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 .
Summary
This action is responsive to the application filed on 10/20/2023. Applicant has submitted Claims 1-20 for examination.
Examiner finds the following: 1) Claims 1-20 are rejected; 2) no claims objected to; and 3) no claims allowable.
Response to Arguments and Remarks
Examiner respectfully acknowledges Applicant's remarks. Additionally, Examiner appreciates that that Applicant clearly numbered the arguments and remarks.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention is in the field of Optical Time-Domain Reflectometry whereas the primary reference, Xu, is in the file of Faster-Than-Nyquist forward data transmission. Upon further consideration, Examiner is persuaded, and retracts the rejection. That is the basis for this non-final action.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-2, and 7-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over L’Heureux (US 20210135752 A1) in view of Tsonev (US 20150318925 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, L’Heureux discloses:
A method for characterizing an optical fiber link (OFL) (L’Heureux, FIG. 1, [0097], simplex optical fiber link under test 110), the OFL having an input end, the method comprising:
encoding a plurality of binary codes (BCs) in light to obtain an encoded light pulse sequence (L’Heureux, FIG. 1, [0137], “OTDR is a diagnostic technique for optical fiber links where a test signal in the form of light pulses is launched in the optical fiber link under test 110 and the return light signal, arising from backscattering and reflections along the link, is detected”), each BC of the plurality of BCs being represented, in the encoded light pulse sequence, by a respective series of ON states and OFF states (L’Heureux, FIG. 1, p0115], “the status signal may be binary encoded or consist of mutually-distinguishable emission states of the OTDR light source, e.g. continuous, pulsed and off”), …
… coupling the encoded light pulse sequence into the input end of the OFL (L’Heureux, FIG. 1, p0115], “the status signal may be binary encoded or consist of mutually-distinguishable emission states of the OTDR light source, e.g. continuous, pulsed and off”);
detecting, at the input end of the OFL, a back-response of the encoded light pulse sequence (L’Heureux, FIG. 1, [0137], “OTDR is a diagnostic technique for optical fiber links where a test signal in the form of light pulses is launched in the optical fiber link under test 110 and the return light signal, arising from backscattering and reflections along the link, is detected”); and
decoding the back-response of the encoded light pulse sequence in accordance with the plurality of BCs to obtain a decoded reflectometry measurement characteristic of the OFL (L’Heureux, FIG. 1, [0137], “OTDR is a diagnostic technique for optical fiber links where a test signal in the form of light pulses is launched in the optical fiber link under test 110 and the return light signal, arising from backscattering and reflections along the link, is detected”).
L’Heureux discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose a guard interval. However, Tsonev, in a similar field of endeavor (COMMUNICATION APPARATUS AND METHOD), discloses:
… a respective guard interval (Tsonev, [0019], “The frames may comprise at least one guard interval and preferably two or more guard intervals. The guard interval(s) may comprise a prefix, preferably a cyclic prefix, which may be provided before or at the start of at least one and preferably each frame. The guard interval(s) may comprise a suffix, preferably a cyclic suffix, which may be provided after or at the end of at least one and preferably each frame. The suffix may have a length N.sub.cp.sup.p that is dependent on the impulse response of the pulse shaping filter. Advantageously, the frames may comprise both cyclic prefix and cyclic suffix guard intervals”); …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify L’Heureux with the guard intervals of Tsonev. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of guard intervals as disclosed by Tsonev and how to use them to modify L’Heureux. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of guard intervals to buffer the signals.
The combination of L’Heureux and Tsonev discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… each ON state having a same duration and …
However, L’Heuroux discloses in [0275]:
As known in the art, the light generating assembly 1054 is adapted to generate test light pulses of varied pulse widths, repetition periods and optical power through a proper control of the pattern produced by the pulse generator 1062. One skilled in the art will understand that it may be beneficial or required by the application to perform OTDR measurements at various different wavelengths.
The period lengths is a result-effective variable. In that, if the periods are not properly timed and synced, the system would fail.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant's filing date to include “each ON state having a same duration” because it is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of L’Heureux and Tsonev discloses Claim 1, and Tsonev further discloses:
… the plurality of BCs comprises a plurality of complementary pairs of unipolar correlation codes (Tsonev, FIGS. 7a-7c, [0139], “If the original time sample 2020 in the bipolar signal 2005 of FIG. 7a is negative 2015, the first one 2015A of the two new unipolar samples 2020A, 2020B is set to zero, so it can be called “inactive sample”. The second unipolar time sample 2015B is made equal to the absolute value of the original bipolar time sample 2015, so it can be called an “active sample”. This way, only the absolute value of the signal 2005 is transmitted, and the sign of each sample 2020 is encoded in the position of the “active” and “inactive” samples in each pair”),
each complementary pair of unipolar correlation codes corresponds to a respective bipolar correlation code of a complementary pair of bipolar correlation codes (Tsonev, [0145], “samples in both signal copies could be examined in corresponding pairs (e.g. the first sample of the first copy is compared with the first sample of the second copy, the second sample of first copy is compared with the second sample of the second copy, and so on) to determine whether the original sample is contained in the first or the second copy (e.g. the value of a sample in one copy will be zero whilst the value in the corresponding sample in the other copy will be a positive number). In this way, the value and sign associated with the original sample can be determined. Since there is noise present at each sample, an example of a method for determining which copy holds a sample and which copy holds a zero is to take the higher value of the two as the sample an to consider the other (lower) one as a zero. In that way, zero samples can be disregarded instead of added to the “active” samples, and ideally the noise power could be reduced by half compared to the other approach”), and
each BC is one unipolar correlation code of one complementary pair of unipolar correlation codes of the plurality of complementary pairs of unipolar correlation codes (Tsonev, FIGS. 7a-7c, [0139], “If the original time sample 2020 in the bipolar signal 2005 of FIG. 7a is negative 2015, the first one 2015A of the two new unipolar samples 2020A, 2020B is set to zero, so it can be called “inactive sample”. The second unipolar time sample 2015B is made equal to the absolute value of the original bipolar time sample 2015, so it can be called an “active sample”. This way, only the absolute value of the signal 2005 is transmitted, and the sign of each sample 2020 is encoded in the position of the “active” and “inactive” samples in each pair”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of L’Heureux and Tsonev with the unipolar pairs of Tsonev. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of unipolar pairs as disclosed by Tsonev and how to use them to modify the combination of L’Heureux and Tsonev. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of unipolar pairs to reduce system resource costs and complexity.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of L’Heureux and Tsonev discloses Claim 1, and L’Heureux further discloses:
… determining each BC of the plurality of BCs (L’Heureux, FIG. 1, [0137], “OTDR is a diagnostic technique for optical fiber links where a test signal in the form of light pulses is launched in the optical fiber link under test 110 and the return light signal, arising from backscattering and reflections along the link, is detected”).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of L’Heureux and Tsonev discloses Claim 2, and Tsonev further discloses:
… the back-response of the encoded light pulse sequence comprises a plurality of back- response signals each corresponding to one unipolar correlation code of the plurality of complementary pairs of unipolar correlation codes(Tsonev, FIGS. 7a-7c, [0139], “If the original time sample 2020 in the bipolar signal 2005 of FIG. 7a is negative 2015, the first one 2015A of the two new unipolar samples 2020A, 2020B is set to zero, so it can be called “inactive sample”. The second unipolar time sample 2015B is made equal to the absolute value of the original bipolar time sample 2015, so it can be called an “active sample”. This way, only the absolute value of the signal 2005 is transmitted, and the sign of each sample 2020 is encoded in the position of the “active” and “inactive” samples in each pair”); and
decoding the back-response of the encoded light pulse sequence in accordance with the plurality of BCs to obtain the decoded reflectometry measurement characteristic of the OFL includes:
determining, for each complementary pair of unipolar correlation codes, a respective differential back-response signal defined by a difference comprising the back-response signals corresponding to each unipolar correlation code of the respective complementary pair of unipolar correlation codes (Tsonev, FIGS. 7a-7c, [0139], “If the original time sample 2020 in the bipolar signal 2005 of FIG. 7a is negative 2015, the first one 2015A of the two new unipolar samples 2020A, 2020B is set to zero, so it can be called “inactive sample”. The second unipolar time sample 2015B is made equal to the absolute value of the original bipolar time sample 2015, so it can be called an “active sample”. This way, only the absolute value of the signal 2005 is transmitted, and the sign of each sample 2020 is encoded in the position of the “active” and “inactive” samples in each pair”);
determining, for each complementary pair of unipolar correlation codes, a respective bipolar correlation signal defined by a correlation comprising the respective bipolar correlation code and the respective differential back-response signal (Tsonev, FIGS. 7a-7c, [0139], “If the original time sample 2020 in the bipolar signal 2005 of FIG. 7a is negative 2015, the first one 2015A of the two new unipolar samples 2020A, 2020B is set to zero, so it can be called “inactive sample”. The second unipolar time sample 2015B is made equal to the absolute value of the original bipolar time sample 2015, so it can be called an “active sample”. This way, only the absolute value of the signal 2005 is transmitted, and the sign of each sample 2020 is encoded in the position of the “active” and “inactive” samples in each pair”); and
determining, for the complementary pair of bipolar correlation codes, a sum comprised between the respective bipolar correlation signals of each complementary pair of unipolar correlation codes (Tsonev, FIGS. 7a-7c, [0139], “If the original time sample 2020 in the bipolar signal 2005 of FIG. 7a is negative 2015, the first one 2015A of the two new unipolar samples 2020A, 2020B is set to zero, so it can be called “inactive sample”. The second unipolar time sample 2015B is made equal to the absolute value of the original bipolar time sample 2015, so it can be called an “active sample”. This way, only the absolute value of the signal 2005 is transmitted, and the sign of each sample 2020 is encoded in the position of the “active” and “inactive” samples in each pair”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of L’Heureux and Tsonev with the unipolar pairs of Tsonev. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of unipolar pairs as disclosed by Tsonev and how to use them to modify the combination of L’Heureux and Tsonev. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of unipolar pairs to reduce system resource costs and complexity.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of L’Heureux and Tsonev discloses Claim 1, and L’Heureux further discloses:
… wherein the decoded reflectometry measurement is an optical time-domain reflectometry trace indicating a respective back-response power from each of a plurality of distances along the OFL (L’Heureux, [0137], “the process of launching a test signal and acquiring the return light signal to obtain therefrom an OTDR trace is referred to as an “OTDR acquisition”. The acquired power level of the return signal as a function of time is referred to as an “OTDR trace”, where the time scale is representative of distance between the OTDR acquisition device and a point along the fiber link”).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of L’Heureux and Tsonev discloses Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the respective guard interval is shorter than the same duration of each ON state.
However, Tsonev discloses that use of functions of guard intervals. Tuning the guard interval is a result-effective variable. In that, if the guard interval is too long, it would affect the speed of transmission, and if the guard interval is too short, it wouldn’t properly space the sequence.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s filing date to include “wherein the respective guard interval is shorter than the same duration of each ON state,” since determining the optimum guard interval is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of L’Heureux and Tsonev discloses Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the respective guard interval 1s equitemporal to the same duration of each ON state.
However, Tsonev discloses that use of functions of guard intervals. Tuning the guard interval is a result-effective variable. In that, if the guard interval is too long, it would affect the speed of transmission, and if the guard interval is too short, it wouldn’t properly space the sequence.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s filing date to include “wherein the respective guard interval 1s equitemporal to the same duration of each ON state,” since determining the optimum guard interval is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of L’Heureux and Tsonev discloses Claim 1, and L’Heureux further discloses:
… wherein the OFL includes a plurality of optical fibers (L’Heureux, [0038], “the optical fiber link under test comprises a multi-fiber array cable and the receive device comprises a plurality of optical fiber paths connectable toward the plurality of optical fibers of the multi-fiber array cable, each optical fiber paths defining corresponding signatures that are mutually-distinguishable by the OTDR unit”).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of L’Heureux and Tsonev discloses Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein each series of ON states and OFF states has a same length being a power of two, the power being an integer.
However, Tsonev discloses that use of functions of guard intervals. Tuning the guard interval is a result-effective variable. In that, if the guard interval is too long, it would affect the speed of transmission, and if the guard interval is too short, it wouldn’t properly space the sequence.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s filing date to include “wherein the respective guard interval is shorter than the same duration of each ON state,” since determining the optimum guard interval is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of L’Heureux and Tsonev discloses Claim 1, and L’Heureux further discloses:
… wherein the method is repeated for one or more repetitions and the method further comprises:
determining an average reflectometry measurement depending from the decoded reflectometry measurement of each repetition (L’Heureux, [0280], “The data store 1072 may be used to cumulate raw data received from the detection assembly 1056, as well as intermediary averaged results and resulting OTDR traces”).
Regarding Claim 15, L’Heureux discloses:
An optical time-domain reflectometer (OTDR) (L’Heureux, FIG. 1, [0137], “OTDR is a diagnostic technique for optical fiber links where a test signal in the form of light pulses is launched in the optical fiber link under test 110 and the return light signal, arising from backscattering and reflections along the link, is detected”) comprising:
a light source unit configured to generate a light pulse sequence encoding a plurality of binary codes (BCs) (L’Heureux, FIG. 1, [0137], “OTDR is a diagnostic technique for optical fiber links where a test signal in the form of light pulses is launched in the optical fiber link under test 110 and the return light signal, arising from backscattering and reflections along the link, is detected”), each BC of the plurality of BCs being represented, in the light pulse sequence, by a respective series of ON states and OFF states (L’Heureux, FIG. 1, p0115], “the status signal may be binary encoded or consist of mutually-distinguishable emission states of the OTDR light source, e.g. continuous, pulsed and off”) and …
… an optical coupler configured to couple the light pulse sequence into an optical fiber link (OFL) at an input end of the OFL and receive a back-response of the light pulse sequence from the input end of the OFL (L’Heureux, FIG. 1, p0115], “the status signal may be binary encoded or consist of mutually-distinguishable emission states of the OTDR light source, e.g. continuous, pulsed and off”);
a light sensor configured to, for the light pulse sequence, detect the back-response of the light pulse sequence (L’Heureux, FIG. 1, [0137], “OTDR is a diagnostic technique for optical fiber links where a test signal in the form of light pulses is launched in the optical fiber link under test 110 and the return light signal, arising from backscattering and reflections along the link, is detected”); and
a processing device configured to decode the back-response in accordance with the plurality of BCs to obtain a decoded reflectometry measurement characteristic of the OFL (L’Heureux, FIG. 1, [0137], “OTDR is a diagnostic technique for optical fiber links where a test signal in the form of light pulses is launched in the optical fiber link under test 110 and the return light signal, arising from backscattering and reflections along the link, is detected”).
L’Heureux discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose a guard interval. However, Tsonev, in a similar field of endeavor (COMMUNICATION APPARATUS AND METHOD), discloses:
… a respective guard interval (Tsonev, [0019], “The frames may comprise at least one guard interval and preferably two or more guard intervals. The guard interval(s) may comprise a prefix, preferably a cyclic prefix, which may be provided before or at the start of at least one and preferably each frame. The guard interval(s) may comprise a suffix, preferably a cyclic suffix, which may be provided after or at the end of at least one and preferably each frame. The suffix may have a length N.sub.cp.sup.p that is dependent on the impulse response of the pulse shaping filter. Advantageously, the frames may comprise both cyclic prefix and cyclic suffix guard intervals”); …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify L’Heureux with the guard intervals of Tsonev. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of guard intervals as disclosed by Tsonev and how to use them to modify L’Heureux. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of guard intervals to buffer the signals.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of L’Heureux and Tsonev discloses Claim 15, and L’Heureux further discloses:
… wherein the light source unit includes a laser (L’Heureux, FIG. 1, [0140], laser source 160).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of L’Heureux and Tsonev discloses Claim 15, and L’Heureux further discloses:
… wherein the light source unit includes a laser coupled to an optical modulator (L’Heureux, [0275], different and/or additional components may be provided in the light generating assembly, such as modulators, lenses, mirrors, optical filters, wavelength selectors and the like.”).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of L’Heureux and Tsonev discloses Claim 15, and L’Heureux further discloses:
… wherein the light sensor is a photodetector (L’Heureux, [0277], “The detection assembly 1056 comprises a light detector 1066, such as a photodiode, an avalanche photodiode or any other suitable photodetector,).
Claims 3-4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over L’Heureux (US 20210135752 A1), in view of Tsonev (US 20150318925 A1), and in further view of Eiselt (US 20210242936 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of L’Heureux and Tsonev discloses Claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein a sum of an autocorrelation of each bipolar correlation code of a complementary pair of bipolar correlation codes is a delta function.
However, Eiselt, in a similar field of endeavor (Correlation Optical Time Domain Reflectometry Method And System), discloses:
… wherein a sum of an autocorrelation of each bipolar correlation code of a complementary pair of bipolar correlation codes is a delta function (Eiselt, [0087], “Due to the property of the complementary Golay sequences A and B, the sum signal of the sub-correlation signals shown in lines (4) and (8) of FIG. 5 merely includes a single in-phase peak (having the value 16). All other values of the sum correlation function, i.e. the out-of-phase values, are zero”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of L’Heureux and Tsonev with the delta / Golay correlation of Eiselt. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of delta / Golay correlation as disclosed by Eiselt and how to use them to modify the combination of L’Heureux and Tsonev. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of delta / Golay correlation with unipolar systems as correlation signals.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of L’Heureux, Tsonev, and Eiselt discloses Claim 3, and Eiselt further discloses:
… wherein each bipolar correlation code is a Golay code (Eiselt, [0087], “Due to the property of the complementary Golay sequences A and B, the sum signal of the sub-correlation signals shown in lines (4) and (8) of FIG. 5 merely includes a single in-phase peak (having the value 16). All other values of the sum correlation function, i.e. the out-of-phase values, are zero”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of L’Heureux, Tsonev, and Eiselt with the delta / Golay correlation of Eiselt. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of delta / Golay correlation as disclosed by Eiselt and how to use them to modify the combination of L’Heureux, Tsonev, and Eiselt. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of delta / Golay correlation with unipolar systems as correlation signals.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of L’Heureux and Tsonev discloses Claim 15, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the optical coupler is an optical circulator.
However, Eiselt, in a similar field of endeavor (Correlation Optical Time Domain Reflectometry Method And System), discloses:
… wherein the optical coupler is an optical circulator (Eiselt, FIG. 1, [0053], optical circulator 114).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of L’Heureux and Tsonev with the optical circulator of Eiselt. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of optical circulators as disclosed by Eiselt and how to use them to modify the combination of L’Heureux and Tsonev. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of optical circulators to control and direct light.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over L’Heureux (US 20210135752 A1), in view of Tsonev (US 20150318925 A1), and in further view of Handerek (US 20230228616 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of L’Heureux and Tsonev discloses Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein each BC of the plurality of BCs is a linear combination code.
However, Handerek, in a similar field of invention (DISTRIBUTED OPTICAL FIBRE SENSOR), discloses:
… wherein each BC of the plurality of BCs is a linear combination code (Handerek, [0088], “Some examples of such pulse coding for use in OTDR techniques are provided for example in Liao et al., Optics Express, vol. 27, issue 2, 2019, and include the use of linear combination codes such as Simplex coding, and correlation codes such as Golay coding”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of L’Heureux and Tsonev with the linear combination code of Handerek. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of linear combination code as disclosed by Handerek and how to use them to modify the combination of L’Heureux and Tsonev. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of linear combination codes as known techniques for correlation coding OTDR’s.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over L’Heureux (US 20210135752 A1), in view of Tsonev (US 20150318925 A1), and in further view of Castor (US 20110069962 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of L’Heureux and Tsonev discloses Claim 5, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein each linear combination code is a simplex code.
However, Castor, in a similar field of endeavor (METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DIMMING WITH RATE CONTROL FOR VISIBLE LIGHT COMMUNICATIONS (VLC)), discloses:
… wherein each linear combination code is a simplex code (Castor, [0048], “In addition to the P2P and infrastructure modes, VLC may utilize a simplex mode to allow visible light links to work as a complimentary wireless access technology with uni-directional support. This may allow visible light links to operate as a uni-directional broadcast channel. Also, retransmissions may be repeated a fixed number of times with no dependency on an external entity”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of L’Heureux and Tsonev with the simplex mode of Castor. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of simplex mode as disclosed by Castor and how to use them to modify the combination of L’Heureux and Tsonev. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of simplex mode with unipolar systems as a means of linear combination.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over L’Heureux (US 20210135752 A1), in view of Tsonev (US 20150318925 A1), and in further view of Noto (US 20230088679 A1)
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of L’Heureux and Tsonev discloses Claim 15, but fails to disclose:
… wherein the processing device includes a digital storage oscilloscope.
However, Noto, in a similar field of endeavor (DEVICE AND METHOD FOR DETECTING MICROBEND IN OPTICAL FIBER), discloses:
… wherein the processing device includes a digital storage oscilloscope (Noto, FIGS. 14, [0074], “the OTDR 51 outputs pulsed light to the measurement target optical fiber 94, and outputs light returned from the measurement target optical fiber 94. As shown in FIG. 15, in the detector 12, the polarizer may convert modulation due to GAWBS of the light returned from the OTDR 51 into intensity modulation of the light, or as shown in FIG. 16, a SSB (single side-band) modulator may convert the modulation due to GAWBS into intensity modulation of the light. As a light source that is used when the SSB modulator is employed, the light source 11 is preferably used to reduce measurement noise caused by the light source. The analyzer/display 13 can measure a distance distribution of a spectrum of GAWBS by determining a signal of light received by the oscilloscope of the detector 12”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of L’Heureux and Tsonev with the oscilloscope of Noto. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of oscilloscopes as disclosed by Noto and how to use them to modify the combination of L’Heureux and Tsonev. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of oscilloscopes as a means to detect light from an OTDR.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD A REVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0079. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5 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, Kara Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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.
/CHAD ANDREW REVERMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights