Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that “One key difference between He and the method of claim 1 is that the method of claim 1 is used in commissioning, whereas He is for in-service testing. He therefore does not inject any signal in the optical fiber communication link, it simply looks at the live signals. This means that the object of He is also very different from that of the method claimed in claim 1. In He, the purpose is to characterize a live optical signal under test (in-service), whereas in the method of claim 1, it is to characterize an optical fiber communication link (in commissioning). During commissioning, there is no live optical signal to characterize. In order to characterize the optical fiber communication link, the new method not only injects a probe signal to allow for characterization of the open cable, it also injects power loading light in other optical transmission channels in order to emulate in-operation transmission conditions. As to Turukhin, it also describes an in-service testing method, as opposed to the commissioning method of claim 1. As made clear from the Technical Field, ''[It] relates to the testing of optically amplified links, and in particular to the testing of loaded wavelength division multiplexed links with time division multiplexed test signals." (Turukhin, col. 1, liens 14-17). Here, it is made clear from the description that the loading comes from the in-service use of the link, as opposed to injecting a power loading light in the optical transmission optical fiber communication link under test. More specifically, regarding claim 1, the combination of prior art fails to teach ''generating a test signal comprising a polarized probe signal within the optical transmission channel under test, and power loading light in a plurality of channels outside the optical transmission channel under test''.Regarding claim 13, the combination of prior art fails to teach ''a power loading light source to generate power loading light in a plurality of channels outside the optical transmission channel under test''.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. With regards to Claim 1, Figure 2 of He (US 9438336) does teach ''generating a test signal comprising a polarized probe signal within the optical transmission channel under test”. Figure 2 of He discloses element 216 takes an input which is a signal under test and scrambles a polarization, indicating a polarized signal. Turukhin (US 7925158) does disclose “power loading light in a plurality of channels outside the optical transmission channel under test”. This is disclosed in Figure 1, where element 2 has optical signals loaded into multiple channels outside the transmission channel (Figure 2, element 6) under test. The same features recited in Turukhin are also applied to applicant’s arguments about Claim 13.
As for other features of the applicant’s argument, it is not disclosed in He that the method can only be used for SUT (in-service) and not for commissioning. Commissioning equipment is used during the setup or beginning of the procedure/system. Even if He discloses a system for SUT, the system at some point had to have been commissioned; the system had to have been turned on and set up for the first time at some point. As for Turukhin, while there is a TDM component in Figure 1, this does not mean that there is no power loading of light in the system of Figure 1; the cited portions in the previous paragraph show the power loading of light. Finally, the language of Claims 1 and 13 of the application itself does not disclose that the method is only to be used during a commissioning procedure nor specify characteristics of how the power loading of light is performed.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 1-2, 4-7, and 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (US 9438336) and further in view of Turukhin (US 7925158).
Consider Claim 1, He discloses A method for determining at least one noise parameter characterizing an optical fiber communication link under test within an optical transmission channel under test , independently of terminal equipment, said method comprising: generating a test signal comprising a polarized probe signal within the optical transmission channel under test (Figure 2, element 216 takes in a signal and scrambles polarization indicating a polarized signal), on the other end of the optical communication link under test, analyzing the propagated test signal using a varied-SOP polarization-resolved Optical Spectral Analyzer (VSOP-OSA) (Figure 2, element 218), said analyzing comprising acquiring, for each of a number nSOP of varied state-of-polarization analysis conditions (Claim 1, Line 4 where nSOP varied SOP conditions are acquired), at least one polarization-analyzed optical spectrum trace Column 9, Line 52 where OSA collects traces), the propagated test signal comprising a probe signal contribution (Column 9, Line 53 where signal contribution is discriminated), an ASE-noise contribution (Column 9, Line 34, where ASE-noise contribution is discriminated) and a non-linear optical noise contribution within said optical transmission channel (Column 9, Lines 34-35, where depolarized signal is discriminated and Column 2, Lines 40-53 where XPM is a NLE and depolarized signal is an example of NLE); mathematically discriminating said probe signal contribution from at least said non-linear optical noise contribution using the polarization-analyzed optical spectrum traces acquired under varied state-of-polarization analysis conditions (Column 9 Lines 52-56, where element 212 discriminates contributions); and determining said at least one noise parameter characterizing said optical fiber communication link under test under test within said optical transmission channel using said probe signal contribution and at least the discriminated non-linear optical noise contribution (Column 9, 56-60 where element 214 evaluates all contributions from discriminated signals such as probe signals and nonlinear optical noise contribution) but does not disclose power loading light in a plurality of channels outside the optical transmission channel under test.
However, Turukhin discloses power loading light in a plurality of channels (Figure 1, element 2 where optical signals are loaded into multiple channels) outside the optical transmission channel under test (Figure 1, element 2 is outside of transmission link element 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings Turukhin into He to characterize link performance during transient effects.
Consider Claim 2, He discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein said noise parameter comprises a Non-Linear Effect Factor (NLEF) (Column 25, Lines 7-12 where noise parameter includes NLE depolarization OSNR).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings Turukhin into He to characterize link performance during transient effects.
Consider Claim 4, He discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein said mathematically discriminating comprises: from the polarization-analyzed optical spectrum traces, determining an extrema trace (Claim 11, Lines 2-3 where extrema trace can be determined polarization-analyzed optical spectrum trace); and wherein said discriminating is made using said extrema trace (Claim 11 Lines 4-5, where depolarization signal can be estimated using extrema trace).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings Turukhin into He to characterize link performance during transient effects.
Consider Claim 5, He discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein said mathematically discriminating comprises: determining a coefficient of signal depolarization (Column 7, Lines 7-12, where coefficient of signal depolarization includes NLE induced signal depolarization).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings Turukhin into He to characterize link performance during transient effects.
Consider Claim 6, He discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein said mathematically discriminating comprises: mathematically discriminating said probe signal contribution from said ASE-noise contribution (Figure 8, element 806 where ASE noise contribution can be discriminated) and determining said at least one noise parameter characterizing said optical fiber communication link under test within said optical transmission channel at least from the discriminated ASE optical noise contribution (Figure 8, element 812 where noise parameters are evaluated including ASE noise contributions); and determining said at least one noise parameter characterizing said optical fiber communication link under test within said optical transmission channel at least from the discriminated ASE optical noise contribution (Column 9, 56-60 where element 214 evaluates all contributions from discriminated signals such as ASE noise signal)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings Turukhin into He to characterize link performance during transient effects.
Consider Claim 7, He discloses the method as claimed in claim 6, where said ASE noise parameter comprises an ASE-only Optical Signal to Noise Ratio (OSNRASE) (Column 22, Lines 64-66, where ASE-only OSNR can be a noise parameter).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings Turukhin into He to characterize link performance during transient effects.
Consider Claim 9, He discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein said polarized probe signal is a continuous wave signal (Column 26, Line 14 where probe signal can be CW signal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings Turukhin into He to characterize link performance during transient effects.
Consider Claim 10, He discloses a method as claimed in claim 1, wherein said test signal comprises a plurality of polarized probe signals within a corresponding plurality of optical transmission channels under test in order to test said plurality of optical transmission channels simultaneously (Figure 2, where element 220 splits probe signal for testing on different paths entering element 222) but does not disclose power loading light in a plurality of channels outside the optical transmission channels under test.
However, Turukhin discloses disclose power loading light in a plurality of channels (Figure 1, element 2 where optical signals are loaded into multiple channels) outside outside the optical transmission channels under test (Figure 1, element 2 is outside of transmission link element 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings Turukhin into He to characterize link performance during transient effects.
Consider Claim 11, He does not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Turukhin discloses the method as claimed in claim 10, wherein said power loading light comprises unpolarized broadband light (Column 2, Lines 52-54, where element 2 consists of multiple wavelengths).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings Turukhin into He to characterize link performance during transient effects.
Consider Claim 12, He discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising characterizing polarization effects comprising at least one of a Polarization Dependent Loss (PDL) (not considered), a Differential Group Delay (DGD) (not considered), and a Polarization Mode Dispersion (PMD) along the optical fiber communication link (Column 6, Line 46-47, where polarization characteristics include PMD).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings Turukhin into He to characterize link performance during transient effects.
Consider Claim 13, A test system for determining at least one noise parameter characterizing an optical fiber communication link under test within an optical transmission channel, independently of terminal equipment, the test system comprising: a polarized light source to generate a polarized probe signal within the optical transmission channel under test (Figure 2, element 216 takes in a signal and scrambles polarization indicating a polarized signal); a varied-SOP polarization-resolved Optical Spectral Analyzer (VSOP-OSA) on the other end of the optical communication link under test (Figure 2, element 218), to analyze the test signal having propagated in the optical fiber communication link under test, said VSOP-OSA comprising a polarization scrambler (Figure 2, element 216) to acquire, for each of a number nSOP of varied state-of-polarization analysis conditions (Claim 1, Line 4 where nSOP varied SOP conditions are acquired), at least one polarization-analyzed optical spectrum trace (Column 9, Line 52 where OSA collects traces) , the propagated test signal comprising a probe signal contribution (Column 9, Line 53 where signal contribution is discriminated), an ASE-noise contribution (Column 9, Line 34, where ASE-noise contribution is discriminated) and a non-linear optical noise contribution within said optical transmission channel (Column 9, Lines 34-35, where depolarized signal is discriminated and Column 2, Lines 40-53 where XPM is a NLE and depolarized signal is an example of NLE); and a processing unit (Figure 2, element 212)receiving the polarization-analyzed optical spectrum traces acquired under varied state-of-polarization analysis conditions and configured to :mathematically discriminate said probe signal contribution from at least said non-linear optical noise contribution using the polarization-analyzed optical spectrum traces acquired under varied state-of-polarization analysis conditions (Column 9 Lines 52-56, where element 212 discriminates contributions) but does not disclose a power loading light source to generate power loading light in a plurality of channels outside the optical transmission channel under test, wherein said probe signal and said power loading light are combined to generate a test signal to be propagated in the optical fiber communication link under test from one end thereof. While the processing element 212 does not determine said at least one noise parameter characterizing said optical fiber communication link under test under test within first optical transmission channel using said probe signal contribution and at least the discriminated non-linear optical noise contribution, He discloses a noise calculator element 214 that can characterize and evaluate the contributions from element 212 (Column 9, 56-60 where element 214 evaluates all contributions from discriminated signals such as probe signals and non linear optical noise contribution). It would be obvious to one of skill in the ordinary art that elements 212 and 214 of He can be seen together as a “processing unit” to achieve the same task in the claim.
However, Turukhin a power loading light source to generate power loading light in a plurality of channels outside the optical transmission channel under test (Figure 1, element 2 is outside of transmission link element 6), wherein said probe signal and said power loading light are combined to generate a test signal to be propagated in the optical fiber communication link under test from one end thereof (Figure 1, where elements 2 and 10 can combine to have a signal go into fiber element 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings Turukhin into He to characterize link performance during transient effects.
Consider Claim 14, He discloses the test system as claimed in claim 13, wherein said processing unit is further configured to: mathematically discriminate said probe signal contribution from said ASE-noise contribution and said non-linear optical noise contribution using the polarization-analyzed optical spectrum traces acquired under varied state-of-polarization analysis conditions (Column 9, Lines 51-55 where signal contribution can be discriminated from ASE noise and NLE depolarized signal). While the processing element 212 does not determine said at least one noise parameter characterizing said optical fiber communication link under test within said optical transmission channel at least from the discriminated ASE optical noise contribution, He discloses a noise calculator element 214 that can characterize and evaluate the noise contributions from element 212 (Column 9, 56-60 where element 214 evaluates all contributions from discriminated signals such as ASE noise contribution). It would be obvious to one of skill in the ordinary art that elements 212 and 214 of He can be seen together as a “processing unit” to achieve the same task in the claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings Turukhin into He to characterize link performance during transient effects.
Consider Claim 15, He discloses The test system as claimed in claim 14, wherein said at least one noise parameter comprises at least one of an ASE-only Optical Signal to Noise Ratio (OSNRASE) (Column 22, Lines 64-66, where ASE-only OSNR can be a noise parameter), a Non-Linear Effect Factor (NLEF) (not considered), an non-linear Optical Signal to Noise Ratio (OSNRNLE) (not considered) and a Generalized Optical Signal to Noise Ratio (GOSNR) (not considered).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings Turukhin into He to characterize link performance during transient effects.
Consider Claim 16, He discloses the test system as claimed in claim 13, wherein said a polarized light source comprises a plurality of polarized light sources to generate a corresponding plurality of polarized probe signals within a plurality of optical transmission channels under test in order to test said plurality of optical transmission channels simultaneously (Figure 2, where element 220 splits probe signal for testing on different paths entering element 222) but does not disclose wherein said power loading light source generates power loading light in a plurality of channels outside said optical transmission channels under test.
However, Turukhin discloses wherein said power loading light source generates power loading light in a plurality of channels outside said optical transmission channels under test (Figure 1, element 2 is outside of transmission link element 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings Turukhin into He to characterize link performance during transient effects.
Consider Claim 17, He does not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Turukhin discloses the test system as claimed in claim 13, wherein said power loading light source comprises an unpolarized broadband light source (Column 2, Lines 52-54, where element 2 consists of multiple wavelengths).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings Turukhin into He to characterize link performance during transient effects.
Consider Claim 18, He discloses the test system as claimed in claim 13, further comprising a polarization scrambler on said one end of the optical communication link under test (Figure 2, element 216) to characterize polarization effects comprising at least one of a Polarization Dependent Loss (PDL) (not considered), a Differential Group Delay (DGD) (not considered), and a Polarization Mode Dispersion (PMD) along the optical fiber communication link (Column 6, Line 46-47, where polarization characteristics include PMD).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings Turukhin into He to characterize link performance during transient effects.
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He view of Turukhin and further in view of He (US 20210273722; hereinafter “He 2”).
Consider Claim 3, He and Turukhin do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, “He 2” discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein said noise parameter comprises a Non-Linear Optical Signal to Noise Ratio (OSNRNLE) (Figure 3, step 6 where OSNRNL can be derived).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of “He 2” into He and Turukhin to monitor link performance and minimize deteriorations in fiber.
Consider Claim 8, He and Turukhin do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, “He 2” discloses the method as claimed in claim 6, wherein said at least one noise parameter comprises a Generalized Optical Signal to Noise Ratio (GOSNR) (Figure 3, step 6 where GOSNR can be derived).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of “He 2” into He and Turukhin to monitor link performance and minimize deteriorations in fiber.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ASIF SHAMEEM whose telephone number is (571)272-6576. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM EST-5:00 PM 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, 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.
/ASIF SHAMEEM/
Examiner, Art Unit 2634
/KENNETH N VANDERPUYE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights