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 .
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 12, 14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhou et al. (“Zhou”) (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0051791).
Regarding claim 12, Zhou discloses a method of monitoring a passive optical network that includes a plurality of waypoint devices, the method comprising: transmitting a probe signal into the passive optical network (fig. 4 element 4062 and paragraph 0058); reflecting, by each waypoint device of the plurality of waypoint devices, one or more reflected signals each including a portion of the probe signal, the one or more reflected signals embedding an address of the waypoint device in a return signal (fig. 4 elements IDn and paragraphs 0058 and 0062, where the CFBG string reflecting a particular wavelength-based “address code”, used for “determining a unique segment address”, reads on embedding an address); receiving the return signal from the passive optical network (fig. 4 element 4066 and paragraph 0058); and for each waypoint device: extracting the address of the waypoint device from the return signal, and identifying a network waypoint in the passive optical network associated with the waypoint device based at least in part on the address of the waypoint device (fig. 4 elements 4070 and 4072 and paragraph 0058, where extracting a frequency component from the return signal of a wavelength used for “determining a unique segment address” reads on extracting the address).
Regarding claim 14, Zhou discloses the method of claim 12, wherein extracting the address of the waypoint device from the return signal comprises: identifying the one or more reflected signals that are associated with the waypoint device, and determining the address of the waypoint device based at least in part on one or more of a number of the one or more reflected signals, one or more spacings between the one or more reflected signals, one or more wavelengths of the one or more reflected signals, and one or more amplitudes of the one or more reflected signals (paragraph 0062, where the distance between CFBGs forms the up to 64 ID address codes of the optical ID, which inherently results in corresponding distances for the up to 64 ID address codes between the plural reflections that make up the reflected ID).
Regarding claim 18, Zhou discloses a waypoint device for monitoring a passive optical network (figs. 3 and 4 each element IDn), comprising: a first optical interface, a second optical interface and an optical path operatively coupling the first optical interface to the second optical interface (figs. 3 and 4, IDn in light of paragraph 0061-0062, where each pass-through FP device inherently has some kind of internal optical path and respective physical interfaces to each side of the external fiber path); the optical path including one or more reflective elements configured to: pass traffic signals, and reflect one or more reflected signals each including a portion of a probe signal such that the reflected signals embed an address of the waypoint device in a return signal (fig. 4 elements IDn and paragraphs 0058 and 0062, where the CFBG string reflecting a particular wavelength-based “address code”, used for “determining a unique segment address”, reads on embedding an address).
Regarding claim 19, Zhou discloses the waypoint device of claim 18, wherein the address is embedded in the return signal by at least one of a number of the reflected signals, one or more spacings between the reflected signals, one or more wavelengths of the reflected signals, and one or more amplitudes of the reflected signals (paragraphs 0058 and 0062).
Regarding claim 20, Zhou discloses the waypoint device of claim 18, wherein at least one of the one or more reflective elements includes a reflective characteristic that changes in response to a perturbation (paragraph 0058, where various inherent characteristics the reflected signal, e.g. amplitude, polarization, would inherently be affected by, i.e., change in response to, various perturbations such as fiber bend, fiber break, temperature fluctuations, etc.). The claim is further limiting the apparatus. The recitation of “a perturbation” is not particular and is not limiting the apparatus.
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, 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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (“Zhou”) (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0051791).
Regarding claim 1, Zhou discloses a system for monitoring a passive optical network, comprising: a transmitter configured to transmit a probe signal into the passive optical network (fig. 4 element 4062 and paragraph 0058); a receiver configured to receive a return signal from the passive optical network (fig. 4 element 4066 and paragraph 0058); a plurality of waypoint devices each including one or more reflective elements configured to embed an address of the waypoint device in the return signal (fig. 4 elements IDn and paragraphs 0058 and 0062, where the CFBG string reflecting a particular wavelength-based “address code”, used for “determining a unique segment address”, reads on embedding an address); one or more processors operatively coupled to the transmitter and the receiver (fig. 4 elements 4070 and 4072), wherein each waypoint device is located in one or more optical paths of the passive optical network (fig. 4 elements IDn), and the one or more processors cause the system to, for each waypoint device: extract the address of the waypoint device from the return signal, and identify a network waypoint in the passive optical network associated with the waypoint device based at least in part on the address of the waypoint device (fig. 4 elements 4070 and 4072 and paragraph 0058, where extracting a frequency component from the return signal of a wavelength used for “determining a unique segment address” reads on extracting the address). Zhou does not disclose that the one or more processors are coupled to a memory, the memory including program code that, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the system to, for each waypoint device, perform the extracting and identifying. However, a processor executing code from memory is generic computer architecture. Implementing a known function on a generic computer has been deemed obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art if such automation of the known function is nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the Zhou processor use a generic computer architecture of the processor executing code from memory, since doing so is nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Regarding claim 2, Zhou discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the program code further causes the system to: identify the network waypoint in the passive optical network associated with the waypoint device based on both the address of the waypoint device (paragraph 0058). Zhou does not combine the waypoint identification approach with determining an optical path distance to the waypoint device based on the return signal and identifying the waypoint based also on the optical path distance to the waypoint device. Zhou’s solution has an advantage over conventional OTDR in that it can identify waypoint past splitters (paragraphs 0013 and 0070). However, the conventional OTDR approach does not then become patentable; a known or obvious teaching does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other teaching for the same use (MPEP § 2145(X)(D)(1)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the distance measuring function of conventional OTDR with the waypoint identification approach of Zhou, to include a distance reference measurement for the waypoint identification function.
Regarding claim 3, Zhou discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the program code causes the system to extract the address of each waypoint device from the return signal by: identifying a plurality of reflected signals that are associated with the waypoint device, determining one or more spacings between the plurality of reflected signals, and determining the address of the waypoint device based at least in part on the one or more spacings between the plurality of reflected signals (paragraph 0062, where the distance between CFBGs forms the up to 64 ID address codes of the optical ID, which inherently results in corresponding distances for the up to 64 ID address codes between the plural reflections that make up the reflected ID).
Regarding claim 6, Zhou discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the program code causes the system to extract the address of each waypoint device from the return signal by: identifying one or more reflected signals that are associated with the waypoint device, determining a wavelength of each of the one or more reflected signals, and determining the address of the waypoint device based at least in part on the wavelength of each of the one or more reflected signals (paragraph 0058, where sending a certain wavelength and getting it reflected back from a particular waypoint reads on determining a wavelength of the reflected signal).
Regarding claim 9, Zhou discloses the system of claim 1, wherein at least one reflective element of at least one of the waypoint devices includes a reflective characteristic that changes in response to a perturbation (paragraph 0058, where various inherent characteristics the reflected signal, e.g. amplitude, polarization, would inherently be affected by, i.e., change in response to, various types of perturbations such as fiber bend, fiber break, temperature fluctuations, etc.). The claim is further limiting the apparatus. The recitation of “a perturbation” is not particular and is not limiting the apparatus.
Regarding claim 13, Zhou discloses the method of claim 12, further comprising: identifying the network waypoint in the passive optical network associated with the waypoint device based on both the address of the waypoint device (paragraph 0058). Zhou does not combine the waypoint identification approach with determining an optical path distance to the waypoint device based on the return signal and identifying the waypoint based also on the optical path distance to the waypoint device. Zhou’s solution has an advantage over conventional OTDR in that it can identify waypoint past splitters (paragraphs 0013 and 0070). However, the conventional OTDR approach does not then become patentable; a known or obvious teaching does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other teaching for the same use (MPEP § 2145(X)(D)(1)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the distance measuring function of conventional OTDR with the waypoint identification approach of Zhou, to include a distance reference measurement for the waypoint identification function.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 15-17 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 prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Related reflection-based optical path markers and/or fault/segment detection: US Patent No. 7289729; US Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0025676, 2002/0075534.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN M CORS whose telephone number is (571)272-3028. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Kenneth Vanderpuye can be reached at 571-272-3078. 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.
/NATHAN M CORS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634