DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment and Status of Application
This notice is in response to the amendments filed 18 November 2025. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-13, 16-18, and 20 are pending in the instant application where claims 1, 12 and 20 have been amended. Claims 3, 6, 8, 14-15, and 19 have been cancelled. Applicant’s amendments to the drawings and the specification have overcome each and every objection to the drawings and specification set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 18 August 2025, and are hereby withdrawn.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner wishes to draw applicant’s attention to a typo; the claims as filed on 18 November 2025 have an incorrect application number within the header of the document. “15/599,847” appears, where the correct application number is “18/599,847”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 12, and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Regarding the independent claims, these arguments are drawn to “an optical signal having a power level substantially equal to a power level of the input signal”. Also, the argument drawn to the anticipation of an active optical splitter under MPEP 2131.02(III), now within the independent claims, is moot given the new grounds of rejection below.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0124498 A1 by Michael Leclerc et al. (herein after “Leclerc”) in view of US 2023/0349789 A1 by Brett Bradley et al. (herein after “Bradley”), and further in view of US 2021/0083770 A1 by Cedric Fung Lam et al. (herein after “Lam”).
Regarding claim 1, Leclerc discloses a test system for fiber optic cable installation (Leclerc title; “system for connection testing”; abstract discloses connection configuration of optical fiber links [i.e. related to fiber optic cables]; [0051] discloses that the system/method of present invention is employed during installation [i.e. fiber optic cable installation]), the test system comprising:
a light receiver configured to be deployed on a distal end of a fiber optic cable (Leclerc [0101] and fig. 4 disclose an imaging system 38 as part of a fiber inspection probe 24; the imaging system 38 comprises an image sensor 46 [light receiver] which receives light directed to it via imaging optics 44; [0094] discloses a cable link under test 100 [fiber optic cable], where the probe 24 [comprising the light receiver] is deployed at an end of the cable link [i.e. a distal end of the fiber optic cable]);
a field light generator configured to be deployed on a proximal end of the fiber optic cable (Leclerc [0084] and fig. 4 disclose a source assembly 22 which [0088] is comprised at least one optical source; [0084] discloses that the source assembly 22 and the probe 24 are located at opposite ends of the cable link under test; if the probe with light receiver is located at the distal end, the source assembly 22 is located closest to the proximal end of the fiber optic cable, opposite the distal end; the “field light generator” is considered as at least the source assembly 22 and launch cable link 32 (see [0094]) connecting the source assembly 22 to the cable link under test 100), the field light generator comprising:
an optical fiber assembly, the optical fiber assembly configured to couple the proximal end of the fiber optic cable (Leclerc [0094] discloses a launch cable link 32 [optical fiber assembly] which couples the source assembly 22 to the cable link under test 100 [couples the proximal end of the fiber optic cable]; examiner notes that the optical fiber assembly may also comprise any applicable coupling optics 30 (see [0088]) which assist in coupling the proximal end of the fiber optic cable); and
a light source, wherein the light source is configured to output light through the optical fiber assembly into the proximal end of the fiber optic cable (Leclerc [0087] and fig. 4 disclose at least one optical source 26 which is optically coupled to the end of the cable link under test 100 [fiber optic cable] to direct light to said cable link to be tested 100).
Leclerc is silent to a power supply, and a light source operably coupled to the power supply.
However, Bradley does address this limitation. Leclerc and Bradley are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are both related to optical testing of fiber optic cables.
Bradley discloses “a power supply, and a light source operably coupled to the power supply” (Bradley abstract discloses that first and second LEDs [at least one light source] being in electronic communication with a power source, a battery, and an on/off switch).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Leclerc to incorporate a power supply, and a light source operably coupled to the power supply as suggested by Bradley for the advantage of enabling automatic activation of the light sources via power supply when a fiber optic cable is connected to the test system (Bradley [0011]), increasing the efficiency of light emission by the light sources.
Leclerc when modified by Bradley is silent to the optical fiber assembly comprising an active optical splitter operably coupled to the power supply, and wherein the active optical splitter is configured to receive an input signal from the light source and to output, on each of a plurality of outputs, an optical signal having a power level substantially equal to a power level of the input signal.
However, Lam does address this limitation. Leclerc, Bradley, and Lam are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are related to the facilitation of signal transmission within fiber optic cables.
Lam discloses “the optical fiber assembly comprising an active optical splitter operably coupled to the power supply” (Lam [0043] and fig. 5B disclose an active optical signal splitter 500/500b [active optical splitter]; the active optical splitter comprises an optical amplifier 330, where the optical amplifier 330 is powered [i.e. coupled to a power supply of some kind]), and
“wherein the active optical splitter is configured to receive an input signal from the light source and to output, on each of a plurality of outputs, an optical signal having a power level substantially equal to a power level of the input signal” (Lam [0043] discloses that the active optical splitter 500/500b comprises an optical splitter 332, shown in fig. 5B; in the fig., the splitter is a 1:4 splitter, where each signal split by the optical splitter includes one quarter the power of the initial optical signal 104; however, the optical amplifier is configured to amplify the signal by a magnitude of 4 to offset the reduction in power due to optical splitting, known to those skilled in the art – therefore, each output from the active optical splitter is the same power as that emitted into the splitter by the OLT port [optical signal at each output having a power level substantially equal to a power level of the input signal]; [0044] also discloses an additional example where each split optical signal is transmitted to variable optical amplifiers which control the power level of the signal after being split by optical splitter 332).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Leclerc in view of Bradley to incorporate the optical fiber assembly comprising an active optical splitter operably coupled to the power supply, and wherein the active optical splitter is configured to receive an input signal from the light source and to output, on each of a plurality of outputs, an optical signal having a power level substantially equal to a power level of the input signal as suggested by Lam for the advantage of enabling an optical signal to be split into a plurality of signals while ensuring the signal strength is substantial enough to be detected without a loss of signal fidelity by appropriately amplifying via active optical splitter.
Regarding claim 2, Leclerc when modified by Bradley and Lam discloses the test system of claim 1. Leclerc is silent to the test system of claim 1, wherein the test system further comprises a waterproof case configured to house the field light generator.
However, Bradley does address this limitation.
Bradley discloses the test system of claim 1, “wherein the test system further comprises a waterproof case configured to house the field light generator” (Bradley [0047] and fig. 1 discloses that the housing 12 and case 14 of the visual tester 10 are configured such that the visual tester is completely waterproof [the visual tester 10 being analogous to the test system]; fig. 4 and [0033],[0035] disclose first and second LEDs [analogous to the field light generator] which emit light into an optical fiber that are enclosed within the housing 12/case 14 (see fig. 2), therefore the field light generator is housed by the waterproof case).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Leclerc to incorporate wherein the test system further comprises a waterproof case configured to house the field light generator as suggested by Bradley for the advantage of ensuring the testing device be capable of field usage without being sensitive to water damage from a fiber optic installation or testing environment, as would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4, Leclerc when modified by Bradley and Lam discloses the test system of claim 1, and Leclerc further teaches wherein the field light generator further comprises a controller operably coupled to the light source (Leclerc [0093] and fig. 4 disclose a source assembly 22 which includes a source controller 64 [controller] to activate/inactivate the at least one optical source 26 [“operably coupled” via the electric communication to activate/inactivate the source]).
Leclerc is silent to the test system of claim 1, wherein the field light generator further comprises a controller operably coupled to the power supply.
However, Bradley does address this limitation.
Bradley discloses the test system of claim 1, “wherein the field light generator further comprises a controller operably coupled to the power supply” (as with claim 1, Bradley discloses that first and second LEDs are in electronic communication with a power source; [0011] discloses that the LEDs are configured to be automatically pulsed – the automatic pulsing of the LEDs within Bradley [where a power source is recognized as required to activate LEDs] is analogous to the activating/inactivating of optical source(s) within Leclerc; since Leclerc discloses a controller operably coupled to the light source one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the controller being operably coupled to the power source of Bradley as well, given the need for some source or supply of power to support the activating/inactivating of the light source within Leclerc).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Leclerc to incorporate wherein the field light generator further comprises a controller operably coupled to the power supply as suggested by Bradley for the advantage of enabling automatic activation of the light sources via power supply when a fiber optic cable is connected to the test system (Bradley [0011]), increasing the efficiency of light emission by the light sources.
Regarding claim 5, Leclerc when modified by Bradley and Lam discloses the test system of claim 4, and Leclerc further teaches the test system wherein the controller further comprises a wireless receiver configured to receive a control signal and wherein the controller is configured to energize or de-energize the light source based on the control signal (Leclerc [0093] discloses that the source controller 64 activates and inactivates the at least one optical source 26 as a function of command received by the source assembly 22 [the command received by the source assembly is considered the control signal]; fig. 5A and [0116] disclose a wireless transmission of signals between a controller 56 of the probe assembly 24 to the source assembly 22; since the source controller 64 activates/inactivates the light source as a function of command received by the source assembly 22 and since [0117] there exist wireless commands [i.e. a control signal] issued by the controller 56 to the source assembly 22, the source controller 64 wirelessly receives a control signal to energize/de-energize the light source based on the control signal).
Regarding claim 7, Leclerc when modified by Bradley and Lam discloses the test system of claim 1, and Leclerc further teaches the test system wherein the light receiver is configured to measure an intensity of light at the distal end of the fiber optic cable (Leclerc [0104] discloses that an intensity-only image sensor [light receiver] may be employed for intensity dependent light emission patterns; therefore, the light receiver is configured to measure an intensity of light, and does so at the distal end of the fiber optic cable [see claim 1]).
Regarding claim 10, Leclerc when modified by Bradley and Lam discloses the test system of claim 1. Leclerc is silent to the test system of claim 1, wherein the power supply comprises at least one of a solar panel and a battery.
However, Bradley does address this limitation.
Bradley discloses the test system of claim 1, “wherein the power supply comprises at least one of a solar panel and a battery” (Bradley [0010] discloses the presence of both a power supply and a battery, where the case of the test device discloses indicator labels for battery charging state/charged state and a battery charge indicator configured to show percentage of battery life; one of ordinary skill recognizes that the power supply is powered by the presence of the battery – if the battery is dead, the power supply cannot supply power to run the test device [hence the presence of a battery life indicator]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Leclerc to incorporate wherein the power supply comprises at least one of a solar panel and a battery as suggested by Bradley for the advantage of ensuring the testing device be capable of field usage without needing a corded means to power the power source – the incorporation of battery life greatly increases the portability of the testing device.
Regarding claim 11, Leclerc when modified by Bradley and Lam discloses the test system of claim 1, and Leclerc further teaches the test system wherein the fiber optic cable comprises a first fiber of fiber optic cable and a second fiber of fiber optic cable (Leclerc fig. 4 shows and [0009] discloses the cable under test being 1×12 multi-fiber cables; therefore, the fiber optic cable comprises at least a first fiber optic cable and at least a second fiber optic cable (i.e. two cables out of the twelve).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leclerc in view of Bradley, in view of Lam, and further in view of US 2024/0369446 A1 by Roberto Magri et al. (“Magri”).
Regarding claim 9, Leclerc when modified by Bradley and Lam discloses the test system of claim 1. Leclerc when modified by Bradley and Lam is silent to the test system of claim 1, wherein the light source comprises a small form pluggable (SFP) connector, and an SFP transceiver.
However, Magri does address this limitation. Leclerc, Bradley, Lam, and Magri are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are related to the facilitation of signal transmission within fiber optic cables.
Magri discloses the test system of claim 1, “wherein the light source comprises a small form pluggable (SFP) connector, and an SFP transceiver” (Magri [0029] and [0183] discloses an optical plug 100 for providing a connection between a transceiver 101; the transceiver comprises an optical source [light source], and may be a Small Formfactor Pluggable (SFP) transceiver; thus the light source comprises an SFP transceiver and enables a means for connection an SFP connection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Leclerc in view of Bradley and Lam to incorporate wherein the light source comprises a small form pluggable (SFP) connector, and an SFP transceiver as suggested by Magri for the advantage of enabling the fiber under test to be connected to a transceiver while tests are performed, decreasing operating expenses and reduces the required labor to perform the optical test (Magri [0006]).
Claims 12 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leclerc in view of US 2024/0063900 A1 by Reza Vaez-Ghaemi et al. (herein after “Ghaemi”), and further in view of Lam.
Regarding claim 12, Leclerc discloses a field light generator (Leclerc [0084] and fig. 4 discloses a source assembly 22 and a launch cable link 32 (see [0094] connecting the source assembly to a cable under test 100; the “field light generator” is considered as at least the source assembly 22 and launch cable link 32 connecting the source assembly 22 to the cable link under test 100) comprising:
an optical fiber assembly, the optical fiber assembly configured to couple a to a proximal end of a fiber optic cable (Leclerc [0094] discloses a launch cable link 32 [part of optical fiber assembly] which couples the source assembly 22 to the cable link under test 100 [couples the proximal end of the fiber optic cable]; examiner notes that the optical fiber assembly may also comprise any applicable coupling optics 30 (see [0088]) which assist in coupling the proximal end of the fiber optic cable); and
a light source, wherein the light source outputs light through the optical fiber assembly and into the proximal end of the fiber optic cable (Leclerc [0087] and fig. 4 disclose at least one optical source 26 which is optically coupled to the end of the cable link under test 100 [fiber optic cable] to direct light to said cable link to be tested 100).
Leclerc is silent to a power supply comprising a battery and power regulation circuitry, and a light source operably coupled to the power supply.
However, Ghaemi does address this limitation. Leclerc and Ghaemi are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are related to optical testing of fiber optic cables.
Ghaemi discloses “a power supply comprising a battery” (Ghaemi [0051] discloses a portable tool with various removable expansion modules to facilitate a variety of different optical tests; a base module provides core processing functionality, and has a battery module which supplies portable power [power supply comprising a battery]) “and power regulation circuitry” (Ghaemi [0092] and claim 26 discloses that the battery module may contain internal circuitry to regulate the charging of the battery [power regulation circuity] and supply power to base module in a uniform manner), “and a light source operably coupled to the power supply” (Ghaemi fig. 7A shows the base module in electrical connection with both the “PM-DL module” and “VFL module” shown in figs 3 and 4 respectively – both of the PM-DL and VFL modules comprise light emitters appearing as an emitting diode [fig. 3] and a visible light emitting diode [fig. 4]; therefore, light sources are operably coupled to the power supply).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Leclerc to incorporate a power supply comprising a battery and power regulation circuitry, and a light source operably coupled to the power supply as suggested by Ghaemi for the advantage of ensuring the battery not provide irregular power to the base module and preventing overcharging of the battery (Ghaemi [0092]).
Leclerc when modified by Ghaemi is silent to an optical fiber assembly comprising an active optical splitter operably coupled to the power supply, and
wherein the active optical splitter is configured to receive an input signal from the light source and to output, on each of a plurality of outputs, an optical signal having a power level substantially equal to a power level of the input signal.
However, Lam does address this limitation. Leclerc, Ghaemi, and Lam are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are related to the facilitation of signal transmission within fiber optic cables.
Lam discloses “the optical fiber assembly comprising an active optical splitter operably coupled to the power supply” (Lam [0043] and fig. 5B disclose an active optical signal splitter 500/500b [active optical splitter]; the active optical splitter comprises an optical amplifier 330, where the optical amplifier 330 is powered [i.e. coupled to a power supply of some kind]), and
“wherein the active optical splitter is configured to receive an input signal from the light source and to output, on each of a plurality of outputs, an optical signal having a power level substantially equal to a power level of the input signal” (Lam [0043] discloses that the active optical splitter 500/500b comprises an optical splitter 332, shown in fig. 5B; in the fig., the splitter is a 1:4 splitter, where each signal split by the optical splitter includes one quarter the power of the initial optical signal 104; however, the optical amplifier is configured to amplify the signal by a magnitude of 4 to offset the reduction in power due to optical splitting, known to those skilled in the art – therefore, each output from the active optical splitter is the same power as that emitted into the splitter by the OLT port [optical signal at each output having a power level substantially equal to a power level of the input signal]; [0044] also discloses an additional example where each split optical signal is transmitted to variable optical amplifiers which control the power level of the signal after being split by optical splitter 332).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Leclerc in view of Ghaemi to incorporate the optical fiber assembly comprising an active optical splitter operably coupled to the power supply, and wherein the active optical splitter is configured to receive an input signal from the light source and to output, on each of a plurality of outputs, an optical signal having a power level substantially equal to a power level of the input signal as suggested by Lam for the advantage of enabling an optical signal to be split into a plurality of signals while ensuring the signal strength is substantial enough to be detected without a loss of signal fidelity by appropriately amplifying via active optical splitter.
Regarding claim 16, Leclerc when modified by Ghaemi and Lam discloses the field light generator of claim 12, and Leclerc further teaches the generator wherein the field light generator further comprises a controller operably coupled to the light source (Leclerc [0093] and fig. 4 disclose a source assembly 22 which includes a source controller 64 [controller] to activate/inactivate the at least one optical source 26 [“operably coupled” via the electric communication to activate/inactivate the source]).
Leclerc is silent to the field light generator of claim 12, wherein the field light generator further comprises a controller operably coupled to the power supply.
However, Ghaemi does address this limitation.
Ghaemi discloses the field light generator of claim 12, “wherein the field light generator further comprises a controller operably coupled to the power supply” (Ghaemi fig. 7A and [0051] discloses an ALE control module, where the ALE is in reference to the base module of the test tool (Advisory LE); the control module 704 in fig. 7A is operably coupled to the base module and associated battery module [power supply] disclosed in claim 12 above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Leclerc to incorporate wherein the field light generator further comprises a controller operably coupled to the power supply as suggested by Ghaemi for the advantage of enabling a user to switch the operation of the base module on/off (i.e. activating or deactivating the control module) in an effort to save the battery life of the power supply (Ghaemi [0134]).
Regarding claim 17, Leclerc when modified by Ghaemi and Lam discloses the field light generator of claim 16, and Leclerc further teaches the generator wherein the controller further comprises a wireless receiver configured to receive a control signal and wherein the controller is configured to energize or de-energize the light source based on the control signal (Leclerc [0093] discloses that the source controller 64 activates and inactivates the at least one optical source 26 as a function of command received by the source assembly 22 [the command received by the source assembly is considered the control signal]; fig. 5A and [0116] disclose a wireless transmission of signals between a controller 56 of the probe assembly 24 to the source assembly 22; since the source controller 64 activates/inactivates the light source as a function of command received by the source assembly 22 and since [0117] there exist wireless commands [i.e. a control signal] issued by the controller 56 to the source assembly 22, the source controller 64 wirelessly receives a control signal to energize/de-energize the light source based on the control signal).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leclerc in view of Ghaemi, in view of Lam, and further in view of Bradley.
Regarding claim 13, Leclerc when modified by Ghaemi and Lam discloses the field light generator of claim 12. Leclerc when modified by Ghaemi and Lam is silent to the field light generator of claim 12, further comprising a waterproof case configured to encapsulate the power supply, the optical fiber assembly, and the light source.
However, Bradley does address this limitation. Leclerc, Ghaemi, Lam, and Bradley are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are related to the facilitation of signal transmission within fiber optic cables.
Bradley discloses the field light generator of claim 12, “further comprising a waterproof case configured to encapsulate the power supply, the optical fiber assembly, and the light source” (Bradley [0047] and fig. 1 discloses that the housing 12 and case 14 of the visual tester 10 are configured such that the visual tester is completely waterproof [the visual tester 10 being analogous to the test system]; fig. 4 and [0033],[0035] disclose first and second LEDs which emit light into an optical fiber that are enclosed within the housing 12/case 14 (for LEDs see fig. 2); fig. 4 shows a circuit diagram with the battery 60 – the battery 60 is not shown exterior to the waterproof housing12/case 14 in fig. 1 and one of ordinary skill in the art would consider an electrical component like said battery as obviously being found within the waterproof housing; therefore the power supply, optical fiber assembly, and light source are housed within the waterproof case).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Leclerc in view of Ghaemi and Lam to incorporate a waterproof case configured to encapsulate the power supply, the optical fiber assembly, and the light source as suggested by Bradley for the advantage of ensuring the testing device be capable of field usage without being sensitive to water damage from a fiber optic installation or testing environment, as would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leclerc in view of Ghaemi, in view of Lam, and further in view of US 11,906,389 B1 by Stephane Perron et al. (herein after “Perron”).
Regarding claim 18, Leclerc when modified by Ghaemi and Lam discloses the field light generator of claim 16. Leclerc when modified by Ghaemi and Lam is silent to the field light generator of claim 16, wherein the light source comprises a frequency selectable light source operably coupled to the controller and wherein said controller can select the frequency of the light output from the light source.
However, Perron does address this limitation. Leclerc, Ghaemi, Lam, Perron are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are related to the facilitation of signal transmission within fiber optic cables.
Perron discloses the field light generator of claim 16, “wherein the light source comprises a frequency selectable light source operably coupled to the controller and wherein said controller can select the frequency of the light output from the light source” (Perron fig. 10 and col 16 ll. 48 – col 17 ll. 3 disclose a OTDR (optical time-domain reflectometer) acquisition device comprising a light generating assembly 1054 coupled to a controller 1070; the light generating assembly 1054 comprises a laser source 1060 which is tunable to different wavelengths [frequency selectable – a source with tunable wavelength is also a source with a proportionally tunable frequency]; col 17 ll. 40-47 discloses that the light generating assembly 1054 is controlled by the controller [controller selects frequency of light output from light source]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Leclerc in view of Ghaemi and Lam to incorporate wherein the light source comprises a frequency selectable light source operably coupled to the controller and wherein said controller can select the frequency of the light output from the light source as suggested by Perron for the advantage of performing OTDR measurements at various different wavelengths, pulse widths, repetition periods, etc. to gain as much information during the OTDR test as possible (Perron col 16 ll. 54-61).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perron in view of Lam.
Regarding claim 20, Perron discloses a method of validating a fiber optic installation without a field router (Perron col. 1 ll. 11-23 discloses errors associated with splicing optical fiber links within cables together, and seeks to avoid such errors [i.e. validating the success of a splice between fibers]; no field router is disclosed in the reference), the method comprising:
laying a first section of fiber optic cable, the first section of fiber optic cable having a proximal end and a distal end (Perron fig. 2 and col 6 ll. 19-27 disclose a first fiber span 108 which has proximal and distal ends; proximal is considered the left side of the first fiber span 108 when viewing fig. 2 right-side up; the first fiber span is “to be spliced” and is considered as analogous to “laying a first section”, interpreted as “preparing a first fiber span to be spliced” as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art; any of the individual fibers seen within the first fiber span are considered as the “first section of fiber optic cable”, each individual fiber having proximal and distal ends);
attaching, to the proximal end of the first section, a field light generator (Perron fig. 2 and col 6 ll. 19-27 disclose a first remote test unit 102 (RTU) [field light generator] being connected [attaching] to the proximal end of the first fiber span 108 (see above paragraph for assignment of “proximal end”; col 6 ll. 28-37 discloses that the first RTU 102 comprises an optical tone generator 105 [generating an optical signal, i.e. field light generator]);
laying a second section of fiber optic cable, the second section of fiber optic cable having a proximal end and a distal end (Perron fig. 2 and col 6 ll. 19-27 discloses a second fiber span 118 which has proximal and distal ends; proximal is considered as the left side of the span 118 when viewing fig. 2 right-side up, as with the first span 108 above; as with the first fiber span 108, the second fiber span is “to be spliced” and is considered as analogous to “laying a second section”, interpreted as “preparing a second fiber span to be spliced” as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art; any of the individual fibers seen within the second fiber span are considered as the “second section of fiber optic cable”, each individual fiber having proximal and distal ends);
splicing the proximal end of the second section of fiber optic cable to the distal end of the first section of fiber optic cable (Perron fig. 2 shows the individual fiber optic cables as not yet spliced; however, fig. 6 and col 10 ll. 50-55 show and disclose a step of splicing an individual fiber within the first fiber span and second fiber span; consistent with the definitions of proximal and distal above, the proximal end of the second section of fiber optic cable is spliced to the distal end of the first section of the fiber optic cable);
attaching a light receiver to the distal end of the second section of fiber optic cable (Perron fig. 2 and col 6 ll. 19-27 disclose a second remote test unit 112 (RTU) [light receiver] being connected [attaching] to the distal end of the second fiber span 118; the above paragraphs provide definitions for proximal ends – distal ends correspond to the ends opposite the proximal ends as defined; col 6 ll. 31-37 discloses that the second RTU 112 comprises a tone detector 107 for receiving the optical tone generated by the optical tone generator 105 [i.e. a light receiver]); and
detecting, based on a light signal received at the light receiver and a light output by the field light generator, a fault in the splice between the first section of fiber optic cable and the second section of fiber optic cable (Perron fig. 6 and col 10 ll. 52 - col 11 ll. 4 disclose a continuity test for newly spliced components; one RTU [i.e. the field light generator] continues to inject a tone signal via the tone generator 105 and the other RTU detects the presence or absence of the tone via the tone detector 107 [light receiver]; if an abnormality or absence of expected tone is detected, a “fiber continuity failed” message is given to a user [i.e. a fault has been detected between the splice of first section and second section of fiber optic cable]).
Perron is silent to the field light generator comprising an active optical splitter operably coupled to a power supply and configured to receive an input signal from a light source of the field light generator and to output, on each of a plurality of outputs, an optical signal having a power level substantially equal to a power level of the input signal.
However, Lam does address this limitation. Perron and Lam are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are related to the facilitation of signal transmission within fiber optic cables.
Lam discloses “the field light generator comprising an active optical splitter operably coupled to a power supply” (Lam [0043] and fig. 5B disclose an active optical signal splitter 500/500b [active optical splitter]; the active optical splitter comprises an optical amplifier 330, where the optical amplifier 330 is powered [i.e. coupled to a power supply of some kind]) “and configured to receive an input signal from a light source of the field light generator and to output, on each of a plurality of outputs, an optical signal having a power level substantially equal to a power level of the input signal” (Lam [0043] discloses that the active optical splitter 500/500b comprises an optical splitter 332, shown in fig. 5B; in the fig., the splitter is a 1:4 splitter, where each signal split by the optical splitter includes one quarter the power of the initial optical signal 104; however, the optical amplifier is configured to amplify the signal by a magnitude of 4 to offset the reduction in power due to optical splitting, known to those skilled in the art – therefore, each output from the active optical splitter is the same power as that emitted into the splitter by the OLT port [optical signal at each output having a power level substantially equal to a power level of the input signal]; [0044] also discloses an additional example where each split optical signal is transmitted to variable optical amplifiers which control the power level of the signal after being split by optical splitter 332).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Perron to incorporate the field light generator comprising an active optical splitter operably coupled to a power supply and configured to receive an input signal from a light source of the field light generator and to output, on each of a plurality of outputs, an optical signal having a power level substantially equal to a power level of the input signal as suggested by Lam for the advantage of enabling an optical signal to be split into a plurality of signals while ensuring the signal strength is substantial enough to be detected without a loss of signal fidelity by appropriately amplifying via active optical splitter.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOSHUA M CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0065. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Tarifur R Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/JOSHUA M CARLSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877