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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/13/2024 and 01/23/2025 were considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds the accepted length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2 of claims 10 and 11, “performed a plurality” should read “performed with a plurality”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9-16, 18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20090244522A1 by Cyr et al. (cited in IDS as US 7920253 B2; hereinafter Cyr '09) in view of US20160161397A9 by Cyr et al. (cited in IDS as US 9829429 B2; hereinafter Cyr '16).
Regarding claim 1, Cyr '09 teaches a method for measuring a polarization mode dispersion (PMD) to characterize an optical fiber under test (at least Fig. 1; [0029]), the method comprising:
from a proximal end of the optical fiber under test which distal end is connected to a light reflector ([0029]; [0117] Fresnel-back reflection from the distal end of the FUT 16), performing a plurality of polarization-sensitive acquisitions using a polarization-sensitive Optical Time Domain Reflectometer (POTDR) ([0028]-[0029] a single-end polarization sensitive optical time domain reflectometer (POTDR) is used to inject into the FUT plural series of light pulses arranged in several groups), wherein each acquisition is performed by propagating in the optical fiber under test, a polarized test signal comprising a first series of repeated light pulses and detecting a corresponding polarization-analyzed return light signal coming back from the optical fiber under test and comprising back-reflected light from the light reflector, said return light signal comprising repeated reflected light pulses ([0029] steps (i) and (ii)(a));
wherein each of said acquisitions is performed with a corresponding wavelength of said test signal ([0029]),
wherein said plurality of polarization-sensitive acquisitions defines at least one pair of acquisitions performed with mutually different but closely-spaced wavelengths and substantially the same state of polarization (SOP), a center of the wavelengths defining a center wavelength for said at least one pair ([0029] step (i)), and
wherein said plurality of polarization-sensitive acquisitions comprises a plurality of pairs of acquisitions performed with at least one of a plurality of mutually-different center wavelengths and a plurality of mutually-different states of polarization (SOP) ([0030] step (iii)); and
for each said acquisitions, averaging respective amplitudes of at least part of said repeated reflected light pulses to obtain a value of reflected power ([0030] steps (ii)b) and (iv)b));
for each said pairs of said acquisitions, computing a value of a difference, between the two values of reflected powers corresponding to said pair ([0030] step (v)b));
computing a mean-square value of the computed values of difference over said at least one of a plurality of mutually-different center wavelengths and a plurality of mutually-different states of polarizations (SOPs) ([0030] step (v)c)); and
from said mean-square value, calculating a value of the polarization mode dispersion of said optical fiber under test ([0030] step (v)vi) PMD value).
Although Cyr '09 does not explicitly teach a light reflector connected to the distal end of the fiber, Cyr '09 teaches Fresnel-backreflection from the distal end of the FUT 16 ([0117]), thus a reflection is occurring at the distal end of the fiber. Cyr '09 also teaches an embodiment which uses a mirror at distance z along the fiber under test (FUT) ([0055]).
Further, Cyr '16 does address this limitation. Cyr '09 and Cyr '16 are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field polarization-sensitive optical time domain reflectometers
Cyr '16 teaches any type of reflector may be used if it can reflect the light from the end of FUT 18 back into the measuring instrumentation such as fiber pigtailed mirror 50 ([0252]).
Therefore, it would have been well known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cyr '09 to include a light reflector connected to the distal end of the fiber in order to reflect the light back for measurement as the light-reflector provides an art-recognized equivalent at the time the invention was made and thus would be obvious to substitute.
Regarding claim 2, Cyr '09 modified by Cyr '16 teaches the method of claim 1, and Cyr ’09 further teaches wherein said value of reflected power is obtained by averaging respective amplitudes of all of said repeated reflected light pulses ([0030] step (b) and step (iv)(b) sampling and averaging all of the electrical impulse-response signals of said each of at least some of the light pulses to provide an OTDR trace representing detected backscattered power versus time for each series of light pulses of said first group).
Regarding claim 4, Cyr '09 modified by Cyr '16 teaches the method of claim 1, and Cyr ’09 further teaches wherein each acquisitions comprises the propagation of a first series of repeated light pulses and a second series of repeated light pulses ([0030] a second group of at least two series of light pulses; [0074]), wherein the second series is propagated after detection of the return light signal of the first series ([0074] "Once the first group of four traces have been obtained with the SOP scrambler 24….and a second group of four traces are obtained and stored.")
Regarding claim 7, Cyr '09 modified by Cyr '16 teaches the method of claim 1, but Cyr '09 is silent as to wherein said computing a value of a difference comprises computing a second-order joint moment of the difference.
However, Cyr '16 does address this limitation.
Cyr '16 teaches wherein said computing a value of a difference comprises computing a second-order joint moment of the difference ([0708] second-order joint moment of the repeated differences).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate mean square differences using a second-order joint moment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Cyr '09 to include wherein said computing a value of a difference comprises computing a second-order joint moment of the difference as suggested by Cyr '16 in order to perform calculations with greater accuracy ([0708]).
Regarding claim 9, Cyr '09 modified by Cyr '16 teaches the method of claim 1, and Cyr ’09 further teaches wherein said value of the polarization mode dispersion is calculated as a predetermined function of said mean-square value ([0030] step v)vi)).
Regarding claim 10, Cyr '09 modified by Cyr '16 teaches the method of claim 1, and Cyr ’09 further teaches wherein said plurality of polarization-sensitive acquisitions comprises a plurality of pairs of acquisitions performed a plurality of mutually-different center wavelengths and wherein said plurality of mutually-different center wavelengths is obtained by tuning a laser wavelength of said POTDR in steps between acquisitions ([0062]; [0074] the control unit 30 changes the center wavelength of the tunable laser 12).
Regarding claim 11, Cyr '09 modified by Cyr '16 teaches the method of claim 1, and Cyr ’09 further teaches wherein said plurality of polarization-sensitive acquisitions comprises a plurality of pairs of acquisitions performed a plurality of mutually-different center wavelengths and wherein said plurality of mutually-different center wavelengths is obtained by tuning a laser wavelength of said POTDR in continuous ([0074]; [0092] the tunable pulsed laser source 12 may comprise a continuous wave (CW) tunable laser and a semiconductor optical amplifier (SOA).).
Additionally, even if Cyr '09 does not explicitly teach tuning a laser wavelength in continuous, Cyr '16 does address this limitation.
Cyr '16 teaches tuning a laser wavelength in continuous ([0164] tunable filter 27 can be a single channel filter that is operated in a “continuous sweep” mode, or may be operated under a “stepped wavelength” selection mode).
Therefore it would have been well known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tunable laser of Cyr '09 to operate in continuous as this is a well-known method of efficient tunable laser operation.
Regarding claim 12, Cyr '09 teaches A system for measuring a polarization mode dispersion (PMD) to characterize an optical fiber under test, the system comprising (at least Fig. 1; [0029]):
a polarization-sensitive Optical Time Domain Reflectometer (POTDR) acquisition device connectable toward a proximal end of the optical fiber under test ([0029]; [0117] Fresnel-backreflection from the distal end of the FUT 16) for performing a plurality of polarization-sensitive acquisitions toward the optical fiber under test, a distal end of said optical fiber under test being connected to a light reflector ([0028]-[0029] a single-end polarization sensitive optical time domain reflectometer (POTDR) is used to inject into the FUT plural series of light pulses arranged in several groups),
wherein said POTR acquisition device is configured so that:
each acquisition is performed by propagating in the optical fiber under test, a polarized test signal comprising a first series of repeated light pulses and detecting a corresponding polarization-analyzed return light signal coming back from the optical fiber under test and comprising back-reflected light from the light reflector, said return light signal comprising repeated reflected light pulses ([0029] steps (i) and (ii)(a)),
each of said acquisitions is performed with a corresponding wavelength of said test signal ([0029]),
said plurality of polarization-sensitive acquisitions defines at least one pair of acquisitions performed with mutually different but closely-spaced wavelengths and substantially the same state of polarization (SOP), a center of the wavelengths defining a center wavelength for said at least one pair ([0029] step (i)), and
said plurality of polarization-sensitive acquisitions comprises a plurality of pairs of acquisitions performed with at least one of a plurality of mutually-different center wavelengths and a plurality of mutually-different states of polarization (SOP) ([0030] step (iii)); and
a processing unit receiving acquisition data and configured for ([0050] data processor 32):
for each said acquisitions, averaging respective amplitudes of at least part of said repeated reflected light pulses to obtain a value of reflected power ([0030] steps (ii)b) and (iv)b)),
for each said pairs of said acquisitions, computing a value of a difference, between the two values of reflected powers corresponding to said pair ([0030] step (v)c)),
computing a mean-square value of the computed values of difference over said at least one of a plurality of mutually-different center wavelengths and a plurality of mutually-different states of polarizations (SOPs); and
from said mean-square value, calculating a value of the polarization mode dispersion of said optical fiber under test ([0030] step (v)vi) PMD value).
Although Cyr '09 does not explicitly teach a distal end of said optical fiber under test being connected to a light reflector, Cyr '09 teaches Fresnel-backreflection from the distal end of the FUT 16 ([0117]), thus a reflection is occurring at the distal end of the fiber. Cyr '09 also teaches an embodiment which uses a mirror at distance z along the fiber under test (FUT) ([0055]).
Further, Cyr '16 does address this limitation. Cyr '09 and Cyr '16 are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field polarization-sensitive optical time domain reflectometers.
Cyr '16 teaches any type of reflector may be used if it can reflect the light from the end of FUT 18 back into the measuring instrumentation such as fiber pigtailed mirror 50 ([0252]).
Therefore, it would have been well known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cyr '09 to include a distal end of said optical fiber under test being connected to a light reflector in order to reflect the light back for measurement as the light-reflector provides an art-recognized equivalent at the time the invention was made and thus would be obvious to substitute.
Regarding claim 13, Cyr '09 modified by Cyr '16 teaches the system of claim 12, and Cyr ’09 further teaches wherein said POTDR acquisition device comprises: a light generating assembly comprising a tunable light source and pulse generator and configured to generate said test signal comprising repeated light pulses, at said mutually different wavelengths ([0050] tunable light source means 10 in the form of a tunable laser source 12 for launching light pulses; [0051] wavelength is controlled by control unit 30).
Regarding claim 14, Cyr '09 modified by Cyr '16 teaches the system of claim 12, and Cyr ’09 further teaches wherein said POTDR acquisition device comprises: a light detecting assembly comprising at least one detector configured to detect said return light signal returning from said optical fiber under test from said test signal for each of said acquisitions ([0050] photodetector 26).
Regarding claim 15, Cyr '09 modified by Cyr '16 teaches the system of claim 12, and Cyr ’09 further teaches wherein said POTDR acquisition device comprises a polarization-controller-and-analyzer unit comprising a polarization discriminator, a polarization controller used to control both an input state of polarization and an analyzer state of polarization ([0050] polarization control means 20 which comprises a polarizer 22 and a polarization controller 24; [0097] polarizer 22 acts as analyzer; further, it appears that the polarizer is equivalent to the polarization discriminator based on applicant's specification [0125]).
Regarding claim 16, Cyr '09 modified by Cyr '16 teaches the system of claim 12, and Cyr ’09 further teaches wherein said POTDR acquisition device is configured such that each of said acquisitions comprises the propagation of a first series of repeated light pulses and a second series of repeated light pulses, ([0030] a second group of at least two series of light pulses; [0074]), wherein the second series is propagated after detection of the return light signal of the first series ([0074] "Once the first group of four traces have been obtained with the SOP scrambler 24….and a second group of four traces are obtained and stored.")
Regarding claim 18, Cyr '09 modified by Cyr '16 teaches the system of claim 16, and Cyr ’09 further teaches wherein said processing unit is further configured for: normalizing each said value of reflected power before said computing a value of a difference [0028] The PMD then is obtained by normalizing the OTDR traces of all of the groups, then computing the difference ).
Cyr '09 is silent as to wherein said normalizing comprises averaging said values of reflected power obtained for said first and said second series of repeated light pulses and dividing each value of reflected power by the average value of reflected power.
However, Cyr '16 does address this limitation.
Cyr '16 teaches wherein said processing unit is further configured for ([0700] data processor 34): normalizing each said value of reflected power before said computing a value of a difference, wherein said normalizing comprises averaging said values of reflected power obtained for said first and said second series of repeated light pulses and dividing each value of reflected power by the average value of reflected power ([0278]-[0279] normalized powers can be obtained by computing an average of all of the powers in first and second groups of powers, and dividing each of the powers by the said average power to obtain first and second groups of normalized powers; [0704])
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to normalize the power values by averaging and dividing values. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Cyr '16 to include wherein said processing unit is further configured for: normalizing comprises averaging said values of reflected power obtained for said first and said second series of repeated light pulses and dividing each value of reflected power by the average value of reflected power as suggested by Cyr '16 in order to reduce measurement error.
Regarding claim 20, Cyr '09 modified by Cyr '16 teaches the system of claim 12, and Cyr ’09 further teaches wherein said processing unit is configured for calculating said value of the polarization mode dispersion as a predetermined function of said mean-square value ([0030] step v)vi)).
Regarding claim 21, Cyr '09 modified by Cyr '16 teaches the system of claim 13, and Cyr ’09 further teaches wherein said plurality of polarization-sensitive acquisitions comprises a plurality of pairs of acquisitions performed with a plurality of mutually-different center wavelengths and wherein said tunable light source is configured for tuning a laser wavelength of said POTDR in steps between acquisitions to obtain said plurality of mutually-different center wavelengths ([0062]; [0074] the control unit 30 changes the center wavelength of the tunable laser 12.
Regarding claim 22, Cyr '09 modified by Cyr '16 teaches the system of claim 13, and Cyr ’09 further teaches wherein said plurality of polarization-sensitive acquisitions comprises a plurality of pairs of acquisitions performed with a plurality of mutually-different center wavelengths and wherein said tunable light source is configured for tuning a laser wavelength of said POTDR in continuous between acquisitions to obtain said plurality of mutually-different center wavelengths ([0074]; [0092] the tunable pulsed laser source 12 may comprise a continuous wave (CW) tunable laser and a semiconductor optical amplifier (SOA).).
Additionally, even if Cyr '09 does not explicitly teach tuning a laser wavelength in continuous, Cyr '16 does address this limitation.
Cyr '16 teaches tuning a laser wavelength in continuous ([0164] tunable filter 27 can be a single channel filter that is operated in a “continuous sweep” mode, or may be operated under a “stepped wavelength” selection mode).
Therefore it would have been well known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tunable laser of Cyr '09 to operate in continuous as this is a well-known method of efficient operation.
Claims 3, 5, 6, 8, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cyr '09 in view of Cyr '16 as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of TW201427303A by Zhuang et al. (hereinafter "Zhuang"; translation provided).
Regarding claim 3, Cyr '09 modified by Cyr '16 and Zhuang teaches the method of claim 1, and Cyr ’09 further teaches wherein each of said acquisitions comprises the propagation of said first series of repeated light pulses and a second series of repeated light pulses ([0030] a second group of at least two series of light pulses]).
Cyr '09 is silent as to wherein the second series is propagated before detection of the return light signal of the first series.
However, Zhuang does address this limitation. Zhuang and Cyr '09 are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of single-ended fiber dispersion.
Zhuang teaches wherein the second series is propagated before detection of the return light signal of the first series ([0009] "roundtrip delay time of each wavelength of optical fiber can be tested simultaneously," [0028]; [0010] uses a circulator similar to Cyr '09).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to propagate the second series before the detection of the return light of the first series. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Cyr '09 to include wherein the second series is propagated before detection of the return light signal of the first series as suggested by Zhuang in order to make rapid determinations to increase efficiency.
Regarding claim 5, Cyr '09 modified by Cyr '16 and Zhuang teaches the method of claim 3, and Cyr ’09 further teaches normalizing each said value of reflected power before said computing a value of a difference [0028] The PMD then is obtained by normalizing the OTDR traces of all of the groups, then computing the difference ).
However, Cyr '16 does address this limitation.
Cyr '09 is silent as to wherein said normalizing comprises averaging said values of reflected power obtained for said first and said second series of repeated light pulses and dividing each value of reflected power by the average value of reflected power.
Cyr '16 teaches normalizing each said value of reflected power before said computing a value of a difference, wherein said normalizing comprises averaging said values of reflected power obtained for said first and said second series of repeated light pulses and dividing each value of reflected power by the average value of reflected power ([0278]-[0279] normalized powers can be obtained by computing an average of all of the powers in first and second groups of powers, and dividing each of the powers by the said average power to obtain first and second groups of normalized powers; [0704]).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to normalize the power values by averaging and dividing values. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Cyr '16 to include wherein said normalizing comprises averaging said values of reflected power obtained for said first and said second series of repeated light pulses and dividing each value of reflected power by the average value of reflected power as suggested by Cyr '16 in order to reduce measurement error.
Regarding claim 6, Cyr '09 modified by Cyr '16 and Zhuang teaches the method of claim 3, and although Cyr '09 is silent as to wherein each said first and second series comprises 4 to 100 light pulses. However, as the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller 105 USPQ 233 (1955). See MPEP 2144.05 Sec. II A.
Further, Cyr '16 does address this limitation.
Cyr '16 teaches wherein the series of light pulses comprises 10 to 1000 pulses ([0371]).
Therefore, it would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cyr '09 to include wherein each said first and second series comprises 4 to 100 light pulses as suggested by Cyr '16 in order to increase measurement accuracy.
Regarding claim 8, Cyr '09 modified by Cyr '16 and Zhuang teaches the method of claim 1, and Cyr ’09 is silent as to wherein said averaging respective amplitudes of said repeated reflected light pulses comprises rearranging a timing of each pulse of the series of repeated light pulses in the return light signal and averaging the rearranged return light signal to obtain a value of reflected power.
However, Zhuang does address this limitation. Zhuang and Cyr '09 are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of single-ended fiber dispersion.
Zhuang teaches wherein said averaging respective amplitudes of said repeated reflected light pulses comprises rearranging a timing of each pulse of the series of repeated light pulses in the return light signal ([0022] the time delay of each wavelength is calculated from the relationship between the speed, distance and time delay of light in the optical fiber; and the time delay of each wavelength is further subtracted from the time required for adjusting the optical fiber through the travel path length to obtain the actual time delay of each wavelength; since both series of light pulses are tested simultaneously the timing of the pulses includes information on what series the light pulse is from, thus the pulses would be “rearranged” such that the first series of pulses are grouped together and the second series of pulses are grouped together for calculations) and averaging the rearranged return light signal to obtain a value of reflected power ([0022] the reflection peak distance of each wavelength is measured on the relationship curve between optical power and distance obtained after averaging and testing by the optical time-domain reflectostat).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include rearranging a timing of each pulse and averaging the rearranged pulses to obtain the reflected power. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Cyr '09 to include wherein said averaging respective amplitudes of said repeated reflected light pulses comprises rearranging a timing of each pulse of the series of repeated light pulses in the return light signal and averaging the rearranged return light signal to obtain a value of reflected power as suggested by Zhuang in order to account for the time delay, thus increasing the accuracy of the measurement.
Regarding claim 17, Cyr '09 modified by Cyr '16 teaches the system of claim 12, and Cyr ’09 further teaches wherein said POTDR acquisition device is configured such that each acquisitions comprises the propagation of a first series of repeated light pulses and a second series of repeated light pulses [0030] a second group of at least two series of light pulses]).
Cyr '09 is silent as to wherein the second series is propagated before detection of the return light signal of the first series.
However, Zhuang does address this limitation. Zhuang and Cyr '09 are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of single-ended fiber dispersion.
Zhuang teaches wherein the second series is propagated before detection of the return light signal of the first series ([0009] "roundtrip delay time of each wavelength of optical fiber can be tested simultaneously," [0028]; [0010] uses a circulator similar to Cyr '09).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to propagate the second series before the detection of the return light of the first series. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Cyr '09 to include wherein the second series is propagated before detection of the return light signal of the first series as suggested by Zhuang in order to make rapid determinations to increase efficiency.
Regarding claim 19, Cyr '09 modified by Cyr '16 teaches the system of claim 12, but Cyr ’09 is silent as to wherein said averaging respective amplitudes of said repeated reflected light pulses comprises rearranging a timing of each pulse of the series of repeated light pulses in the return light signal and averaging the rearranged return light signal to obtain a value of reflected power.
However, Zhuang does address this limitation. Zhuang and Cyr '09 are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of single-ended fiber dispersion.
Zhuang teaches wherein said averaging respective amplitudes of said repeated reflected light pulses comprises rearranging a timing of each pulse of the series of repeated light pulses in the return light signal ([0022] the time delay of each wavelength is calculated from the relationship between the speed, distance and time delay of light in the optical fiber; and the time delay of each wavelength is further subtracted from the time required for adjusting the optical fiber through the travel path length to obtain the actual time delay of each wavelength; since both series of light pulses are tested simultaneously the timing of the pulses includes information on what series the light pulse is from, thus the pulses would be “rearranged” such that the first series of pulses are grouped together and the second series of pulses are grouped together for calculations) and averaging the rearranged return light signal to obtain a value of reflected power ([0022] the reflection peak distance of each wavelength is measured on the relationship curve between optical power and distance obtained after averaging and testing by the optical time-domain reflectostat).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include rearranging a timing of each pulse and averaging the rearranged pulses to obtain the reflected power. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Cyr '09 to include wherein said averaging respective amplitudes of said repeated reflected light pulses comprises rearranging a timing of each pulse of the series of repeated light pulses in the return light signal and averaging the rearranged return light signal to obtain a value of reflected power as suggested by Zhuang in order to account for the time delay, thus increasing the accuracy of the measurement.
Conclusion
The examiner notes for the record that scope of claims 5 and 18 are different due their dependencies. This is because claim 18, which recites similar subject matter to claim 5, depends from claim 16, which recites similar subject matter to claim 4 (second series propagated after detection). However, claim 5 depends from claim 3, which recites similar subject matter to claim 17 (second series propagated before detection). Both embodiments appear to be supported by the applicant’s specification in paragraphs [0021] and [0042], thus the claims are not unclear or indefinite. However, the examiner points this difference out in case it was not intentional. Further, any amendments to the claims must be supported by the specification.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITLYN E KIDWELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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.
/KAITLYN E KIDWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights