DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 10/8/2025. In virtue of this communication claims 1-2, 13-20 and 30-38 are currently pending in the instant application.
Response to Amendment
In response to the action mailed on 4/8/2025, the Applicant has filed a response amending the claims.
In view of Applicant’s response the claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Ito does not teach the limitation of “the software control system being further configured to confirm, authenticate and track robot services and input them into a data file for storage”, however, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement because of the following. First, MPEP 2145 section “Arguing Against References Individually” clearly states that the Applicant cannot attack the references individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references. In this case, the combination of Larsson, Kewitsch and Ito teaches this limitation. More specifically, the primary reference of Larsson Fig 2 teaches multiple distributed fiber cross-connects (e.g. OXC1, OXC2, A1, A2) and a software control system (e.g. NEM1, NEM2) for performing switching measurement services (e.g. performed via optical switching OXC). The secondary reference of Kewitsch Fig 1C teaches the concept that a distributed fiber cross-connect is a distributed robotic fiber cross-connect (e.g. 200) and that a software control system (e.g. 108, 109, 112, 116, 117,…) (as shown in Fig 1B) is used to perform switching robot services (e.g. performed via optical switching 200). And, the secondary reference of Ito Fig 3 teaches the concept that a software control system (e.g. 23, 21, 100) can be configured to confirm/ assure, authenticate/ verify and track/ monitor switching measurement services (e.g. performed via optical switching N1) (in this case the confirming/ assuring of switching measurement services is after LTE2 receives a test signal from LTE1, the authenticating/ verifying of switching measurement services is by having multiple measurement units (as shown in Fig 5) and the tracking/ monitoring of switching measurement services is after getting continuous values from the multiple measurement units (as shown in Fig 5)) and then inputting them into a data file (e.g. DB 103) (as shown in Fig 8, para [108]) for storage. Thus, the combination of Larsson, Kewitsch and Ito teaches the multiple distributed fiber cross-connects (e.g. OXC1, OXC2, A1, A2) being multiple distributed robotic fiber cross-connects (e.g. 200), the software control system (e.g. NEM1, NEM2) being a software control system (e.g. 108, 109, 112, 116, 117,…) for performing switching robot measurement services (e.g. performed via optical switching 200), and the software control system (e.g. NEM1, NEM2) having a software control system (e.g. 23, 21, 100) configured to confirm/ assure, authenticate/ verify and track/ monitor switching robot measurement services (e.g. performed via optical switching 200) (in this case the confirming/ assuring of switching robot measurement services is after LTE2 receives a test signal from LTE1, the authenticating/ verifying of switching robot measurement services is by having multiple measurement units (as shown in Fig 5) and the tracking/ monitoring of switching robot measurement services is after getting continuous values from the multiple measurement units (as shown in Fig 5)) and then inputting them into a data file (e.g. DB 103) for storage (which is what this argued limitation requires). See also the rejection below. Therefore, the combination of Larsson, Kewitsch and Ito teaches this limitation i.e. as currently presented in the claim and is contrary to what the Applicant argues. Here, the Examiner is interpreting that the claimed “robot services” is equivalent to the “switching robot measurement services” because switching is being performed by multiple distributed fiber cross-connects (200) (which are robots) in order to obtain system performance measurements (which are services). There is nothing in the claim that prevents the Examiner from taking this interpretation and making this rejection. This argued limitation is being claimed in a broad manner. As a reminder, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP 2145 section “Arguing Limitations Which Are Not Claimed” for details. Therefore, any difference between the cited prior art and the instant application must be clearly recited in the independent claim 1 in order to have any weight and/or patentable consideration. Also, the Examiner would like to state that a person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of knowledge, creativity and common sense (not an automaton) and is able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle in order to achieve the claimed invention (which is the case here). The Applicant also argues that Beller does not teach “connecting the visual fault finder to a proximal end of an interconnect such that a distal end of the interconnect is illuminated”, however, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement because of the following. First, the primary reference of Larsson Fig 2, teaches a tester (e.g. A1) being connected to a proximal end of an interconnect (e.g. line between A1 and OXC2) and the secondary reference of Beller Fig 1 teaches a tester having a visual fault finder (30) connected to a proximal end of an interconnect (e.g. line between 30 and 50) such that a distal end of the interconnect (e.g. line between 30 and 50) is illuminated. Thus, the combination teaches a tester (e.g. A1) having a visual fault finder (30) connected to a proximal end of an interconnect (e.g. line between A1 and OXC2) such that a distal end of the interconnect (e.g. line between A1 and OXC2) is illuminated (which is what this argued limitation requires). See also the rejection below. Therefore, the combination of Larsson and Beller teaches this limitation i.e. as currently presented in the claim and is contrary to what the Applicant argues. Here, the Examiner is interpreting that the interconnect is merely a line connection. There is nothing in the claim that prevents the Examiner from taking this interpretation and making this rejection. In conclusion, for at least the reasons, the combination of Larsson, Kewitsch, Ito and Beller still teaches the claims i.e. as currently presented and is the opposite to what is being argued.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-2 and 30-32 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsson (US Pub 20030170021) in view of Kewitsch et al (US Pub 20160202424) in further view of Ito (US Pub 20040096216).
Regarding claim 1. Larsson discloses a system of operating a data center physical fiber-optic interconnect fabric (Fig 2, where a system operates a physical fiber-optic interconnect fabric (e.g. clients, OXCs,…) and where it is known that the physical fiber-optic interconnect fabric (e.g. clients, OXCs,…) is used in data centers so as to connect a transmitting end to a receiving end and perform optical switching), the system providing automated network services including some or all of: provisioning, verification, audit, troubleshooting, and/or authentification using distributed fiber cross-connects (Fig 2, where the system provides automated network measurement services which includes for example verification (e.g. of OXC1 and OXC2 connections) and audit/analysis (e.g. of transmission quality) using distributed fiber cross-connects (e.g. OXC1, OXC2)), the system comprising:
a multiplicity of optical fiber signal carrying cables (Fig 2, where the system comprises a multiplicity of optical fiber signal carrying cables (e.g. which connects OXC1 and OXC2)); and
a software control system that generates instructions communicated to multiple distributed fiber cross-connects to perform services (Fig 2, where the system comprises software control system (e.g. NEM1, NEM2) that generates instructions communicated to multiple distributed fiber cross-connects (e.g. OXC1, OXC2, A1, A2) to perform switching measurement services (e.g. performed via optical switching OXC)).
Larsson fails to explicitly disclose the distributed fiber cross-connects being distributed robotic fiber cross-connects, the software control system generating a sequence of movement and sensing based instructions communicated to the multiple distributed robotic fiber cross-connects to perform the robot services, and the multiple distributed robotic fiber cross-connects having internal robots configured to plug and unplug signal carrying cables in accordance with a non-entangling algorithm to enable said robot services.
However, Kewitsch discloses
a distributed fiber cross-connect being a distributed robotic fiber cross-connect (Fig 1C, where a distributed fiber cross-connect is a distributed robotic fiber cross-connect (e.g. 200)),
a software control system generating a sequence of movement and sensing based instructions communicated to the distributed robotic fiber cross-connect to perform robot services (Fig 1C, where the distributed robotic fiber cross-connect (e.g. 200) has software control system (e.g. 108, 109, 112, 116, 117,…) (as shown in Fig 1B) that generates a sequence of movement and sensing based instructions communicated to the distributed robotic fiber cross-connect (e.g. 200) to perform switching robot services (e.g. performing via optical switching 200)), and
the distributed robotic fiber cross-connect having an internal robot configured to plug and unplug signal carrying cables in accordance with a non-entangling algorithm to enable said robot services (Fig 1C, where the distributed robotic fiber cross-connect (e.g. 200) has an internal robot (e.g. gripper 103) (as shown in Fig 1A) configured to plug and unplug signal carrying cables (e.g. 101) in accordance with a non-entangling algorithm (e.g. a Knots, Braids and Strands (KBS) algorithm) to enable said switching robot services (e.g. performed via optical switching 200)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the distributed fiber cross-connects (e.g. OXC1, OXC2) as described in Larsson, with the teachings of the distributed fiber cross-connect as described in Kewitsch. The motivation being is that as shown a distributed fiber cross-connect can be a distributed robotic fiber cross-connect (e.g. 200), can have a software control system (e.g. 108, 109, 112, 116, 117,…) that generates a sequence of movement and sensing based instructions communicated to the distributed robotic fiber cross-connect (e.g. 200) to perform switching robot services (e.g. performed via optical switching 200) and can have an internal robot (e.g. gripper 103) configured to plug and unplug signal carrying cables (e.g. 101) in accordance with a non-entangling algorithm (e.g. a Knots, Braids and Strands (KBS) algorithm) to enable said switching robot services (e.g. performed via optical switching 200) and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the distributed fiber cross-connects (e.g. OXC1, OXC2) as described in Larsson and have the distributed fiber cross-connects (e.g. OXC1, OXC2) be distributed robotic fiber cross-connects (200), have a software control system (e.g. 108, 109, 112, 116, 117,…) that generates a sequence of movement and sensing based instructions communicated to the distributed robotic fiber cross-connects (200) to perform switching robot measurement services (e.g. performed via optical switching 200) and have internal robots (e.g. gripper 103) configured to plug and unplug signal carrying cables (e.g. 101) in accordance with a non-entangling algorithm (e.g. a Knots, Braids and Strands (KBS) algorithm) to enable said switching robot measurement services (e.g. performed via optical switching 200) i.e. as an alternative so as to have the distributed fiber cross-connects (e.g. OXC1, OXC2) with a known technique of a known distributed robotic fiber cross-connect (e.g. 200) for the purpose of optimally performing optical switching in an automated manner and which technique improves the system because a distributed robotic fiber cross-connect uses a robot to perform fast and reliable optical switching and which modification is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. optical cross-connects) and which modification is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known distributed fiber cross-connect into another similar distributed fiber cross-connects (OXC1, OXC2), namely, for its improvement and for optimization and which modification yields predictable results.
Larsson as modified by Kewitsch fails to explicitly disclose the software control system being further configured to confirm, authenticate and track robot services and input them into a data file for storage.
However, Ito discloses
a software control system being configured to confirm, authenticate and track services and input them into a data file for storage (Fig 3, where a software control system (e.g. 23, 21, 100) is configured to confirm/ assure, authenticate/ verify and track/ monitor switching measurement services (e.g. performed via optical switching N1) (in this case the confirming/ assuring of switching measurement services is after LTE2 receives a test signal from LTE1, the authenticating/ verifying of switching measurement services is by having multiple measurement units (as shown in Fig 5) and the tracking/ monitoring of switching measurement services is after getting continuous values from the multiple measurement units (as shown in Fig 5)) and then inputting them into a data file (e.g. DB 103) (as shown in Fig 8, para [108]) for storage).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the software control system (e.g. NEM1, NEM2) as described in Larsson as modified by Kewitsch, with the teachings of the software control system (e.g. 23, 21, 100) as described in Ito. The motivation being is that as shown a software control system (e.g. 23, 21, 100) can be configured to confirm/ assure, authenticate/ verify and track/ monitor switching measurement services (e.g. performing via optical switching N1) (in this case the confirming/ assuring of switching measurement services is after LTE2 receives a test signal from LTE1, the authenticating/ verifying of switching measurement services is by having multiple measurement units (as shown in Fig 5) and the tracking/ monitoring of switching measurement services is after getting continuous values from the multiple measurement units (as shown in Fig 5)) and then inputting them into a data file (e.g. DB 103) for storage and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the software control system (e.g. NEM1, NEM2) as described in Larsson as modified by Kewitsch and have the software control system (e.g. NEM1, NEM2) with a software control system (e.g. 23, 21, 100) being configured to confirm/ assure, authenticate/ verify and track/ monitor switching robot measurement services (e.g. performed via optical switching 200) (in this case the confirming/ assuring of switching robot measurement services is after LTE2 receives a test signal from LTE1, the authenticating/ verifying of switching robot measurement services is by having multiple measurement units (as shown in Fig 5) and the tracking/ monitoring of switching robot measurement services is after getting continuous values from the multiple measurement units (as shown in Fig 5)) and then inputting them into a data file (e.g. DB 103) for storage i.e. as an alternative so as to have the software control system (e.g. NEM1, NEM2) with a known technique of a known software control system (e.g. 23, 21, 100) for the purpose of optimally measuring system performance which includes for example error rate, reception power, OSNR and dispersion between a transmitting end and a receiving end and which technique helps establish a better route for performing data communications and which modification is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. optical cross-connects) and which modification is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known software control system (e.g. 23, 21, 100) into another similar software control system (e.g. NEM1, NEM2), namely, for its improvement and for optimization and which modification yields predictable results.
Regarding claim 2. Larsson as modified by Kewitsch and Ito also discloses the system wherein the robot services include one or more of: a fiber connection; a fiber disconnection; an optical power measurement; and/or an optical time-domain reflectometer (OTDR) trace (Larsson Fig 2, where the switching robot measurement services include a fiber connection (e.g. between OXC1 and OXC2) (robotic fiber cross-connects 200)).
Regarding claim 30. Larsson as modified by Kewitsch and Ito also discloses the system, wherein the fiber-optic interconnect fabric comprises: internal connections, dynamically configurable by, and statically and manually established external connections (Kewitsch Fig 1A, Fig 1C, where a fiber-optic interconnect fabric (e.g. robotic fiber cross-connect 200,...) comprises internal connections dynamically configurable (e.g. between 102 and 42) (as also shown in Fig 11A) and statically and manually established external connections (e.g. for 62-in and 62-out)), wherein the robotic fiber cross-connect dynamically configures any arbitrary combination of internal connections to external connections without entanglement (Kewitsch Fig 1A, Fig 1C, where the robotic fiber cross-connect (e.g. 200) dynamically configures any arbitrary combination of internal connections (e.g. between 102 and 42) (as also shown in Fig 11A) to external connections (e.g. for 62-in and 62-out) without entanglement (i.e. because of the Knots, Braids and Strands (KBS) algorithm)), and wherein the robotic fiber cross-connect is further configured to inject optical test probes onto any internal connection, enabling automated testing of both internal connections and external connections attached thereto (Kewitsch Fig 1A, Fig 1C, where the robotic fiber cross-connect (e.g. 200) is further configured to inject optical test probes (e.g. from A1) (as shown in Larsson Fig 2) onto any internal connection (e.g. between 102 and 42) (as also shown in Fig 11A), enabling automated testing of both internal connections (e.g. between 102 and 42) (as also shown in Fig 11A) and external connections (e.g. for 62-in and 62-out) attached thereto).
Regarding claim 31. Larsson as modified by Kewitsch and Ito also discloses the system, wherein the system uses optical diagnostic tools to perform automated verification of signal integrity, insertion loss, and/or back reflection for at least some connected fibers (Larsson Fig 2, where the system uses optical diagnostic/analysis tools (e.g. at A1, A2, NEM1, NEM2) to perform automated verification of signal integrity (e.g. of transmission quality) for at least some connected fibers).
Regarding claim 32. Larsson as modified by Kewitsch and Ito also discloses the system, wherein testing operations are initiated via software control, allowing for remote and scheduled diagnostics without human intervention (Larsson Fig 2, where testing operations (e.g. via A1, A2) are initiated via software control (e.g. via NEM1, NEM2), allowing for remote and scheduled diagnostics/analysis without human intervention).
Claim 34 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsson (US Pub 20030170021) in view of Kewitsch et al (US Pub 20160202424) in further view of Ito (US Pub 20040096216) in further view Beller et al (US Pub 20050117147).
Regarding claim 34. Larsson as modified by Kewitsch and Ito also discloses the system, wherein the robotic fiber cross-connect is configured to connect one or more test ports to a tester, and the robotic fiber cross-connect is further configured to connect the tester to a proximal end of an interconnect (Larsson Fig 2, where the fiber cross-connect (e.g. OXC1) (robotic fiber cross-connect 200) is configured to connect one or more test ports to a tester (e.g. A1), and the fiber cross-connect (e.g. OXC1) (robotic fiber cross-connect 200) is further configured to connect the tester (e.g. A1) to a proximal end of an interconnect (e.g. line between A1 and OXC2)).
Larsson as modified by Kewitsch and Ito fails to explicitly disclose the tester having a visual fault finder, the visual fault finder comprising a diode laser emitting visible red light, and the visual fault finder being connected to a proximal end of an interconnect, such that a distal end of the interconnect is illuminated.
However, Beller discloses
a tester having a visual fault finder, the visual fault finder comprising a diode laser emitting visible red light, and the visual fault finder being connected to a proximal end of an interconnect, such that a distal end of the interconnect is illuminated (Fig 1, where a tester has a visual fault finder (30), the visual fault finder (30) comprises a diode laser emitting visible red light, and the visual fault finder (30) is connected to a proximal end of an interconnect (e.g. line between 30 and 50) such that a distal end of the interconnect (e.g. line between 30 and 50) is illuminated).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the tester (e.g. A1) as described in Larsson as modified by Kewitsch and Ito, with the teachings of the tester as described in Beller. The motivation being is that as shown a tester can have a visual fault finder (30), the visual fault finder (30) can comprise a diode laser emitting visible red light and the visual fault finder (30) can connect to a proximal end of an interconnect (e.g. line between 30 and 50) such that a distal end of the interconnect (e.g. line between 30 and 50) is illuminated and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the tester (e.g. A1) as described in Larsson as modified by Kewitsch and Ito and have the tester (e.g. A1) with a visual fault finder (30), the visual fault finder (30) comprising a diode laser emitting visible red light and the visual fault finder (30) connecting to a proximal end of an interconnect (e.g. line between A1 and OXC2) such that a distal end of the interconnect (e.g. line between A1 and OXC2) is illuminated i.e. as an alternative so as to have the tester (e.g. A1) with a known technique of a known visual fault finder (30) for the purpose of optimally testing connections in order to find faults/breaks more quickly and in a simple manner and which technique improves fault/break localizations in the system and which modification is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. testers) and which modification is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known tester into another similar tester (e.g. A1), namely, for its improvement and for optimization and which modification yields predictable results.
Claim 35 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsson (US Pub 20030170021) in view of Kewitsch et al (US Pub 20160202424) in further view of Ito (US Pub 20040096216) in further view Beller et al (US Pub 20050117147) in further view of Applebaum (US Pat 10656343).
Regarding claim 35. Larsson as modified by Kewitsch and Ito and Beller also discloses the system, wherein illumination of the distal end and/or a dust cap at the distal end enables identification of the interconnect (Larsson Fig 2 and Beller Fig 1 where the illumination of the distal end of the interconnect (e.g. line between A1 and OXC2) enables identification of the interconnect (e.g. line between A1 and OXC2) (e.g. due to a fault/break)).
Larsson as modified by Kewitsch and Ito and Beller fails to explicitly disclose the system being capable of performing this identification for fiber-optic cables up to 10 kilometers in length.
However, Applebaum discloses
a system being capable of performing identification for fiber-optic cables up to 10 kilometers in length (Fig 2, col 3 lines 49-67, col 4 lines 1-17 where a tester is a visual fault locator/finder (10) and is capable of performing identification of an interconnect (e.g. due to a break) for fiber-optic cables up to 10 kilometers in length).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the tester (e.g. A1) as described in Larsson as modified by Kewitsch and Ito and Beller, with the teachings of the tester as described in Applebaum. The motivation being is that as shown a tester can be a visual fault locator/finder (10) and can be capable of performing identification of an interconnect (e.g. due to a break) for fiber-optic cables up to 10 kilometers in length and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the tester (e.g. A1) as described in Larsson as modified by Kewitsch and Ito and Beller and have the tester (e.g. A1) with a tester that is a visual fault locator/finder (10) and that is capable of performing identification of an interconnect (e.g. due to faults/ breaks) for fiber-optic cables up to 10 kilometers in length i.e. as an alternative so as to have the tester (e.g. A1) with a known technique of a known visual fault locator/ finder (10) for the purpose of optimally testing connections in long fibers in order to find faults/breaks and which technique improves fault/break localizations in the system and which modification is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. testers) and which modification is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known tester into another similar tester (e.g. A1), namely, for its improvement and for optimization and which modification yields predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
In view of Applicant’s response claims 13-20, 33 and 36-38 are allowable.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DIBSON J SANCHEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0868. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 10:00-6:00.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, Kenneth Vanderpuye can be reached on 5712723078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DIBSON J SANCHEZ/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634