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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,892,330 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,892,330 B2 claims an optical fiber characteristic measurement device and method (where claim 1 of the instance case claims an optical fiber characteristic device and claim 11 of the instance case claims an optical fiber characteristic measurement method) comprising:
a first optical splitter that splits frequency-modulated modulated light into pump light and reference light (Col. 19, ll. 19-21);
a second optical splitter that causes the pump light to be incident from one end of an optical fiber under test and outputs Brillouin scattered light generated inside the optical fiber under test (Col. 19, ll. 22-25);
a first detector that detects interference light between the Brillouin scattered light output from the second optical splitter and the reference light (Col. 19, ll. 26-28);
an analyzer that obtains a Brillouin gain spectrum which is a spectrum of the Brillouin scattered light from a detection signal output from the first detector (Col. 19, ll. 29-31);
a second detector that detects a double wave component having a frequency that is double a modulation frequency of the modulated light included in an intensity component of each frequency of the Brillouin gain spectrum obtained by the analyzer (Col. 19, ll. 32-35); and
a measurer that measures characteristics of the optical fiber under test on the basis of the double wave component detected by the second detector (Col. 19, ll. 36-38).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 2-3 of claim 1 recites “a first optical splitter that splits frequency-modulated modulated light into pump light and reference light.” The wording of the above-mentioned claim limitation is awkward and makes it unclear which light is being modulated and how it is being modulated. It is recommended that the Applicant rephase the above-mentioned claim limitation. Claim 11 of US Patent No. 11,892,330 B2, which is Applicant’s own invention, recites “a first optical splitter that splits modulation light, for which frequency modulation has been performed, into pump light and reference light”, where it is clear what light is being modulated and how it is being modulated. It should be noted that rephasing the above-mentioned claim limitation does not overcome the double patenting rejection of claim 1 as outlined above.
Lines 2-3 of claim 11 recites “splitting, by a first optical splitter, a frequency-modulated modulated light into pump light and reference light.” The wording of the above-mentioned claim limitation is awkward and makes it unclear which light is being modulated and how it is being modulated. It is recommended that the Applicant rephase the above-mentioned claim limitation. Claim 11 of US Patent No. 11,892,330 B2, which is Applicant’s own invention, recites “a first optical splitter that splits modulation light, for which frequency modulation has been performed, into pump light and reference light”, where it is clear what light is being modulated and how it is being modulated. It should be noted that rephasing the above-mentioned claim limitation does not overcome the double patenting rejection of claim 11 as outlined above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Light source unit” in claims 3 and 13. Here the word “unit” is a generic placeholder for the term “means”, is modified by the functional language “for emitting modulated light”, and further is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Examples of structures corresponding to “light source unit” was found in the specification in paragraph [0037] where a light source unit includes a light source and a drive signal generator.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-7 and 16-17 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.
The last line of Claim 6 recites the limitation "the modulation signal" in “…a frequency that is double the modulation signal.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Line 4 of Claim 3 does recite “a modulation signal”, therefore, it appears that claim 6 could be dependent on claim 3. However, lines 2-3 of claim 6 also recites “mixing the digital signal converted by the first converter” where claim 3 does not recite a first converter, but claim 4 does recite “a first converter”. It is unclear whether claim 6 should be dependent on claim 3 or claim 4 and the examiner cannot reasonably assume what claim 6 is dependent on.
The last line of claim 7 recites the limitation “the modulation signal” in “…a detection signal having a frequency that is double the modulation signal.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Line 4 of Claim 3 does recite “a modulation signal”, therefore, it appears that claim 7 should be dependent on claim 3.
The last line of Claim 16 recites the limitation "the modulation signal" in “…a frequency that is double the modulation signal.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Line 4 of Claim 13 does recite “a modulation signal”, therefore, it appears that claim 16 could be dependent on claim 13. However, lines 3-4 of claim 16 also recites “mixing the digital signal converted by the first converter” where claim 13 does not recite a first converter, but claim 14 does recite “a first converter”. It is unclear whether claim 16 should be dependent on claim 13 or claim 14 and the examiner cannot reasonably assume what claim 16 is dependent on.
The last line of claim 17 recites the limitation “the modulation signal” in “…a frequency that is double the modulation signal.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Line 4 of Claim 13 does recite “a modulation signal”, therefore, it appears that claim 17 should be dependent on claim 13.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furukawa (US 20190195731 which was disclosed in the IDS dated 05/21/2024) in view of Takada (JPH 02140639 A, which was disclosed in the IDS dated 12/16/2025 where portions of an attached translation are cited below).
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, Furukawa teaches, in Fig. 1, an optical fiber characteristic measurement device and method comprising:
a first optical splitter (first optical branching unit 12) that splits frequency-modulated modulated light (Abstract: light source outputs frequency-modulated continuous wave of light) into pump light (pump light LP) and reference light (reference light LR);
a second optical splitter (second optical branching unit 15) that causes the pump light (pulse light P (pump light LP as continuous light given a frequency modulation which is shaped into a pulse shape) from [0042]) to be incident from one end of an optical fiber under test (fiber under test FUT) and outputs Brillouin scattered light generated inside the optical fiber under test (Brillouin scattered light LS);
a first detector (detection unit 17) that detects interference light between the Brillouin scattered light output from the second optical splitter and the reference light (Abstract: “…a detector that detects interference light of the backscattered light and the reference light.”);
an analyzer (Brillouin spectrum data is measured by acquisition unit 18 [0049] and [0082]) that obtains a Brillouin gain spectrum which is a spectrum of the Brillouin scattered light from a detection signal output from the first detector ([0049] and [0082]) where the Brillouin gain spectrum includes information of the modulated light included in an intensity component of each frequency of the Brillouin gain spectrum obtained by the analyzer (This information is in a Brillouin gain spectrum); and
a measurer (calculation unit 19 [0050]) that measures characteristics of the optical fiber under test ([0050]: “The calculation unit 19 calculates a Brillouin frequency shift from the spectrum data measured by the acquisition unit 18. The calculation unit 19 may include a display unit which displays the Brillouin frequency shift obtained by calculation as physical information such as strain, temperature or the like.”; Abstract).
Furukawa appears to be silent to having a second detector that detects a double wave component having a frequency that is double a modulation frequency of the modulated light; and
a measurer that measures characteristics of the optical fiber under test on the basis of the double wave component detected by the second detector.
Takada, related to noise reduction in a similar optical fiber characteristic measurement device, does teach a second detector ([0008]: element 15 is provided as a means for measuring a second harmonic 2f component.) that detects a double wave component having a frequency that is double a modulation frequency of the modulated light ([0001]: “The present invention provides an apparatus for measuring backscattered light generated in an optical waveguide to be measured, wherein the backscattered light or the reference light is phase-modulated at a frequency f, and the backscattered light and the reference light are multiplexed and then a frequency f component is obtained. And by measuring the second harmonic 2f component thereof, the effect of the fluctuation of the phase difference between the backscattered light and the reference light is removed, and the backscattered light can be measured with a high signal-to-noise ratio.”); and
a measurer (backscattered light measuring device from [0014]) that measures characteristics of the optical fiber under test on the basis of the double wave component detected by the second detector ([0014]: “The backscattered light measuring device can measure the backscattered light generated in the front waveguide with a high signal-to-noise wave, and thus has the effect of accurately measuring the loss and the fault point of the front waveguide.”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Furukawa to incorporate a second detector that detects a double wave component having a frequency that is double a modulation frequency of the modulated light included in an intensity component of each frequency of the Brillouin gain spectrum obtained by the analyzer; and
a measurer that measures characteristics of the optical fiber under test on the basis of the double wave component detected by the second detector, as disclosed by Takada. Takada discloses that by measuring the second harmonic 2f component, the effect of the fluctuation of the phase difference between the backscattered light and the reference light is removed which allows for the backscattered light to be measured with a high signal-to-noise ratio ([0001] from Takada).
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, Furukawa modified by Takada teaches the optical fiber characteristic measurement device and method according to claim 1 and 11, respectively.
Furukawa modified by Takada further teaches a second converter (Takada, analog/digital converter 16/17 from [0007]) that converts the double wave component (Takada, second harmonic 2f component from [0001]) detected by the second detector into a digital signal (Takada, [0007] and [0010]),
wherein the measurer (Furukawa, Fig. 1: calculation unit 19) measures the characteristics of the optical fiber under test (Furukawa, Abstract) by performing digital signal processing using the double wave component converted into a digital signal by the second converter (Takada, [0007] and [0010]).
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furukawa (US 20190195731 which was disclosed in the IDS dated 05/21/2024) in view of Takada (JPH 02140639 A, which was disclosed in the IDS dated 12/16/2025 where portions of an attached translation are cited below) and further in view of Daisuke (JP 5222514 B2 where portions of an attached translation are cited below).
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, Furukawa modified by Takada teaches the optical fiber characteristic measurement device and method according to claim 1 and claim 11, respectively.
Furukawa modified by Takada further teaches that the second detector (Takada, [0008]: element 15 is provided as a means for measuring a second harmonic 2f component.) that obtains the double wave component (Takada, [0001]) and the Brillouin gain spectrum is obtained by the analyzer (Furukawa, Brillouin spectrum data is measured by acquisition unit 18 [0049] and [0082]) with a detection signal having a frequency that is double the modulation frequency of the modulated light (Takada, second harmonic 2f component from [0001]).
Furukawa modified by Takada appears to be silent to having a heterodyne detector that mixes the Brillouin gain spectrum obtained by the analyzer with a detection signal; and
a filter that allows passage of the double wave component obtained by the heterodyne detector.
Daisuke, related to an optical fiber measuring method and system, does teach a heterodyne detector (spectrum analyzer 30 from [0014]) that mixes the Brillouin gain spectrum obtained by the analyzer with a detection signal ([0014-0015]: Backward Brillouin scattered light is mixed with reference light and heterodyne detection is performed.); and
a filter (low pass filter (LPF) 28 from [0015]) that allows passage of filtered signals obtained by the heterodyne detector ([0014-0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Furukawa combined with Takada to incorporate a heterodyne detector that mixes the Brillouin gain spectrum obtained by the analyzer with a detection signal; and
a filter that allows passage of the double wave component obtained by the heterodyne detector, as disclosed by Daisuke. Heterodyne detection is known in the field of endeavor, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods (use of heterodyne detection in an optical fiber measuring method and device) to yield predictable results (to enhance signal detection) (MPEP 2143 (I)(A)).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furukawa (US 20190195731 which was disclosed in the IDS dated 05/21/2024) in view of Takada (JPH 02140639 A, which was disclosed in the IDS dated 12/16/2025 where portions of an attached translation are cited below) and further in view of Kwon (US 20210215515 A1).
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, Furukawa modified by Takada teaches the optical fiber characteristic measurement device and method according to claim 1 and claim 11, respectively.
Furukawa modified by Takada appears to be silent to having a first converter that converts the Brillouin gain spectrum obtained by the analyzer into a digital signal.
Kwon, related to an optical fiber characteristic measurement device, does teach a first converter that converts the Brillouin gain spectrum obtained by the analyzer into a digital signal ([0006]: “In a computer, a Brillouin gain spectrum is obtained by converting an electrical signal into a digital signal using an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) and a Brillouin frequency is obtained to obtain a temperature or strain according to Equation 1.”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Furukawa combined with Takada to incorporate a first converter that converts the Brillouin gain spectrum obtained by the analyzer into a digital signal, as disclosed by Kwon. Using an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) is well known in the field of endeavor, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods (use of ADC) to yield predictable results (to allow for digital processing on electronics such as computers, smartphones, etc.) (MPEP 2143 (I)(A)).
Furukawa modified by Takada and Kwon teaches that the second detector detects the double wave component (Takada, element 15 from [0008] measures a second harmonic 2f component) by performing digital signal processing on the Brillouin gain spectrum converted into a digital signal by the first converter (Kwon, ADC from [0006]), and
wherein the measurer (Furukawa, Fig. 1: calculation unit 19) measures the characteristics of the optical fiber under test (Furukawa, Abstract) by performing digital signal processing (Kwon, ADC from [0006]) using the double wave component detected by the second detector (Takada, element 15 from [0008]),
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furukawa (US 20190195731 which was disclosed in the IDS dated 05/21/2024) in view of Takada (JPH 02140639 A, which was disclosed in the IDS dated 12/16/2025 where portions of an attached translation are cited below) and Kwon (US 20210215515 A1), and further in view of Daisuke (JP 5222514 B2 where portions of an attached translation are cited below).
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, Furukawa modified by Takada and Kwon teaches the optical fiber characteristic measurement device and method according to claim 4 and 14, respectively.
Furukawa modified by Takada and Kwon further teaches that the second detector (Takada, [0008]: element 15 is provided as a means for measuring a second harmonic 2f component.) obtains the double wave component (Takada, second harmonic 2f component from [0001]) where the signal is digitally converted by the first converter (Kwon, analog-to-digital converter (ADC) from [0006]) with a detection signal having a frequency that is double the modulation signal (Takada, second harmonic 2f component from [0001]).
Furukawa modified by Takada and Kwon appears to be silent to the second detector obtains the double wave component by mixing the digital signal.
Daisuke, related to an optical fiber measuring method and system, does teach a second detector (spectrum analyzer 30 from [0014]) which obtains a signal by mixing a Brillouin back scattered light and reference light ([0014-0015]: Backward Brillouin scattered light is mixed with reference light and heterodyne detection is performed.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Furukawa combined with Takada and Kwon so that the second detector obtains the double wave component by mixing the digital signal, as disclosed by Daisuke. Heterodyne detection, which mixes signals, is known in the field of endeavor, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods (use of heterodyne detection in an optical fiber measuring method and device) to yield predictable results (to enhance signal detection) (MPEP 2143 (I)(A)).
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furukawa (US 20190195731 which was disclosed in the IDS dated 05/21/2024) in view of Takada (JPH 02140639 A, which was disclosed in the IDS dated 12/16/2025 where portions of an attached translation are cited below) and Kwon (US 20210215515 A1), and further in view Rӧjsel (“RF MEMS-based wireless architectures and front ends”, 2013, Woodhead Publishing Limited, Chapter 7, pp. 207-224).
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, Furukawa modified by Takada and Kwon teaches the optical fiber characteristic measurement device and method according to claim 4 and 14, respectively.
Furukawa modified by Takada and Kwon further teaches that the second detector (Takada, [0008]: element 15 is provided as a means for measuring a second harmonic 2f component.) obtains the double wave component (Takada, second harmonic 2f component from [0001]), where the Brillouin gain spectrum is obtained by the analyzer (Furukawa, Brillouin spectrum data is measured by acquisition unit 18 [0049] and [0082]) and a detection signal having a frequency that is double the modulation signal (Takada, second harmonic 2f component from [0001]).
Furukawa modified by Takada and Kwon appears to be silent to the second detector obtains the double wave component by mixing an analog signal.
Rӧjsel, related to a heterodyne detection, does teach that a heterodyne receiver obtains a signal by mixing an analog signal (Page 211, Section 7.3.1 Heterodyne receiver: Signal processing of a heterodyne receiver can be analog or digital.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Furukawa combined with Takada and Kwon so that the second detector obtains the double wave component by mixing an analog signal, as disclosed by Rӧjsel. Mixing analog signals with incoming frequency is well-known in heterodyne receivers, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods (signal processing using analogue or digital) to yield predictable results (for signal processing) (MPEP 2143 (I)(A)).
Claims 3, 8-10, 13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furukawa (US 20190195731 which was disclosed in the IDS dated 05/21/2024) in view of Takada (JPH 02140639 A, which was disclosed in the IDS dated 12/16/2025 where portions of an attached translation are cited below) and Daisuke (JP 5222514 B2 where portions of an attached translation are cited below), and further in view of Atzeni (US 7,317,194 B2).
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, Furukawa modified by Takada and Daisuke teaches the optical fiber characteristic measurement device and method according to claim 2 and 12, respectively.
Furukawa modified by Takada and Daisuke further teaches a light source unit that emits the modulated light (Furukawa, Abstract: Light source 11a combined with modulation unit 11b outputs frequency-modulated continuous wave of light.); and
a signal generator (Furukawa, Fig. 1: control unit 20 with modulation unit 11b) that generates a modulation signal having a modulation frequency of the modulated light supplied to the light source unit (Abstract: “…and a controller that controls the light source to change modulation frequency of the continuous light in units of one period or half a period of a modulation period corresponding to the modulation frequency.”).
Furukawa modified by Takada and Daisuke appears to be silent to a signal generator that generates a modulation signal having a modulation frequency of the modulated light supplied to the light source unit and the detection signal supplied to the heterodyne detector.
Atzeni, related to heterodyne detection, does teach a signal generator (Fig. 1: fundamental oscillator 28) that generates a signal supplied to the light source unit (Fig. 1: laser 20 with fundamental oscillator 28, frequency synthesizer 30, and waveshaper 32) and the detection signal supplied to the heterodyne detector (Fig. 1: signal outputted from oscillator 28 and supplied to the heterodyne frequency synthesizer 34 and heterodyne waveshaper 36, then detected by CCD 70 or 72; Col. 6, ll. 45-51: “It is noted that, in accordance in the invention, a single frequency synthesizer may perform the combined function of frequency synthesizer 30 and heterodyne frequency synthesizer 34. Likewise a plurality of appropriate waveshaping circuits, each coupled to one of the outputs of the waveshaping circuits, may be used to synthesize the desired waveforms.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Furukawa combined with Takada and Daisuke to incorporate a signal generator that generates a modulation signal having a modulation frequency of the modulated light supplied to the light source unit and the detection signal supplied to the heterodyne detector, as disclosed by Atzeni. The advantage of the above-mentioned configuration is that the amplitude and phase of a modulation product, which functions as a measurement signal, can be used to determine the desired modulation and phase information (Col. 2, ll. 15-43 of Atzeni).
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, Furukawa modified by Takada, Daisuke, and Atzeni teaches the optical fiber characteristic measurement device and method according to claim 3 and claim 13, respectively.
Furukawa modified by Takada, Daisuke, and Atzeni further teaches that the signal generator (Furukawa, Fig. 1: control unit 20 with modulation unit 11b) generates a pulsed signal for pulsing the pump light (Furukawa, [0022]: “In the optical fiber characteristics measuring apparatus, the control unit controls the optical gate unit to shape the pump light into pulsed light which has a pulse width of one period or half a period of the modulation period.”), and
wherein the optical fiber characteristic measurement device further comprises a pulsator (Furukawa, Fig. 1: optical gate unit 14) that uses the pulsed signal to pulse the pump light split (Furukawa, [0022]) by the first optical splitter (Furukawa, first optical branching unit 12).
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, Furukawa modified by Takada, Daisuke, and Atzeni teaches the optical fiber characteristic measurement device and method according to claim 8 and claim 18, respectively.
Furukawa modified by Takada, Daisuke, and Atzeni further teaches that the pulsator (Furukawa, Fig. 1: optical gate unit 14) shapes the pump light (Furukawa, Fig. 1: pump light LP) into a pulse shape by performing intensity modulation on the pump light (Furukawa, [0045]: “The optical gate 14 increases or decreases the intensity of the pump light LP…”.).
Regarding Claims 10 and 20, Furukawa modified by Takada, Daisuke, and Atzeni teaches the optical fiber characteristic measurement device and method according to claim 8 and claim 18, respectively.
Furukawa modified by Takada, Daisuke, and Atzeni further teaches that the pulsator (Furukawa, Fig. 1: optical gate unit 14) changes an optical frequency of the pump light into a pulse shape by performing frequency modulation on the pump light (Furukawa, [0054]: “Here, the control unit 20 controls the optical gate 14 so that the pulse width of the modulated pulse light P is one period or half a period of the modulation period corresponding to the modulation frequency. In one or more embodiments, a case where the control unit 20 controls the optical gate 14 so that the pulse width of the modulated pulse light P is half a period of the modulation period will be described as an example.”).
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