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 02/18/2025 is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shimizu, WO 2011/158283 A1 (applicant has provided a copy of the reference and machine translation; citations will be given to the translation provided with this Office action from Espacenet).
Regarding claim 8, Shimizu teaches an optical power supply system comprising:
a light source configured to transmit light for optical power supply (see Shimizu Figure 1, power supply light sources LD and page 7, “The master station device 10 comprises n optical transmitters OS1 to OSn (where n is any
integer greater than or equal to 1), m-n power supply light sources LDn+1 to LDm”) to an optical power supply line connected to an optical power supply unit (see Figure 1, fiber span 40 connected to photoelectric converters OE and power supply device 24 and page 9 “The substation device 20 includes an optical demultiplexer 22 connected to the optical transmission line 40, n optical receivers OR1 to ORn provided downstream of the optical demultiplexer 22, m-n photoelectric converters OEn+1 to OEm also provided downstream of the optical demultiplexer 22, and a substation internal power supply device 24”);
an amplifier that is installed in a middle of a path of the optical power supply line and amplifies configured to amplify light transmitted from the light source (see Figure 1, amplifier 32 and page 9 “This relay station device 30 includes a relay optical amplifier 32 that amplifies wavelength-division multiplexed light that has been attenuated while propagating through the optical transmission path 40 and outputs it to the slave station device 20”); and
the optical power supply unit configured to receive the light amplified by the amplifier and photoelectrically converts the light to obtain power (see page 10, “The substation power supply device 24 supplies power sent from the photoelectric converters OEn+1 to OEm to various devices within the substation device 20. For example, optical receivers OR1 to ORn perform the above-mentioned reception processing using power from the substation's internal power supply device 24”).
Method claim 1 recites similar limitations as claim 8, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 2, Shimizu teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the optical power supply line is a line having a single-star configuration (see Shimizu Figure 1, wherein there is only one receiving station 20).
Regarding claim 4, Shimizu teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the amplifier replenishes power lost due to optical fiber loss that occurs between the light source and the optical power supply unit (see Shimizu page 9 “This relay station device 30 includes a relay optical amplifier 32 that amplifies wavelength-division multiplexed light that has been attenuated while propagating through the optical transmission path 40 and outputs it to the slave station device 20”).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu, WO 2011/158283 A1 (applicant has provided a copy of the reference and machine translation; citations will be given to the translation provided with this Office action from Espacenet).
Regarding claim 5, Shimizu teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressively teach wherein the amplifier replenishes power of an amount of power WR that satisfies an expression below: Wc<WR< (EMAX-EAMP+Wc) where Wc represents an amount of power lost due to connection of the amplifier to the optical power supply line, EMAX represents an upper limit of power inputtable to the optical power supply line, and EAMP represents power of the optical power supply line at a location of the amplifier.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of design choice to amplify the signal with the range claimed based on system needs and power limitations of the individual elements.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu, WO 2011/158283 A1 (applicant has provided a copy of the reference and machine translation; citations will be given to the translation provided with this Office action from Espacenet) in view of Kamalov et al, U.S. Publication No. 2016/0211918.
Regarding claim 3, Shimizu teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and but does not expressively teach harvesting, by an energy harvester, power by energy harvesting, wherein the amplifier is driven by electricity acquired from the energy harvester.
However, Kamalov in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a method comprising amplifying, via an amplifier, an optical signal (see Kamalov Figure 2, repeater 150 and paragraph [0032]) as taught in Shimizu comprising
harvesting, by an energy harvester, power by energy harvesting, wherein the amplifier is driven by electricity acquired from the energy harvester (see Figure 2, power source 160 and paragraph [0008]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of simple substitution to replace the power source for the amplifier in Shimizu with that of Kamalov, to yield the predictable results of successfully amplifying the power signals.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 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 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