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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 12/02/2025 has been
considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references for the independent claims as in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “sending a first plurality of test parameters by a first end unit of a testing tool to a second end unit of the testing tool” in Lines 2-3. Further in the claim, the claim recites “the first plurality of test parameters comprises a plurality of wavelengths of a first plurality of test signals; sending the first plurality of test signals by the first end unit to the second end unit through the plurality of communication lanes” in Lines 8-11. Since the test parameters comprises a plurality of wavelengths of a first plurality of test signals, it is unclear from the claim language what the distinction is between sending a first plurality of test parameters and sending the first plurality of test signals. Figure 6, element 404 discloses sending the first test parameters and Figure 4, element 406 sending the second test signals. Paragraphs 0030 and 0031 discusses these two steps but is unclear from both the drawings and the cited portions of the specification what the distinction between these two steps is. Therefore, for the sake of prosecution, the examiner interprets “sending a plurality of first test parameters” and a sending the first plurality of test signals” as a same, single step.
Claim 17 recites the limitations “receiving test parameters from a first end unit of a testing tool by a second end unit of the testing tool through at least one of a plurality of communication lanes” in Lines 3-4 and further states “the test parameters comprise an order of test signals; receiving the test signals from the first end unit by the second end unit through the plurality of communication lanes” in Lines 9-11. Since the test parameters comprise an order of test signals, it is unclear from the claim language what the what the distinction is between receiving test parameters and receiving the test signals. Therefore, for the sake of prosecution, the examiner interprets “receiving test parameters from a first end unit of a testing tool by a second end unit of the testing tool through at least one of a plurality of communication lanes” and “receiving the test signals from the first end unit by the second end unit through the plurality of communication lanes” as a same single step.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lönne (US 11860058).
Consider Claim 1, Lönne discloses a method of testing fiber optic communication lanes, the method comprising: sending a first plurality of test parameters (Column 4, Lines 56-60, where wavelengths are sent from element 104 to element 102 for DUT measurement) by a first end unit of a testing tool (Figure 1, tester element 104) to a second end unit of the testing tool (Figure 1, receiver element 102) through at least one communication lane of a plurality of communication lanes (Figure 3, element 104 has multiple fibers for communication) that extend from a first cable endpoint (figure 1, element 112) to a second cable endpoint (Figure 1, element 110) through at least a first fiber optic cable (Figure 3, element 302 is connected to multiple fibers and Column 6, Lines 22-29, where element 302 is connected to element 112 which is connected to connecter element 110 of element 102), wherein: the first cable endpoint (Figure 1, element 112) is connected to the first end unit (Figure 1, element 104) and the second cable endpoint (Figure 1, element 110) is connected to the second end unit (Figure 1, element 102); and the first plurality of test parameters comprises a plurality of wavelengths of a first plurality of test signals (Column 4, Lines 56-60, where wavelengths are sent from element 104 to element 102 for DUT measurement); sending the first plurality of test signals by the first end unit to the second end unit through the plurality of communication lanes (Column 4, Lines 56-60, where wavelengths are sent from element 104 to element 102 for DUT measurement); and receiving test results by the first end unit from the second end unit through the at least one communication lane of the plurality of communication lanes (Column 4, Lines 60-62, where measurement results are exchanged between elements 102 and 104).
Consider Claim 2, Lönne discloses the method of claim 1, wherein each of the first plurality of test signals has a different wavelength of the plurality of wavelengths (Column 4, Lines 56-60, where multiple wavelengths are sent from element 104 to element 102 for DUT measurement).
Consider Claim 3, Lönne discloses the method of claim 2, wherein each of the first plurality of test signals is sent on a different one of the plurality of communication lanes (Column 10, Lines 40-42, where different wavelengths are associated with different fibers).
Consider Claim 7, Lönne discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising analyzing the first plurality of test signals to determine if the first fiber optic cable has a correct polarity to connect each of the plurality of communication lanes (Column 6, Lines 54-59, where polarity of DUT is measured based on signal sent by element 104 and signal received by element 102) as intended in a data center.
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.
Claim 4-6 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lönne view of Patterson (US 12244337).
Consider Claim 4, Lönne does not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Patterson discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving a second plurality of test signals by the first end unit from the second end unit through the plurality of communication lanes (Column 12, Lines 29-32, where first test set receives testing information from second test set).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Patterson into Lönne to have more accurate fiber characterization.
Consider Claim 5, Lönne does not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Patterson discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the first plurality of test parameters comprises a plurality of wavelengths of the second plurality of test signals (Column 13, Lines 17-20 where test set element 518 is tested on channels with range of wavelengths).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Patterson into Lönne to have more accurate fiber characterization.
Consider Claim 6, Lönne does not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Patterson discloses the method of claim 4, further comprising receiving a second plurality of test parameters by the first end unit from the second end unit (Column 12, Lines 29-32, where first test set receives testing information from second test set).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Patterson into Lönne to have more accurate fiber characterization.
Consider Claim 17, Lönne discloses a method of testing fiber optic communication lanes, the method comprising: receiving test parameters (Column 4, Lines 56-60, where wavelengths are sent from element 104 to element 102 for DUT measurement) from a first end unit of a testing tool (Figure 1, element 104) by a second end unit (Figure 1, element 102) of the testing tool through at least one of a plurality of communication lanes (Figure 3, element 104 has multiple fibers for communication) that extend from a first cable endpoint (figure 1, element 112) to a second cable endpoint (Figure 1, element 110) through at least a first fiber optic cable (Figure 3, element 302 is connected to multiple fibers and Column 6, Lines 22-29, where element 302 is connected to element 112 which is connected to connecter element 110 of element 102), wherein: the first cable endpoint (Figure 1, element 112) is connected to the first end unit (Figure 1, element 104) and the second cable endpoint (Figure 1, element 110) is connected to the second end unit (Figure 1, element 102);; receiving the test signals from the first end unit by the second end unit through the plurality of communication lanes (Column 4, Lines 56-60, where wavelengths are sent from element 104 to element 102 for DUT measurement); and analyzing the test signals based on the test parameters to determine if the first fiber optic cable has a correct polarity to connect each of the plurality of communication lanes (Column 6, Lines 54-59, where polarity of DUT is measured based on signal sent by element 104 and signal received by element 102) as intended in a data center but does not disclose the test parameters comprise an order of test signals.
However, Patterson discloses the test parameters comprise an order of test signals (Column 11, Lines 43-46, where tests are done in a sequential order).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Patterson into Lönne to have more accurate fiber characterization.
Consider Claim 18, Lönne discloses the method of claim 17, wherein each of the test signals is correlated with one of the plurality of communication lanes in the test parameters. (Column 10, Lines 40-42, where different wavelengths are associated with different fibers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Patterson into Lönne to have more accurate fiber characterization.
Consider Claim 19, Lönne discloses the method of claim 17, further comprising displaying a result of the analysis of the test signals on a user interface of the second end unit (Figure 11C and Column 10, Lines 21-26, where display shows results of test at different wavelengths).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Patterson into Lönne to have more accurate fiber characterization.
Consider Claim 20, Lönne does not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Patterson discloses the method of claim 17, further comprising sending subsequent test parameters of a subsequent test by the second end unit to the first end unit. (Column 12, Lines 29-32, where first test set receives testing information from second test set).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Patterson into Lönne to have more accurate fiber characterization.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lönne view of Cummings (US 10684422) and further in view of Buff (US 20130308916).
Consider Claim 8, Lönne does not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Cummings discloses the method of claim 7, further comprising: determining that the first fiber optic cable has an incorrect polarity based on the analyzing of the first plurality of test signals (Column 12, Lines 35-39, where fiber cables does not pass polarity test) but does not disclose suggesting, by the tool, a correct polarity for the first fiber optic cable.
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 incorporate the teachings of Cummings into Lönne to ensure that signals/data are being transmitted to correct destination to ensure proper functioning of test system.
However, Buff discloses suggesting, by the testing tool, a correct polarity for the first fiber optic cable (Paragraph 0065, where polarity adjustment is made by fiber optic module).
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 incorporate the teachings of Buff into Lönne and Cummings to correct polarity while maintaining network speed and efficiency levels.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over view of Schell and further in view of Cummings, Buff, and Schell (US 10481041).
Consider Claim 9, Lönne and Buff do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Cummings discloses the method of claim 8, wherein determining that the first fiber optic cable has an incorrect polarity (Column 12, Lines 35-39, where fiber cables does not pass polarity test) but does not disclose comparing intended ending positions of each communication lane of the plurality of communication lanes with respect to the second end unit with actual ending positions of each of the plurality of communication lanes included in the test results.
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 incorporate the teachings of Cummings into Lönne to ensure that signals/data are being transmitted to correct destination to ensure proper functioning of test system.
However, Schell discloses comparing intended ending positions of each communication lane of the plurality of communication lanes with respect to the second end unit with actual ending positions of each of the plurality of communication lanes included in the test results (Figure 4, where detector element 118 of unit element 100 can output data based on where signals from fibers 106 hit detector for polarity determination).
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 incorporate the teachings of Schell into Lönne, Cummings, and Buff to improve network reliability by ensuring signals get to correct destinations.
Claim 11 is rejected in view of 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over view of Lönne and further in view of “Schell 2” (US 8692984).
Consider Claim 11, Lönne does not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, “Schell 2” discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising monitoring each of the plurality of communication lanes by the second end unit during the sending of the first plurality of test signals (Column 5, Lines 58-62, where photodiodes in second unit can help monitor polarity in fibers).
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 incorporate the teachings of “Schell 2” into Lönne to ensure that signals/data are being transmitted to correct destination to ensure proper functioning of test system.
Claim 12 is rejected in view of 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over view of Lönne and further in view of Kai (US 20140189129).
Consider Claim 12, Lönne discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: connecting the first end unit to the first fiber optic cable (Figure 1, element 102 communicates with channel 108; Figure 3, where element 300 comprises multiple fiber paths connected to element 302 and Column 6, Lines 17-22, where element 302 is a part of many devices that implement channel 108 between elements 102 and 104) but does not disclose disconnecting the first fiber optic cable from a server.
However, Kai discloses disconnecting the first fiber optic cable from a server (Paragraph 0136, where cable can be disconnected from server).
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 incorporate the teachings of Kai into Lönne for remote centralize control of fiber test network.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over view of Lönne and further in view of Dietz Jr. (US 5394503).
Consider Claim 13, Lönne discloses the method of claim 1, wherein: the first fiber optic cable includes the first cable endpoint ((Figure 3, element 302 is connected to multiple fibers and Column 6, Lines 22-29, where element 302 is connected to element 112 which is connected to element 104), wherein: the first cable endpoint (Figure 1, element 112); a second fiber optic cable includes the second cable endpoint (Figure 2, element 200 is connected to multiple fibers and Column 6, Lines 22-29, where element 200 is connected to element 110 which is connected element 102 )but does not disclose the first fiber optic cable and the second fiber optic cable are connected to a patch panel.
However, Dietz Jr. discloses disclose the first fiber optic cable and the second fiber optic cable are connected to a patch panel (Column 5, Lines 38-41, where cables are connected to patch panel).
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 incorporate the teachings of Dietz Jr. into Lönne for improved cable organization.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is 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.
Claims 14-16 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Lönne discloses A fiber optic communication lanes testing system comprising: a first end unit (Figure 1, element 104) configured to connect to a first cable endpoint (Figure 1, element 110) of a first fiber optic cable (Figure 3, element 302 is connected to multiple fibers and Column 6, Lines 22-29, where element 302 is connected to element 112 which is connected to connecter element 110 of element 102) and configured to send metadata communication about a test and to send optical test signals through at least some of a plurality of communication lanes in the first fiber optic cable (Figure 11J and Column 11, Lines 1-3, where element 102 displays metadata about cable. (While reference doesn’t explicitly disclose first unit (element 104) sending meta data, it would be obvious that receiver element 102 had to receive a signal sent by element 102 to display metadata)) ;a second end unit (Figure 1, element 102) configured to connect to a second cable endpoint (Figure 1, element 110) that is communicatively connected to the first cable endpoint (Column 6, Lines 22-29, where elements 102 and 104 are connected via connector elements 110 and 112) and configured to receive the metadata communication about the test and the optical test signals from at least some of the plurality of communication lanes in the first fiber optic cable (Figure 11J and Column 11, Lines 1-3, where element 102 displays metadata about cable).
However, Lönne discloses and a through search in the art fail to disclose the following:
Claim 14: a path database communicatively connected to at least one of the first end unit and the second end unit, the path database comprising data representing intended communication lanes through a data center to connect a first server to a second server, wherein the intended communication lanes extend through at least the first fiber optic cable.
Conclusion
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