DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 (IDS) submitted on 2/26/2024 and 11/27/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
In Fig. 21, reference character “906” has been used to designate both proximal circulator and distal circulator.
In Fig. 23, reference character “2214” has been used to designate both pump and second pump.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in paragraph [0089], “proximal tap 220” should be “proximal tap 2200”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lelic, WO 02080318 A1 (“Lelic”).
Regarding claim 1, Lelic discloses A self-powered optical amplifier (SPOA) comprising:
a proximal tap connected to a fiber optic cable (Fig. 1, optical tap 24a, Paragraph [0016]);
a proximal wavelength division multiplexer (WDM) optically connected to the proximal tap (Fig. 1, wavelength division multiplexer 7, Paragraph [0014]);
an Erbium doped fiber optically connecting the proximal WDM to a distal WDM (Fig. 1, wavelength division multiplexer 7,EDFA-type optical amplifier 3, coil 11, coil 15, wavelength division multiplexer 16, Paragraph [0014]);
a distal tap optically connected to the distal WDM (Fig. 1, optical tap 24b, Paragraph [0016]);
a pump optically connected to the distal WDM (Fig. 1, pump laser 17, Paragraph [0014]); and
a controller optically connected to the proximal tap, the distal tap, and further electrically connected to and a power supply (Fig. 1, digital signal processor 20, power circuits 21a, 21b, Paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claim 11, Lelic discloses The SPOA of claim 1, wherein the pump is a 980 nm pump or 1480 nm pump (Fig. 1, pump laser17, Paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claim 14, Lelic discloses The SPOA of claim 1, further comprising a second pump (Fig. 1, pump laser 9, Paragraph [0014]).
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.
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 8, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lelic in view of Bhongale et al., US 20180283171 A1 (“Bhongale”).
Regarding claim 2, Lelic discloses the SPOA of claim 1.
Lelic does not teach: wherein the SPOA is disposed on a down going fiber.
However, Bhongale teaches an optical communication system with a plurality of downhole optical devices, which can be any device capable of receiving and transmitting an electromagnetic signal, such as an amplifier (Figs. 1-2, Optical devices 161-169, Paragraph [0026]). The optical devices are disposed on the down going fiber (Figs. 1-2, Optical transmission network 170, Optical devices 161-169, Paragraph [0029], [0033]: bi-directional communication).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Lelic’s optical amplifier with Bhongales’s optical transmission network to produce a down going fiber with a plurality of amplifiers. This combination would have predictably yielded an optical transmission network with an enhanced optical signal.
Regarding claim 3, Lelic, as modified in view of Bhongale, discloses the SPOA of claim 2, further comprising a plurality of SPOAs disposed on the down going fiber (Bhongale, Figs. 1-2, Optical transmission network 170, Optical devices 161-169, Paragraph [0029], [0033]).
Regarding claim 5, Lelic discloses the SPOA of claim 1.
Lelic does not teach: wherein the SPOA is disposed on an upgoing fiber.
However, Bhongale teaches an optical communication system with a plurality of downhole optical devices, which can be any device capable of receiving and transmitting an electromagnetic signal, such as an amplifier (Figs. 1-2, Optical devices 161-169, Paragraph [0026]). The optical devices are disposed on the down going fiber (Figs. 1-2, Optical transmission network 170, Optical devices 161-169, Paragraph [0029], [0033]: bi-directional communication).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Lelic’s optical amplifier with Bhongales’s optical transmission network to produce a up going fiber with a plurality of amplifiers. This combination would have predictably yielded an optical transmission network with an enhanced optical signal.
Regarding claim 6, Lelic, as modified in view of Bhongale, discloses the SPOA of claim 5, further comprising a plurality of SPOAs disposed on the upgoing fiber (Bhongale, Figs. 1-2, Optical transmission network 170, Optical devices 161-169, Paragraph [0029], [0033]).
Regarding claim 8, Lelic discloses The SPOA of claim 1.
Lelic does not teach: wherein the SPOA is disposed on a downhole sensing fiber.
However, Bhongale teaches an optical communication system with a plurality of downhole optical devices, which can be any device capable of receiving and transmitting an electromagnetic signal, such as an amplifier (Figs. 1-2, Optical devices 161-169, Paragraph [0026]). The optical devices are disposed on the down going fiber (Figs. 1-2, Optical transmission network 170, Optical devices 161-169, Paragraph [0029], [0033]: bi-directional communication).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Lelic’s optical amplifier with Bhongales’s optical transmission network to produce a down going fiber with a plurality of amplifiers. This combination would have predictably yielded an optical transmission network with an enhanced optical signal.
Regarding claim 17, Lelic discloses The SPOA of claim 1.
Lelic does not teach: further comprising an Optical Add Drop Multiplexer (OADM) that is in communication with the controller.
However, Bhongdale teaches optical devices, such as amplifiers, in communication with a controller through optical drop multiplexers or optical add multiplexers and/or the like (Figs. 1-2, Optical devices 161-169, control module 180, Paragraph [0029]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Lelic’s WDMs with an optical add drop multiplexer, which is an obvious modification of Bhongale’s multiplexers. One of ordinary skill in the art could have made this simple substitution to obtain the predictable result of routing optical signals of specific wavelengths.
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lelic in view of Bhongale, in further view of Zaacks et al., US 20120033293 A1 (“Zaacks”).
Regarding claim 4, Lelic, as modified in view of Bhongale, discloses the SPOA of claim 3.
Lelic, as modified in view of Bhongale, does not teach: wherein each of the plurality of SPOAs are separated by at least 20 kilometers.
However, Zaacks teaches that Erbium doped fiber amplifiers can be separated by 60-150 km along a fiber link (Paragraph [0001], See also: Fig. 1, transmission fiber 110, Paragraph [0027]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the placement of the optical amplifiers along the down going fiber, taught by Lelic and Bhongale, by separating the fibers by at least 20 km, which is taught by Zaacks. One of ordinary skill could have applied the known technique of separating amplifiers along a fiber network to improve Lelic and Bhongale’s down going fiber amplifier system, and the results would have predictably been an enhanced optical signal.
Regarding claim 7, Lelic, as modified in view of Bhongale, discloses the SPOA of claim 6.
Lelic, as modified in view of Bhongale, does not teach: wherein each of the plurality of SPOAs are separated by at least 20 kilometers.
However, Zaacks teaches that Erbium doped fiber amplifiers can be separated by 60-150 km along a fiber link (Paragraph [0001], See also: Fig. 1, transmission fiber 110, Paragraph [0027]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the placement of the optical amplifiers along the up going fiber, taught by Lelic and Bhongale, by separating the fibers by at least 20 km, which is taught by Zaacks. One of ordinary skill could have applied the known technique of separating amplifiers along a fiber network to improve Lelic and Bhongale’s up going fiber amplifier system, and the results would have predictably been an enhanced optical signal.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lelic in view of Villeneuve et al., US 20170155225 A1 (“Villeneuve”).
Regarding claim 9, Lelic discloses The SPOA of claim 1.
Lelic does not teach: further comprising an Amplified Stimulated Emission (ASE) filter disposed within the proximal tap.
However, Villeneuve teaches a fiber-optic amplifier with an ASE filter disposed with the proximal tap (Fig. 19, filter 630A, coupler 600A, Paragraph [0156]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lelic’s proximal tap by adding an ASE filter, which is disclosed by Villeneuve. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce the amount of optical noise from a previous amplifier stage, as suggested by Villeneuve (Paragraph [0142]).
Regarding claim 10, Lelic discloses The SPOA of claim 1.
Lelic does not teach: further comprising an Amplified Stimulated Emission (ASE) filter disposed within the distal tap.
However, Villeneuve teaches a fiber-optic amplifier with an ASE filter disposed with the distal tap (Fig. 19, filter 630B, coupler 600B, Paragraph [0156]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lelic’s distal tap by adding an ASE filter, which is disclosed by Villeneuve. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce the amount of optical noise accompanying the amplified optical pulses, as suggested by Villeneuve (Paragraph [0142]).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lelic in view of Ohtsuki et al., US 20060028712 A1 (“Ohtsuki”).
Regarding claim 12, Lelic discloses The SPOA of claim 1.
Lelic does not teach: further comprising a 2x2 switch optically connecting the distal tap and the proximal tap.
However, Ohtsuki teaches optical switches connected to the input and output taps of an EDFA that allow an optical signal to be routed through or bypass the EDFA (Fig. 7, switches 3a-3b, Paragraph [0038]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lelic’s input and output taps by adding optical switches, which is disclosed by Ohtsuki. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the known switches with the known amplifier taps to yield the predictable result of additional control over the optical signal path.
Regarding claim 13, Lelic, as modified in view of Ohtsuki, discloses the SPOA of claim 12, wherein the 2x2 switch allows for an interrogation signal or backscatter signal to bypass the SPOA (Ohtsuki, Fig. 7, switches 3a-3b, Paragraph [0038]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lelic in view of Zaacks.
Regarding claim 15, Lelic discloses The SPOA of claim 14.
Lelic does not teach: further comprising a multiplexer optically connects the pump and the second pump to the distal WDM.
However, Zaacks teaches a pump unit connected to the distal WDM of an optical amplifier. The WDM connects a pump unit that contains one or more pump lasers (Fig. 1, WDM 124, pump unit 120, pump lasers 122, Paragraph [0028]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lelic’s optical amplifier by including two distal pump lasers, which is taught by Zaacks. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have finer control over the net amplification for the signal channels, as taught by Zaacks (Paragraph [0028]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lelic in view of Hart, US 5408356 A (“Hart”).
Regarding claim 16, Lelic discloses The SPOA of claim 1.
Lelic does not teach: wherein the power supply is a thermo-electric power generator.
However, Hart teaches Erbium doped fiber amplifiers which are supplied power through a thermoelectric generator (Fig. 1, optical amplifiers 44, thermoelectric generator 46, Col. 3 lines 54-56).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Lelic’s power supplies with thermoelectric generators, which is disclosed by Hart. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because thermoelectric generator are made of materials resistant to corrosion and biological growth when exposed to the outside, as suggested by Hart (Abstract).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lelic in view of Hollister et al., US 6377591 B1 (“Hollister”).
Regarding claim 18, Lelic discloses The SPOA of claim 1.
Lelic does not teach: wherein the power supply is one or more batteries.
However, Hollister teaches an optical amplification module where the power supply is a lithium polymer battery (Fig. 3, battery 58, Col. 11 lines 44-52).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Lelic’s power circuits for Hollister’s battery. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to conserve power by only providing the amount needed during optical amplification, as suggested by Hollister (Col. 2 lines 40-47).
Regarding claim 19, Lelic, as modified in view of Hollister, discloses The SPOA of claim 18, wherein the one or more batteries may comprise lithium, alkaline, carbon zinc, gel, nickel oxyhydroxide lead, nickel cadmium, zinc, mercury, calcium, nickel metal hybrid, silver oxide, galvanic, or magnesium (Hollister, Fig. 3, battery 58, Col. 11 lines 44-52: lithium polymer battery).
Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lelic, as modified in view of Hollister, in further view of Sun et al., CN 113008356 A (“Sun”).
Regarding claim 20, Lelic, as modified in view of Hollister, discloses The SPOA of claim 18.
Lelic, as modified in view of Hollister, does not teach: wherein the power supply is a sacrificial anode that may comprise magnesium, aluminum, or zinc.
However, Sun teaches a sacrificial anode comprising an aluminum layer on a negative terminal of an external power supply (Paragraph [0044]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery taught by Lelic and Hollister by including an aluminum layer on the battery’s anode, which is taught by Sun. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent the battery from being corroded by acid rain, as suggested by Sun (Paragraph [0044]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5:30 pm ET.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at (571) 270-3603. 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.
/RACHEL NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights