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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection applies new secondary references in the rejection of independent Claims 1 and 7 .
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.
Claims 1-4 and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagel (US 20110153544) in view of Frogratt (US 20050219512), and in further view of Collier (US 20150124246).
Consider Claim 1, Nagel discloses a method comprising: obtaining a digital signature for an optical fiber cable (Figure 2, element 220), ; and using the digital signature to identify the optical fiber cable (Figure 2, element 230, where profile is being used in memory), wherein the digital signature comprises an optical backscatter signature for the optical fiber cable at one or more wavelengths, from one or both ends (Paragraph 016: “Analysis of these traces proves both the loss and relative backscatter along the length of the fiber 110”) but does not disclose wherein, for an optical link comprising a sequence of multiple optical fiber cable segments connected in series, using digital signatures in a database to determine the optical fiber cable segments in the optical link, and wherein the database also includes one or more connector digital signatures of a corresponding one or more fiber optic connectors, and wherein the method further comprises also using at least one connector digital signature to determine the optical fiber cable segments in the optical link.
However, Frogratt discloses wherein for an optical link comprising a sequence of multiple optical fiber cable segments connected in series (Paragraph 039, where multiple fiber segments are present to produce a scatter pattern), using digital signatures in the database to determine the optical fiber cable segments in the optical link (Paragraph 041: “An unknown fiber segment is identified if its scatter pattern matches one of the scatter patterns stored in memory 48 for known fiber segments”.) but does not disclose wherein the database also includes one or more connector digital signatures of a corresponding one or more fiber optic connectors, and wherein the method further comprises also using at least one connector digital signature to determine the optical fiber cable segments in the optical link.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Frogratt into Nagel to indicate where loss in a DUT has occurred.
However, Collier discloses wherein the database also includes one or more connector digital signatures of a corresponding one or more fiber optic connectors (Paragraph 0031, where ports F1-F1 are included in connector element 24 and Paragraph 0035 where OTDR traces are collected for ports F1-F12), and wherein the method further comprises also using at least one connector digital signature to determine the optical fiber cable segments in the optical link (Paragraph 0035, where traces of ports in connector are used to find sequence of multi-cable fiber).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Collier into Nagel and Frogratt to accurately map the network and locate faults in fibers.
Consider Claim 2, Nagel discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the digital signature is stored in a database of digital signatures (Figure 2, element 230), a particular digital signature of said digital signatures corresponding to a particular optical fiber cable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Collier into Nagel and Frogratt to accurately map the network and locate faults in fibers.
Consider Claim 3, Nagel discloses the method of claim 2, wherein each digital signature in the database is unique in the database (Figure 2, element 220).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Collier into Nagel and Frogratt to accurately map the network and locate faults in fibers.
Consider Claim 4, Nagel discloses the method of claim 3, wherein a given digital signature in the database comprises an optical backscatter signature for a corresponding given optical fiber cable at one or more wavelengths, from one or both ends of said given optical fiber (Paragraph 0016, where traces care taken using the backscatter along the fiber).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Collier into Nagel and Frogratt to accurately map the network and locate faults in fibers.
Consider Claim 58, Nagel and Frogratt fail to disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Collier discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a particular connector digital signature of a particular fiber optic connector of said one or more fiber optic connectors was derived from connector backreflection events (Paragraph 0031, where ports F1-F1 are included in connector element 24 and Paragraph 0035 where OTDR traces are collected for ports F1-F12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Collier into Nagel and Frogratt to accurately map the network and locate faults in fibers.
Claim(s) 7-9 and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagel in view of Collier.
Consider Claim 7, Nagel discloses a method comprising: using (i)a plurality of digital optical fiber cable signatures, to determine or evaluate aspects of an interconnected fiber optic network (Paragraph 0013, traces for multiple fibers are used for analytical testing and identification purposes), wherein a given signature comprises an optical backscatter signature for a corresponding given optical fiber cable at one or more wavelengths, from one or both ends of said given optical fiber (Paragraph 0016: “Analysis of these traces proves both the loss and relative backscatter along the length of the fiber 110”) but does not disclose (ii) one or more connector digital signatures of a corresponding one or more fiber optic connectors.
However, Collier discloses one or more connector digital signatures of a corresponding one or more fiber optic connectors (Paragraph 0031, where ports F1-F1 are included in connector element 24 and Paragraph 0035 where OTDR trace is collected for ports F1-F12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Collier into Nagel to accurately map the network and locate faults in fibers.
Consider Claim 8, Nagel fails to disclose the limitations of claim 8.
However, Collier discloses the method of claim 7, wherein said aspects of said interconnected fiber optic network comprise one or more of: a physical topology of said interconnected fiber optic network (Paragraph 037, Traces are be used in the process to map out multi-fiber cable)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Collier into Nagel to accurately map the network and locate faults in fibers.
Consider Claim 9, Nagel discloses the method of claim 7, further comprising: providing a database of said plurality of digital optical fiber cable signatures (Figure 1A, element 170 include multiple profiles of different fibers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Collier into Nagel to accurately map the network and locate faults in fibers.
Consider Claim 59, Nagel fails to disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Collier discloses the method of claim 7, wherein a particular connector digital signature of a particular fiber optic connector of said one or more fiber optic connectors was derived from connector backreflection events (Paragraph 0031, where ports F1-F1 are included in connector element 24 and Paragraph 0035 where OTDR traces are collected for ports F1-F12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Collier into Nagel to accurately map the network and locate faults in fibers.
Claims 11-12, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frogratt, and in further view of Collier.
Consider Claim 11, Frogratt discloses a method of determining a signature of an optical link, said optical link comprising a sequence of multiple optical fiber cable segments connected in series, the method comprising: measuring an optical backscatter signature for the optical link at one or more wavelengths (Figure 5, element S2, generates a scatter pattern for segment), from one or both ends; matching the signature of the optical link to signatures of optical fiber cable segments stored in a memory (Paragraph 0041: “. An unknown fiber segment is identified if its scatter pattern matches one of the scatter patterns stored in memory 48 for known fiber segments.”) but fails to disclose based on said matching, determining the sequence of multiple optical fiber cable segments along the optical link, wherein the optical link further comprises one or more fiber optic connectors, and wherein said determining also uses one or more connector digital signatures of a corresponding one or more fiber optic connectors to determine the sequence of multiple optical fiber cable segments along the optical link.
However, Collier discloses based on said matching, determining the sequence of multiple optical fiber cable segments along the optical link (Paragraph 037, where computer program compares traces to each other and determine fiber sequence of multi fiber cable), wherein the optical link further comprises one or more fiber optic connectors (Figure 2A, elements 24 and 25), and wherein said determining also uses one or more connector digital signatures of a corresponding one or more fiber optic connectors to determine the sequence of multiple optical fiber cable segments along the optical link (Paragraph 0035, where traces of ports in connector are used to find sequence of multi-cable fiber).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Collier into Frogratt to avoid mis-mapped or mis-sequenced cables in a network that may result in malfunction of the network.
Consider Claim 12, Frogratt discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the signatures of optical fiber cable segments stored in the memory were determined by: measuring an optical backscatter signature for a plurality of individual optical fiber cable segment at one or more wavelengths (Figure 5, element S2), from one or both ends; andstoring signatures of individual optical fiber cable segments and their associated unique identifiers and related metadata in memory (Figure 5, element S3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Collier into Frogratt to indicate where loss in a DUT has occurred.
Consider Claim 16, Frogratt fails to disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Collier discloses the method of claim 12, further comprising: determining physical lengths of the optical link (Paragraph 0012, where traces are taken of fibers with each fiber having a unique length) and of the cable segments, and storing the physical lengths in the metadata (Paragraph 036, where fiber lengths are stored in computer readable media).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Collier into Frogratt to determine location of events along the length of the fiber.
Consider Claim 19, Frogratt fails to disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Collier discloses the method of claim 12 wherein the optical link further comprises one or more fiber optic connectors (Paragraph 028: “Each of the fibers comprises a first-end connected to a certain port on the first-connector and a second-end connected to a certain port on the second-connector.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Collier into Frogratt to enable quicker connection speeds.
Consider Claim 20, Frogratt fails to disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Collier discloses the method of claim 19, wherein said determining also uses one or more connector digital signatures of a corresponding one or more fiber optic connectors to determine the sequence of multiple optical fiber cable segments along the optical link (Paragraph 037, where computer program compares traces to each other and determine fiber sequence of multi fiber cable).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Collier into Frogratt to avoid mis-mapped or mis-sequenced cables in a network that may result in malfunction of the network.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C as being unpatentable over Frogratt in view of Collier and in further view of Nagel.
Consider Claim 13, Frogratt and Collier fail to disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Nagel discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the signature of the optical link comprises a unique backscatter signature (Figure 2, element 220).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Nagel into Frogratt and Collier to better differentiate between optical links in the network.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C as being unpatentable over Frogratt in view of Collier and in further view of Delgado (US 10432302).
Consider Claim 14, Frogratt and Collier fail to disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Delgado discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising: measuring an optical backscatter signature for each optical port of a plurality of optical transceiver elements at one or more wavelengths (Figure 4A, element 408 will retrieve the signatures of transceiver elements 402 and 405), and storing signatures of individual optical transceiver elements and their associated unique identifiers and related metadata in the memory (Figure 4A, element 412).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Delgado into Frogratt and Collier to enhance fault monitoring in fibers by including additional information i.e. the transceiver’s portion of the link.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C as being unpatentable over Frogratt in view of Collier in view of Delgado and in further view of Nagel.
Consider Claim 15, Delgado discloses the signature of a transceiver element stored in the memory (Figure 4A, element 412) and transceiver element terminating the optical link (Figure 4A, transceiver elements 402 and 405) but fails to disclose the method of claim 14, further comprising: matching the signature of the optical link to the signature and based on said matching, determining the identifier.
However, Nagel discloses the method of claim 14, further comprising: matching the signature of the optical link to the signature (Figure 2, matching element 270) and based on said matching, determining the identifier (Figure 2, identification element 280).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the signature matching teachings of Nagel into Frogratt, Collier, and Delgado to determine a match between signatures that reflect transceivers and the link itself, thus identifying the transceiver and link set based on the match.
Claim 17 is rejected under as being unpatentable over Frogratt in view of Collier and in further view of Brillhart (US 20160356670).
Consider Claim 17, Frogratt and Collier fail to disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Brillhart discloses the method of claim 12, further comprising: determining optical insertion loss of the optical link and the cable segments (Figure 1, elements 102 and 122 measure the end-end insertion loss of each of the cables under test), and storing in the metadata (Paragraph 0051, where there is a database that stores insertion lass data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Brillhart into Frogratt and Collier to identify losses in the optical link in order to reduce them.
Claim 18 is rejected under as being unpatentable over Frogratt in view of Collier and in further view of Giotto (US 20170272151).
Consider Claim 18, Frogratt and Collier fail to disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Giotto discloses the method of claim 12, further comprising: determining optical return loss of the optical link and the cable segments (Paragraph 0026, where device measures return loss) and storing in the metadata (Paragraph 0032, where return loss data is stored in an application).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Giotto into Frogratt and Collier to identify losses in the optical link in order to reduce them.
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