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 .
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 1-3 and 14-16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Midorikawa et al (US Pub 20110076017) in view of Zhang (US Pub 20140212131).
Regarding Claim 1. Midorikawa discloses a repeater configured to be used in an optical submarine cable system configured to connect a first branch line to a transmission line being connected to a predetermined terminal station provided in a trunk line and connect a second branch line to a reception line being connected to the terminal station (Fig 1, where a repeater (R) (i.e. between 10 and 2A) is configured to be used in an optical submarine cable system and is configured to connect a first branch line (e.g. a drop line at L2) to a transmission line (e.g. at L1) being connected to a predetermined terminal station (e.g. SLTE-1A) provided in a trunk line and connect a second branch line (e.g. an add line at L2) to a reception line (e.g. at L1) being connected to the terminal station (e.g. SLTE-1A)).
Midorikawa fails to explicitly disclose the repeater being an optical signal monitoring apparatus, the optical signal monitoring apparatus comprising: a first extraction unit configured to selectively extract first monitoring light included in a transmission signal transmitted from the transmission line to the first branch line; a first relay line configured to transmit the extracted first monitoring light to the second branch line; and a first merging unit configured to merge the first monitoring light from the first relay line into a reception signal of the second branch line, wherein the first extraction unit transmits, to the first relay line, return light being transmitted in a direction opposite to the transmission signal in the first branch line.
However, Zhang discloses
a repeater being an optical signal monitoring apparatus (Fig 2a, where a repeater (Repeater) is an optical signal monitoring apparatus), the optical signal monitoring apparatus comprising:
a first extraction unit configured to selectively extract first monitoring light included in a transmission signal in a first branch line (Fig 2a, where the repeater (Repeater) comprises a first extraction unit (e.g. Coupler 1, Filter 1) configured to selectively extract first monitoring light (e.g. a Loopback Test Signal λ1) (as shown in Fig 2d) included in a transmission signal in a first branch line (e.g. an outgoing fiber path));
a first relay line configured to transmit the extracted first monitoring light to a second branch line (Fig 2a, where the repeater (Repeater) comprises a first relay line (e.g. 202) configured to transmit the extracted first monitoring light (e.g. a Loopback Test Signal λ1) (as shown in Fig 2d) to a second branch line (e.g. an incoming fiber path)); and
a first merging unit configured to merge the first monitoring light from the first relay line into a reception signal of the second branch line (Fig 2a, where the repeater (Repeater) comprises a first merging unit (e.g. coupler 2) configured to merge the first monitoring light (e.g. a Loopback Test Signal λ1) (as shown in Fig 2d) from the first relay line (e.g. 202) into a reception signal of the second branch line (e.g. an incoming fiber path)),
wherein the first extraction unit transmits, to the first relay line, return light being transmitted in a direction opposite to the transmission signal in the first branch line (Fig 2a, where the first extraction unit (e.g. Coupler 1, Filter 1) transmits, to the first relay line (e.g. 202), return light (e.g. a return outgoing OTDR Test Signal λ2) (as shown in Fig 2b) being transmitted in a direction opposite to the transmission signal in the first branch line (e.g. an outgoing fiber path) (this is because when an optical fiber is broken/faulty a transmitted light is returned back to an OTDR system in order to perform optical fiber measurements)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the repeater (R) (i.e. between 10 and 2A) as described in Midorikawa, with the teachings of the repeater (Repeater) as described in Zhang. The motivation being is that as shown a repeater (Repeater) can be an optical signal monitoring apparatus with a first extraction unit (e.g. Coupler 1, Filter 1) in a first branch line (e.g. an outgoing fiber path), a first relay line (e.g. 202) for transmitting light and a first merging unit (e.g. coupler 2) in a second branch line (e.g. an incoming fiber path) so as to extract, transmit and merge a first monitoring light (e.g. a Loopback Test Signal λ1) and transmit a return light (e.g. a return outgoing OTDR Test Signal λ2) back to an OTDR system and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the repeater (R) (i.e. between 10 and 2A) as described in Midorikawa and have the repeater (R) (i.e. between 10 and 2A) be an optical signal monitoring apparatus with a first extraction unit (e.g. Coupler 1, Filter 1) in the first branch line (e.g. a drop line at L2), a first relay line (e.g. 202) for transmitting light and a first merging unit (e.g. coupler 2) in the second branch line (e.g. an add line at L2) so as to extract, transmit and merge a first monitoring light (e.g. a Loopback Test Signal λ1) transmitted from the transmission line (e.g. at L1) and transmit a return light (e.g. a return outgoing OTDR Test Signal λ2) back to an OTDR system i.e. as an alternative so as to have the repeater (R) (i.e. between 10 and 2A) with a known technique of a known repeater (Repeater) for the purpose of optimally performing monitoring of optical lines in the system via a known optical loopback test and a known OTDR test and which technique enables detection of breaks/faults in the optical lines and starts proper maintenance/troubleshooting and which modification is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. optical repeaters) and which modification is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known repeater (Repeater) into another similar repeater (R) (i.e. between 10 and 2A), namely, for its improvement and for optimization and which modification yields predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2. Midorikawa as modified by Zhang also discloses the optical signal monitoring apparatus, wherein the first extraction unit transmits, to the first relay line, return light caused by Fresnel reflection occurring when the first branch line is broken (Zhang Fig 2a, where the first extraction unit (e.g. Coupler 1, Filter 1) transmits, to the first relay line (e.g. 202), return light (e.g. a return outgoing OTDR Test Signal λ2) (as shown in Fig 2b) and where it is known in the art that the return light (e.g. a return outgoing OTDR Test Signal λ2) (as shown in Fig 2b) is caused by Fresnel reflection occurred when a first branch line (e.g. an outgoing fiber path) is broken/cut (see Lee et al (US Pub 20140104599) paras [5][6])).
Regarding Claim 3. Midorikawa as modified by Zhang also discloses the optical signal monitoring apparatus, wherein the first extraction unit includes an isolator being disposed at a position closer to the transmission line than a connection portion with the first relay line (Zhang Fig 2a, where the first extraction unit (e.g. Coupler 1, Filter 1) includes an optical amplifier (A) being disposed at a position closer to the transmission line (e.g. at L1) (as shown in Midorikawa Fig 1) than a connection portion with the first relay line (e.g. 202) and where it is known in the art that the optical amplifier (A) includes an isolator so as to guide light in one direction (see Tsuda et al (US Pat 6038063) Fig 3)), a coupler configured to guide return light of the first branch line to the first relay line (Zhang Fig 2a, where the first extraction unit (e.g. Coupler 1, Filter 1) includes a coupler (e.g. Coupler 1) configured to guide return light (e.g. a return outgoing OTDR Test Signal λ2) (as shown in Fig 2b) of the first branch line (e.g. an outgoing fiber path) to the first relay line (e.g. 202)), and a wavelength selective reflector configured to reflect the first monitoring light at a position farther from the transmission line than the connection portion with the first relay line (Zhang Fig 2a, where the first extraction unit (e.g. Coupler 1, Filter 1) includes a wavelength selective reflector (e.g. Filter 1) configured to reflect the first monitoring light (e.g. a Loopback Test Signal λ1) (as shown in Fig 2d) at a position farther from the transmission line (e.g. at L1) (as shown in Midorikawa Fig 1) than the connection portion with the first relay line (e.g. 202)).
Regarding Claim 14. Claim 14 is similar to claim 1, therefore, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 15. Claim 15 is similar to claim 2, therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 16. Claim 16 is similar to claim 3, therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Claims 8-11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Midorikawa et al (US Pub 20110076017) in view of Zhang (US Pub 20140212131) in further view of Ji et al (US Pub 20160149663).
Regarding Claim 8. Midorikawa as modified by Zhang also discloses an optical signal monitoring system comprising a branching apparatus, wherein the branching apparatus further includes the optical signal monitoring apparatus (Midorikawa Fig 1 and Zhang Fig 2a, where an optical signal monitoring system comprises a branching apparatus (Y) (as shown in Midorikawa Fig 1) and where the branching apparatus (Y) (as shown in Midorikawa Fig 1) includes the repeater (R) (i.e. between 10 and 2A) (optical signal monitoring apparatus) (as shown in Zhang Fig 2a)).
Midorikawa as modified by Zhang fails to explicitly disclose the branching apparatus including a first switch configured to be able to switch connection between the transmission line and the first branch line, and a second switch configured to be able to switch connection between the reception line and the second branch line.
However, Ji discloses
a branching apparatus including a first switch configured to be able to switch connection between a transmission line and a first branch line, and a second switch configured to be able to switch connection between a reception line and a second branch line (Fig 2A, where a branching apparatus (PSBU) includes a first switch (upper switch) configured to be able to switch connection between a transmission line (e.g. between TT1 and TT2) and a first branch line (e.g. a drop line), and a second switch (lower switch) configured to be able to switch connection between a reception line (e.g. between TT1 and TT2) and a second branch line (e.g. an add line)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the branching apparatus (Y) as described in Midorikawa as modified by Zhang, with the teachings of the branching apparatus (PSBU) as described in Ji. The motivation being is that as shown a branching apparatus (PSBU) can include a first switch (upper switch) configured to switch a connection between a transmission line (e.g. between TT1 and TT2) and a first branch line (e.g. a drop line) and a second switch (lower switch) configured to switch a connection between a reception line (e.g. between TT1 and TT2) and a second branch line (e.g. an add line) and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the branching apparatus (Y) as described in Midorikawa as modified by Zhang and have the branching apparatus (Y) include a first switch (upper switch) configured to switch a connection between the transmission line (e.g. at L1) and the first branch line (e.g. a drop line at L2) and a second switch (lower switch) configured to switch a connection between the reception line (e.g. at L1) and the second branch line (e.g. an add line at L2) i.e. as an alternative so as to have the branching apparatus (Y) with a known technique of a known branching apparatus (PSBU) for the purpose of optimally adding and dropping optical signals in the system by using known optical switches and which technique facilitates an establishment of a direct connection between a transmitter and a receiver in the system for improved and faster transfer of optical signals and which modification is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. optical branching apparatuses) and which modification is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known branching apparatus (PSBU) into another similar branching apparatus (Y), namely, for its improvement and for optimization and which modification yields predictable results.
Regarding Claim 9. Midorikawa as modified by Zhang and Ji also discloses the optical signal monitoring system, further comprising:
the branching apparatus (Midorikawa Fig 1 and Zhang Fig 2a, where the optical signal monitoring system comprises the branching apparatus (Y));
a signal transmission unit configured to transmit the transmission signal including the first monitoring light to the transmission line at the terminal station (Midorikawa Fig 1 and Zhang Fig 2a, where the optical signal monitoring system comprises a signal transmission unit at the terminal station (e.g. SLTE-1A) (as shown in Midorikawa Fig 1) configured to transmit the transmission signal including the first monitoring light (e.g. a Loopback Test Signal λ1) (as shown in Zhang Fig 2d) to the transmission line (e.g. at L1)); and
a measurement unit configured to measure return light included in the reception line at the terminal station, measure the first monitoring light, based on states of the first switch and the second switch, and detect whether the first branch line is broken (Midorikawa Fig 1 and Zhang Fig 2a, where the optical signal monitoring system comprises a measurement unit at the terminal station (e.g. SLTE-1A) (as shown in Midorikawa Fig 1) configured to measure return light (e.g. a return outgoing OTDR Test Signal λ2) (as shown in Fig 2b) included in the reception line (e.g. at L1), measure the first monitoring light (e.g. a Loopback Test Signal λ1) (as shown in Zhang Fig 2d), based on states (e.g. open or closed positions) of the first switch (upper switch) and the second switch (lower switch) (as shown in Ji Fig 2A), and detect whether the first branch line (e.g. a drop line at L2) is broken/faulty).
Regarding Claim 10. Claim 10 is similar to claim 2, therefore, claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 11. Claim 11 is similar to claim 3, therefore, claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7, 12-13 and 17-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The additional prior art considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure and not relied upon is the following:
Ugajin et al (US Pub 20200259584) and more specifically Fig 4.
Zhang et al (US Pub 20140255020) and more specifically Fig 7.
Nakano et al (US Pub 20090324231) and more specifically Fig 2.
Otani et al (US Pat 6327060) and more specifically Fig 1.
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