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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 13, 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: The word ”fibre” should be changes to –fiber-- Appropriate correction is required.
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. Claim 10 is indefinite because o f the use of the words “for example” See MPEP 2173.05(d)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 13, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (2009/0028550).
With regards to claim 1, 13, 17 are Zhang teaches, a method of dynamic change
Detection (fault in a system) using an optical fibre arrangement (Fig. 1@12), the optical fibre arrangement comprising a forward optical path and a second optical path(Fig 1@ 28-29, par 21-23) , the optical fibre arrangement being configured into a plurality of spans by a plurality of nodes(optical repeaters 36-1….36-n), the plurality of nodes being between first and second ends of the optical fibre arrangement, a first span having a first node at a first end and a second node at a second end, each of the first and second nodes including a feed from the forward optical path to the second optical path such that forward propagation of a light signal from the forward optical path feeds the second optical path(pa 30-32), the method comprising: transmitting said light signal(Laser 30/coupler 34) into the forward optical path(fiber 29); receiving a response signal from the second optical path(fiber 28), wherein the response signal comprises a first loop back signal and a second loop back signal, the first loop back signal (LME test signals 18 return by loop back paths 41-2, 42-2) comprising said light signal fed into the second optical path via the feed of the first node, the second loop back signal comprising said light signal fed into the second optical path via the feed of the second node)par 30-31); obtaining from the response signal a first signal element and a second signal element(loop gain data associated with each repeater 36-1 to 36-n) relating to, respectively, the first loop back signal and the second loop back signa(par 35)l; and detecting dynamic changes along the first span from dynamic changes(predetermined fault signatures/ other faults may be detected) in a difference between the first signal element and the second signal element.(loop gain data for repeater 36-2 minus loop gain data for repeater 36-1, par 35-37, 41; Fig 1@10)
With regards to claim 2 Zhang teaches the method of claim 1, wherein dynamic changes along the first span are detected from phase changes and/or frequency changes in the first signal element and/or the second signal element (see time delays ts1, ts2 par.32-35).
With regards to claim 5, Zhang teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first signal element and the second signal element are the first and second loop back signals respectively. (42-1, 42-2 loopbacks)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 8, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Zhang et al. (2009/0028550).
With regards to claims 8, Zheng fails to teach the method of claim 1, further comprising detecting vibrations, temperature, humidity and pressure perturbations along the first span. Official notice is taken that sensors are routinely used to detect natural phenomena. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these sensors with the teaching in Zheng in order to detect phenomena that can affect fiber traffic
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Zhang et al. (2009/0028550) in view of Mansouri Rad (2021/0013962)
With regards to claims 10, Zhang fails to teach a method according to claim 1
further comprising performing seismic detection, for example detection of earthquakes. This is taught by Mansouri Rad (Col 1. Par 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zhang with Rad for the purpose of being able to monitor/detect seismic phenomena that may damage fibers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 6-7, 9, 11-12, 14-16 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH N VANDERPUYE whose telephone number is (571)272-3078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 6:30am-2:30p.
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.
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.
/KENNETH N VANDERPUYE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2634