Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Applicants’ arguments are rendered moot in view of the present Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-10, 13-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (CN 114845187) in view of Urban (US 20140226970) and further in view of Mahony (US 7809262).
Consider Claim 1, Lin discloses an optical fiber sensing system comprising: an optical network unit (ONU) (Figure 6, ONU 1), and an optical fiber having one end connected to the optical network unit ONU (Page 11, Paragraph 3, where there is fiber for testing between ONU and OLT); the ONU comprising: output pulsed light to the one end of the optical fiber (Figure 6 and Page 11, Paragraph 3, where OTDR module within ONU sends pulsed light); receive backscattered light for the pulsed light from the one end of the optical fiber (Page 11, paragraph 3, where ONU receiver continuously receives reflected backscattered light); but does not disclose at least one memory storing instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to and transmit state information indicating a state around the optical fiber based on the backscattered light.
However, Urban discloses transmitting state information indicating a state around the optical fiber based on the backscattered light (Paragraph 55, information such as fault in the fiber is received in backscattered light and forwarded for analysis) but does not disclose at least one memory storing instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Urban into Lin to better identify and improve the conditions of the fiber within a PON.
However, Mahony discloses at least one memory storing instructions (Figure 1, element 104 and Column 4, Lines 62-65, where media stores instructions), and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (Figure 1, element 102).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Mahony into Lin and Urban to optimize OTDR function for high efficiency.
Consider Claim 2, Lin does not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Urban discloses the optical fiber sensing system according to claim 1 transmit the state information via a passive optical network (PON) line (Paragraph 055 where backscatter containing fault information is transported through fiber links between a remote node and an ONU and Paragraph 0041 where ONU and remote node are part of a PON) but does not disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Urban into Lin to better identify and improve the conditions of the fiber within a PON.
However, Mahony discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions (Figure 1, element 102).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Mahony into Lin and Urban to optimize OTDR function for high efficiency.
Consider Claim 3, Lin discloses the optical fiber sensing system according to claim 2, wherein the optical fiber is the PON line (Page 11, Paragraph 3, where there is fiber for testing between ONU and OLT and Figure 1, where ONU and OLT are within PON).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Mahony into Lin and Urban to optimize OTDR function for high efficiency.
Consider Claim 6, Lin does not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Urban discloses the optical fiber sensing system according to claim 1 wherein acquiring sensing data indicating a state around the optical fiber based on the backscattered light (Figure 1b and Paragraph 055, where backscatter light is received), and transmits the sensing data as the state information (Figure 1b and Paragraph 0055, where backscattered light containing fault information is forwarded) but does not disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Urban into Lin to better identify and improve the conditions of the fiber within a PON.
However, Mahony discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions (Figure 1, element 102).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Mahony into Lin and Urban to optimize OTDR function for high efficiency.
Consider Claim 7, Lin does not disclose the limitations of this claim.
Consider Claim 7, Urban discloses The optical fiber sensing system according to claim 1, specify an event having occurred in a in which the ONU is provided based on the sensing data (Paragraph 0058, where an alarm is issued based on fault detection event), acquiring sensing data indicating a state around the optical fiber based on the backscattered light (Figure 1b and Paragraph 055, where backscatter light is received), and transmitting a specification result of the event as the state information (Paragraph 0058, where an OTDR measurement is triggered as result of alarm to measure severity of fault and is determined which group of ONTs alarm belongs to) but does not disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions. Although, Urban does not disclose in a residential area or around a residential area of a building, it would be obvious/known to one of skill in the ordinary art that ONUs are commonly implemented in residential areas and the PON of Urban could be implemented in a residential area to achieve the results of the claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Urban into Lin to better identify and improve the conditions of the fiber within a PON.
However, Mahony discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions (Figure 1, element 102).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Mahony into Lin and Urban to optimize OTDR function for high efficiency.
Consider Claim 8, Lin discloses an optical network unit (ONU) (Figure 6, ONU 1) comprising: output pulsed light to one end of an optical fiber having one end connected to the ONU (Figure 6 and Page 11, Paragraph 3, where OTDR module within ONU sends pulsed light and where there is fiber for testing between ONU and OLT); receive backscattered light for the pulsed light from the one end of the optical fiber (Page 11, paragraph 3, where ONU receiver continuously receives reflected backscattered light) but does not disclose at least one memory storing instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions and transmit state information indicating a state around the optical fiber based on the backscattered light.
However, Urban discloses transmitting state information indicating a state around the optical fiber based on the backscattered light (Paragraph 55, information such as fault in the fiber is received in backscattered light and forwarded for analysis) but does not disclose at least one memory storing instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Urban into Lin to better identify and improve the conditions of the fiber within a PON.
However, Mahony discloses at least one memory storing instructions (Figure 1, element 104 and Column 4, Lines 62-65, where media stores instructions), and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (Figure 1, element 102).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Mahony into Lin and Urban to optimize OTDR function for high efficiency.
Consider Claim 9, Lin does not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Urban discloses the ONU according to claim 8 transmit the state information via a passive optical network (PON) line (Paragraph 055 where backscatter containing fault information is transported through fiber links between a remote node and an ONU and Paragraph 0041 where ONU and remote node are part of a PON) but does not disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Urban into Lin to better identify and improve the conditions of the fiber within a PON.
However, Mahony discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions (Figure 1, element 102).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Mahony into Lin and Urban to optimize OTDR function for high efficiency.
Consider Claim 10, Lin discloses the ONU claim 9, wherein the optical fiber is the PON line (Page 11, Paragraph 3, where there is fiber for testing between ONU and OLT and Figure 1, where ONU and OLT are within PON).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Mahony into Lin and Urban to optimize OTDR function for high efficiency.
Consider Claim 13, Lin does not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Urban discloses wherein acquiring sensing data indicating a state around the optical fiber based on the backscattered light (Figure 1b and Paragraph 055, where backscatter light is received), and transmits the sensing data as the state information (Figure 1b and Paragraph 0055, where backscattered light containing fault information is forwarded) but does not disclose wherein the ONU according to claim 8 claim 8 at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Urban into Lin to better identify and improve the conditions of the fiber within a PON.
However, Mahony discloses the ONU of claim 8 at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions (Figure 1, element 102).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Mahony into Lin and Urban to optimize OTDR function for high efficiency.
Consider Claim 14, Lin does not disclose the limitations of this claim.
Consider Claim 14, Urban discloses The optical fiber sensing system according to claim 1, specify an event having occurred in a in which the ONU is provided based on the sensing data (Paragraph 0058, where an alarm is issued based on fault detection event), acquiring sensing data indicating a state around the optical fiber based on the backscattered light (Figure 1b and Paragraph 055, where backscatter light is received), and transmitting a specification result of the event as the state information (Paragraph 0058, where an OTDR measurement is triggered as result of alarm to measure severity of fault and is determined which group of ONTs alarm belongs to) but does not disclose the ONU according to claim 8, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions. Although, Urban does not disclose in a residential area or around a residential area of a building, it would be obvious/known to one of skill in the ordinary art that ONUs are commonly implemented in residential areas and the PON of Urban could be implemented in a residential area to achieve the results of the claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Urban into Lin to better identify and improve the conditions of the fiber within a PON.
However, Mahony discloses the ONU according to claim 8, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions (Figure 1, element 102).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Mahony into Lin and Urban to optimize OTDR function for high efficiency.
Claim(s) 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Urban in view of Mahony and further in view of Huang (US 20200200592).
Consider Claim 4, Lin, Urban, and Mahony do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Huang discloses the optical fiber sensing system according to claim 1, wherein the optical fiber is an optical fiber dedicated to sensing (Figure 1 and paragraph 0030, where element 402 is a fiber employed for sensing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Huang into Lin, Urban, and Mahony so that there is less interference between transmitted signals and sensed signals.
Consider Claim 11, Lin, Urban, and Mahony do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Huang discloses the ONU according to claim 8, wherein the optical fiber is an optical fiber dedicated to sensing (Figure 1 and paragraph 0030, where element 402 is a fiber employed for sensing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Huang into Lin, Urban, and Mahony so that there is less interference between transmitted signals and sensed signals.
Claim(s) 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Urban in view of Mahony and further in view of McCaul (US 8160457).
Consider Claim 5, Lin, Urban, and Mahony do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, McCaul discloses the optical fiber sensing system according to claim 1, building in which the ONU is provided (Figure 1, ONU element 106 corresponds to housing element 108). While McCaul does not explicitly disclose wherein the optical fiber is laid so as to surround a periphery of a residential area, it would be obvious to one of skill in the ordinary art that it in order for the ONU to communicate with the house, there would be fiber around the house to support that function.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof McCaul into Lin, Urban, and Mahony to provide better fiber quality to multiple residences.
Consider Claim 12, Lin, Urban, and Mahony do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, McCaul discloses the optical fiber sensing system according to claim 8, building in which the ONU is provided (Figure 1, ONU element 106 corresponds to housing element 108). While McCaul does not explicitly disclose wherein the optical fiber is laid so as to surround a periphery of a residential area, it would be obvious to one of skill in the ordinary art that it in order for the ONU to communicate with the house, there would be fiber around the house to support that function.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof McCaul into Lin, Urban, and Mahony to provide better fiber quality to multiple residences.
Claim(s) 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Urban.
Consider Claim 15, Lin discloses an optical fiber sensing method by an optical network unit (ONU) (Figure 6, ONU 1), the optical fiber sensing method comprising: an output step of outputting pulsed light to one end of an optical fiber having one end connected to the ONU Figure 6 and Page 11, Paragraph 3, where OTDR module within ONU sends pulsed light and where there is fiber for testing between ONU and OLT); a receiving step of receiving backscattered light for the pulsed light from the one end of the optical fiber (Page 11, paragraph 3, where ONU receiver continuously receives reflected backscattered light) but does not disclose a transmission step of transmitting state information indicating a state around the optical fiber based on the backscattered light.
However, Urban discloses a transmission step of transmitting state information indicating a state around the optical fiber based on the backscattered light Paragraph 55, information such as fault in the fiber is received in backscattered light and forwarded for analysis)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Urban into Lin to better identify and improve the conditions of the fiber within a PON.
Consider Claim 16, Lin does not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Urban discloses the optical fiber sensing method according to claim 15 transmit the state information via a passive optical network (PON) line (Paragraph 055 where backscatter containing fault information is transported through fiber links between a remote node and an ONU and Paragraph 0041 where ONU and remote node are part of a PON)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Urban into Lin to better identify and improve the conditions of the fiber within a PON.
Consider Claim 17, Lin discloses the optical fiber sensing method according to claim 16, wherein the optical fiber is the PON line (Page 11, Paragraph 3, where there is fiber for testing between ONU and OLT and Figure 1, where ONU and OLT are within PON).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Urban into Lin to better identify and improve the conditions of the fiber within a PON.
Consider Claim 20, Lin does not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Urban discloses the optical fiber sensing method according to claims 15, further comprising a step of acquiring sensing data indicating a state around the optical fiber based on the backscattered light (Figure 1b and Paragraph 055, where backscatter light is received), wherein in the transmission step, the sensing data is transmitted as the state information. (Figure 1b and Paragraph 0055, where element 180 forwards backscattered light containing fault information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Urban into Lin to better identify and improve the conditions of the fiber within a PON.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Urban and further in view of Huang.
Consider Claim 18, Lin and Urban do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Huang discloses the optical fiber sensing method according to claim 15, wherein the optical fiber is an optical fiber dedicated to sensing (Figure 1 and paragraph 0030, where element 402 is a fiber employed for sensing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Huang into Lin and Urban so that there is less interference between transmitted signals and sensed signals.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Urban further in view of McCaul.
Consider Claim 19, Lin and Urban do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, McCaul discloses the optical fiber sensing method according to claim 15, wherein the optical fiber is laid so as to surround a periphery of a residential area of a building in which the ONU is provided. (Figure 1, ONU element 106 corresponds to housing element 108). While McCaul does not explicitly disclose wherein the optical fiber is laid so as to surround a periphery of a residential area, it would be obvious to one of skill in the ordinary art that it in order for the ONU to communicate with the house, there would be fiber around the house to support that function.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof McCaul into Lin and Urban to provide better fiber quality to multiple residences.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASIF SHAMEEM whose telephone number is (571)272-6576. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM EST-5:00 PM 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, KENNETH VANDERPUYE can be reached at (571) 272-3078. 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.
/ASIF SHAMEEM/Examiner, Art Unit 2634
/KENNETH N VANDERPUYE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights