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 .
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.
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.
Claims 30-32 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eslambolchi et al. (“Eslambolchi”) (US Patent No. 7469101).
Regarding claim 30, Eslambolchi discloses a method for determining information associated with an optical component system in a network, wherein the optical component system comprises a first optical path for transmission of a first optical signal, wherein the first optical path operates in an optical bandwidth that is different from a traffic optical bandwidth of a traffic optical path (fig. 2 and col. 4 lines 3-19 in light of fig. 1 and col. 3 lines 33-42, where the first optical path is the >1600nm path), the method comprising: detecting at least one mechanically introduced optical loss in the transmitted first optical signal, and based on the detected at least one mechanically introduced optical loss, determining information associated with the optical component system (figs. 1 and 2 and col. 3 lines 46-55, where the information associated with the component is the location of the OTDR distance response at that wavelength and secondarily, who has fiber ownership/control at that location).
Regarding claim 31, Eslambolchi discloses the method according to claim 30, wherein the information comprises location information, and wherein the step of determining location information associated with the optical component system comprises: determining a distance at which the at least one mechanically introduced optical loss in the first optical path occurred, and based on the determined distance, determining location information associated with the optical component system (col. 3 lines 46-55, the OTDR trace is determining distance of the target wavelength-based indicator, which is realized as location information based on the different fiber ownerships).
Regarding claim 32, Eslambolchi discloses the method according to claim 31, wherein the method further comprises: based on the determined distance, determining identification information associated with the optical component system, wherein the identification information is also associated with the determined distance (col. 3 lines 46-55, the OTDR trace is determining distance of the target wavelength-based indicator, which is realized as ownership identification information based on the different fiber ownerships).
Regarding claim 39, Eslambolchi discloses the method according to claim 30, wherein the step of detecting at least one mechanically introduced optical loss in the transmitted first optical signal comprises detecting at least one optical loss in a reflection of the first optical signal (col. 4 lines 3-26).
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.
Claims 33-35 and 40-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eslambolchi (US Patent No. 7469101).
Regarding claim 33, Eslambolchi discloses the method according to claim 30, wherein the information comprises identification information (col. 3 lines 46-55, the OTDR trace is determining distance of the target wavelength-based indicator, which is realized as ownership identification information based on the different fiber ownerships), but does not specifically disclose that the step of detecting at least one mechanically introduced optical loss in the transmitted first optical signal comprises: detecting a plurality of mechanically introduced optical losses in the first optical path of the optical component system, and wherein the step of determining location information associated with the optical component system comprises: based on the detected plurality of mechanically introduced optical losses, determining identification information associated with the optical component system. However, since the applied marker denotes change in ownership, as cited above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply use plural markers for plural ownership changes along a transmission span, to provide the benefit of being able to remotely plural changes in ownership.
Regarding claim 34, Eslambolchi discloses the method according to claim 33, wherein the identification information is encoded by the detected plurality of mechanically introduced optical losses (col. 4 lines 3-19, where the bend targeting a particular mark wavelength and not other wavelengths reads on wavelength-based encoding).
Regarding claim 35, Eslambolchi discloses the method according to claim 33, wherein determining the identification information comprises determining whether the plurality of mechanically introduced optical losses have been detected within a predetermined distance range (fig. 1 and col. 4 lines 3-26, the range is the length of the transmission system as reflected in the OTDR trace, and is inherently predetermined).
Regarding claim 40, Eslambolchi discloses an apparatus for determining information associated with an optical component system in a network, wherein the optical component system comprises a first optical path for transmission of a first optical signal, wherein the first optical path operates in an optical bandwidth that is different from a traffic optical bandwidth of a traffic optical path (fig. 2 and col. 4 lines 3-19 in light of fig. 1 and col. 3 lines 33-42, where the first optical path is the >1600nm path), the apparatus operable to: detect at least one mechanically introduced optical loss in the transmitted first optical signal, and based on the detected at least one mechanically introduced optical loss, determine information associated with the optical component system (figs. 1 and 2 and col. 3 lines 46-55, where the information associated with the component is the location of the OTDR distance response at that wavelength and secondarily, who has fiber ownership/control at that location). Eslambolchi does not specify that the apparatus comprises a processor and a memory, the memory containing instructions executable by the processor such that the apparatus performs the cited functions. However, implementing a known function on a computer has been deemed obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art if the automation of the known function on a general purpose computer is nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the generic computing architecture claimed, of a processor plus memory with executable instructions, to implement the processing of the apparatus, since this is merely automation of the known function on a general purpose computer as the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Regarding claim 41, Eslambolchi discloses the apparatus according to claim 40, wherein the information comprises location information, and wherein the step of determining location information associated with the optical component system comprises: determining a distance at which the at least one mechanically introduced optical loss in the first optical path occurred, and based on the determined distance, determining location information associated with the optical component system (col. 3 lines 46-55, the OTDR trace is determining distance of the target wavelength-based indicator, which is realized as location information based on the different fiber ownerships).
Regarding claim 42, Eslambolchi discloses the apparatus according to claim 40, wherein the method further comprises: based on the determined distance, determining identification information associated with the optical component system, wherein the identification information is also associated with the determined distance (col. 3 lines 46-55, the OTDR trace is determining distance of the target wavelength-based indicator, which is realized as ownership identification information based on the different fiber ownerships).
Claims 36-38 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eslambolchi (US Patent No. 7469101) in view of Inoue et al. (“Inoue”) (US Patent No. 5671308).
Regarding claim 36, Eslambolchi discloses the method according to claim 34 but does not disclose that determining the identification information comprises decoding the encoded identification information by determining whether a mechanically introduced loss has occurred at defined points along in the first optical path. Inoue discloses encoding based on mechanically introduced loss and detection of backscatter light (figs. 20-21C and col. 14 line 42 to col. 15 line 42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mechanically introduced loss of Eslambolchi to use the encoding based approach taught by Inoue, to provide the benefit of increase the amount of information being conveyed by a marker location.
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Eslambolchi and Inoue discloses the method according to claim 36, wherein the defined points are based on a pattern of mechanically introduced optical losses that would encode the identification information (Inoue: fig. 20 as application for the combination).
Regarding claim 38, the combination of Eslambolchi and Inoue discloses the method according to claim 34 but does not disclose that determining the identification information comprises decoding the encoded identification information by determining the distance between the mechanically introduced losses. Inoue discloses encoding and decoding based on mechanically introduced loss and detection of backscatter light corresponding to distance between introduced losses (figs. 20-21C and col. 14 line 42 to col. 15 line 42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mechanically introduced loss of Eslambolchi to use the encoding based approach taught by Inoue, to provide the benefit of increase the amount of information being conveyed by a marker location.
Regarding claim 43, Eslambolchi discloses the apparatus according to claim 40, wherein the information comprises identification information (col. 3 lines 46-55, the OTDR trace is determining distance of the target wavelength-based indicator, which is realized as ownership identification information based on the different fiber ownerships), but does not disclose that the step of detecting at least one mechanically introduced optical loss in the transmitted first optical signal comprises: detecting a plurality of mechanically introduced optical losses in the first optical path of the optical component system, and wherein the step of determining location information associated with the optical component system comprises: based on the detected plurality of mechanically introduced optical losses, determining identification information associated with the optical component system. Inoue discloses encoding based on mechanically introduced loss and detection of backscatter light (figs. 20-21C and col. 14 line 42 to col. 15 line 42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mechanically introduced loss of Eslambolchi to use the encoding based approach taught by Inoue, to provide the benefit of increase the amount of detail available for the identification information being conveyed by a marker location.
Claims 44 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue (US Patent No. 5671308).
Regarding claim 44, Inoue discloses a fiber presser comprising: a housing for directing an optical fiber (fig. 20 element 4081 and col. 14 lines 42-65); and a plurality of projections, wherein the plurality of projections are configured to induce mechanical optical losses along the optical fiber that encode information along the optical fiber (fig. 20 elements 4087-4090 and col. 14 line 42 to col. 15 line 42). Inoue does not disclose that each of the plurality of projections are moveable between a first position in which the projection induces a mechanical optical loss along an optical fiber, and a second position in which the projection does not induce a mechanical optical loss along the optical fiber. However, Inoue does state that the codes are to be unique identification codes (col. 16 lines 32-37). Further, making adjustable is prima facie obvious; adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance (MPEP § 2144.04(V)(D)). Since the codes must be unique, there is a need to provide different codes. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the projections adjustable, such as providing a concavity for each bit location and making the spherical projections movable, to achieve different unique codes, as such adjustability for code uniqueness is prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 47, Inoue discloses the fiber presser according to claim 44, wherein the encoded information is associated with an optical component system (fig. 23 and col. 16 lines 32-65).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 45, 46 and 48 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Eslambolchi, Applicant’s arguments reproduce Eslambolchi col. 3 lines 46-55 as cited in the rejection and then asserts that Eslambolchi does not disclose mechanically introduce optical loss being the basis for determining information associated with the optical component system. However, this argument is conclusory; it does not address the rejection on the merits, which includes the citation plus the explanatory note “the information associated with the component is the location of the OTDR distance response at that wavelength and secondarily, who has fiber ownership/control at that location.” Eslambolchi’s attenuation element/marker is adding intentional bending (fig. 2), this is mechanically introduced optical loss. Such intentionally added loss is the basis on which information is determined, i.e., the location of the OTDR distance response at that wavelength and secondarily, who has fiber ownership/control at that location.
Regarding Inoue, Applicant argues that Inoue does not discloses that the projections are movable between a loss position and a non-loss position, or the biasing element, the rotatable projection arrangement, or the claim coiling. However, claim 44 only recites the movability. Claims 45 and 46 were already objected to as having allowable subject matter, and claim 48 as amended joins them, so the features recited in those claims are not relevant against Inoue applied to claim 44.
The rejection is not based on a statement that different codes may be “desirable” as argued. Rather, Inoue discloses that the codes are to be unique ID codes. Further, one skilled in the art does not need step-by-step instructions for how to implement adjustability of Inoue’s existing structure in light of the need for unique ID codes, as they are one of ordinary skill in the art, not a non-artisan, and they are not an automaton. "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). Inoue already teaches the sphere/concave pairing, or absence thereof, format for implementing a code bit, or not, along the fiber. The obviousness is of one skilled in the art making this existing implementation adjustable, not coming up with an adjustable implementation from scratch.
In response to Applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Making the Inoue projections adjustable as presented in the rejection takes into account both the prima facie obviousness of making adjustable and only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, as explained above.
Applicant also argues that the adjustability rationale cannot rely on the MPEP guidance without an articulated factual basis. Such basis is provided. The MPEP guidance says making adjustable is prima facie obvious since adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance. The rejection then points out that Inoue requires unique codes, i.e., there is a need to provide different codes. This establishes from that art that adjustability is needed.
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 NATHAN M CORS whose telephone number is (571)272-3028. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
/NATHAN M CORS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights