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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species I, drawn to claims 23, 28, 29, 33-28, and 40 in the reply filed on 03/15/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 03/15/2024 and 08/08/2025 is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claims 35, 37, and 40 are 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.
Regarding claim 35, the claim recites “an electrical circuit configured to separate the electrical drive signal for the optical data signal and the electrical sensing signal associated with the second optical signal portion using at least one of time multiplexing or frequency multiplexing.” However, based on the current claim language, it is unclear how and why drive signals for data communications would be interacting with received sensing signals in such a way that would require an electrical circuit to separate them. When looking to the Specification, Figure 6 shows an arrangement where a driver and OTDR receiver are connected through a bias tee 510 to an electro-absorption modulator 620 showing that the claimed electrical circuit interconnects the three elements. Therefore, the claim would make more sense if amended as follows:
“The apparatus of claim 21, wherein the optical communication device further comprises:
a driver configured to provide an electrical drive signal for optical data signals;
an optical time domain reflectometry electrical receiver configured to receive an electrical sensing signal associated with the second optical signal portion; and
an electrical circuit comprising an input from the driver and an output to the optical time domain reflectometry electrical receiver configured to route the electrical drive signal for the optical data signal and the electrical sensing signal associated with the second optical signal portion using at least one of time multiplexing or frequency multiplexing.”
This is merely a suggestion and other ways to correct this issue are possible. Dependent claim 37 does not cure claim 35 of this issue, and is similarly rejected. NOTE: Dependent claim 36 does cure claim 35 of this issue and therefore is not rejected under this statute.
Regarding claim 40, the second clause of the claim recites “a circuit configured to, based on an electro-absorption modulated laser capability, convert the optical testing signal into an analysis signal.” (emphasis added) It is unclear what is meant by the underlined portion as neither an electro-absorption modulator nor a laser have been positively recited in the claims. Furthermore, while the Specification notes using an electro-absorption modulator to detect optical signals, it is unclear how a laser that is modulated by such a device would aid in converting an optical signal. For the purposes of prior art rejections, the circuit will be taken to contain an electro-absorption modulator configured to convert the optical signal into an electrical signal.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 21, 26, 27, 29, and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murphy et al, U.S. Publication No. 2006/0153491.
Regarding claim 21, Murphy teaches an apparatus, comprising:
an optical communication device (see Murphy Figure 20) comprising:
a divider configured to split an optical signal into a first optical signal portion and a second optical signal portion (see Figure 4, coupler 125);
a polarization independent photodetector configured to monitor a power level of the optical signal based on the first optical signal portion (see Figure 20, receiver 126 and paragraph [0124]); and
a polarization sensitive photodetector configured to monitor a polarization of the optical signal based on the second optical signal portion (see Figure 20, receivers 131 and paragraphs [0123]-[0124]).
Regarding claim 26, Murphy teaches all the limitations of claim 21, and further teaches wherein the optical communication device is configured to detect a change in the polarization of the optical signal based on a determination that a power level of the first optical signal portion remains relatively constant at the polarization independent photodetector while an absorption level of the second optical signal portion at the polarization sensitive photodetector varies (see Murphy paragraph [0122]).
Regarding claim 27, Murphy teaches all the limitations of claim 21, and further teaches wherein the optical communication device is configured to detect a condition or an event associated with an optical fiber based on one of:
a determination that a power level of the first optical signal portion varies at the polarization independent photodetector (see Murphy paragraph [0124]); or
a determination that a power level of the first optical signal portion remains relatively constant at the polarization independent photodetector while an absorption level of the second optical signal portion at the polarization sensitive photodetector varies (see Murphy paragraph [0122]).
Regarding claim 29, Murphy teaches all the limitations of claim 21, and further teaches wherein the optical signal comprises a monitoring optical signal received at the optical communication device from a remote optical communication device via an optical fiber (see Murphy Figure 20, monitored fiber 122 and paragraph [0113]).
Regarding claim 39, Murphy teaches all the limitations of claim 21, and further teaches wherein the optical communication device comprises at least one of an optical receiver (see Murphy Figure 20, Rx 3) or an optical transceiver.
Claim(s) 21, 28, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rao et al, “Distributed Intrusion Detection Based on Combination of φ -OTDR and POTDR” (published at 19th International Conference on Optical Fibre Sensors, April 2008, provided by Applicant on 08/08/2025).
Regarding claim 21, Rao teaches an apparatus, comprising:
an optical communication device (see Rao Figure 1) comprising:
a divider configured to split an optical signal into a first optical signal portion and a second optical signal portion (see Figure 1, 50/50 coupler);
a polarization independent photodetector configured to monitor a power level of the optical signal based on the first optical signal portion (see Figure 1, signal on “B” path from 50/50 coupler to a respective “detector” and page 2, “In the other hand, the intensity variation due to the phase of the signal resulting from the coherent accumulation of amplitudes of the light backscattered from different parts of the fiber, can be used to determine the perturbations, this is the φ-OTDR”); and
a polarization sensitive photodetector configured to monitor a polarization of the optical signal based on the second optical signal portion (see Figure 1, signals on the “A” path from 50/50 coupler to a “detector” and page 2, “In a single-mode optical fiber, the backscattered light passing through the port A of a 50/50 coupler can be used to examine the spatial distribution of the polarization property by placing an analyzer element in front of a photo-detector. The polarization information was converted into light intensity, this is the POTDR”).
Regarding claim 28, Rao teaches all the limitations of claim 21, and further teaches wherein the optical signal comprises a backreflected optical time domain reflectometry signal received at the optical communication device (see Rao page 2, “These pulses, passing through an erbium-doped fiber amplifier (EDFA), a polarizer, and then a filter used to suppress the ASE noise of the EDFA, were continuously Rayleigh backscattered with the pulses propagating down the fiber, and some of the scattered light was recaptured in the backward direction through the fiber. In a single-mode optical fiber, the backscattered light passing through the port A of a 50/50 coupler can be used to examine the spatial distribution of the polarization property by placing an analyzer element in front of a photo-detector. The polarization
information was converted into light intensity, this is the POTDR”).
Regarding claim 39, Rao teaches all the limitations of claim 21, and further teaches wherein the optical communication device comprises at least one of an optical receiver or an optical transceiver (see Rao Figure 1, extra “detector”).
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.
Claim(s) 22, 23, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy et al, U.S. Publication No. 2006/0153491 in view of Coroy, U.S. Patent No. 5,747,791.
Regarding claim 22, Murphy teaches all the limitations of claim 21, but does not expressively teach wherein the polarization sensitive photodetector comprises a modulator-detector configured to support a modulation function and a detection function.
However, Coroy in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a photodetector such as the one used as a polarization sensitive photodetector in Murphy (see Coroy Figure 3, QW EA filtering detector 84) wherein
the photodetector comprises a modulator-detector configured to support a modulation function and a detection function (see column 4, “For this reason, known QW EA modulators are generally limited to waveguide structures where the light is incident "edge on", parallel to the plane of the quantum wells… The input optical signal passes through an optical beam splitter 82 with part of the signal input into a multiple quantum well electroabsorption (MQW EA) tunable filtering detector 84”).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of simple substitution to replace the generic photodetector used in the polarization sensitive photodetector of Murphy with the photodetector of Coroy to yield the predictable results of successfully detecting the optical signal.
Regarding claim 23, Murphy teaches all the limitations of claim 21, but does not expressively teach wherein the polarization sensitive photodetector comprises a reversely-biased electro-absorption modulator based on quantum confined stark effect (QCSE).
However, Coroy in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a photodetector such as the one used as a polarization sensitive photodetector in Murphy (see Coroy Figure 3, QW EA filtering detector 84) wherein
the photodetector comprises a reversely-biased electro-absorption modulator (see column 4, “For this reason, known QW EA modulators are generally limited to waveguide structures where the light is incident "edge on", parallel to the plane of the quantum wells… The input optical signal passes through an optical beam splitter 82 with part of the signal input into a multiple quantum well electroabsorption (MQW EA) tunable filtering detector 84”) based on quantum confined stark effect (QCSE) (see column 3, “The quantum well electroabsorption (QW EA) filtering detectors constructed in accordance with the present invention make use of multiple (or single) quantum well (QW) photodiodes, whose spectral response near the absorption edge may be tunable utilizing the quantum confined Stark effect by applying variable reverse bias voltage across the photodiode”).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of simple substitution to replace the generic photodetector used in the polarization sensitive photodetector of Murphy with the photodetector of Coroy to yield the predictable results of successfully detecting the optical signal.
Regarding claim 40, Murphy teaches an apparatus, comprising:
a divider (see Murphy Figure 20, coupler 123) configured to separate, from a set of optical signals including an optical data communication signal (see Figure 20, signal to optical connector 124 which paragraph [0081] indicates goes to a data receiver) and an optical testing signal, the optical testing signal (see Figure 20, output to coupler 125 and paragraph [0120]);
a circuit configured to convert the optical testing signal into an analysis signal (see Figure 20, receiver 131 and paragraph [0122]); and
a digital signal processor configured to determine, based on the analysis signal, at least one of polarization information for the optical testing signal (see Figure 20, processor 130 and paragraphs [0119] and [0122]) or phase information for the optical testing signal.
Murphy does not expressively teach a circuit configured to, based on an electro-absorption modulated laser capability, convert the optical testing signal into an analysis signal.
However, Coroy in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a circuit configured to convert an optical signal into an analysis signal.
in Murphy (see Coroy Figure 3, QW EA filtering detector 84 to feedback control 100) wherein
[the] circuit [is] configured to, based on an electro-absorption modulated laser capability, convert the optical signal into an analysis signal (see column 4, “For this reason, known QW EA modulators are generally limited to waveguide structures where the light is incident "edge on", parallel to the plane of the quantum wells… The input optical signal passes through an optical beam splitter 82 with part of the signal input into a multiple quantum well electroabsorption (MQW EA) tunable filtering detector 84”) based on quantum confined stark effect (QCSE) (see column 3, “The quantum well electroabsorption (QW EA) filtering detectors constructed in accordance with the present invention make use of multiple (or single) quantum well (QW) photodiodes, whose spectral response near the absorption edge may be tunable utilizing the quantum confined Stark effect by applying variable reverse bias voltage across the photodiode”).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of simple substitution to replace the circuit of Murphy with the circuit including an electro-absorption modulator of Coroy to yield the predictable results of successfully detecting the optical signal.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy et al, U.S. Publication No. 2006/0153491 in view of Murphy et al, U.S. Publication No. 2015/0086195 (hereafter referred to as Murphy2).
Regarding claim 30, Murphy teaches all the limitations of claim 21, but does not expressively teach wherein the optical signal comprises a wideband sensing signal including a first wavelength and a second wavelength, wherein the first optical signal portion is at the first wavelength and the second optical signal portion is at the second wavelength.
However, Murphy2 in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a system for detecting intrusions (see Murphy2 Figure 9 and paragraph [0123]) by detecting an optical signal with a first optical signal portion and a second optical signal portion (see Figure 9, different signals output from splitter) with a polarization dependent photodetector (see Figure 9, polarization detector 62P) as taught in Murphy wherein
the optical signal comprises a wideband sensing signal including a first wavelength and a second wavelength, wherein the first optical signal portion is at the first wavelength and the second optical signal portion is at the second wavelength (see paragraph [0123]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of simple substitution to replace the light source of Murphy with that having a wideband as taught in Murphy2 to yield the predictable results of successfully monitoring for intrusion signals.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Rao et al, “Distributed Intrusion Detection Based on Combination of φ -OTDR and POTDR” (published at 19th International Conference on Optical Fibre Sensors, April 2008, provided by Applicant on 08/08/2025) in view of Murphy et al, U.S. Publication No. 2006/0153491.
Regarding claim 31, Rao teaches all the limitations of claim 21, but does not expressively teach wherein the optical signal comprises a wavelength outside of a data transmission wavelength range used by the optical communication device for data transmissions, wherein the optical communication device is configured to support parallel operation of the data transmissions by the optical communication device and monitoring by the optical communication device based on the optical signal.
However, Murphy in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches an apparatus comprising an optical communication device (see Murphy Figure 12) for transmitting and detecting an optical signal for monitoring (see Figure 12, IDS system and Bragg reflector 90 for the wavelength sent by IDS system which is an “Intrusion Detection System”. Both Figures 10 and 11 show examples which are OTDR in nature) as taught in Rao wherein
the optical signal comprises a wavelength outside of a data transmission wavelength range used by the optical communication device for data transmissions (see Figure 12, communication system using λ1), wherein the optical communication device is configured to support parallel operation of the data transmissions by the optical communication device and monitoring by the optical communication device based on the optical signal (see paragraph [0112]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the teaching of simultaneously sending out signals for monitoring and data transmission as taught in Murphy with the system taught in Rao, the motivation being to expand the utility of such a system via communication links.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao et al, “Distributed Intrusion Detection Based on Combination of φ -OTDR and POTDR” (published at 19th International Conference on Optical Fibre Sensors, April 2008, provided by Applicant on 08/08/2025) in view of Rad et al, U.S. Publication No. 2017/0093486.
Regarding claim 32, Rao teaches all the limitations of claim 21, but does not expressively teach wherein the optical signal comprises a wavelength within a data transmission wavelength range used by the optical communication device for data transmissions, wherein the optical communication device is configured to switch between the data transmissions by the optical communication device and monitoring by the optical communication device based on the optical signal.
However, Rad in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches an apparatus comprising an optical communication device (see Rad Figure 3) for transmitting and detecting an optical signal for monitoring (see Figure 3, OTDR circuit 330 and PD 380 and paragraph [0035]) as taught in Rao wherein
the optical signal comprises a wavelength within a data transmission wavelength range used by the optical communication device for data transmissions, wherein the optical communication device is configured to switch between the data transmissions by the optical communication device and monitoring by the optical communication device based on the optical signal (see Figure 3, switch 320 for switching between OTDR circuit 330 and data laser driver 325 to laser diode 315 and paragraph [0031]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the teaching of sending out signals either for monitoring or data transmission as taught in Rad with the system taught in Rao, the motivation being to expand the utility of such a system via communication links.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 33, 34, 36, and 38 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.
Claim 35 and 37 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY L KRETZER whose telephone number is (571)272-5639. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-7:00 PM Pacific Time.
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, David Payne can be reached at (571)272-3024. 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.
/CASEY L KRETZER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635