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 Arguments
The § 112(b) Rejections are withdrawn
In light of applicant’s amendments to claims 9 and 16, the § 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
The § 102 rejection of Claim 19 is proper
The § 102 rejection in the Office Action dated December 30, 2025 (“Office Action”) is well-founded and proper. Applicant argues that the § 102 rejection of claim 19 is inconsistent with the Office Action’s § 103 rejection (3.19.26 Remarks p. 10, ¶ 2), and points to where the Office Action states that, "Khotimsky does not teach monitoring, by the at least one ONU, the live data traffic signal for one or more abnormalities." (Office Action - p. 4) (quoting claim 1) (emphasis added). Applicant is correct that Khotimsky does not teach “monitoring, by the at least one ONU.” In Khotimsky, the monitor is placed between the OLT and ONU (FIG. 4: 410). Claim 19, however, does not contain the same limitations as claim 1. Claim 19 is broader in scope than claim 1 because 19 claims computer instructions that “receive… live data… ; monitor the live data… ; and transmit an alert to the OLT.” Nowhere in the claim language are there limitations on where those computer instructions should be performed. Conversely, claim 1 includes the limitation “monitoring, by the at least one ONU.” Hence why a § 103 rejection was necessary to reject claim 1. Claim 19 though, does not require that the monitoring be performed within the ONU, and Khotimsky can therefore be used alone to reject said claim. It is for this reason that the § 102 rejection is proper and well-founded.
The § 103 rejections for Claims 1, 12, and 18 are proper
The § 103 rejections of the independent claims are proper and applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Applicant first argues that Huang does not teach “monitoring, by the at least one ONU, the live data traffic signal for one or more abnormalities.” Applicant then argues that the stated rationale for combining Huang and Khotimsky is legally insufficient. For reasons explained below, applicant’s arguments regarding these issues are unpersuasive, and the § 103 is held to be proper.
Huang teaches “monitoring, by the at least one ONU, the live data traffic signal for one or more abnormalities.” (claim 1). Applicant disagrees with this assertion and argues that it is “unambiguously clear” that Huang’s monitoring device (FIG. 1: “Switch signal for TDM sensing”) is used “specifically for monitoring purposes and is not the live data traffic signal received on the data channel established between the OLT and ONU.” (3.19.26 Remarks p. 11, ¶ 2). Applicant argues that Huang in not monitoring because it “reflects the dedicated probe signal back to a coherent receiver at the OLT, where the phase measurement is performed centrally.” (Id. at p. 11, ¶ 1). In other words, applicant appears to argue that by merely taking measurements at the ONU, Huang is not “monitoring” as claimed. The examiner disagrees with this assertion and resubmits that by taking measurements with a device that is placed inside of the ONU, (FIG. 1: “Switch signal for TDM sensing”), Huang is in fact “monitoring, by the at least one ONU.” (claim 1). It is also important to note that the measurements being taken are of “the live data traffic signal.” (claim 1). In FIG. 1 Huang illustrates a single line moving from the OLT to each ONU and that line passes through the “switch signal for TDM sensing.” Accordingly, it is unambiguously clear from FIG. 1 that Huang teaches a sensor that monitors “the live traffic signal” and not another data type. And applicant has not presented any teaching within the spec that goes against what is illustrated in FIG. 1. Thus, Huang teaches “monitoring, by the at least one ONU, the live data traffic signal for one or more abnormalities,” and the § 103 rejection is proper.
The stated rationale for combining Huang and Khotimsky is legally sufficient. MPEP 2143 states that an examiner must provide “[a] clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious.” Applicant argues that “[the] rationale is conclusory and repeated verbatim without reference to specific teachings in the cited references. (3.19.26 Remarks p. 12, ¶ 1). In the Office Action, it is explained that the suggestion/motivation to combine Huang and Khotimsky is that Huang teaches placing monitoring equipment inside of the ONU, and it would be obvious to place the monitor taught by Khotimsky inside of the ONU in light of Huang’s teaching. The suggestion/motivation is that moving Khotimsky’s monitor inside of the ONU would consolidate equipment. This rationale, as stated in the office action, is legally sufficient.
Applicant further argues that the rationale is improper because “the proposed combination of Khotimsky and Huang would actually increase the number of components in the network, as it would require adding monitoring functionality to each of the potentially dozens or hundreds of ONUs in a deployment-as compared to Khotimsky's single centralized monitoring system.” (3.19.26 Remarks p. 12, ¶ 2). While what applicant describes sounds much like the claimed invention, applicant has inaccurately described the monitoring system taught in Khotimsky. FIG. 4 of Khotimsky illustrates a single connection between an OLT and an ONU. An OLT will typically be connected to dozens of ONUs, and FIG. 4 is only showing a single one of these connections. Khotimsky’s specification’s explanation that the ODN 130 in FIG. 4 is “a splitter 150 and a plurality of distribution fibers 160-1” makes this even clearer. ([0018]). What this means is that Khotimsky is already teaching placing one monitor (410) in front of every single ONU. By combining Khotimsky with Huang, the number of components would be reduced from two to one by moving the monitor inside of the ONU. Thus, the proposed combination would work to reduce the number of total components and is proper.
The § 103 rejections for Claims 3-5, 13, and 14 are proper
The § 103 rejections of dependent Claims 3-5, 13, and 14 are proper and applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Applicant argues that, for claim 3, Khotimsky does not “disclose or even remotely suggest an ONU comprising a coherent receiver configured to receive the live data traffic signal, nor a data processing unit at the ONU that processes that signal to identify abnormalities.” (3.19.26 Remarks p. 14, ¶ 1).
The “coherent receiver configured to receive the live data traffic signal” portion of claim 3 will be first addressed. Khotimsky, by providing an ONU, is providing a “coherent receiver configured to receive the live data traffic signal.” An optical network unit, often called an ONU, is a common term used in the art to describe the customer-end of an internet connection. The ONU is most commonly the WIFI router/modem that is placed inside of the customer’s house. The purpose of the ONU, by its very nature, is to “receive the live data traffic signal.” Thus, Khotimsky teaches the claim “coherent receiver.”
Turning to “a data processing unit at the ONU that processes that signal to identify abnormalities,” applicant describes Khotimsky’s FIG. 2 as illustrating “exemplary components of a generic computing device 200 (comprising a processor 210, memory/storage 215, and a communication interface 225) that may be incorporated into OLT or ONU hardware.” (3.19.26 Remarks p. 13, ¶ 3) (emphasis added). This description is accurate, and of further relevance, Khotimskyi further states that the “some or all of the components of device 200 may be included in OLT CT 110 and ONU 140.” ([0027]). A “generic computing device” is all that is required to teach “a data processing unit at the ONU that processes that signal to identify abnormalities” as claimed. Therefore, Khotimsky teaches a coherent that receives live data traffic and a data processing unit, and the § 103 rejection of claim 4 is proper. Applicant further argues that Huang also fails to teach to teach these claim limitations, but such argument is moot as the rejection of these features is based on Khotimsky and not Huang.
Turning now to Claim 4, applicant argues that “Huang's passive ONU assemblies include no DSP or AGC unit of any kind.” (3.19.26 Remarks p. 14, ¶ 1). Applicant is correct, but such arguments are moot as the § 103 rejection of Claim 4 relies on Khotimsky to teach these limitations. (Office Actions p. 5, ¶ 2).
The § 103 rejection for Claim 6 is proper
Regarding Claim 6, applicant argues that Tabet fails to cure the deficiencies of Khotimsky and Huang. Because the rejections based on Khotimsky and Huang are proper, this argument is moot.
The § 103 rejections for Claims 8-9 and 15-16 are proper
Regarding Claim 8, applicant argues that Jaaskelainen fails to teach “distributed fiber optic sensing (DFOS) processing to identify whether a trunk fiber issue has occurred” as claimed and that Jaaskelainen is not analogous art.
First, Jaaskelainen is analogous art. MPEP 2141.01(a) states that prior art is analogous if “(1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor.” Applicant correctly argues that Jaaskelainen is under a different CPC classification than what most optical communication prior art is found under, but is incorrect in his assertion that Jaaskelainen is not reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. In claim 8, DFOS is being used as part of a monitoring system to determine if there is a physical breakage and where it might be located. In Jaaskelainen, DFOS is being used as part of a monitoring system to determine if there is a physical breakage and where it might be located. ([0008]). Jaaskelainen is therefore pertinent to the problem at hand and is therefore analogous art.
Applicant further argues that Jaaskelainen does not teach initiating distributed fiber optic sensing (DFOS) processing to identify whether a trunk fiber issue has occurred. But applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive as Jaaskelainen describes in paragraph 8 using DFOS to determine if there are physical breakages in the distribution system, and a trunk fiber issue is a physical breakage. Therefore, the use of Jaaskelainen in the § 103 rejections is proper.
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.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Khotimsky (US. Pat. Pub. 20210289274 A1)
Regarding Claim 19, Khotimsky teaches A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions, the instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (Khotimsky, FIG. 2; [0029]): establish at least one data channel between an optical line terminal (OLT) and at least one optical network unit (ONU) (FIG. 1, 110, 140), receive a live data traffic signal on at least one of the at least one data channel; (Id.) monitor the live data traffic signal for one or more abnormalities (FIG. 4, 410); and transmit an alert to the OLT when one or more abnormalities is detected. ([34]; FIG. 4, 420)
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 10-14, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khotimsky (US. Pat. Pub. 2021/0289274 A1) in light of Huang (US. Pat. Pub. 2022/0326052 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Khotimsky teaches A method for monitoring an optical distribution network (ODN) (FIG. 4, 410) in a passive optical network (PON) ([0051]), comprising: establishing at least one data channel between an optical line terminal (OLT) (FIG. 1, 110) and at least one optical network unit (ONU) (FIG. 1, 140); receiving, by the at least one ONU, a live data traffic signal on at least one of the at least one data channel (FIG. 1); and transmitting, by the at least one ONU, an alert to the OLT when one or more abnormalities is detected. (FIG. 4, 420)
Khotimsky does not teach monitoring, by the at least one ONU, the live data traffic signal for one or more abnormalities;
Huang teaches monitoring, by the at least one ONU, the live data traffic signal for one or more abnormalities; (FIG. 1, “Switch Signal for TDM Sensing”; [0031])
Khotimsky and Huang are from the same art with respect to optical communications, and are therefore analogous art.
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to move the monitoring system taught in Khotimsky (FIG. 4, 410) to reside within the ONU after considering Huang which teaches placing monitoring equipment within the ONU. The suggestion/motivation would have been to consolidate equipment such that less components need to be added to the communication system.
Regarding Claim 2, The combination of Khotimsky and Huang teach The method of claim 1, wherein the PON comprises a time division multiplexing (TDM) PON (Khotimsky, [0011]) or a time and wavelength division multiplexing (TWDM) PON (Id.).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to move the monitoring system taught in Khotimsky to reside within the ONU after considering Huang which teaches placing monitoring equipment within the ONU. The suggestion/motivation would have been to consolidate equipment such that less components need to be added to the communication system.
Regarding Claim 3, The combination of Khotimsky and Huang teach The method of claim 1, wherein each of the at least one ONU comprises a coherent receiver and a data processing unit (Khotimsky, FIG. 2; [0003]), and wherein monitoring the live data traffic signal for one or more abnormalities comprises: receiving the live data traffic signal by the coherent receiver, and processing the live data traffic signal by the data processing unit to identify the one or more abnormalities (Khotimsky, [0042]).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to move the monitoring system taught in Khotimsky to reside within the ONU after considering Huang which teaches placing monitoring equipment within the ONU. The suggestion/motivation would have been to consolidate equipment such that less components need to be added to the communication system.
Regarding Claim 4, The combination of Khotimsky and Huang teach The method of claim 3, wherein the data processing unit comprises at least one of a digital signal processor (DSP) or an automatic gain control (AGC) unit. (Khotimsky, FIG. 2)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to move the monitoring system taught in Khotimsky to reside within the ONU after considering Huang which teaches placing monitoring equipment within the ONU. The suggestion/motivation would have been to consolidate equipment such that less components need to be added to the communication system.
Regarding Claim 5, The combination of Khotimsky and Huang teach The method of claim 3, wherein processing the received live data traffic signal by the data processing unit to identify the one or more abnormalities further comprises: performing, by the data processing unit, a risk assessment analysis to determine a risk level associated with the identified one or more abnormalities; and transmitting, by the at least one ONU, the alert to the OLT based on the determined risk level. (Khotimsky, [0042]).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to move the monitoring system taught in Khotimsky to reside within the ONU after considering Huang which teaches placing monitoring equipment within the ONU. The suggestion/motivation would have been to consolidate equipment such that less components need to be added to the communication system.
Regarding Claim 7, The combination of Khotimsky and Huang teach The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more abnormalities comprise at least one of a state of polarization or a phase variation of the sensing signal (Huang, [0030]).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to move the monitoring system taught in Khotimsky to reside within the ONU after considering Huang which teaches placing monitoring equipment within the ONU. The suggestion/motivation would have been to consolidate equipment such that less components need to be added to the communication system.
Regarding Claim 10, The combination of Khotimsky and Huang teach The method of claim 1, further comprising: notifying one or more system management components regarding the alert, wherein the notification includes at least the location of the ONU and associated distribution fiber. (Khotimsky, FIG. 4; [0034])
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to move the monitoring system taught in Khotimsky to reside within the ONU after considering Huang which teaches placing monitoring equipment within the ONU. The suggestion/motivation would have been to consolidate equipment such that less components need to be added to the communication system.
Regarding Claim 11, The combination of Khotimsky and Huang teach The method of claim 10, further comprising: generating, by the one or more system management components, a notification to one or more field personnel devices regarding the alert. (Khotimsky, FIG. 4; [0034])
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to move the monitoring system taught in Khotimsky to reside within the ONU after considering Huang which teaches placing monitoring equipment within the ONU. The suggestion/motivation would have been to consolidate equipment such that less components need to be added to the communication system.
Regarding Claim 12, Khotimsky teaches A system for monitoring an optical distribution network (ODN) (FIG. 4) in a passive optical network (PON) ([0051]), comprising: an optical line terminal (OLT) (FIG. 1, 110); a plurality of optical network units (ONUs) (FIG. 1, 140), wherein the OLT is configured to establish at least one data channel with the plurality of ONUs (FIG. 1); wherein the OLT is configured to transmit a live data traffic signal on at least one of the at least one data channel to at least one of the plurality of ONUs; (Id.) and wherein each of the plurality of ONUs is configured to transmit an alert to the OLT when one or more abnormalities is detected. and wherein each of the plurality of ONUs is configured to transmit an alert to the OLT when one or more abnormalities is detected. (FIG. 4, 420).
Khotimsky does not teach wherein each of the plurality of ONUs is configured to monitor the live data traffic signal for one or more abnormalities;
Huang teaches wherein each of the plurality of ONUs is configured to monitor the live data traffic signal for one or more abnormalities (FIG. 1, “Switch Signal for TDM Sensing”; [0031]);
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to move the monitoring system taught in Khotimsky to reside within the ONU after considering Huang which teaches placing monitoring equipment within the ONU. The suggestion/motivation would have been to consolidate equipment such that less components need to be added to the communication system.
Regarding Claim 13, The combination of Khotimsky and Huang teach The system of claim 12, wherein each of the plurality of ONUs comprises a coherent receiver and a data processing unit (Khotimsky, FIG. 2; [0003]), and wherein each of the plurality of ONUs is further configured to: receive the live data traffic signal by the coherent receiver, and process the live data traffic signal by the data processing unit to identify the one or more abnormalities. (Khotimsky, [0042]).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to move the monitoring system taught in Khotimsky to reside within the ONU after considering Huang which teaches placing monitoring equipment within the ONU. The suggestion/motivation would have been to consolidate equipment such that less components need to be added to the communication system.
Regarding Claim 14, The combination of Khotimsky and Huang teach The system of claim 13, wherein each of the plurality of ONUs configured to process the received live data traffic signal by the data processing unit to identify the one or more abnormalities is further configured to: perform a risk assessment analysis to determine a risk level associated with the identified one or more abnormalities; and transmit the alert to the OLT based on the determined risk level. (Khotimsky, [0042]).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to move the monitoring system taught in Khotimsky to reside within the ONU after considering Huang which teaches placing monitoring equipment within the ONU. The suggestion/motivation would have been to consolidate equipment such that less components need to be added to the communication system.
Regarding Claim 17, The combination of Khotimsky and Huang teach The system of claim 12, further comprising: one or more system management components coupled to the OLT via one or more backhaul networks, wherein the OLT is configured to notify the one or more system management components regarding the alert, wherein the notification includes at least the location of the ONU and associated distribution fiber. (Khotimsky, FIG. 4; [0034]) Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to move the monitoring system taught in Khotimsky to reside within the ONU after considering Huang which teaches placing monitoring equipment within the ONU. The suggestion/motivation would have been to consolidate equipment such that less components need to be added to the communication system.
Regarding Claim 18, The combination of Khotimsky and Huang teach The system of claim 17, wherein the one or more system management components are configured to generate a notification to one or more field personnel devices regarding the alert. (Khotimsky, FIG. 4; [0034])
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to move the monitoring system taught in Khotimsky to reside within the ONU after considering Huang which teaches placing monitoring equipment within the ONU. The suggestion/motivation would have been to consolidate equipment such that less components need to be added to the communication system.
Regarding Claim 20, The combination of Khotimsky and Huang teach The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 19, wherein the one or more abnormalities comprise at least one of a state of polarization or a phase variation of a sensing signal. (Huang, [0030]).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to move the monitoring system taught in Khotimsky to reside within the ONU after considering Huang which teaches placing monitoring equipment within the ONU. The suggestion/motivation would have been to consolidate equipment such that less components need to be added to the communication system.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khotimsky (US. Pat. Pub. 2021/0289274 A1) in light of Huang (US. Pat. Pub. 2022/0326052 A1) in further view of Tabet (US. Pat. Pub. 2022/0345213 A1)
Regarding Claim 6, The combination of Khotimsky and Huang teach The method of claim 5,
The combination of Khotimsky and Huang do not teach wherein the risk assessment analysis may use or incorporate one or more artificial intelligence (AI) and/or machine learning (ML) algorithms.
Tabet teaches wherein the risk assessment analysis may use or incorporate one or more artificial intelligence (AI) and/or machine learning (ML) algorithms. ([0048]).
Khotimsky and Tabet are from the same art with respect to optical communications, and are therefore analogous art.
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the machine learning techniques taught in Tabet with the monitoring system taught in Khotimsky. The suggestion/motivation would have been to integrate the advantages of machine learning to the monitoring system taught in Khotimsky.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khotimsky (US. Pat. Pub. 2021/0289274 A1) in light of Huang (US. Pat. Pub. 2022/0326052 A1) and in further view of Jaaskelainen (US. Pat. Pub. 2023/0417114 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, The combination of Khotimsky and Huang teach The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, by the OLT, that alerts have been received from multiple ONUs, (Khotimsky, FIG. 4; [0034]) and
The combination of Khotimsky and Huang does not teach initiating distributed fiber optic sensing (DFOS) processing to identify whether a trunk fiber issues has occurred.
Jaaskelainen teaches initiating distributed fiber optic sensing (DFOS) processing to identify whether a trunk fiber issues has occurred. ([0006]).
Khotimsky and Jaaskelainen are from the same art with respect to optical communications, and are therefore analogous art.
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the distributed fiber optic sensing system taught in Jaaskelainen with the monitoring system taught in Khotimsky. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve the sensory capabilities of the monitoring system in Khotimsky with the advantages provided by distributed fiber optic sensing.
Regarding Claim 9, The combination of Khotimsky, Huang, and Jaaskelainen teach The method of claim 8, further comprising: determining whether the alerts from the multiple ONUs are received substantially concurrently or within a predetermined time period; and initiating DFOS processing (Jaaskelainen, [0006]) when the alerts from the multiple ONUs are received substantially concurrently or within the predetermined time period. (Khotimsky, FIG. 4; [0034])
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the distributed fiber optic sensing system taught in Jaaskelainen with the monitoring system taught in Khotimsky. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve the sensory capabilities of the monitoring system in Khotimsky with the advantages provided by distributed fiber optic sensing.
Regarding Claim 15, The combination of Khotimsky, Jaaskelainen and Huang teach The system of claim 12, wherein the OLT is further configured to determine that alerts have been received from multiple of the plurality of ONUs, (Khotimsky, FIG. 4; [0034]) and wherein the OLT is configured to initiate distributed fiber optic sensing (DFOS) processing to identify whether a trunk fiber issues has occurred.
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the distributed fiber optic sensing system taught in Jaaskelainen with the monitoring system taught in Khotimsky. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve the sensory capabilities of the monitoring system in Khotimsky with the advantages provided by distributed fiber optic sensing.
Regarding Claim 16, The combination of Khotimsky, Jaaskelainen, and Huang teach The system of claim 15, wherein the OLT is further configured to determine whether alerts from the multiple ONUs are received substantially concurrently or within a predetermined time period, and wherein the OLT is configured to initiate DFOS (Jaaskelainen, [0006]) when the alerts from the multiple ONUs are received substantially concurrently or within the predetermined time period. (Khotimsky, FIG. 4; [0034])
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the distributed fiber optic sensing system taught in Jaaskelainen with the monitoring system taught in Khotimsky. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve the sensory capabilities of the monitoring system in Khotimsky with the advantages provided by distributed fiber optic sensing.
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 PAUL M BROCK whose telephone number is (571)272-7257. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30pm.
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.
/PAUL MORGAN BROCK/Examiner, Art Unit 2634 April 28, 2026
/KENNETH N VANDERPUYE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights