DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Amendment
2. The amendment filed on 01/20/2026 has been entered into this application. New claims 6-7 have been added.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
3. 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.
4. Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
5. 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.
6. 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 limitations use 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 limitations are:
“an arithmetic unit configured to” in claims 1, 3-4 and 6-7.
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.
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.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Pub. No. 2010/0128257 A1 by Yamamoto et al (hereinafter Yamamoto).
Regarding Claim 1, Yamamoto teaches an optical fiber characteristic measurement apparatus (Title Abstract, Par. [0001]) comprising:
an arithmetic unit (Fig. 4 @ 17, Par. [0064]) configured to measure a characteristic of an optical fiber under test (Fig. 4 @ 7) by detecting multiple peaks in a Brillouin gain spectrum (Par. [0034]) of Brillouin scatted light occurring in the optical fiber under test (Par. [0040]. Also see Fig. 5) and calculating multiple Brillouin frequency shift (Par. [0009, 0034]).
Regarding Claim 2, Yamamoto teaches the arithmetic unit is configured to:
set, at one or more positions in the optical fiber under test, a measurement segment in which the characteristic of the optical fiber under test is to be measured (Fig. 1 @ P1 to P4, Abstract, Par. [0012]. Also see Fig. 8);
measure a Brillouin gain spectrum in the measurement segment set at each position (Fig. 1 @ P1 to P4, Abstract, Par. [0012, 0019-0020, 0036]. Also see Fig. 8);
determine, as an anomaly, the characteristic of the measurement segment in which the Brillouin gain spectrum including an anomalous peak and no normal peak has been measured (Fig. 8, Par. [0040, 0083-0084]);
subdivide the measurement segment in which the Brillouin gain spectrum including both of a normal peak and an anomalous peak has been measured (Fig. 3, 8, Par. [0034, 0040, 0083-0084]);
measure a Brillouin gain spectrum in each subdivided segment (Fig. 3, 8, Par. [0040, 0083-0084]); and
determine whether each subdivided segment is anomalous (Fig. 8, Par. [0040, 0083-0084, 0088]).
Regarding Claim 3, Yamamoto teaches a light source configured to emit modulated light to be incident on the optical fiber under test, wherein the light source is configured such that the arithmetic unit can control an amplitude and modulation frequency of the modulated light, the amplitude of the modulated light determines a length of the measurement segment, the modulation frequency of the modulated light determines the position of the measurement segment (Fig. 3, 4, Par. [0026, 0034, 0058]).
Regarding Claim 5, Yamamoto teaches an optical fiber characteristic measurement method (See Claim 1 rejection. Note: an apparatus claim can be used to implement a method claim) comprising:
measuring a characteristic of an optical fiber under test by detecting multiple peaks in a Brillouin gain spectrum of Brillouin scatted light occurring in the optical fiber under test and calculating multiple Brillouin frequency shift (See Claim 1 rejection).
Regarding Claim 6, Yamamoto teaches the arithmetic unit is configured to detect the multiple peaks in one Brillouin gain spectrum of Brillouin scatted light (Par. [0020, 0034]) occurring in the optical fiber under test and calculating multiple Brillouin frequency shifts (Par. [0009, 0034]).
Regarding Claim 7, Yamamoto teaches the arithmetic unit is configured to repeat (Par. [0034, 0036, 0063]) subdividing the measurement segment until the arithmetic unit finds a subdivided segment in which an anomalous peak is detected without detecting a normal peak (Fig. 3, 8, Par. [0034, 0040, 0083-0084]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of US Patent Pub. No. 2021/0325210 A1 by Matsuura (hereinafter Matsuura).
Regarding Claim 4, Yamamoto teaches the measured Brillouin gain spectrum and information identifying the measurement segment in which the Brillouin gain spectrum has been measured (See Claim 2 rejection), in correspondence with each other, wherein the arithmetic unit is configured to control the amplitude and modulation frequency of the modulated light (See Claim 3 rejection) but does not explicitly teach a memory configured to store and control the modulation light based on information stored in the memory.
However, Matsuura teaches a memory configured to store and control the modulation light based on information stored in the memory (Par. [0045, 0127]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamamoto by Matsuura as taught above such that a memory configured to store the measured Brillouin gain spectrum and information identifying the measurement segment in which the Brillouin gain spectrum has been measured, in correspondence with each other, wherein the arithmetic unit is configured to control the amplitude and modulation frequency of the modulated light (See Claim 3 rejection) based on information stored in the memory is accomplished in order to change a position of the correlation peak CP1 when the modulation frequency changes in order to obtain a predictable result (Matsuura, Fig. 3, Par. [0062-0063]).
Additional Prior Art
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The reference listed teaches of other prior art method/system of multiple peaks in a Brillouin gain spectrum.
US Patent Pub. No. 2013/0025374 A1 by Voskoboinik et al.
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant’s arguments filed on 01/20/2026 with respect to claims 1 and 5 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
12.1 The Applicant argued that the cited primary reference Yamamoto discloses calculating Brillouin gain fluctuation periods but does not disclose detecting multiple peaks in one Brillouin gain spectrum (Argument, Page 4) and further argues that thus, it is reasonably interpreted to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventions of Yamamoto detect only one peak from one spectrum waveform. At least by virtue of the above-discussed drawbacks or deficiencies of Yamamoto, Yamamoto fails to disclose or suggest the claimed feature of the presently amended claim 1 (Argument, Page 6).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Yamamoto teaches a frequency (1/m) at which the spectrum waveform peaks corresponds to 1/LP in this section (another word, multiple peaks within one spectrum) (Fig. 3, Par. [0034]).
The Examiner respectfully points out that the explanation/interpretation/statement given in argument page 4-6, relied on by the Applicant solely explain the teaching of Yamamoto and bears no relation to the teaching of Yamamoto as applied to the current rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 JAMIL AHMED whose telephone number is (571) 272-1950. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached on 571-272-2416. 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.
/JAMIL AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877