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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 03/25/2024 and 12/18/2025 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.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph [0001] refers to “ODTR” where it should recite “OTDR”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
NOTE: In order to promote compact prosecution, prior art will be applied for all claim limitations as appropriate, even when the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) does not include certain contingent limitations present in method claims. However, this should not be taken as an acknowledgement that the BRI and therefore the scope of method claims with such contingent limitations are broader than as discussed below.
Regarding claim 20, the method claim contains recitation(s) contingent upon (i.e. “in response to”) “a determination that the optical transmission system is performing improperly.” However, this recitation is not required to carry out the claimed invention (i.e. the system can be determined to perform properly) and according to MPEP 2111.04, II, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” See also Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016). Therefore, the BRI of claim 20 would not include the following limitation(s):
“determining the performance of the optical transmission system”
A way to overcome this would be to amend the claim as follows:
“A method of determining a performance of an optical transmission system, the method comprising: transmitting an optical signal along a first optical fiber core;
reflecting a portion of the optical signal;
conveying the reflected portion of the optical signal to a second optical fiber core via crosstalk between the first optical fiber core and the second optical fiber core;
detecting the crosstalk of the reflected portion of the optical signal to generate detection data;
determining the performance of the optical transmission system based on the detection data; [[and]]
determining that the optical transmission system is performing improperly; and identifying a location of a fault in the optical transmission system in response to
[[a]] the determination that the optical transmission system is performing improperly.”
NOTE: Independent claims 1 and 12 are apparatus claims and therefore the BRI of the claims would require structure capable of performing the contingent limitation(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites that the optical transmission system is free of “optical circuitry”. When looking to the specification of the published application, paragraph [0001] states that optical time domain reflectometer (OTDR) technology utilizes a circuit, which comprises returning an optical signal to a source. Furthermore, claim 1 on which claim 10 depends states that the location of a fault in the optical transmission system is determined when the optical transmission system is functioning improperly. However, the only examples given in the specification on how to determine this location is by using OTDR or otherwise a returned optical signal (see paragraph [0029]). Therefore, claim 10 appears to contradict claim 1 making the meets and bounds of what a system being free of an “optical circuit” unclear (i.e. how can the system determine the location of a fault without a circuit?).
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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kobayashi et al, “Measurement of Inter-core Crosstalk of Multicore Fibers with Optical Time Domain Reflectometry” (published Sumitomo Electric Technical Review, No. 96, pages 49-54, April 2023).
Regarding claim 20, Kobayashi teaches a method of determining a performance of an optical transmission system, the method comprising:
transmitting an optical signal along a first optical fiber core (see Kobyashi Figure 2, OTDR transmitting “input” at core #1);
reflecting a portion of the optical signal (see page 49, column 2, “A test pulse launched from OTDR to core 1 of MCF is backscattered at the fiber longitudinal position z);
conveying the reflected portion of the optical signal to a second optical fiber core via crosstalk between the first optical fiber core and the second optical fiber core (see Figure 2, core #2 receiving the “purple” crosstalk from the reflection in core #1 and page 49, column 2, “Meanwhile, the pulse is coupled from core 1 to core 2 with a coefficient h both before and after backscattered”)page 49, column 2, “Meanwhile, the pulse is coupled from core 1 to core 2 with a coefficient h both before and after backscattered”);
detecting the crosstalk of the reflected portion of the optical signal to generate detection data (see Figure 2, Ch 2 receiving P12 and equation (3). This implies that at least a power detector is present to calculate the cross-talk);
identifying a location of a fault in the optical transmission system in response to a determination that the optical transmission system is performing improperly (see explanation in the “Claim Interpretation” section above).
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) 1, 8, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al, “Measurement of Inter-core Crosstalk of Multicore Fibers with Optical Time Domain Reflectometry” (published Sumitomo Electric Technical Review, No. 96, pages 49-54, April 2023) in view of Dvir et al, U.S. Publication No. 2013/0077975.
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi teaches an optical transmission system comprising:
a transceiver (see Kobayashi Figure 2, OTDR) configured to output an optical signal to a first optical fiber core of a multi-core fiber (MCF), wherein the first optical fiber core is configured to reflect a portion of the optical signal back toward the transceiver (see Figure 2, “input” into MCF at core #1 and page 49, column 2, “Figure 2 shows schematics of XT measurement using OTDR. A test pulse launched from OTDR to core 1 of MCF is backscattered at the fiber longitudinal position z”);
a second optical fiber core proximate the first optical fiber core, wherein the second optical fiber core is in the MCF, and the second optical fiber core is configured to receive crosstalk of the reflected portion of the optical signal from the first optical fiber core (see Figure 2, core #2 receiving the “purple” crosstalk from the reflection in core #1 and page 49, column 2, “Meanwhile, the pulse is coupled from core 1 to core 2 with a coefficient h both before and after backscattered”);
a detector configured to receive the crosstalk of the reflected portion of the optical signal and generate detection data based on the crosstalk of the reflected portion of the optical signal (see Figure 2, Ch 2 receiving P12 and equation (3). This implies that at least a power detector is present to calculate the cross-talk); and
wherein the system is configured to perform the following step:
receive information related to the detection data (see Figure 4 and page 50, column 2, “Figure 4 shows the intensity of the backscattered pulse and co-propagating XT measured by MC-OTDR as a function of fiber longitudinal position z from inside to outside of the reel”).
Kobayashi does not expressively teach
a controller configured to:
receive [the] information related to the detection data,
determine whether the optical transmission system is functioning properly based on the detection data, and
determine a location of a fault in the optical transmission system in response to determining that the optical transmission system is functioning improperly.
However, Dvir in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches an optical transmission system (see Dvir Figure 2) comprising a transceiver configured to output an optical signal to a first optical fiber (see Figure 2, Tx 251 and Rx 252 coupled to fiber 220) and a detector configured to generate detection data from a reflected optical signal received from the first optical fiber (see Figure 2, continuous Rx 253 and paragraph [0025]), wherein the system receives information related to the detection data (see Figure 2, reflection analysis unit 230 and paragraph [0022]) as taught in Kobayashi further comprising
a controller (see Figure 2, OTDR processor 240) configured to:
receive [the] information related to the detection data (see Figure 2, output from accumulator 235 to processor 240 and paragraph [0031]),
determine whether the optical transmission system is functioning properly based on the detection data, and
determine a location of a fault in the optical transmission system in response to determining that the optical transmission system is functioning improperly (see paragraph [0032]).
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 determining proper function and fault location in a system as taught in Dvir with the system measuring crosstalk on multicore fibers taught in Kobayashi, the motivation being to allow technicians to quickly determine and correct signal loss during active communication in the system.
Regarding claim 8, Kobayashi in view of Dvir teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressively teach wherein an intensity of the reflected portion is less than about 20% of an intensity of the optical signal.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of design choice to have the reflected portion be as claimed based on system requirements, types of fibers available, etc.
Regarding claim 11, Kobayashi in view of Dvir teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressively teach wherein the optical transmission system is a submarine optical transmission system.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of design choice to make the optical transmission system submarine in order to connect stations separated by large amounts of water.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al, “Measurement of Inter-core Crosstalk of Multicore Fibers with Optical Time Domain Reflectometry” (published Sumitomo Electric Technical Review, No. 96, pages 49-54, April 2023) in view of Dvir et al, U.S. Publication No. 2013/0077975 and Barrera et al, “Tilted Fiber Bragg Gratings for Selective Coupling in a Multicore Optical Fiber” (published at 2018 Optical Fiber Communications Conference and Exposition (OFC), March 2018).
Regarding claim 9, Kobayashi in view of Dvir teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressively teach a grating in the first optical fiber core, and the grating is configured to reflect the portion of the optical signal.
However, Barrera in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a system with an MCF, an optical signal transmitted in first optical fiber core of the MCF, wherein the first optical fiber core is configured to reflect a portion of the optical signal, and the MCF comprises a second optical fiber core (see Barrera Figure 2d, middle core of the MCF with “reflection” and “transmission” portions of light and section 3, first paragraph, “TFBGs can couple light from the incident core mode to a counter propagated guided core mode and also to multiple cladding modes”) as taught in Kobayashi in view of Dvir further comprising
a grating in the first optical fiber core, and the grating is configured to reflect the portion of the optical signal (see Figure 2d, grating in middle core and section 3, first paragraph, “TFBGs can couple light from the incident core mode to a counter propagated guided core mode and also to multiple cladding modes”).
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 MCF of Kobayashi in view of Dvir with that of Barrera to yield the predictable results of successfully receiving crosstalk in the system.
Claim(s) 2-4, 6, 12-14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al, “Measurement of Inter-core Crosstalk of Multicore Fibers with Optical Time Domain Reflectometry” (published Sumitomo Electric Technical Review, No. 96, pages 49-54, April 2023) in view of Dvir et al, U.S. Publication No. 2013/0077975 and Matsumoto et al, U.S. Publication No. 2023/0026901.
Regarding claim 2, Kobayashi in view of Dvir teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressively teach a repeater connected to the first optical fiber core and the second optical fiber core, wherein the repeater is configured to boost an intensity of the optical signal.
However, Matsumoto in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a system comprising a transmitter configured to output an optical signal to a first optical fiber core of an MCF comprising a second optical fiber core (see Matsumoto Figure 5, transmitter 41 outputting signal to multicore fiber 40 and paragraph [0069]) as taught in Kobayashi in view of Dvir further comprising
a repeater connected to the first optical fiber core and the second optical fiber core, wherein the repeater is configured to boost an intensity of the optical signal. (see Figure 5, repeater 42 and paragraph [0069]).
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 using a repeater to amplify an optical signal on a fiber core as taught in Matsumoto with the system taught in Kobayashi in view of Dvir, the motivation being to ensure the optical signal strength is sufficient for reception.
Regarding claim 3, Kobayashi in view of Dvir and Matsumoto teaches all the limitations of claim 2, and further teaches wherein the repeater is a multi core erbium-doped fiber (EDF) (see Matsumoto paragraph [0068] “As the optical fiber amplifier that amplifies signal intensity of an optical signal, there is an optical fiber amplifier that amplifies signal intensity of an optical signal by inputting, to a rare-earth additive fiber to which the optical signal is input, pumping light output from a pumping light source. For example, an amplification medium having a structure in which erbium (Er) as one example of a rare-earth element is added to a core portion of a fiber is known” and paragraph [0069], “Then, it is assumed that the amplification medium that is included in each of the repeaters 42.sub.k, 42.sub.2, 42.sub.3, 42.sub.4, . . . and amplifies an optical signal has a configuration in which four used cores are disposed in a square arrangement in one clad”).
Regarding claim 4, Kobayashi in view of Dvir and Matsumoto teaches all the limitations of claim 2, and further teaches wherein the repeater is an EDF (see Matsumoto paragraph [0068] “As the optical fiber amplifier that amplifies signal intensity of an optical signal, there is an optical fiber amplifier that amplifies signal intensity of an optical signal by inputting, to a rare-earth additive fiber to which the optical signal is input, pumping light output from a pumping light source. For example, an amplification medium having a structure in which erbium (Er) as one example of a rare-earth element is added to a core portion of a fiber is known”).
Kobayashi in view of Dvir and Matsumoto does not expressively teach wherein the EDF is a single core EDF. However, 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 EDF with a single core EDF to yield the predictable results of successfully amplifying the optical signal.
Regarding claim 6, Kobayashi in view of Dvir and Matsumoto teaches all the limitations of claim 2, and further teaches a fan-in-fan-out (FIFO) device between the first optical fiber core and the repeater (see Kobayashi Figure 9 which shows a FIFO used to connect a multi-channel OTDR to an MCF as combined with Matsumoto Figure 5, transmitter 41 having its output onto MCF 40).
Regarding claim 12, Kobayashi teaches an optical transmission system comprising:
a transceiver (see Kobayashi Figure 2, OTDR) configured to output an optical signal to a first optical fiber core (see Figure 2, “input” into MCF at core #1 and page 49, column 2, “Figure 2 shows schematics of XT measurement using OTDR. A test pulse launched from OTDR to core 1 of MCF is backscattered at the fiber longitudinal position z”);
a second optical fiber core proximate the first optical fiber core, wherein the second optical fiber core is configured to receive crosstalk from the first optical fiber core, and the second optical fiber core is configured to reflect a portion of the crosstalk of the optical signal back toward the transceiver (see Figure 2, core #2 receiving the “pink” crosstalk from core #1 then reflecting it and page 49, column 2, “Meanwhile, the pulse is coupled from core 1 to core 2 with a coefficient h both before and after backscattered”);
a detector configured to receive the reflected portion of the crosstalk of the optical signal and generate detection data based on the reflected portion of the crosstalk of the optical signal (see Figure 2, Ch 2 receiving P12 and equation (3). This implies that at least a power detector is present to calculate the cross-talk); and
wherein the system is configured to perform the following step:
receive information related to the detection data (see Figure 4 and page 50, column 2, “Figure 4 shows the intensity of the backscattered pulse and co-propagating XT measured by MC-OTDR as a function of fiber longitudinal position z from inside to outside of the reel”).
Kobayashi does not expressively teach
a repeater connected to the first optical fiber core, wherein the repeater is configured to boost an intensity of the optical signal; and
a controller configured to:
receive [the] information related to the detection data,
determine whether the optical transmission system is functioning properly based on the detection data, and
determine a location of a fault in the optical transmission system in response to determining that the optical transmission system is functioning improperly.
However, Dvir in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches an optical transmission system (see Dvir Figure 2) comprising a transceiver configured to output an optical signal to a first optical fiber (see Figure 2, Tx 251 and Rx 252 coupled to fiber 220) and a detector configured to generate detection data from a reflected optical signal received from the first optical fiber (see Figure 2, continuous Rx 253 and paragraph [0025]), wherein the system receives information related to the detection data (see Figure 2, reflection analysis unit 230 and paragraph [0022]) as taught in Kobayashi further comprising
a controller (see Figure 2, OTDR processor 240) configured to:
receive [the] information related to the detection data (see Figure 2, output from accumulator 235 to processor 240 and paragraph [0031]),
determine whether the optical transmission system is functioning properly based on the detection data, and
determine a location of a fault in the optical transmission system in response to determining that the optical transmission system is functioning improperly (see paragraph [0032]).
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 determining proper function and fault location in a system as taught in Dvir with the system measuring crosstalk on multicore fibers taught in Kobayashi, the motivation being to allow technicians to quickly determine and correct signal loss during active communication in the system.
Kobayashi in view of Dvir does not expressively teach
a repeater connected to the first optical fiber core, wherein the repeater is configured to boost an intensity of the optical signal.
However, Matsumoto in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a system comprising a transmitter configured to output an optical signal to a first optical fiber core (see Matsumoto Figure 5, transmitter 41 outputting signal to multicore fiber 40 and paragraph [0069]) as taught in Kobayashi in view of Dvir further comprising
a repeater connected to the first optical fiber core, wherein the repeater is configured to boost an intensity of the optical signal (see Figure 5, repeater 42 and paragraph [0069]).
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 using a repeater to amplify an optical signal on a fiber core as taught in Matsumoto with the system taught in Kobayashi in view of Dvir, the motivation being to ensure the optical signal strength is sufficient for reception.
Regarding claim 13, Kobayashi in view of Dvir and Matsumoto teaches all the limitations of claim 12, and further teaches wherein the first optical fiber core is part of a multi core fiber (MCF) (see Kobayashi Figure 2, MCF), and the repeater is a multi core erbium-doped fiber (EDF) (see Matsumoto paragraph [0068] “As the optical fiber amplifier that amplifies signal intensity of an optical signal, there is an optical fiber amplifier that amplifies signal intensity of an optical signal by inputting, to a rare-earth additive fiber to which the optical signal is input, pumping light output from a pumping light source. For example, an amplification medium having a structure in which erbium (Er) as one example of a rare-earth element is added to a core portion of a fiber is known” and paragraph [0069], “Then, it is assumed that the amplification medium that is included in each of the repeaters 42.sub.k, 42.sub.2, 42.sub.3, 42.sub.4, . . . and amplifies an optical signal has a configuration in which four used cores are disposed in a square arrangement in one clad”).
Regarding claim 14, Kobayashi in view of Dvir and Matsumoto teaches all the limitations of claim 12, and further teaches wherein the first optical fiber core is part of a multi core fiber (MCF) (see Kobayashi Figure 2, MCF) and wherein the repeater is an EDF (see Matsumoto paragraph [0068] “As the optical fiber amplifier that amplifies signal intensity of an optical signal, there is an optical fiber amplifier that amplifies signal intensity of an optical signal by inputting, to a rare-earth additive fiber to which the optical signal is input, pumping light output from a pumping light source. For example, an amplification medium having a structure in which erbium (Er) as one example of a rare-earth element is added to a core portion of a fiber is known”).
Kobayashi in view of Dvir and Matsumoto does not expressively teach wherein the EDF is a single core EDF. However, 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 EDF with a single core EDF to yield the predictable results of successfully amplifying the optical signal.
Regarding claim 16, Kobayashi in view of Dvir and Matsumoto teaches all the limitations of claim 12, and further teaches a fan-in-fan-out (FIFO) device between the first optical fiber core and the repeater (see Kobayashi Figure 9 which shows a FIFO used to connect a multi-channel OTDR to an MCF as combined with Matsumoto Figure 5, transmitter 41 having its output onto MCF 40).
Claim(s) 5, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al, “Measurement of Inter-core Crosstalk of Multicore Fibers with Optical Time Domain Reflectometry” (published Sumitomo Electric Technical Review, No. 96, pages 49-54, April 2023) in view of Dvir et al, U.S. Publication No. 2013/0077975; Matsumoto et al, U.S. Publication No. 2023/0026901 and Barrera et al, “Tilted Fiber Bragg Gratings for Selective Coupling in a Multicore Optical Fiber” (published at 2018 Optical Fiber Communications Conference and Exposition (OFC), March 2018).
Regarding claim 5, Kobayashi in view of Dvir and Matsumoto teaches all the limitations of claim 2, but does not expressively teach a grating in at least one of the first optical fiber core or the second optical core.
However, Barrera in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a system with an MCF, an optical signal transmitted in first optical fiber core of the MCF (see Barrera Figure 2d, middle core of MCF with a “reflection” and “transmission” portions of light and caption) as taught in Kobayashi in view of Dvir and Matsumoto further comprising
a grating in at least one of the first optical fiber core or the second optical core (see Figure 2d, grating in each core).
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 MCF of Kobayashi in view of Dvir and Matsumoto with that of Barrera to yield the predictable results of successfully transmitting optical signals and receiving crosstalk between fiber cores.
Regarding claim 18, Kobayashi in view of Dvir and Matsumoto teaches all the limitations of claim 12, but does not expressively teach a grating in the first optical fiber core, wherein the grating is configured to partially reflect the optical signal.
However, Barrera in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a system with an MCF, an optical signal transmitted in first optical fiber core of the MCF, and a second optical fiber core of the MCF (see Barrera Figure 2d, middle core of the MCF with “reflection” and “transmission” portions of light and caption) as taught in Kobayashi in view of Dvir and Matsumoto further comprising
a grating in the first optical fiber core, wherein the grating is configured to partially reflect the optical signal (see Figure 2d, grating in middle core and section 3, first paragraph, “TFBGs can couple light from the incident core mode to a counter propagated guided core mode and also to multiple cladding modes”).
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 MCF of Kobayashi in view of Dvir and Matsumoto with that of Barrera to yield the predictable results of successfully receiving crosstalk in the system.
Regarding claim 19, Kobayashi in view of Dvir and Matsumoto teaches all the limitations of claim 12, but does not expressively teach a grating in the second optical fiber core, and the grating is configured to reflect the portion of the crosstalk of the optical signal.
However, Barrera in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a system with an MCF, an optical signal transmitted in first optical fiber core of the MCF, and a second optical fiber core of the MCF (see Barrera Figure 2d, middle core of the MCF with “reflection” and “transmission” portions of light and caption) as taught in Kobayashi in view of Dvir and Matsumoto further comprising
a grating in the second optical fiber core (see Figure 2d, grating in each core).
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 MCF of Kobayashi in view of Dvir and Matsumoto with that of Barrera to yield the predictable results of successfully receiving crosstalk in the system.
Kobayashi in view of Dvir, Matsumoto, and Barrera further teaches the grating is configured to reflect the portion of the crosstalk of the optical signal (see Kobayashi Figure 2, core #2 receiving the “pink” crosstalk from core #1 then reflecting it as combined with Barrera Figure 2d)
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al, “Measurement of Inter-core Crosstalk of Multicore Fibers with Optical Time Domain Reflectometry” (published Sumitomo Electric Technical Review, No. 96, pages 49-54, April 2023) in view of Dvir et al, U.S. Publication No. 2013/0077975; Matsumoto et al, U.S. Publication No. 2023/0026901 and Spencer, U.S. Patent No. 6,301,036.
Regarding claim 7, Kobayashi in view of Dvir and Matsumoto teaches all the limitations of claim 2, but does not expressively teach wherein an interface between the first optical fiber core and the repeater is configured to reflect the portion of the optical signal.
However, Spencer in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a system with a first optical fiber (see Spencer Figure 4, output from repeater 22) connected to a repeater (see Figure 4, repeater 24), wherein the system is configured to reflect a portion of an optical signal (see Figure 4, reflective filter 48) as taught in Kobayashi in view of Dvir and Matsumoto wherein
an interface between the first optical fiber core and the repeater is configured to reflect the portion of the optical signal (see Figure 4, interface including reflective filter 48 and circulator 46).
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 backscatter reflections of Kobayashi in view of Dvir and Matsumoto with reflections from an interface as taught in Spencer to yield the predictable results of successfully reflecting the optical signal in the system.
Regarding claim 17, Kobayashi in view of Dvir and Matsumoto teaches all the limitations of claim 12, but does not expressively teach wherein an interface between the first optical fiber core and the repeater is configured to reflect the portion of the optical signal.
However, Spencer in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a system with a first optical fiber (see Spencer Figure 4, output from repeater 22) connected to a repeater (see Figure 4, repeater 24), wherein the system is configured to reflect a portion of an optical signal (see Figure 4, reflective filter 48) as taught in Kobayashi in view of Dvir and Matsumoto wherein
an interface between the first optical fiber core and the repeater is configured to reflect the portion of the optical signal (see Figure 4, interface including reflective filter 48 and circulator 46).
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 backscatter reflections of Kobayashi in view of Dvir and Matsumoto with reflections from an interface as taught in Spencer to yield the predictable results of successfully reflecting the optical signal in the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Although no prior art is used against claim 10, this is not an indication that it/they is/are allowable. See MPEP 2173.06, section II, second paragraph. The 112 issues cause a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim(s). It is therefore difficult for the Examiner to properly search for prior art for the invention.
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