DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/31/2023 has been entered.
Amendment
2- The Request for Continued Examination amendment has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-3, 5-12 and 14-22 remain pending in the application, where the independent claims have been amended.
Response to Arguments
3- Applicant’s amendments and their corresponding arguments, with respect to the rejection of the pending claims under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made over the prior art used in the previous office action, mailed on 7/21/2025, in view of Menard et al. (PGPUB 20170019168).
PNG
media_image1.png
296
459
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3b
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4- 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.
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.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
5- Claims 1-3, 6-8, 11-12, 14-17, 21-22 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuksel et al. (“Optical Layer Monitoring in Passive Optical Networks (PONs): A Review”, TRANSPARENT OPTICAL NETWORKS, 2008. ICTON 2008. 10TH ANNIVERSARY INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON, IEEE, PISCATAWAY, NJ, USA, 22 June 2008 (2008-06-22), pages 92-98, XP031306064, ISBN: 978-1-4244-2625-6) in view of Sorin (US 20080019693), hereinafter Sorin2, and further in view of Menard et al. (PGPUB 20170019168)
As to claims 1, 12, 15, 17, Yuksel teaches an apparatus comprising: a tunable dense wavelength division multiplexing -DWDM- optical time domain reflectometer -OTDR- (Abstract, Introduction, Annotated Fig. 3b) comprising a fiber optic link analyzer (the set of ONU/OLTs and measurement/processing devices evidenced by power measurements in Fig. 3a), executed by at least one hardware processor (evidenced by power measurements in Fig. 3a), to tune a test wavelength of the DWDM OTDR to an effective wavelength of DWDM channels, or an active network element, ANE, (see tunable source in Tunable OTDR and/or DWDM); to control an active network element and optimize transmission properties of the active network element (¶ 3.1.3, 4.2; monitoring and optimization of transmission); multiplexer/demultiplexer -Mux/DeMux- located at a distant location, collocated with, or embedded within the DWDM OTDR (WDM between F1/F2 and the optical fibers) to selectively connect, based on the test wavelength (lM), the DWDM OTDR to a fiber optic link of a plurality of fiber optic links to test the fiber optic link (Annotated Fig. 3b); wherein the Mux/DeMux includes an arrayed waveguide grating -AWG- (Fig. 5a and ¶ 4 for ex.); and a reflective optical connector (Rrefn) connected to an output of the Mux/DeMux to provide a reference for setting the test wavelength of the DWDM OTDR on a selected channel of the Mux/DeMux (¶ 3.2.1-3.2.2 for ex.).
Yuksel does not teach expressly, in the system of annotated Fig. 3b, the WDM or the ANE being separate or embedded and non-temperature compensated multiplexer/demultiplexer (Mux/DeMux) located separate from, collocated with, or embedded within the DWDM OTDR; and wherein each AWG input and AWG output is connected to an optical fiber; wherein the fiber optic link analyzer is executed by the at least one hardware processor to identify, based on comparison of a real-time trace to traces acquired at different wavelengths associated with the fiber optic link, a central wavelength of a reference channel of the Mux/DeMux via scanning a range of wavelengths around a presumed central wavelength.
However, in Fig. 2b and 5b, Yuksel suggests using a Mux/DeMux without any temperature control, and which can be considered as physically separate from the OTDR or part module or as embedded within the DWDM/OTDR module, with the fiber links being separate from the rest. Moreover, in a similar field of endeavor, Sorin2 teaches an open access service using AWGs-based WDM-PON (Abstract, Figs. 3, 7-8; AWGs 709 and/or 719), wherein each AWG input and AWG output is connected to an optical fiber (307 as outputs or 710 and/or 720 as inputs and/or outputs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of Yuksel in view of its different embodiments, and in view of Sorin2’s suggestions so that the WDM being a separate and non-temperature compensated multiplexer/demultiplexer (Mux/DeMux) located separate from, collocated with, or embedded within the DWDM OTDR; wherein each AWG input and AWG output is connected to an optical fiber, with the advantage of effectively operating the DWDM/OTDR.
The combination of Yuksel and Sorin2 still does not teach expressly wherein the fiber optic link analyzer is executed by the at least one hardware processor to identify, based on comparison of a real-time trace to traces acquired at different wavelengths associated with the fiber optic link, a central wavelength of a reference channel of the Mux/DeMux via scanning a range of wavelengths around a presumed central wavelength.
However, and in a similar field of endeavor, Menard teaches DWDM OTDR based optical networks (Abstract and Figs. 1-27) wherein the fiber optic link analyzer is executed by the at least one hardware processor to identify, based on comparison of a real-time trace to traces acquired at different wavelengths associated with the fiber optic link, a central wavelength of a reference channel of the Mux/DeMux via scanning a range of wavelengths around a presumed central wavelength (Figs. 2, 5-7, 11-15 and ¶ 20, 88-89, 92, 102, 145 for ex.; tuning the transmitted central wavelength through the DWDM network and Bragg circuit compared to a predetermined grid and its operating wavelength.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of Yuksel/ Sorin2 in view of Menard’s suggestions so that the fiber optic link analyzer is executed by the at least one hardware processor to identify, based on comparison of a real-time trace to traces acquired at different wavelengths associated with the fiber optic link, a central wavelength of a reference channel of the Mux/DeMux via scanning a range of wavelengths around a presumed central wavelength, with the advantage of effectively optimizing the DWDM/OTDR operations.
(claim 2) wherein the central wavelength of is implemented to redefine different test wavelengths of the plurality of fiber optic links through the Mux/DeMux (Yuksel; ¶ 3.2.1, Menard: ¶ 145 for ex.)
(claim 3), further comprising: an optical switch, wherein the DWDM OTDR is connected to a plurality of Muxes/DeMuxes, including the Mux/DeMux, through the optical switch (Yuksel; use of switch in Figs. 4a, 5a between channels of Muxes/Demuxes).
(claims 6-8, 14) wherein the reflective optical connector includes an optical connector assembled at an end of an output fiber associated with the selected channel of the Mux/DeMux; (claim 7) wherein the reflective optical connector includes a reference channel waveguide output facet that is part of a Mux/DeMux chip; (claim 8) wherein the reflective optical connector includes a connectorized optical reflector that is plugged at an end of an output fiber associated with the selected channel of the Mux/DeMux (Yuksel; Figs. 3a, 2b, ¶ 3.1.2, 3.2.2, 4.1).
(claim 16) wherein the Mux/DeMux includes an arrayed waveguide grating -AWG- (Yuksel; Fig. 5a).
(Claims 21-22) wherein an output fiber is aligned to the AWG output, and wherein an end of the AWG output is implemented as a reflective element (Yuksel; Figs. 3, 5).
6- Claim 5 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuksel, Sorin2 and Menard in view of Sorin et al. (WO 2007014055)
As to claim 5, the combination of Yuksel, Sorin2 and Menard teaches an apparatus according to claim 1.
The combination does not teach expressly wherein the tunable DWDM OTDR further comprises a thermo-cooled distributed feedback laser that utilizes temperature to adjust a laser wavelength.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Sorin teaches WDM passive optical networks (Abstract and Figs. 1-7) wherein the tunable DWDM OTDR further comprises a thermo-cooled distributed feedback laser that utilizes temperature to adjust a laser wavelength (¶ 40, 46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of Yuksel, Sorin2 and Menard in view of Sorin’s suggestions so that the tunable DWDM OTDR further comprises a thermo-cooled distributed feedback laser that utilizes temperature to adjust a laser wavelength, with the advantage of taught by Sorin of effectively tune the wavelength of the light source (¶ 40).
7- Claim 9-10 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuksel, Sorin2 and Menard in view of Ichizono (JP H052319)
As to claim 9-11, 16, the combination of Yuksel, Sorin2 and Menard teaches an apparatus according to claim 1.
The combination does not teach expressly further comprising: an electronic sensor connected to the DWDM OTDR and disposed adjacent to the Mux/DeMux to measure a temperature of the Mux/DeMux and (claim 11) further comprising: a fiber optic sensor connected to the DWDM OTDR by a fiber optic coupler, wherein the fiber optic sensor is disposed adjacent to the Mux/DeMux to measure a temperature of the Mux/DeMux; (claim 10) wherein the electronic sensor is wirelessly connected to the DWDM OTDR.
However, in the field of optical sensing endeavor, Ichizono teaches optical thermal sensors (Abstract and Figs. 1-4) comprising: an electronic sensor connected to the DWDM OTDR and disposed adjacent to the Mux/DeMux to measure a temperature of the Mux/DeMux and (claim 11) further comprising: wherein the fiber optic sensor is disposed adjacent to the Mux/DeMux to measure a temperature of the Mux/DeMux (¶ 5 and claim 1). As to claims 10/11, one PHOSITA would find it obvious to use a physical coupling connection, for simplicity and cost reduction, or to replace the the physical wiring between the sensor and the OTDR of Yuksel with widely used wireless connectivity for compactness advantages (see MPEP § 2143 Sect. I. B-D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of Yuksel, Sorin2 and Menard in view of Ichizono’s suggestions so that an electronic sensor connected to the DWDM OTDR and disposed adjacent to the Mux/DeMux to measure a temperature of the Mux/DeMux and (claim 11) further comprising: a fiber optic sensor connected to the DWDM OTDR by a fiber optic coupler, wherein the fiber optic sensor is disposed adjacent to the Mux/DeMux to measure a temperature of the Mux/DeMux, with the advantage of taught by Ichizono of effectively maintaining the temperature of the mux/demux constant and optimize its results (¶ 5). The connection between the sensor and the DWDM/OTDR can be chosen to be either with a physical coupler for simplicity and cost reduction, or wireless for compactness advantages and as obvious species of a limited connectivity genus, i.e. wiring and wireless (See MPEP 2144.08 II A- 4(a). Sections 4 (c-e) can also be considered).
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED K AMARA whose telephone number is (571)272-7847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 9:00-17:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (571-272-2287. 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.
/Mohamed K AMARA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877