);
the second collimator array “output collimator” (col 2, line 60) that includes two or more output ports (fig 1A, 152n) that receive the test light beams from the first MEMS array and the second MEMS array; and
Hu does not teach at least one test light detecting device connected to the two or more output ports that receive
the test light beams, wherein the at least one test light detecting device monitors the optical circuit switch device.
Huang, in the same field of endeavor as Hu of MEMS optical control switches, teaches a test light detection device (fig 4, 78a & 78e) configured to receive test light from two output ports to monitor an optical circuit switch device (fig 4, 18 & 26) (pg. 15, lines 1-10). Huang further teaches the test light detection device measures light intensity from the output port to control the MEMS optical switch (pg. 15, lines 5-6). At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Huang’s test lighting device with Hu’s output ports to calibrate the positions of input beam for low insertion loss.
Claim(s) 12 & 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu US 11506884 in view of HUANG WO03058313 in further view of Zhao US 9,008,510.
With respect to claim 12, according to claim 11 the combination teaches the monitoring system wherein the at least one test light detecting device measures “detect the intensity of light” (pg. 15, lines 5-6 Huang) “can be measured and controlled” and its changes “detect the intensity of light” (pg. 15, lines 5-6 Huang) for each of the test light beams.
The combination does not teach insertion loss.
Zhao, in the same field of endeavor as Hu of reducing insertion loss of MEMS optical control switches (col 3, lines 49-50 Zhao), teaches software configured to be aware of insertion loss variations within several optical switches (col 7, lines 30-31). At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zhao software with the combination’s test detection vice to determine insertion loss to initiate the combination’s adjustment of mirrors accordingly.
With respect to claim 16, Hu teaches a method for monitoring an optical circuit switch device, the method comprising:
generating, from at least one test light source, test light beams;
receiving by a first collimator array (fig 1A, 110) (col 1, lines 53-55) with two or more input ports (fig 1, 112n), the test light beams;
passing, through the two or more input ports the test light beams through a first microelectro-mechanical (MEMS) array (fig 1A, 132) and a second MEMS array (fig 1A, 134);
receiving, by two or more output ports (fig 1A, 152n) of a second collimator array “output collimator” (col 2, line 60), the test light beams (fig 1A, 150);
measuring using the test light beams “detect the intensity of light” (pg. 15, lines 5-6) “can be measured and controlled” and its change “low insertion loss results” (pg. 31, lines 3-5) of the optical circuit switch device.
Hu does not teach receiving by at least one test light detecting device the test light beams.
Huang, in the same field of endeavor as Hu of MEMS optical control switches, teaches a test light detection device (fig 4, 78a & 78e) configured to receive test light from two output ports to monitor an optical circuit switch device (fig 4, 18 & 26) (pg. 15, lines 1-10). Huang further teaches the test light detection device measures light intensity from the output port to control the MEMS optical switch (pg. 15, lines 5-6). At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Huang’s test lighting device with Hu’s output ports to calibrate the positions of input beam for low insertion loss.
The combination does not teach insertion loss.
Zhao, in the same field of endeavor as Hu of reducing insertion loss of MEMS optical control switches (col 3, lines 49-50 Zhao), teaches software configured to be aware of insertion loss variations within several optical switches (col 7, lines 30-31). At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zhao software with the combination’s test detection vice to determine insertion loss to initiate the combination’s adjustment of mirrors accordingly.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu US 11506884 in view of HUANG WO03058313 in further view of Zhao US 9,008,510 in further view of Sakai KR 20100068420.
With respect to claim 20 according to claim 16, the combination does not teach the insertion loss change is greater than a predetermined threshold wherein the optical circuit switch is placed in a calibration mode.
Sakai, in the same field of endeavor as Hu of reducing loss of MEMS optical control switches (abstract, lines 1-2 Sakai), teaches detecting variations in intensity from a MEMS mirror via a controller when an intensity is above a predetermined threshold (pg. 4, ¶ 4) in which the controller stops the motion of the MEMS mirror i.e. calibration mode (pg. 6, ¶ 8). Examiner notes one of ordinary skill would understand the variations intensity may represent an insertion loss since Sakai further teaches difference between the intensities between two test beams are compared to a threshold value (pg. 4, ¶ 4). Since Sakai is reducing loss outputted from each mirror, the threshold amount may represent an unwanted insertion loss (pg. 3, ¶ 9). At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Sakai’s controller with the combination’s MEMS array reduce optical loss from the combination’s optical switch (pg. 3, ¶ 9).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowed. Claims 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims or to include the limitation(s) and any intervening claims into the base claim. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 1, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “a first filter positioned between an input collimator array and a lens structure; the first filter receives the first reference light beam from the first optical device and passes the first reference light beam through a first micro-electro-mechanical (MEMS) array and a second MEMS array; a first monitoring device that receives the first reference light beam that monitors at least a first mirror drift in the first MEMS array; and a second monitoring device that simultaneously receives a second reference light beam that monitors at least a second mirror drift in the second MEMS array”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 1.
As to claim 6, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “receiving, via a first filter positioned between an input collimator array and a lens structure, the first reference light beam from a first optical device that transmits light and reflects light; passing, via the first filter, the first reference light beam through a first micro-electromechanical (MEMS) array and a second MEMS array; receiving, via a first monitoring device, the first reference light beam that monitors at least a first mirror drift in the first MEMS array; and simultaneously receiving, via a second monitoring device, a second reference light beam that monitors at least a second mirror drift in the second MEMS array”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 6.
As to claim 13, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “wherein the first matrix and the second matrix are returned to an optimized position for further testing, when the measured insertion loss change is greater than a predetermined threshold”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 13.
As to claim 14, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “a first filter positioned between the first collimator array and a lens structure; the first filter receives the first reference light beam from the first optical device and passes the first reference light beam through the first MEMS array and the second MEMS array; a first monitoring device that receives the first reference light beam that monitors at least a
first mirror drift in the first MEMS array; and a second monitoring device that simultaneously receives a second reference light beam that monitors at least a second mirror drift in the second MEMS array”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 14.
As to claim 17, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “generating, via a first reference light source, a first reference light beam when the measured insertion loss change is greater than a predetermined threshold; receiving, via a first filter positioned between the first collimator array and a lens structure,
the first reference light beam from a first optical device that transmits light and reflects light; passing, via the first filter, the first reference light beam through the first MEMS array and the second MEMS array”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 17.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAURICE C SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-2526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm EST.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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.
/MAURICE C SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights