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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 20 recites the limitation “a keyhole markup language zipped (KMZ) file” which appears to be written by accident instead of “a keyhole markup language zipped (KMZ) file.” i.e. with a period so as to end the claim. Appropriate correction is required for clarification.
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 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.
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 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US Pub 20230006738) in view of Ashwood-Smith (US Pub 20170063658).
Regarding Claim 1. Chen discloses a system comprising:
a signal generator configured to transmit a signal into a fiber optic network, the fiber optic network comprising fiber optic devices distributed within a geographic region (Fig 1, Fig 6, where a system (e.g. controller, OTDR) comprises a signal generator (e.g. at OTDR) (as shown in Fig 4) configured to transmit a signal into a fiber optic network (as also shown in Fig 2A), the fiber optic network (as also shown in Fig 2A) comprises fiber optic devices (e.g. OTDRs) distributed within a geographic region);
a receiver configured to receive a set of signals from the fiber optic network comprising at least first and second ones of the set of signals for respective first and second network segments (Fig 1, Fig 6, where the system (e.g. controller, OTDR) comprises a receiver (e.g. at OTDR) (as shown in Fig 4) configured to receive a set of signals (e.g. which represent major events D2 and D5 from fiber 1 and major events E2 and E5 from fiber 2) (as shown in Fig 11) from the fiber optic network (as also shown in Fig 2A) and comprises a first set of signals (e.g. which represent major events D2 and D5) and second set of signals (e.g. which represent major events E2 and E5) for a respective first network segment (e.g. fiber 1) and second network segment (e.g. fiber 2));
a comparator coupled to the receiver, the comparator configured to compare the first and second ones of the set of signals to determine if a comparison exceeds a similarity threshold (Fig 1, Fig 6, where the system (e.g. controller, OTDR) comprises a comparator (e.g. at controller) being coupled to the receiver (e.g. at OTDR) (as shown in Fig 4), the comparator (e.g. at controller) being configured to compare the first set of signals (e.g. which represent major events D2 and D5) and second set of signals (e.g. which represent major events E2 and E5) to determine if a comparison (e.g. a major-event similarity) exceeds a similarity threshold (paras [125][128])); and
a proximity device configured to, in response to the first and second ones of the set of signals exceeding the similarity threshold, perform an operation (Fig 1, Fig 6, where the system (e.g. controller, OTDR) comprises a proximity device (e.g. at controller) configured to, in response to the first set of signals (e.g. which represent major events D2 and D5) and second set of signals (e.g. which represent major events E2 and E5) exceeding the similarity threshold, perform an operation (paras [125][128])).
Chen fails to explicitly disclose the operation comprises determining a proximity measure between the first network segment and the second network segment, and wherein upon determining the proximity measure is less than a proximity threshold, classifying the first network segment and the second network segment as a pair of non-disjoint network segments.
However, Ashwood-Smith discloses
an operation comprises determining a proximity measure between a first network segment and a second network segment (Fig 3, Fig 4, paras [27][31] where a network (300) with a proximity device (e.g. a computer) (as shown in Fig 7) performs an operation which comprises determining a proximity measure (e.g. for Risks A and B) (as shown in Fig 4) between a first network segment (e.g. a first network element 308) and a second network segment (e.g. a second network element 309) (as shown in Fig 3)), and
wherein upon determining the proximity measure is less than a proximity threshold, classifying the first network segment and the second network segment as a pair of non-disjoint network segments (Fig 3, Fig 4, paras [27][31] where upon determining that the proximity measure (e.g. for Risks A and B) (as shown in Fig 4) is less than a proximity threshold (e.g. a threshold distance 450), the network (300) with the proximity device (e.g. a computer) (as shown in Fig 7) classifies the first network segment (e.g. a first network element 308) and the second network segment (e.g. a second network element 309) (as shown in Fig 3) as a pair of non-disjoint network segments (i.e. not considered disjoint network elements)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the proximity device (e.g. at controller) as described in Chen, with the teachings of the proximity device (e.g. a computer) as described in Ashwood-Smith. The motivation being is that as shown a proximity device (e.g. a computer) can classify a first network segment (e.g. a first network element 308) and second network segment (e.g. a second network element 309) as a pair of non-disjoint network segments after performing an operation which determines a proximity measure (e.g. for Risks A and B) between the first network segment (e.g. a first network element 308) and second network segment (e.g. a second network element 309) and after determining that the proximity measure (e.g. for Risks A and B) is less than a proximity threshold (e.g. a threshold distance 450) and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the proximity device (e.g. at controller) as described in Chen and have the proximity device (e.g. at controller) capable of classifying the first network segment (e.g. fiber 1) and second network segment (e.g. fiber 2) as a pair of non-disjoint network segments after performing an operation which determines a proximity measure (e.g. for Risks A and B) between the first network segment (e.g. fiber 1) and second network segment (e.g. fiber 2) and after determining that the proximity measure (e.g. for Risks A and B) is less than a proximity threshold (e.g. a threshold distance 450) i.e. as an alternative so as to have the proximity device (e.g. at controller) with a known technique of a known proximity device (e.g. a computer) for the purpose of optimally identifying a common risk being shared by the first network segment (e.g. fiber 1) and second network segment (e.g. fiber 2) by using a known proximity measure (e.g. for Risks A and B) and which technique enables the system to optimally avoid common failures and perform enhanced path computations and which modification is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. optical networks, proximity devices) and which modification is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known proximity device (e.g. a computer) into another similar proximity device (e.g. at controller), namely, for its improvement and for optimization and which modification yields predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2. Chen as modified by Ashwood-Smith also discloses the system, further comprising: a network device configured to determine a first fiber path and a second fiber path, each comprising a plurality of network segments of the fiber-optic network, between a source and a destination such that if the first fiber path includes the first network segment the second fiber path does not include the second network segment (Ashwood-Smith Fig 3, Fig 4, paras [27][31] where the network (300) with the proximity device (e.g. a computer) (as shown in Fig 7) comprises a network device (e.g. for path computation) configured to determine a first fiber path (e.g. 302) and a second fiber path (e.g. 303), each comprising a plurality of network segments (e.g. node or link) of an fiber-optic network, between a source node (304) and a destination node (306) such that if the first fiber path (e.g. 302) includes the first network segment (e.g. a first network element 308) the second fiber path (e.g. 303) does not include the second network segment (e.g. a second network element 309)).
Claims 6-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US Pub 20230006738) in view of Ashwood-Smith (US Pub 20170063658) in further view of Lau et al (US Pub 20240361176).
Regarding Claim 6. Chen as modified by Ashwood-Smith fails to explicitly disclose the system, wherein the fiber optic devices are a set of fiber-optic acoustic sensing devices
However, Lau discloses
a fiber optic device being a fiber-optic acoustic sensing device (Fig 1, Fig 3, where a fiber optic device (e.g. ϕ-OTDR) is a fiber-optic acoustic sensing device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fiber optic devices (e.g. OTDRs) as described in Chen as modified by Ashwood-Smith, with the teachings of the fiber optic device (e.g. ϕ-OTDR) as described in Lau. The motivation being is that as shown a fiber optic device (e.g. ϕ-OTDR) can be a fiber-optic acoustic sensing device and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the fiber optic devices (e.g. OTDRs) as described in Chen as modified by Ashwood-Smith and have the fiber optic devices (e.g. OTDRs) be fiber-optic acoustic sensing devices i.e. as an alternative so as to have the fiber optic devices (e.g. OTDRs) with a known technique of a known fiber optic device (e.g. ϕ-OTDR) for the purpose of optimally sensing changes in the first network segment (e.g. fiber 1) and the second network segment (e.g. fiber 2) caused by acoustic events and which technique optimally incorporates the benefits of using acoustic sensing into the system which includes for example high sensitivity and low cost and which modification is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. OTDRs) and which modification is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known fiber optic device (e.g. ϕ-OTDR) into other similar fiber optic devices (e.g. OTDRs), namely, for their improvement and for optimization and which modification yields predictable results.
Regarding Claim 7. Chen as modified by Ashwood-Smith also discloses the system, wherein the set of signals are a set of time-domain (TD) signatures received from a plurality of fiber optic devices distributed within a geographic area (Chen Fig 1, Fig 6, where the set of signals (e.g. which represent major events D2 and D5 from fiber 1 and major events E2 and E5 from fiber 2) (as shown in Fig 11) are a set of time-domain (TD) signatures/traces received from a plurality of fiber optic devices (e.g. OTDRs) which are distributed within a geographic area).
Chen as modified by Ashwood-Smith fails to explicitly disclose the fiber optic devices being fiber-optic acoustic sensing devices.
However, Lau discloses
a fiber optic device being a fiber-optic acoustic sensing device (Fig 1, Fig 3, where a fiber optic device (e.g. ϕ-OTDR) is a fiber-optic acoustic sensing device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fiber optic devices (e.g. OTDRs) as described in Chen as modified by Ashwood-Smith, with the teachings of the fiber optic device (e.g. ϕ-OTDR) as described in Lau. The motivation being is that as shown a fiber optic device (e.g. ϕ-OTDR) can be a fiber-optic acoustic sensing device and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the fiber optic devices (e.g. OTDRs) as described in Chen as modified by Ashwood-Smith and have the fiber optic devices (e.g. OTDRs) be fiber-optic acoustic sensing devices i.e. as an alternative so as to have the fiber optic devices (e.g. OTDRs) with a known technique of a known fiber optic device (e.g. ϕ-OTDR) for the purpose of optimally sensing changes in the first network segment (e.g. fiber 1) and the second network segment (e.g. fiber 2) caused by acoustic events and which technique optimally incorporates the benefits of using acoustic sensing into the system which includes for example high sensitivity and low cost and which modification is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. OTDRs) and which modification is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known fiber optic device (e.g. ϕ-OTDR) into other similar fiber optic devices (e.g. OTDRs), namely, for their improvement and for optimization and which modification yields predictable results.
Regarding Claim 9. Chen as modified by Ashwood-Smith also discloses the system, wherein, to receive the set of signals, the receiver is further configured to: configure each of the fiber optic devices to: transmit a reference optical signal over a respective fiber-optic network segment within a geographic area; determine a respective signal based on reflected and back-scattered optical signals; and transmit the set of signals to a control unit of the receiver (Chen Fig 1, Fig 6, where to receive the set of signals (e.g. which represent major events D2 and D5 from fiber 1 and major events E2 and E5 from fiber 2) (as shown in Fig 11), the receiver (e.g. at OTDR) (as shown in Fig 4) is further configured to: configure each of the fiber optic devices (e.g. OTDRs) to transmit a reference optical signal over a respective fiber-optic network segment (e.g. fiber 1, fiber 2) within a geographic area, determine a respective signal based on reflected and back-scattered optical signals, and transmit the set of signals (e.g. which represent major events D2 and D5 from fiber 1 and major events E2 and E5 from fiber 2) (as shown in Fig 11) to a control unit of the receiver (e.g. at OTDR) (as shown in Fig 4)).
Chen as modified by Ashwood-Smith fails to explicitly disclose the control unit being a distributed acoustic sensing control unit.
However, Lau discloses
a control unit being a distributed acoustic sensing control unit (Fig 1, Fig 3, where a control unit of a receiver (e.g. at ϕ-OTDR) is a distributed acoustic sensing control unit).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the receiver (e.g. at OTDR) as described in Chen as modified by Ashwood-Smith, with the teachings of the receiver (e.g. at ϕ-OTDR) as described in Lau. The motivation being is that as shown a receiver (e.g. at ϕ-OTDR) can have a control unit that is a distributed acoustic sensing control unit and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the receiver (e.g. at OTDR) as described in Chen as modified by Ashwood-Smith and have the receiver (e.g. at OTDR) with a control unit that is a distributed acoustic sensing control unit i.e. as an alternative so as to have the receiver (e.g. at OTDR) with a known technique of a known receiver (e.g. at ϕ-OTDR) for the purpose of optimally sensing changes in the first network segment (e.g. fiber 1) and the second network segment (e.g. fiber 2) caused by acoustic events and which technique optimally incorporates the benefits of using acoustic sensing into the system which includes for example high sensitivity and low cost and which modification is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. OTDRs) and which modification is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known receiver (e.g. at ϕ-OTDR) into another similar receiver (e.g. at OTDR), namely, for its improvement and for optimization and which modification yields predictable results.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US Pub 20230006738) in view of Ashwood-Smith (US Pub 20170063658) in further view of Campbell et al (US Pat 11101884).
Regarding Claim 8. Chen as modified by Ashwood-Smith also discloses the system, wherein the proximity measure between the first network segment and the second network segment is determined based on coordinates (Ashwood-Smith Fig 3, Fig 4, paras [27][31] where the proximity measure (e.g. for Risks A and B) (as shown in Fig 4) between the first network segment (e.g. a first network element 308) and the second network segment (e.g. a second network element 309) (as shown in Fig 3) is determined based on physical location coordinates (para [29])).
Chen as modified by Ashwood-Smith fails to explicitly disclose the coordinates comprise a keyhole markup language zipped (KMZ) file.
However, Campbell discloses
coordinates comprise a keyhole markup language zipped (KMZ) file (Fig 3, col 8 lines 35-54 where geographical coordinates are recorded in a keyhole markup language zipped (KMZ) file).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the physical location coordinates as described in Chen as modified by Ashwood-Smith, with the teachings of the geographical coordinates as described in Campbell. The motivation being is that as shown geographical coordinates can be recorded in a keyhole markup language zipped (KMZ) file and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the physical location coordinates as described in Chen as modified by Ashwood-Smith and have the physical location coordinates be recorded in a keyhole markup language zipped (KMZ) file i.e. as an alternative so as to have the physical location coordinates with a known concept of known geographical coordinates for the purpose of optimally recording the physical location coordinates in a known keyhole markup language zipped (KMZ) file for later use and which modification optimally incorporates the benefits of using KMZ files into the system which includes for example high compression and compatibility for improved processing and which modification is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. coordinates) and which modification is a simple implementation of a known concept of known geographical coordinates into other similar physical location coordinates, namely, for their improvement and for optimization and which modification yields predictable results.
Regarding Claim 10. Claim 10 is similar to claim 1, therefore, claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 11. Claim 11 is similar to claim 2, therefore, claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 15. Claim 15 is similar to claim 8, therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 8.
Regarding Claim 16. Claim 16 is similar to claim 1, therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 17. Claim 17 is similar to claim 2, therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 20. Claim 20 is similar to claim 8, therefore, claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 12-14 and 18-19 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The additional prior art considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure and not relied upon is the following:
Jiang et al (US Pub 20240313858) and more specifically Fig 5.
Chen et al (US Pub 20160241333) and more specifically Fig 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DIBSON J SANCHEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0868. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 10:00-6:00.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, Kenneth Vanderpuye can be reached on 5712723078. 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.
/DIBSON J SANCHEZ/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634