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 .
Amendment
1- The amendment filed on 06/22/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
2- Applicants’ arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of the pending claims under 35 USC §103, and not USC § 102 as indicated by the typographical error (p. 7 of Applicant’s response), have been fully considered but are found not persuasive.
3- Here is a brief response to the Arguments presented by the Applicants to explain further the rationale behind the rejections and the Examiner’s interpretations.
4- Applicants argue in their response (pp. 7-10) that Vandewege fails to teach every limitation in the independent claims, and more specifically “send, to optical switches, first control signals to that instruct the optical switches to optically connect embedded optical time domain reflectometers (OTDRs), of an optical network, to optical fibers of the optical network… send second control signals that instruct the OTDRs to measure attenuations of optical signals in the optical fibers… wherein the device is different from any of the optical switches and the OTDRs”.
5- The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicants and notes that the device, i.e. Vandewege's ONU(s), appears distinct and separate i.e. different from the optical switches and OTDRs (fig. 2). As to Applicant's arguments about the failure of Vandewege of teaching/suggesting the claimed processor to perform the claimed actions of sending the first/second control signals, the Examiner respectfully disagrees again and points to ¶ 41-42 where it expressly discloses that "The OTDR Burst Validation (OBV) block plays a dual role. A first role is detecting suitable data bursts that can be used for non-intrusive OTDR testing. A second role is to act as a central control unit deciding whether the switchover between transmit mode and monitoring mode should take place mainly based on the burst enable signal BEN. The OTDR analog front-end (OAF) receives optical echo signals from the optical fiber network and converts the associated photo current, which represents fiber backscattering and/or reflections, into an analog electrical signal". Since not claimed otherwise, the OBV block can be considered as part of the device, i.e Optical Network Unit controlling devices. The OBV clearly, as a central control unit, controls the switch to, functionally and optically, connect the OTDRs to the optical fibers by transmitting optical signals thereinto, before receiving signals therefrom to perform measurements.
In order to overcome Vandewege, it is suggested to clarify the process of optical connectivity that is established between the OTDRs and the optical fibers i.e. the OTDRs are not connected and become physically connected thanks to the switches.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6- The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
7- Claims 1, 10, 19 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandewege et. al (PGPUB 2007/0122157)
As to claims 1, 10, 19, Vandewege teaches a device, its method of making and use and their corresponding NTCRM with the instructions needed for the operation of the device (Abstract and Figs. 1-12) comprising: a processor (ONU in Fig. 2 or equivalent in Figs. 8-9) to: send, to optical switches (OTDR switch unit in Fig. 3 with the components therein switching optical signals to/from OTDR Tx and Rx), first control signals that instructs the optical switches to optically connect embedded optical time domain reflectometers -OTDRs-, of an optical network, to optical fibers of the optical network, wherein the OTDRs are included in the optical network (Figs. 3; signals from the OTDR SU to the TX OTDR part of the optical network with the optical fiber); send second control signals that instruct the OTDRs to measure attenuations of optical signals in the optical fibers (Abstract, ¶ 21-24 and 84; fiber attenuations are determined by triggering signals); receive measurement data from the OTDRs as results of measuring the attenuations of the optical signals in the optical fibers (¶ 21-24, 91); process the measurement data; and determine whether the optical fibers meet a performance requirement based on the processed measurement data (¶ 3, 61, 91); wherein the device is different from any of the optical switches and the OTDRs (Figs. 1-2; the device, i.e. ONU(s), appears distinct and separate, i.e. different from the optical switches and OTDRs).
Vandewege does not teach explicitly that the first control signals from the ONUs, now distinct and separate, i.e. different, from the optical switches, instruct the switches to connect the OTDRs to optical fibers of the optical network.
However, Vandewege discloses, ¶ 41-42, that the OTDR Burst Validation (OBV) block, considered as part of the device, i.e ONU, plays a dual role, of which it is to act as a central control unit deciding whether the switchover between transmit mode and monitoring mode should take place mainly based on the burst enable signal BEN. This is interpreted as controlling the switch to controllably direct the monitoring signals to the optical fibers when a measurement mode is selected.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus, method and NTCRM of Vandewege in view of its different embodiment teachings, so that the first control signals from the ONUs, now distinct and separate, i.e. different, from the optical switches, instruct the switches to connect the OTDRs to optical fibers of the optical network, with the advantage of effectively and thoroughly optimizing the characterizing of the optical network.
8- Claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandewege in view of McClean et al. (PGPUB No. 20160197673; previously used)
As to claims 2-6, 8-9, 11-15, 17-18 and 20, Vandewege teaches the device and the method of use according to claims 1, 15 and 19.
Vandewege does not teach expressly wherein the optical switches include one or more of: 1x2 optical switches; or 1x4 optical switches; wherein the measurement data includes power loss measurement data for a set of optical signals, in an optical fiber, in two opposite directions; wherein when processing the measurement data, the processor is further configured to: use the power loss measurement data for the optical signals in the two directions to eliminate false gains and false losses in the measurement data; wherein the optical network includes waver couplers that optically connect the optical switches to the optical fibers; wherein the processor is further configured to: configure the OTDRs to operate during normal operation of the optical network; and obtain periodic measurement data from the OTDRs during the normal operation of the optical network; wherein when the processor sends first control signals to the optical switches, the processor sends the first control signals prior to the normal operation of the optical network; wherein the optical network includes at least one or more of: optical transmitters, optical receivers, and optical amplifiers.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, McClean teaches an OTDR based measurement device and method (Abstract, Figs. 1-11), wherein (claims 2/11/20; 8/17) wherein the optical switches include one or more of: 1x2 optical switches; (claims 8/17) wherein when the processor sends first control signals to the optical switches, the processor sends the first control signals prior to the normal operation of the optical network (¶ 44-45, 48; switch 156, 190 or equivalent); or 1x4 optical switches; (claims 3/12) wherein the measurement data includes power loss measurement data for a set of optical signals, in an optical fiber, in two opposite directions (see above in addition to ¶ 22, 47); (claims 4, 13)wherein when processing the measurement data, the processor is further configured to: use the power loss measurement data for the optical signals in the two directions to eliminate false gains and false losses in the measurement data (¶ 26; the measurements permit the determination whether the losses of the optical fibers do not correspond to the optical application needed, thusly eliminating the choices of some fibers that would correspond to wrong characteristics, i.e. losses/gains in EDFA for ex.); (claims 5, 14) wherein the optical network includes wave couplers that optically connect the optical switches to the optical fibers (¶ 29); (claims 6, 15) wherein the processor is further configured to: configure the OTDRs to operate during normal operation of the optical network; and obtain periodic measurement data from the OTDRs during the normal operation of the optical network (Abstract, ¶ 2, 32; real time measurements during operations); (claims 9, 18) wherein the optical network includes at least one or more of: optical transmitters, optical receivers (¶ 29-30, 50-53; 48 or equivalent), and optical amplifiers (EDFA 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus, method and NTCRM of Vandewege in view of McClean’s so that the optical switches include one or more of: 1x2 optical switches; or 1x4 optical switches; wherein the measurement data includes power loss measurement data for a set of optical signals, in an optical fiber, in two opposite directions; wherein when processing the measurement data, the processor is further configured to: use the power loss measurement data for the optical signals in the two directions to eliminate false gains and false losses in the measurement data; wherein the optical network includes waver couplers that optically connect the optical switches to the optical fibers; wherein the processor is further configured to: configure the OTDRs to operate during normal operation of the optical network; and obtain periodic measurement data from the OTDRs during the normal operation of the optical network; wherein when the processor sends first control signals to the optical switches, the processor sends the first control signals prior to the normal operation of the optical network; wherein the optical network includes at least one or more of: optical transmitters, optical receivers, and optical amplifiers, with the advantage of effectively and thoroughly optimizing the characterizing of the optical network using efficient imbedded OTDRs.
As to claims 7 and 16, the combination of Vandewege and McClean teaches the device and the method of use according to claims 1 and 15.
McClean does not teach expressly wherein the periodic measurement data includes Brillouin backscattering data, even though Rayleigh scattering, which is caused by inhomogeneities in the optical fibers, is taught as an example of backscattering to be measured (Vandewege ¶ 80 and McClean ¶ 24, 26). One PHOSITA would find it obvious to consider other scatterings, such as Brillouin, that can be caused by non-linear effects, such as phonons, in McClean’s complex and high energy power networks involving EDFAs (See MPEP 2143 Sect. I. B-D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of Vandewege and McClean in view of general optical network consideration so that the periodic measurement data includes Brillouin backscattering data, with the advantage of effectively and thoroughly optimizing the characterizing of the optical network.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED AMARA whose telephone number is (571)272-7847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 9:00-17:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (571)272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohamed K AMARA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights