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 Interpretation
The claim interpretation as explain in the previous office action was not traversed for the element (“correction unit … to modify”, in claim 1) by the applicant. Therefore, the Claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is maintained.
Applicant's arguments, see Page 7, Section Claim Interpretation, filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagree with the attorney therefore the Claims interpretation is maintained for the amended limitation “communication device configured to acquired” in claim 1.
Examiners will apply 35 U.S.C. 112(f) test to a claim limitation if it meets the following 3-prong analysis: (MPEP 2181 I)
• (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.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “communication device configured to acquired” in claim;
• Prong (A): The limitations use the term “device” as substitution of “means”.
• Prong (B): The limitations use modified function language as: communication device configured to “acquire measurement data”,
• Prong (C): In the limitations above there is not structure that perform the structure claim function.
Therefore, the Claim interpretation 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is maintained.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filled on 02/20/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-17 are remain pending in the application.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/20/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C § 102 (a)(1) and 35 U.S.C § 103 to newly amended limitations in claims 1-2, 5 and 7-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1, 5 and 7-13 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayash et al. (JP 2016/053542A, included in IDS on 06/10/2024), hereafter Hayash, in view of Maki et al. (JP 2013083738 A, included in IDS on 03/06/2026), hereafter Maki.
Regarding claim 1, Hayash teaches a data correction apparatus (Fig. 1, [0013]) comprising:
a communication device (Fig. 1 elements 114 + 120) configured to acquire measurement data from an optical time-domain reflectometer (Fig. 1 element 110), [0013] that measures one or more events existing in an optical fiber under test (Fig. 1 element 200), [0016, 0017];
a memory (Fig. 1 element 150), [0022]
a display (Fig. 1 element 140) configured to display the one or more known events stored in the memory, (element 122 determine an effective area for the measured waveform “know events” of each pulse width as the near distance side to the position where the light power falls below a predetermined reference value (Step 105) and generating a synthesis waveform that is display in element 140, [0028-0029, 0034]) and one or more detection events detected from the measurement data (the event detection result can be display in the screen as an icon as shown in Fig. 9, [0021, 0034]) , so that a user can check a difference between the known events and the detection events, [0036, 0038];
an input interface (Fig. 1 element 130, [0021-0022]) configured to accept, from the user, operation input to modify the detection events, (S106, S109, [0038-0039]); and
a correction unit (Fig. 1 elements 122 + 123) configured to modify the detection events based on the operation input accepted from the user, (modifying the synthetic line and validating the event, [0040-0043]).
In the arguendo that Hayash fail to teach a memory configured to store path information on the optical fiber under test, the path information including information identifying types of one or more known events existing in the optical fiber under test; a display configured to display the one or more known events stored in the memory and one or more detection events detected from the measurement data, so that a user can check a difference between the known events and the detection events.
Maki related to OTDR systems and thus form the same field of endeavor teaches a memory (Fig. 1 element 14), [0014] configured to store path information on the optical fiber under test the path information including information identifying types of one or more known events existing in the optical fiber under test, (as shown by the reference waveform in Fig. 4 the peaks in the waveform identify path information including the “knowns events” as the position of the optical splitter 93 and ONUS 92, Steps 101-104, [0025-0026, 0030]); a display (Fig. 1 element 13) configured to display the one or more known events stored in the memory, (as shown in Fig. 6, [0028]) and one or more detection events detected from the measurement data, so that a user can check a difference between the known events and the detection events, (as shown in Figs. 9-10, as part of steps 105-108, [0032-0034]).
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hayash by including a memory configured to store path information on the optical fiber under test, the path information including information identifying types of one or more known events existing in the optical fiber under test; a display configured to display the one or more known events stored in the memory and one or more detection events detected from the measurement data, so that a user can check a difference between the known events and the detection events (as taught by Maki) for several advantages such as: allow to identify whether the connection loss has increased when connected to a new optical splitter, thus increase the device accuracy and efficiency, ([0011], Maki).
Regarding claim 5, Hayash teaches the data correction apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the display (Figs. 1-2 element 140) comprises a waveform display (as shown in Fig. 2) configured to display a waveform of the measurement data, [0023, 0034], and
when a portion of the waveform corresponding to a modification target event, out of the detection events, is displayed, the waveform display displays a range within which a position of the modification target event can be set, (as indicated by the area between the synthetic lines in Figs. 7-8 and 11-12, [0040-0042]).
Regarding claim 7, Hayash teaches an optical time-domain reflectometer comprising the data correction apparatus according to claim 1, (Fig. 1 element 100 + 110 is a OTDR, [0010, 0013]).
Regarding claim 8, Hayash teaches an optical fiber measurement system (Fig. 1, [0010, 0013]) comprising: the data correction apparatus according to claim 1; and
an optical time-domain reflectometer (Fig. 1 element 110) configured to output measurement data to the data correction apparatus, ( element 110 comprise a signal apparatus 114 that provide data to the control unit of the “data correction apparatus”, [0014-0018]).
Regarding claim 9, Hayash teaches a data correction method (Fig. 1 and 3, [0013, 0024]) comprising:
acquiring measurement data from an optical time-domain reflectometer (Fig. 1 element 110, [0013]), that measures one or more events existing in an optical fiber under test, (Fig. 1 element 200), [0016, 0017];
displaying the one or more known events stored in the memory, (element 122 determine an effective area for the measured waveform “know events” of each pulse width as the near distance side to the position where the light power falls below a predetermined reference value (Step 105) and generating a synthesis waveform that is display in element 140, [0028-0029, 0034]) and one or more detection events detected from the measurement data (the event detection result can be display in the screen as an icon as shown in Fig. 9, [0021, 0034]), so that a user can check a difference between the known events and the detection events [0036, 0038];
accepting, from the user (Fig. 1 element 130 is the input interface for the user, [0021-0022]), operation input to modify the detection events (S106, S109, [0038-0039]);; and
modifying the detection events based on the operation input accepted from the user, (Fig. 1 elements 122 + 123, modifying the synthetic line and validating the event, [0040-0043]).
In the arguendo that Hayash fail to teach storing, in a memory, path information on the optical fiber under test, the path information including information identifying types of one or more known events existing in the optical fiber under test; displaying the one or more known events stored in the memory.
Maki further teach storing, in a memory, (Fig. 1 element 14), [0014] path information on the optical fiber under test, the path information including information identifying types of one or more known events existing in the optical fiber under test (as shown by the reference waveform in Fig. 4 the peaks in the waveform identify path information including the “knowns events” as the position of the optical splitter 93 and ONUS 92, Steps 101-104, [0025-0026, 0030]); displaying (as shown in Fig. 6, [0028]) the one or more known events stored in the memory, (as shown in Figs. 9-10, as part of steps 105-108, [0032-0034]).
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hayash by including storing, in a memory, path information on the optical fiber under test, the path information including information identifying types of one or more known events existing in the optical fiber under test; displaying the one or more known events stored in the memory (as taught by Maki) for several advantages such as: allow to identify whether the connection loss has increased when connected to a new optical splitter, thus increase the device accuracy and efficiency, ([0011], Maki).
Regarding Claim 10, the claim is drawn to the non-transitory computer readable medium storing a data correction program for performing the corresponding method steps claimed in Claim 9, However, Hayash disclose that the processor of the system for data correction and contains the necessary software and hardware to perform and control its operation ([0018, 0022], Hayash), Therefore, claim 10 corresponds to method claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation following the same rationale discussed above by Hayash et al. (as applied to Claim 9).
Regarding claims 11-13, Hayash in the combination outlined above teaches the data correction apparatus according.
In the arguendo that Hayash do not clearly teach wherein the one or more known events is identified by an input data input by a user.
Maki further teaches wherein the one or more known events is identified by an input data input by a user, [0028].
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hayash by including wherein the one or more known events is identified by an input data input by a user, (as taught by Maki) for several advantages such as: allow to identify whether the connection loss has increased when connected to a new optical splitter, thus increase the device accuracy and efficiency, ([0011], Maki).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayash, in view of Maki further in view of Poulin et al. (US 11,290,179 B1), hereafter Poulin.
Regarding claim 2, The data correction apparatus according to claim 1,
Even though Hayash teaches a display (Fig. 1 element 140) that display detection events and know events, Hayash do not clearly teaches display, as the difference, an event, out of the detection events, that is not included in the known events, and display, as the difference, an event, out of the known events, that is not included in the detection events.
However Poulin related to OTDR systems and thus form the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the display is configured to: display, as the difference, an event, out of the detection events, that is not included in the known events, (as shown in Fig. 3 the linear visual representation 30 comprise detection events I-VIII, however at least the events VII don’t match any know events 1-14 therefore is not included) , and
display, as the difference, an event, out of the known events, that is not included in the detection events, (as shown in Fig. 3 the linear visual representation 30 comprise known events 1-14, however detection events 1-2, 4-5, 7 don’t match detection events I-VIII.)
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hayash by including display, as the difference, an event, out of the detection events, that is not included in the known events, and display, as the difference, an event, out of the known events, that is not included in the detection events (as taught by Poulin) for several advantages such as: allow to match the events with an associated junction with smaller corresponding gaps which give the best fitness by minimizing the sum of the absolute value of gaps in the end, thus increase the accuracy of the device, ([Col. 6, lines 24-27], Poulin).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim are 3-4, 6 and 14-17 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.
Regarding Claim 3, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose, teach, or suggest or render obvious “wherein the display comprises an input data display configured to display the known events, and a measurement data display configured to display the detection events, the input data display is configured to display an event that is not included in the detection events but is included only in the known events, in correspondence with blank space in the measurement data display, and the measurement data display is configured to display an event that is not included in the known events but is included only in the detection events, in correspondence with blank space in the input data display.”, in the combination required by the claim.
Regarding Claim 4 is directly/indirectly dependent on claim 3 and are allowable based on their dependencies.
Regarding Claim 6, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose, teach, or suggest or render obvious “wherein the waveform display is configured to display a cursor to specify the position of the modification target event, the input interface is configured to accept, from the user, an operation to move the cursor and an operation to set the position of the modification target event at a position of the cursor, and the correction unit is configured to modify the position of the modification target event to the position of the cursor.”, in the combination required by the claim.
Regarding Claims 14 and 16, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose, teach, or suggest or render obvious “displaying, as the difference, an event, out of the detection events, that is not included in the known events; displaying, as the difference, an event, out of the known events, that is not included in the detection events; displaying, in an input data display configured to display the known events, an event that is not included in the detection events but is included only in the known events, in correspondence with blank space in the measurement data display, and displaying, in a measurement data display configured to display the detection events, an event that is not included in the known events but is included only in the detection events, in correspondence with blank space in the input data display.”, in the combination required by the claim.
Regarding Claims 15 and 17, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose, teach, or suggest or render obvious “displaying, in a waveform display configured to display a waveform of the measurement data, a range within which a position of the modification target event can be set when a portion of the waveform corresponding to a modification target event, out of the detection events, displayed; displaying, in the waveform display, a cursor to specify the position of the modification target event; accepting, from the user, an operation to move the cursor and an operation to set the position of the modification target event at a position of the cursor; and modifying the position of the modification target event to the position of the cursor.”, in the combination required by the claim.
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 CARLOS G PEREZ-GUZMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3904. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/CARLOS PEREZ-GUZMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights