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 statements submitted on 12/03/2025 and 01/29/2025 have been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Libeskind (US 8873947) in view of Kozuka (US 20100165852).
Consider Claim 1, Libeskind discloses a communication system, comprising: an instruction device that transmits a loopback instruction for an optical signal (Column 5, Lines 1-7, where loopback mode is initiated based on instructions from terminal) ;a transceiver device that transmits the optical signal (Figure 2B, element 204); and a loopback device that loops back the transmitted optical signal to the transceiver device as light based on the loopback instruction (Figure 2B, element 282 receives signal from element 280 which eventually reaches back to original transmitter element 204) ,wherein the transceiver device acquires the looped-back optical signal (Figure 2B, element 204 receives looped back signal from element 210 which came via element 282) but does not disclose determining whether a path of the optical signal is normal based on the acquired optical signal.
However, Kozuka discloses an acquired optical signal (Paragraph 00123, where received loopback test signal is analyzed for normal functionality through an established path and Paragraph 0101, where if loopback test signal is not returned within certain time, it indicates path disconnection (line fault)). While Kozuka does not explicitly disclose determining whether a path of the optical signal is normal, it would be obvious that if the measured loopback signal is returned on time and indicated as “normal”, then the loopback path had minimal to no issues and is performing as expected or in a “normal” manner.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Kozuka into Libeskind to ensure correct signal has been received.
Consider Claim 3, Libeskind does not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Kozuka discloses the communication system according to claim 1, wherein the transceiver device determines that the path of the optical signal is normal in a case where a time length during which the optical signal is looped back is equal to a predetermined time length (Paragraph 0101, where if loopback test signal is not returned within certain time, it indicates path disconnection (line fault)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Kozuka into Libeskind to ensure correct signal has been received.
Consider Claim 7, Libeskind discloses A normality determination method executed by a communication system, comprising: transmitting a loopback instruction for an optical signal (Column 5, Lines 1-7, where loopback mode is initiated based on instructions from terminal); transmitting the optical signal (Figure 5, element 204 transmits signal); looping back the transmitted optical signal to a transceiver device as light based on the loopback instruction (Figure 2B, element 282 receives signal from element 280 which eventually reaches back to original transmitter element 204); acquiring the looped-back optical signal (Figure 2B, element 204 receives looped back signal from element 210 which came via element 282); but does not disclose determining whether a path of the optical signal is normal based on the acquired optical signal.
However, Kozuka discloses an acquired optical signal (Paragraph 00123, where received loopback test signal is analyzed for normal functionality through an established path and Paragraph 0101, where if loopback test signal is not returned within certain time, it indicates path disconnection (line fault)).. While Kozuka does not explicitly disclose determining whether a path of the optical signal is normal, it would be obvious that if the measured loopback signal is indicated as “normal”, then the loopback path had minimal to no issues and is performing as expected or in a “normal” manner.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Kozuka into Libeskind to ensure correct signal has been received.
Claim 2 is rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Libeskind in view of Kozuka and further in view of Johnson (US 6714715).
Consider Claim 2, Libeskind and Kozuka do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Johnson discloses the communication system according to claim 1, wherein the transceiver device determines that the path of the optical signal is normal in a case where an attenuation amount of the acquired optical signal is a predetermined attenuation amount (Column 4, Lines 9-26, where a predetermined attenuation level is set for attenuator in path of loopback and predetermined attenuation is detected in event of faults or conditions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Johnson into Kozuka into Libeskind to correct faults within paths to reduce damage to system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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 ASIF SHAMEEM whose telephone number is (571)272-6576. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM EST-5:00 PM 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, 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.
/ASIF SHAMEEM/Examiner, Art Unit 2634
/KENNETH N VANDERPUYE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights