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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed December 11, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 have been canceled. Claims 21-41 remain pending. All prior 112(b) rejections have been overcome.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection of new claims 21-41 (corresponding to canceled claims 8, 2-7, 18, 19, and 10-20 as stated in paragraph 5, page 7 of Remarks) under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 21-24 and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (US20130051791A1) and Weaver (US7315664B2) and Le Floch (US20130265569A1)..
Regarding claim 21, Zhao teaches a plurality of addressable optical fibers arranged for light to travel through them along an optical path (paragraph [0006] discloses fiber with corresponding address code. The examiner is interpreting this to mean the optical fiber is addressable),
an addressing device associated to each addressable optical fiber ('optical identifier equipment' - paragraph [0006]), wherein:
each addressing device associated with an addressable optical fiber being arranged to give an optically coded address to the addressable optical fiber with which it is associated different from an address of another addressable optical fiber (paragraphs [0038] and [0039] disclose the address is different for each fiber section),
each associated addressing device and addressable optical fiber forming a part of the optical path distinct from the other parts of the optical path (Fig. 3 depicts each addressing device in the optical fiber (ID301, ID305, ID310, etc.) forming distinct optical paths),
each address includes a plurality of optical address digits (paragraph [0038] discloses the optical address as two digits), each addressing device is arranged so that each of the optical address digits of the address given by this addressing device is created by an address signal coming from this addressing device (paragraphs [0038]-[0041] disclose the address digits are based on a signal from the corresponding addressing device),
an analysis device ('optical identifier analyzer' - paragraph [0024]) configured to:
receive at least one fiber signal from at least one of the addressable optical fibers (paragraph [0024] discloses the analyzer receives a signal returned from the identifier), and
for each addressable optical fiber from which a fiber signal is received, identify this addressable optical fiber by using address signals of the optical address digits coding for the address of this addressable optical fiber (S102, Fig. 1; paragraphs [0024]-[0027]).
Zhao fails to teach each addressing device comprising several optical sections, or each address signal of each optical address digit coming from a different optical section of this addressing device, or the signals received from the fiber are backscattered signals.
However, in the same field of endeavor of labeling fiber optic cables to determine location, Weaver discloses an addressing device where an optical fiber is divided into portions, and each portion is divided into sections, where each section is given one digit of an address signal corresponding to the portion of cable (column 2, lines 1-18; column 3, lines 1-23).
Weaver discloses an advantage to this method of addressing a fiber facilitates rapid identification of the selected portion (column 1, lines 12-13). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the fault detecting device of Zhao with the method of subsection identification taught in Weaver as it facilitates rapid identification.
Zhao as modified by Weaver fails to teach the signals received from the fiber are backscattered signals.
However, in the same field of endeavor of using optical fibers to monitor physical changes, Le Floch teaches receiving a backscattered signal from an optical fiber (paragraph [0020]).
Le Floch discloses it is typical and common in the art to analyze backscatter signals (paragraph [0011]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to take the method of analyzing backscattered signals as taught in Le Floch and apply it to the detection device taught in Zhao as modified by Weaver and have a reasonable expectation of success of identifying a fiber section. Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the device of Zhao as modified by Weaver with the backscattered signal taught in Le Floch as the analysis of backscattered signals are common in the art.
Regarding claim 22, Zhao as modified by Weaver and Le Floch teaches the invention as explained above in claim 21, and further teaches each address signal being a signal equal to or proportional to or based on: a wavelength or frequency or wavenumber of a back reflection signal (Zhao: paragraph [0058] discloses a method where the address signal is based on a frequency component of the reflected optical signal).
Regarding claim 23, Zhao as modified by Weaver and Le Floch teaches the invention as explained above in claim 21, and further teaches each address signal (Le Floch: paragraph [0039] and [0041] disclose a coding matrix identifier) is a Brillouin backscattered signal (Le Floch: paragraph [0020] discloses the matrix corresponds to a Brillouin backscattered signal) and a value of each optical address digit is based on:
a Brillouin frequency shift (paragraphs [0089] and [0090] disclose the digits which make up the matrix depend on a Brillouin frequency shift).
Le Floch discloses the Brillouin backscattering and frequency technique is inherently more reliable and stable than other techniques (paragraph [0017]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the device of Zhao as modified by Weaver with the Brillouin technique as it is more reliable and stable than other techniques.
Regarding claim 24, Zhao as modified by Weaver and Le Floch teaches the invention as explained above in claim 23 and further teaches at least one addressing device comprises different sections of optical fibers linked in series and having one or more of different Brillouin frequency shifts, different materials, different structures, or different physical parameters (Zhao: paragraph [0037] discloses a backbone fiber is a section, and a branch fiber is a section. The backbone fiber is split into a branch fiber, which would be connected in series. Further, a backbone fiber inherently has different structure and different physical parameters from a branch fiber).
Regarding claim 26, Zhao as modified by Weaver and Le Floch teaches the invention as explained above in claim 21, and further teaches a value of each optical address digit is based on one or more of a presence or absence of a type of Fiber Bragg Grating inside the addressing device or a presence or absence of a Fiber Bragg Grating at a location inside the addressing device among several specific locations in the addressing device (Zhao: paragraphs [0038], [0039] disclose one part of the optical address is based on the presence of an optical identifier in the section of fiber; paragraph [0061] discloses the optical identifier is a Fiber Bragg Grating).
Regarding claim 27, Zhao as modified by Weaver and Le Floch teaches the invention as explained above in claim 26, and further teaches at least one addressing device comprises several Fiber Bragg Gratings linked in series (Zhao: paragraph [0061] discloses the optical identifier equipment may be a Fabry-Perot device based on Fiber Bragg Grating, which are linked in series in this type of device).
Regarding claim 28, Zhao as modified by Weaver and Le Floch teaches the invention as explained above in claim 21, and further teaches each optical address digit is a bit having only two possible values (Weaver: binary code, column 2, lines 5-18).
The use of binary codes is fundamental and is known for being reliable, simple, and efficient. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to reasonably use the addressing method consisting of binary digits as taught in Weaver and be able to apply it to the addressing device of Zhao with a reasonable expectation of success. Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the device of Zhao as modified by Weaver with the address consisting of only two values as taught in Weaver as it is a fundamental and reliable method of addressing.
Regarding claim 29, Zhao as modified by Weaver and Le Floch teaches the invention as explained above in claim 21, and further teaches each optical address digit has at least three possible values (Zhao: paragraph [0043] discloses different addresses composed of digits with values between 0 and 3).
Regarding claim 30, Zhao as modified by Weaver teaches the invention as explained above in claim 21, and further teaches each addressable optical fiber is surrounded, along the optical path:
by its associated addressing device on one end of the addressable optical fiber (Zhao: Fig. 3 shows the addressing device (ID301, ID305, etc.) on one end of the fiber), and
by a stop device on another end of the addressable optical fiber (Zhao: examiner is interpreting the optical splitter (301, 302, etc., Fig. 3) to be a stop device), the stop device being arranged for coding for an end of the addressable optical fiber with a least one end digit created by an end signal coming from the stop device (Zhao: paragraph [0036] discloses a portion of the optical address may correspond to the position of the optical splitter; paragraph [0037] discloses the optical splitter defines the beginning/end of a section).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (US20130051791A1), Weaver (US7315664B2) and Le Floch (US20130265569A1) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Yamamoto (US20090079961A1)
Regarding claim 25, Zhao as modified by Weaver and Le Floch teach the invention as explained above in claim 23, and further teaches at least one addressing device comprises different sections of optical fibers linked in series (Zhao: paragraph [0037] discloses a backbone fiber is a section, and a branch fiber is a section. The backbone fiber is split into a branch fiber, which would be connected in series).
Zhao as modified by Weaver and Le Floch fails to teach each section is configured to receive a different strain.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical fiber signal measurements, Yamamoto teaches optical fibers connected in a serial fashion (paragraphs [0007] discloses fibers connected in series; paragraph [0049] discloses fibers being optical fibers) with different strains (paragraphs [0052, [0053] disclose two fibers having two different strains).
Yamamoto discloses an advantage to having different strains per section is that it allows different areas of the fiber to have a clear designation (paragraphs [0005], [0008]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the device of Zhao as modified by Weaver and Le Floch with the different strains taught in Yamamoto in order to clearly designate different areas of the fiber.
Claims 31-35, 37, 38, 40, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (US20130051791A1) and Le Floch (US20130265569A1).
Regarding claim 31, Zhao teaches a method for addressing optical fibers, the method comprising:
for each addressing device associated with an addressable optical fiber, generating an optically coded address to the addressable optical fiber with which it is associated different from an address of another addressable optical fiber paragraphs [0038] and [0039] disclose the address is different for each fiber section), each optically coded address including a plurality of optical address digits (paragraph [0038] discloses the optical address as two digits), each optical address digit of the optically coded address given by this addressing device being created by an address signal coming from the addressing device (paragraphs [0038]-[0041] disclose the address digits are based on a signal from the corresponding addressing device),
for at least one addressable optical fiber from which a fiber signal is received, identifying this addressable optical fiber by using the address signals of the optical address digits coding for the address of this addressable optical fiber (paragraph [0006]).
Zhao fails to teach receiving at least one fiber backscattered signal from at least one of the addressable optical fibers.
However, Le Floch teaches a backscattered signal from an optical fiber (paragraph [0020]).
Le Floch discloses it is typical and common in the art to analyze backscatter signals (paragraph [0011]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to take the method of analyzing backscattered signals as taught in Le Floch and apply it to the detection method taught in Zhao and have a reasonable expectation of success of identifying a fiber section. Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the device of Zhao with the backscattered signal taught in Le Floch as the analysis of backscattered signals are common and well-understood in the art.
Regarding claim 32, Zhao as modified by Le Floch teaches the invention as explained above in claim 31, and further teaches the fiber backscattered signal is received from at least one of the addressable optical fibers (Le Floch: paragraph [0020]), each address signal being generated from a same excitation signal or pump signal (Le Floch: [0089], [0093]).
An advantage to the method taught in Le Flock is that having one signal generates multiple address signals allowing for the address to contain information corresponding to multiple parameters, such as frequency and amplitude of an optical signal (Le Floch: paragraph [0091]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the device of Zhao as modified by Le Floch with the backscattered signal and address generation taught in Le Floch in order to gain information on multiple parameters of the fiber being investigated.
Regarding claim 33, Zhao as modified by Le Floch teaches the invention as explained above in claim 31, and further teaches each address signal of each digit being a signal equal to or proportional to or based on:
a wavelength or frequency or wavenumber of a back reflection signal (Zhao: paragraph [0058] discloses a method where the address signal is based on a frequency component of the reflected optical signal).
Regarding claim 34, Zhao as modified by Le Floch teaches the invention as explained above in claim 34, and further teaches each address signal (Le Floch: paragraph [0039] and [0041] disclose a coding matrix) is a Brillouin backscattered signal (Le Floch: paragraph [0020] discloses the matrix corresponds to a Brillouin backscattered signal) and a value of each optical address digit is based on:
a Brillouin frequency shift (paragraphs [0089] and [0090] disclose the dependency of the digits which make up the matrix on a Brillouin frequency shift).
As disclosed above in claim 23, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the device of Zhao as modified by Le Floch with the Brillouin technique taught in Le Floch as it is more reliable and stable than other techniques.
Regarding claim 35, Zhao as modified by Le Floch teaches the invention as explained above in claim 34, and further teaches each addressing device comprises different sections of optical fibers linked in series along the optical path and having one or more of different Brillouin frequency shifts, different materials, structures, or physical parameters (Zhao: paragraph [0037] discloses a backbone fiber is a section, and a branch fiber is a section. The backbone fiber is split into a branch fiber, which would be connected in series. Further, a backbone fiber inherently has different structure and different physical parameters from a branch fiber).
Regarding claim 37, Zhao as modified by Le Floch teaches the invention as explained above in claim 31, and further teaches a value of each optical address digit is based on a presence or absence of a specific type of Fiber Bragg Grating inside the addressing device and/or on a presence or absence of a Fiber Bragg Grating at a specific location inside the addressing device among several specific locations in the addressing device (Zhao: paragraphs [0038], [0039] disclose one part of the optical address is based on the presence of an optical identifier in the section of fiber; paragraph [0061] discloses the optical identifier may be based on a Fiber Bragg Grating).
Regarding claim 38, Zhao as modified by Le Floch teaches the invention as explained above in claim 37, and further teaches each addressing device comprises a plurality of Fiber Bragg Gratings linked in series along the optical path (Zhao: paragraph [0061] discloses the optical identifier equipment may be a Fabry-Perot device based on Fiber Bragg Grating, which are linked in series in this type of device).
Regarding claim 40, Zhao as modified by Le Floch teaches the invention as explained above in claim 31, and further teaches each optical address digit has at least three possible values (Zhao: paragraph [0043] discloses different addresses composed of digits with values between 0 and 3) .
Regarding claim 41, Zhao as modified by Le Floch teaches the invention as explained above in claim 31, and further teaches each addressable optical fiber is surrounded, along the optical path:
by its associated addressing device on one end of the addressable optical fiber (Zhao: Fig. 3 shows the addressing device (ID301, ID305, etc.) on one end of the fiber), and
by a stop device on another end of the addressable optical fiber (Zhao: examiner is interpreting the optical splitter (301, 302, etc., Fig. 4) to be a stop device), the stop device being arranged for coding for an end of the addressable optical fiber with a least one end digit created by an end signal coming from the stop device (Zhao: paragraph [0036] discloses a portion of the optical address may correspond to the position of the optical splitter).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (US20130051791A1) and Le Floch (US20130265569A1) as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Yamamoto (US20090079961A1).
Regarding claim 36, Zhao as modified by Le Floch teaches the invention as explained above in claim 34, and further teaches each addressing device comprises different sections of optical fibers linked in series (Zhao: paragraph [0037] discloses a backbone fiber is a section, and a branch fiber is a section. The backbone fiber is split into a branch fiber, which would be connected in series).
Zhao as modified b Le Floch fails to teach each section configured to receive a different strain.
However, Yamamoto teaches optical fibers connected in a serial fashion (paragraphs [0007] discloses fibers connected in series; paragraph [0049] discloses fibers being optical fibers) with different strains (paragraphs [0052, [0053] disclose two fibers having two different strains).
As discussed above in claim 25, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the device of Zhao as modified by Le Floch with the different strains taught in Yamamoto in order to clearly designate different areas of the fiber.
Claim 39 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (US20130051791A1) and Le Floch (US20130265569A1) as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Weaver (US7315664B2).
Regarding claim 39, Zhao as modified by Le Floch teaches the invention as explained above in claim 31, but fails to teach each optical address digit is a bit having only two possible values.
However, Weaver teaches a method where an optical address is given in only two possible values (binary code, column 2, lines 5-18).
The use of binary codes is fundamental and is known for being reliable, simple, and efficient. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to reasonably use the addressing method consisting of binary digits as taught in Weaver and be able to apply it to the addressing device of Zhao as modified by Le Floch with a reasonable expectation of success. Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the device of Zhao as modified by Weaver with the address consisting of only two values as taught in Weaver as it is a fundamental and reliable method of addressing.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandria Mendoza whose telephone number is (571)272-5282. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur 9:00 - 6:00 CDT.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/ALEXANDRIA MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877