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 .
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 9 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 9 recites that the regression equation τ=τ(λ) is a Sellmeier equation τ=A+Bλ2+Cλ-2. However, the variables A, B, and C are not defined in the claim and one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably deduce what variables A, B, and C are. Paragraphs [0004-0005] from the specification of the instant application recites that Patent Literature 1 (JP 2002236078) discloses a method for measuring a wavelength dispersion, a zero-dispersion wavelength, and a wavelength dispersion slope with use of the Sellmeier equation. Referencing Patent Literature 1 (JP 2002236078, where portions of an uploaded translation provided by the Applicant is cited below), paragraphs [0040-0041] recites Sellmeier’s approximation formula is D(λ)=a+bλ2+cλ-2 where variables a, b, c are constants and variable λ is the wavelength. Therefore, as best understood and interpreted, variables A, B, and C of claim 9 are constants.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 5, and 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an estimation method without significantly more. The claims recite an estimation method that is used for performing calculations, which under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are mental processes which is considered an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not have additional elements beyond the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not have any additional elements included in the claims.
Claim Analysis:
Claim 1
Step 1: Yes, the claim is directed to a process.
Step 2A, prong one: Yes, the claim recites a judicial exception because “an estimation method comprising estimating, using a relational equation, a measurement variation in a group delay from one or both of a loss in a target optical fiber and a power of a target light source, wherein the group delay occurs when light generated by the target light source is inputted into the target optical fiber” recites a mental process (evaluation of a measurement variation in a group delay by using a relational equation) which is considered an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Step 2A, prong two:
The claim does not have additional elements beyond “an estimation method comprising estimating, using a relational equation, a measurement variation in a group delay from one or both of a loss in a target optical fiber and a power of a target light source, wherein the group delay occurs when light generated by the target light source is inputted into the target optical fiber” therefore, the claim as a whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The additional elements do not amount to significantly more as there are no additional elements in the claim.
Conclusion: Claim 1 is not eligible subject matter under 101.
Claim 2
Step 1: Yes, the claim is directed to a process.
Step 2A, prong one: Yes, the claim recites a judicial exception because “an estimation method, wherein the relational equation is a predetermined relational equation corresponding to a fiber length of the target optical fiber” recites a mental process (evaluation of a measurement variation in a group delay by using a relational equation) which is considered an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Step 2A, prong two: The claim does not have additional elements beyond “an estimation method, wherein the relational equation is a predetermined relational equation corresponding to a fiber length of the target optical fiber” therefore, the claim as a whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The additional elements do not amount to significantly more as there are no additional elements in the claim.
Conclusion: Claim 2 is not eligible subject matter under 101.
Claim 7
Step 1: Yes, the claim is directed to a process.
Step 2A, prong one: Yes, the claim recites a judicial exception because “an estimation method, wherein the estimating of the measurement variation is performed only when the fiber length of the target optical fiber falls within a range” recites a mental process (evaluation of a measurement variation in a group delay) which is considered an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Step 2A, prong two: The claim does not have additional elements beyond “an estimation method, wherein the estimating of the measurement variation is performed only when the fiber length of the target optical fiber falls within a range” therefore, the claim as a whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The additional elements do not amount to significantly more as there are no additional elements in the claim.
Conclusion: Claim 7 is not eligible subject matter under 101.
Claim 11
Step 1: Yes, the claim is directed to a device
Step 2A, prong one: Yes, the claim recites a judicial exception because “an information processing device for performing the estimation method where the information processing device comprising a processor that executes the estimating of the measurement variation” recites a mental process (estimation method) which is considered an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Step 2A, prong two: The claim does not have additional elements beyond “an information processing device for performing the estimation method, the information processing device comprising a processor that executes the estimating of the measurement variation” therefore, the claim as a whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the information processing device is a processor which is a generic computer component
Conclusion: Claim 11 is not eligible subject matter under 101.
Claim 5
Step 1: Yes, the claim is directed to a process.
Step 2A, Prong One: Yes, the claim recites a judicial exception because “an estimation method comprising estimating, using a relational equation corresponding to a fiber length of a target optical fiber, a measurement variation in a group delay from a wavelength of light generated by a target light source, wherein the group delay occurs when the light is inputted into the target optical fiber” recites a mental process (evaluation of a measurement variation in a group delay by using a relational equation) which is considered an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Step 2A, Prong Two: The claim does not have additional elements beyond “an estimation method comprising estimating, using a relational equation corresponding to a fiber length of a target optical fiber, a measurement variation in a group delay from a wavelength of light generated by a target light source, wherein the group delay occurs when the light is inputted into the target optical fiber”, therefore, the claim as a whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The additional elements do not amount to significantly more as there are no additional elements in the claim.
Conclusion: Claim 5 is not eligible subject matter under 101.
Claim 13
Step 1: Yes, the claim is directed to a process.
Step 2A, Prong One: Yes, the claim recites a judicial exception because “the estimation method wherein the estimating of the measurement variation is performed only when the fiber length of the target optical fiber falls within a range” recites a mental process (evaluation of a measurement variation in a group delay) which is considered an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Step 2A, Prong Two: The claim does not have additional elements beyond “the estimation method wherein the estimating of the measurement variation is performed only when the fiber length of the target optical fiber falls within a range”, therefore, the claim as a whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The additional elements do not amount to significantly more as there are no additional elements in the claim.
Conclusion: Claim 13 is not eligible subject matter under 101.
Claim 14
Step 1: Yes, the claim is directed to a device.
Step 2A, prong one: Yes, the claim recites a judicial exception because “an information processing device for performing the estimation method where the information processing device comprising a processor that executes the estimating of the measurement variation” recites a mental process (estimation method) which is considered an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Step 2A, prong two: The claim does not have additional elements beyond “an information processing device for performing the estimation method where the information processing device comprising a processor that executes the estimating of the measurement variation” therefore, the claim as a whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the information processing device is a processor which is a generic computer component
Conclusion: Claim 14 is not eligible subject matter under 101.
Claim 8
Step 1: Yes, the claim is directed to a process.
Step 2A, Prong One: Yes, the claim recites a judicial exception because “a measurement method comprising acquiring, with respect to each of a plurality of wavelengths differing from each other, a group delay that occurs when light generated by a target light source is inputted into a target optical fiber; with respect to each of the plurality of wavelengths, estimating, using a relational equation, a measurement variation in the group delay from one or both of a loss in the target optical fiber and a power of the target light source; determining a regression equation τ=τ(λ) in which an explanatory variable is a wavelength λ and an objective variable is a group delay τ that occurs when light having the wavelength λ is inputted into an optical fiber, with reference to the acquired group delay through a weighted least-square method using a weight corresponding to the estimated measurement variation; and calculating a physical quantity indicative of an optical characteristic of the target optical fiber with the regression equation τ=τ(λ)” recites mental processes (collecting data from the acquiring step, estimating using a relational equation a measurement variation in a group delay, determining a regression equation, and calculating a physical quantity indicative of an optical characteristic of an optical fiber using the regression equation) which is considered an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)). Paragraph [0051] of the specification of the instant application recites that the acquiring step would not need to be specifically performed via an optical measurement, as it can be inputted by a user. Therefore, the acquiring step appears to merely a data collection step.
Step 2A, Prong Two: The claim does not have additional elements beyond “a measurement method comprising acquiring, with respect to each of a plurality of wavelengths differing from each other, a group delay that occurs when light generated by a target light source is inputted into a target optical fiber; with respect to each of the plurality of wavelengths, estimating, using a relational equation, a measurement variation in the group delay from one or both of a loss in the target optical fiber and a power of the target light source; determining a regression equation τ=τ(λ) in which an explanatory variable is a wavelength λ and an objective variable is a group delay τ that occurs when light having the wavelength λ is inputted into an optical fiber, with reference to the acquired group delay through a weighted least-square method using a weight corresponding to the estimated measurement variation; and calculating a physical quantity indicative of an optical characteristic of the target optical fiber with the regression equation τ=τ(λ)”, therefore, the claim as a whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The additional elements do not amount to significantly more as there are no additional elements in the claim.
Conclusion: Claim 8 is not eligible subject matter under 101.
Claim 9
Step 1: Yes, the claim is directed to a process.
Step 2A, Prong One: Yes, the claim recites a judicial exception because “the measurement method wherein the regression equation τ=τ(λ) is a Sellmeier equation τ=A+Bλ2+Cλ-2” recites a mental process (evaluation of a measurement variation in a group delay using a regression equation) which is considered an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Step 2A, Prong Two: The claim does not have additional elements beyond “the measurement method wherein the regression equation τ=τ(λ) is a Sellmeier equation τ=A+Bλ2+Cλ-2”, therefore, the claim as a whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The additional elements do not amount to significantly more as there are no additional elements in the claim.
Conclusion: Claim 9 is not eligible subject matter under 101.
Claim 10
Step 1: Yes, the claim is directed to a process.
Step 2A, Prong One: Yes, the claim recites a judicial exception because “the measurement method wherein the calculating of the physical quantity includes calculating a wavelength dispersion D(λ) according to D(λ)=2Bλ – 2Cλ-3, a zero-dispersion wavelength λ0 according to λ0= (C/B)1/4, or a zero-dispersion slope slope @λ0 according to slope@λ0 = 8B” recites a mental process (calculating a wavelength dispersion to calculate a physical quantity) which is considered an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Step 2A, Prong Two: The claim does not have additional elements beyond “the measurement method wherein the calculating of the physical quantity includes calculating a wavelength dispersion D(λ) according to D(λ)=2Bλ – 2Cλ-3, a zero-dispersion wavelength λ0 according to λ0= (C/B)1/4, or a zero-dispersion slope slope @λ0 according to slope@λ0 = 8B”, therefore, the claim as a whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The additional elements do not amount to significantly more as there are no additional elements in the claim.
Conclusion: Claim 10 is not eligible subject matter under 101.
Claim 12
Step 1: Yes, the claim is directed to a device.
Step 2A, prong one: Yes, the claim recites a judicial exception because “an information processing device for performing the measurement method where the information processing device comprising a processor that executes the estimating of the measurement variation” recites a mental process (estimating a measurement variation) which is considered an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Step 2A, prong two: The claim does not have additional elements beyond “an information processing device for performing the measurement method where the information processing device comprising a processor that executes the estimating of the measurement variation” therefore, the claim as a whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the information processing device is a processor which is a generic computer component
Conclusion: Claim 12 is not eligible subject matter under 101.
Discussion of Claims 3-4 and 6:
Claims 3-4 and 6 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as they include additional steps and/or elements that incorporate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 3 recites “at each of a plurality of wavelengths differing from each other, acquiring one or both of: an additional loss in a preparation subject optical fiber, and an additional power of a preparation subject light source; with respect to each of the plurality of wavelengths: acquiring measurement values by repeatedly measuring an additional group delay that occurs when light generated by the preparation subject light source is inputted into the preparation subject optical fiber; and calculating an additional measurement variation in the additional group delay from the measurement values; and deriving a regression equation defined as Δ=Δ(L,P) in which an explanatory variable is one or both of a loss L in an optical fiber and a power P of a light source and an objective variable is a measurement variation Δ in a group delay that occurs when light generated by the light source is inputted into the optical fiber, through a least-square method, with reference to the additional measurement and one or both of the additional loss and the additional power, wherein the relational equation is the regression equation.” The bolded claim limitation is an unconventional step and non-routine that confines the claim to a particular useful application of the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(d)) and therefore, is an inventive concept and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (MPEP 2106.05 (I)), thus avoiding a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4 recites “comprising, on each of a plurality of optical fibers having different fiber lengths: at each of a plurality of wavelengths differing from each other, acquiring one or both of: an additional loss in a preparation subject optical fiber, and an additional power of a preparation subject light source; with respect to each of the plurality of wavelengths: acquiring measurement values by repeatedly measuring an additional group delay that occurs when light generated by the preparation subject light source is inputted into the preparation subject optical fiber; and calculating an additional measurement variation in the additional group delay from the measurement values; and deriving a regression equation Δ=Δ(L,P) in which an explanatory variable is one or both of a loss L in an optical fiber and a power P of a light source and an objective variable is a measurement variation Δ in a group delay that occurs when light generated by the light source is inputted into the optical fiber, through a least-square method, with reference to the additional measurement variation and one or both of the additional loss and the additional power, wherein relational equations are regression equations obtained in the deriving of the regression equation and corresponding to the plurality of optical fibers, and the relational equation is the regression equation corresponding to one of the plurality of optical fibers that has a fiber length closest to the fiber length of the target optical fiber or in which a loss is the closest to the loss in the target optical fiber.” The bolded claim limitation is an unconventional step and non-routine that confines the claim to a particular useful application of the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(d)) and therefore, is an inventive concept and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (MPEP 2106.05 (I)), thus avoiding a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6 recites “the estimation method comprising with respect to each of a plurality of fiber lengths FL1,FL2, ... , FLm and each of a plurality of wavelengths λ1,λ2, ... , λn; acquiring measurement values by repeatedly measuring a group delay τji that occurs when light having a wavelength λi (i is a natural number of not less than 1 and not more than n) is inputted into an optical fiber having a length FLj (j is a natural number of not less than 1 and not more than m); and calculating a variation Δji in the group delay τji from the measurement values; and deriving, with respect to each of the plurality of fiber lengths FL1,FL2, ... , FLm, a regression equation Δj=Δj(λ) in which an explanatory variable is a wavelength λ and an objective variable is a measurement variation Δj in a group delay that occurs when light having the wavelength λ is inputted into an optical fiber having the fiber length FLj, through a least-square method, with reference to measurement variations Δj1, Δj2, ... , Δjn of the measurement values, wherein the relational equation is, among regression equations Δ1 = Δ1(λ), Δ2=Δ2(λ), ... , Δm=Δm(λ) obtained in the deriving step, a regression equation corresponding to a fiber length closest to the fiber length of the target optical fiber.” The bolded claim limitation is an unconventional step and non-routine that confines the claim to a particular useful application of the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(d)) and therefore, is an inventive concept and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (MPEP 2106.05 (I)), thus avoiding a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claims 5 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimizu (JP 2008051736A, where parts of an attached translation are cited below).
Regarding Claim 5, Shimizu teaches an estimation method comprising;
estimating, using a relational equation
(
Δ
τ
(
λ
)
=
{
Δ
τ
M
(
λ
)
×
(
L
R
+
L
)
-
Δ
τ
R
(
λ
)
×
L
R
}
L
equation from [0008]) corresponding to a fiber length of a target optical fiber (optical fiber length L from [0008]), a measurement variation in a group delay from a wavelength of light generated by a target light source (Δτ(λ) relational equation shown in [0008]), wherein, the group delay occurs when the light is inputted into the target optical fiber ([0009]: A pulse light is inputted into optical fiber to have a group delay to be measured.).
Regarding Claim 13, Shimizu teaches the estimation method according to claim 5.
Shimizu further teaches that the estimating of the measurement variation is performed only when the fiber length of the target optical fiber falls within a range ([0041]: Measurements could be done with any length of optical fiber.).
Regarding Claim 14, Shimizu teaches an information processing device for performing the estimation method according to claim 5 (processing unit 15 from [0014]).
Shimizu further teaches that the information processing device comprising a processor that executes the estimating of the measurement variation (processing unit 15 from [0014], [0018], [0021-0023], and [0030]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-4 and 7-12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 1, Shimizu (JP 2008051736A, where parts of an attached translation are cited below) teaches an estimation method comprising:
estimating, using a relational equation (relational expression shown in [0008]), a measurement variation in a group delay (Δτ(λ) relational equation shown in [0008]),
from a length of a reference optical fiber (LR), optical fiber length L, group delay time difference in a reference optical fiber (ΔτR), and group delay time difference in the optical fiber to be measured (ΔτM) (described in [0008]),
where the group delay occurs when light generated by the target light source is inputted into the target optical fiber ([0009]: A pulse light is inputted into optical fiber to have a group delay to be measured.).
Shimizu does not teach estimating, using a relational equation, a measurement variation in a group delay from one or both of a loss in a target optical fiber and a power of a target light source.
Ogawa (US 20130229662 A1), related to measuring characteristics of an optical fiber, teaches a group delay time difference equation (equation 4 from [0073]), shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
110
286
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where Δτg is the group delay time difference, ΔΦ is the change of the spectral phase, and Δv is the frequency shift amount. However, Ogawa does not teach that the group delay time difference (measurement variation in group delay) can be obtained from one or both of a loss in a target optical fiber and a power of a target light source.
Inoue et al, (“Differential group delay measurements of few-mode fibers using an interferometric technique", April 22, 2020, IEICE Communications Express, Vol. 1, pp. 1-6), related to a method for differential group delay measurements, teaches that the differential group delay (Δτ) between two modes at wavelength λ can be expressed as the equation below (equation 3 on page 3)
PNG
media_image2.png
64
144
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where c is the speed of light in free space, L is the fiber length, and λ is the center wavelength between the adjacent minima. However, Inoue et al does not teach that the differential group delay (measurement variation in group delay) can be obtained from one or both of a loss in a target optical fiber and a power of a target light source.
Therefore, as to Claim 1, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious an estimation method comprising estimating using a relational equation, a measurement variation in a group delay from one or both of a loss in a target optical fiber and a power of a target light source, in combination with the rest of the limitations in Claim 1.
Claims 2-4, 7, and 11 would be allowed by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8, Shimizu (JP 2008051736A, where parts of an attached translation are cited below) teaches a measurement method comprising:
acquiring, with respect to each of a plurality of wavelengths differing from each other ([0026]: Wavelengths 853 nm and 1064 nm are used), a group delay that occurs when light generated by a target light source is inputted into a target optical fiber ([0009] and [0026]);
with respect to each of the plurality of wavelengths (wavelengths from [0026]), estimating, using a relational equation (relational expression shown in [0008]), a measurement variation in a group delay (Δτ(λ) relational equation shown in [0008]), from a length of a reference optical fiber (LR), optical fiber length L, group delay time difference in a reference optical fiber (ΔτR), and group delay time difference in the optical fiber to be measured (ΔτM) (described in [0008]);
determining a regression equation τ=τ(λ) (equation shown in [0008]) in which an explanatory variable is a wavelength λ and an objective variable is a group delay τ that occurs when light having the wavelength λ is inputted into an optical fiber ([0008-0009]).
Shimizu does not teach estimating, using a relational equation, a measurement variation in a group delay from one or both of a loss in a target optical fiber and a power of a target light source;
determining a regression equation with reference to the acquired group delay through a weighted least-square method using a weight corresponding to the estimated measurement variation; and
calculating a physical quantity indicative of an optical characteristic of the target optical fiber with the regression equation τ=τ(λ).
Ogawa (US 20130229662 A1), related to measuring characteristics of an optical fiber, teaches a group delay time difference equation (equation 4 from [0073]), shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
110
286
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where Δτg is the group delay time difference, ΔΦ is the change of the spectral phase, and Δv is the frequency shift amount. However, Ogawa does not teach that the group delay time difference (measurement variation in group delay) can be obtained from one or both of a loss in a target optical fiber and a power of a target light source.
Inoue et al, (“Differential group delay measurements of few-mode fibers using an interferometric technique", April 22, 2020, IEICE Communications Express, Vol. 1, pp. 1-6), related to a method for differential group delay measurements, teaches that the differential group delay (Δτ) between two modes at wavelength λ can be expressed as the equation below (equation 3 on page 3)
PNG
media_image2.png
64
144
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where c is the speed of light in free space, L is the fiber length, and λ is the center wavelength between the adjacent minima. However, Inoue et al does not teach that the differential group delay (measurement variation in group delay) can be obtained from one or both of a loss in a target optical fiber and a power of a target light source.
Therefore, as to Claim 8, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a measurement method comprising estimating, using a relational equation, a measurement variation in a group delay from one or both of a loss in a target optical fiber and a power of a target light source; determining a regression equation with reference to the acquired group delay through a weighted least-square method using a weight corresponding to the estimated measurement variation; and calculating a physical quantity indicative of an optical characteristic of the target optical fiber with the regression equation τ=τ(λ), in combination with the rest of the limitations in Claim 8.
Claims 9-10 and 12 would be allowed by virtue of their dependence on claim 8.
Claims 3-4 and 6 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, the claim limitations of claim 3 are an unconventional step and non-routine that confines the claim to a particular useful application of the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(d)) and therefore, is an inventive concept and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (MPEP 2106.05 (I)), thus avoiding a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 4, the claim limitations of claim 4 are an unconventional step and non-routine that confines the claim to a particular useful application of the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(d)) and therefore, is an inventive concept and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (MPEP 2106.05 (I)), thus avoiding a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding Claim 6, Shimizu teaches the estimation method according to claim 5, further comprising:
with respect to each of a plurality of fiber lengths FL1, FL2, ... , FLm ([0025] and [0041]) and each of a plurality of wavelengths λ1, λ2, ... , λn (wavelengths 853 nm and 1063 nm from [0029]);
acquiring measurement values by repeatedly measuring a group delay τji that occurs when light having a wavelength λi (i is a natural number of not less than 1 and not more than n) is inputted into an optical fiber having a length FLj (j is a natural number of not less than 1 and not more than m) ([0007]: Multiple group delay time difference (GDTD) measurements are done to show that GDTD measurements can be done simply and easily regardless of the magnitude of the GDTD depending on the measurement wavelength and length of optical fiber [0041].);
and calculating a variation Δji in the group delay τji from the measurement values ([0007-0009] and [0041]); and
deriving, with respect to each of the plurality of fiber lengths FL1, FL2, ... , FLm, a regression equation Δj=Δj (λ) (equation shown in [0008]) in which an explanatory variable is a wavelength λ (wavelength λ from [0008]) and an objective variable is a measurement variation Δj in a group delay (Δτ(λ) from [0008]) that occurs when light having the wavelength λ is inputted into an optical fiber having the fiber length FLj ([0007-0009] and [0041]).
Shimizu does not teach deriving a regression equation through a least-square method, with reference to measurement variations Δj1, Δj2, ... , Δjn of the measurement values, wherein
the relational equation is, among regression equations Δ1=Δ1(λ), Δ2=Δ2(λ), ... , Δm=Δm(λ) obtained in the deriving step, a regression equation corresponding to a fiber closest to the fiber length of the target optical fiber.
Therefore, as to Claim 6, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious an estimation method comprising deriving a regression equation through a least-square method, with reference to measurement variations Δj1, Δj2, ... , Δjn of the measurement values, wherein
the relational equation is, among regression equations Δ1=Δ1(λ), Δ2=Δ2(λ), ... , Δm=Δm(λ) obtained in the deriving step, a regression equation corresponding to a fiber closest to the fiber length of the target optical fiber, in combination with the rest of the limitations in Claim 6.
Other References Considered but not Cited
Sakamoto (US 6614512 B1), related to measuring wavelength dispersion of an optical fiber from a delay time.
Kawai (US 20240259095 A1), related to measuring differential group delay in an optical fiber.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUDY DAO TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0085. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9:30am-5:00pm EST.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/JUDY DAO TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877