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 (IDS) submitted on 3/3/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the wave division multiplexer measures a strength of an optical signal incident on the wave division multiplexer”. However, the Specification discloses that a power monitor (e.g., power monitor 24d in Figure 8) “may measure the strength at any location as long as it can measure the strength of the optical signal incident on the multiplexing/demultiplexing device 21. For example, the power monitor 24d may measure the strength of the input port of the multiplexing/demultiplexing device 21” ([0103]). That is, the original disclosure does not disclose that the wave division multiplexer itself measures a strength of an optical signal incident on the wave division multiplexer, and the specification does not disclose how a wave division multiplexer measures a strength of an optical signal; instead, a specific power monitor is used to measure the strength of an optical signal incident on the wave division multiplexer.
The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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 1-7 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.
1). Claim 1, and thus dependent claims 2-5, recites the limitation “the control signal …, and is a signal for one to control an other” (page 4 lines 1-3); it is not clear what the applicant tries to convey by the phrase “for one to control an other”; is the “one” any person? What is the “an other”?
2). Claim 1, recites the limitation "the wave division multiplexers" in lines 15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
3). Claim 1, recites the limitation "the terminal equipment" in lines 1-2 of page 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
4). Claim 1, recites the limitation "the control optical switches" in lines 15-16 of page 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
5). Claim 6 recites the limitation “the control signal …, and is a signal for one to control an other” (page 5, lines 24-26 of claim 6); it is not clear what the applicant tries to convey by the phrase “for one to control an other”; is the “one” any person? What is the “an other”?
6). Claim 6, recites the limitation "the terminal equipment" in lines 24-25 of claim 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
7). Claim 6, recites the limitation "the control optical switches" in lines 12-13 of page 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
8). Claim 7 recites the limitation “the control signal …, and is a signal for one to control an other” (page 7 lines 6-8); it is not clear what the applicant tries to convey by the phrase “for one to control an other”; is the “one” any person? What is the “an other”?
9). Claim 7, recites the limitation "the wave division multiplexers" in lines 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
10). Claim 7, recites the limitation "the terminal equipment" in lines 6-7 of page 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
11). Claim 7, recites the limitation "the control optical switches" in lines 20-21 of page 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 and 6-7 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 prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20230030158 A1
US 20140112661 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LI LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1084. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 8 pm.
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.
/LI LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634 August 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights