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 .
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.
Claim(s) 21, and 24-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO2019172934 to Grice et al (Applicant IDS document #4; 1/29/2025).
Grice discloses in the abstract and figure 3, an apparatus comprising:
A first fiber receptacle configured to receive a first connector of a first optical fiber (300);
a photodetector (209) configured to detect optical signals;
a second fiber receptacle (figure 3C shows an unlabeled duplex connector receptacle);
a receptacle cover (209; figure 3D) configured to cover the second fiber receptacle, wherein the receptacle cover is configured to support an open state in which the second fiber receptacle is configured to receive a second connector of a second optical fiber for transferring optical signals between the first optical fiber and the second optical fiber, wherein the receptacle cover is configured to support a closed state in which optical signals received over the first optical fiber are redirected toward the photodetector (page 8, lines 7-19 and 20-25 describe this function); and
a controller (204) configured to:
determine, based on whether an optical signal is detected by the photodetector, a status of the first optical fiber; and
provide an indication of the status of the first optical fiber (page 8, lines 10-19).
As to claims 24 and 38, the wavelength range is within 10% of the light to be detected and is FTTP (page 4, line 4 and page 11, line 13).
As to claim 25, the photodetector is integrated with the controller (figure 2).
As to claim 26, there is no specific definition as to what constitutes a “microcontroller”. If it is solely due to size, the controller of the prior art is an integrated circuit and therefore is micro.
As to claim 27, no range is recited as to the period. Therefore, an always on condition, which the prior art is not, would have a period of zero.
As to claim 28, there is a visual indicator (218).
As to claims 29-33, the message is sent via a wireless signal that can be RF, antenna or any network device (page 6, line 21 to page 7, line 10).
As to claim 34, a battery is disclosed (6V in figures 5-6).
As to claims 35-37, the controller could be configured and to provide status as claimed. No specific structure is recited for this function.
Claims 39-40 are variations of the above disclosed features.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grice in view of US 2015/0286014 to Suzuki et al.
Grice discloses the invention as claimed except for a reflective surface such as a mirror. It is noted that such reflective components are common in the optical art to redirect a light path.
Suzuki discloses a reflective surface to redirect a light path using reflective layer (117) to increase sensitivity (paragraph 52).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to add a reflective component such as a mirror as known in the art and as taught by Suzuki to redirect a light path depending on the component arrangement and to increase sensitivity of leak light detection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11,187,616 (optical power detector).
US 2024/0069177 (figure 4 for wireless detection and signal processing).
US 2016/0087471 (wireless status indicator 290).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric K Wong whose telephone number is (571)272-2363. The examiner can normally be reached M-Tu, Th-F 8A-6P.
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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached on 571-270-1739. 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.
ERIC K. WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2874
/Eric Wong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874