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 Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim subject matter “the cooperating testing device” lacks antecedent basis. 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.
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: “an optical test unit configured to obtain” “an analysis and control device configured to adapt” “analysis and control device use” “a cooperating testing device” “optical test unit to transmit” “the analysis and control device is configured to boost” in claims 1,6, 8, 11, 15
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.
Applicant teaches the optical test unit comprises a photodetector (0010, lines 8-10).
Applicant teaches analysis and control device includes circuitry (0051, lines 1-3).
Applicant teaches the cooperating testing device may be another OLTS device, an enhanced Visual Fault Locator (VFL) device, or a distal optical network device having an optical source.
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 § 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(s) 1-7, 9, 16, & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin US 20180294873 in view of Imbsei US 6734411.
With respect to claim 1, Martin teaches an optical fiber testing apparatus comprising:
an optical test unit (fig 1, 110) configured to obtain a characterization (fig 1, power) of an optical fiber (fig 1, 130) (0019, line 1) to be tested;
a light source (fig 2, 220) “optical transmitter” (0031, line 1); and
an analysis and control device (fig 1, controller) configured to adapt the light source to a specific power level (fig 4, 420) based on the characterization of the optical fiber (fig 4, 412).
Martin does not teach a visible light source.
Imbsei, in the same field of Martin of monitoring/controlling power levels of light in optical fibers, teaches a wavelength of a light source may be whatever is necessary or appropriate for the specific application, including but not limited to ultra-violet, visible, infrared, and far infrared spectra (pg. 3, col 2, lines 63-pg. 4, col 3, lines 1-4). At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to combine a visible light source with Martin’s fiber for short range communication purposes with a reasonable expectation of success.
With respect to claim 2 according to claim 1, the combination teaches the optical fiber testing apparatus wherein the characterization of the optical fiber includes at least a fiber length metric (fig 4, 412 Martin) calculated from the optical fiber testing apparatus to a distal end of the optical fiber “length of the data communications link” (0051, lines 1-2 Martin).
With respect to claim 3 according to claim 1, the combination teaches the optical fiber testing apparatus wherein the specific power level (fig 4, 420 Martin), to which the visible light source (pg. 3, col 2, lines 63-pg. 4, col 3, lines 1-4 Imbsei) is set, is based at least on a) a fiber length metric (fig 4, 412 Martin), and b) an inherent attenuation “power losses” (0067, lines 1-2) (fig 4, 418 Martin) characteristic of the optical fiber.
With respect to claim 4 according to claim 1, the combination teaches the optical fiber testing apparatus wherein: the characterization of the optical fiber includes a loss metric “calculate output power” (fig 4, 418 Martin) related to each of one or more events “power losses” (0067, lines 1-2) along the optical fiber, the loss metric is related to a power loss “power losses” (0067, lines 1-2) (fig 4, 418 Martin) associated with the respective event.
With respect to claim 5 according to claim 1, the combination teaches the optical fiber testing apparatus
wherein the specific power level, to which the visible light source (pg. 3, col 2, lines 63-pg. 4, col 3, lines 1-4 Imbsei) is set, is based on one or more of a) a fiber length metric “length of the data communications link” (0051, lines 1-2 Martin), b) loss metric of each event along the optical fiber, and c) an inherent attenuation characteristic “power losses” (0067, lines 1-2) (fig 4, 418 Martin) of the optical fiber at a wavelength of the visible light source.
With respect to claim 6 according to claim 1, the combination teaches the optical fiber testing apparatus wherein:
the optical test unit is configured to apply a test pulse “pulse of light” (0061, lines 1-2 Martin) to the optical fiber and receive a reflection signal “reflection event” from the optical fiber (fig 4, 410 Martin), and
the analysis and control device is configured to perform a signal analysis procedure on the reflection signal final “ interval of time….reflection event was detected” (0061, lines 1-4 Martin) to detect one or more events “based on the interval of time calculated at step 410” (0062, lines 1-4 Martin) along the optical fiber and to detect a length (fig 4, 412 Martin) to a distal end of the optical fiber “a length of the data communications link” (0061, lines 1-3 Martin).
With respect to claim 7 according to claim 6, the combination teaches the optical fiber testing apparatus
wherein each event is one of a splice (0067, lines 10-13 Martin).
With respect to claim 9 according to claim 1, the combination teaches the optical fiber testing apparatus wherein the characterization “power calculator….additional power that might be needed…. overcome losses due to one or more connectors” (0052, lines 13-20 Martin) of the optical fiber includes at least a connectivity status related to a) a first connection “connectors” (fig 1, 135 Martin) between a proximal end of the optical fiber and the optical fiber testing apparatus (fig 1, 110 Martin) and b) a second connection “connectors” (fig 1, 133) between of a distal end of the optical fiber and a cooperating testing device (fig 1, 110 Martin).
With respect to claim 16, Martin teaches a method comprising steps of:
obtaining a characterization (fig 1, power) of an optical fiber to be tested (fig 1, 130) (0019, line 1); and providing light (fig 2, 220) “optical transmitter” (0031, line), to the optical fiber, at a specific power level based on the characterization.
Martin does not teach a visible light source.
Imbsei, in the same field of Martin of monitoring/controlling power levels of light in optical fibers, teaches a wavelength of a light source may be whatever is necessary or appropriate for the specific application, including but not limited to ultra-violet, visible, infrared, and far infrared spectra (pg. 3, col 2, lines 63-pg. 4, col 3, lines 1-4). At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to combine a visible light source with Martin’s fiber for short range communication purposes with a reasonable expectation of success.
With respect to claim 20 according to claim 16, the combination teaches the method wherein the specific power level “output power” (fig 4, 420 Martin), of the visible light, is based at least on a) a fiber length metric (fig 4, 412 Martin), and b) an inherent attenuation “power losses” (0067, lines 1-2) (fig 4, 418 Martin) characteristic of the optical fiber.
Claim(s) 8, 17, & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin US 20180294873 in view of Imbsei US 6734411 in further view of Perron US 11480496.
With respect to claim 8 according to claim 1, the combination does not teach the optical test unit and the analysis and control device use Optical Time Domain Reflectometry (OTDR) technology.
Perron, in the same field of endeavor as Martin of optical testing of optical fibers, teaches an Optical Time Domain Reflectometry technology configured to measure fiber loss via transmitting a pulsed light and collecting the return light (fig 7b) (col 4, lines 25-30 & 38-39). Perron further teaches the OTDR technology may obtain a characterization such as the length of fiber (col 7, lines 15-18). Martin teaches the optical test unit and the analysis and control device similar to those performed by an optical time-domain reflectometer (OTDR) (0033, lines 13-15). At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to substitute the combination’s optical test unit and the analysis and control device for Perron’s OTDR technology as a functional equivalent for detecting faulty optical fibers.
With respect to claim 17 according to claim 16, the combination teaches the method wherein the step of obtaining the characterization includes the steps of:
transmitting a test pulse “pulse of light” (0061, lines 1-2 Martin) on a proximal end (fig 1, 133)of the optical fiber;
scanning the optical fiber to obtain a trace (fig 1, 140); and
analyzing the trace to determine a fiber length metric (fig 4, 412) “a length of the data communications link” (0061, lines 1-3 Martin) related to a distance along the optical fiber from a scanning location to a distal end (fig 1, 345) of the optical fiber.
The combination does not teach Optical Time Domain Reflectometry (OTDR).
Perron, in the same field of endeavor as Martin of optical testing of optical fibers, teaches an Optical Time Domain Reflectometry technology configured to measure fiber loss via transmitting a pulsed light and collecting the return light (fig 7b) (col 4, lines 25-30 & 38-39). Perron further teaches the OTDR technology may obtain a characterization such as the length of fiber (col 7, lines 15-18). Martin teaches the optical test unit and the analysis and control device similar to those performed by an optical time-domain reflectometer (OTDR) (0033, lines 13-15). At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to substitute the combination’s optical test unit and the analysis and control device for Perron’s OTDR technology as a functional equivalent for detecting faulty optical fibers.
With respect to claim 18 according to claim 16, the combination teaches the method wherein the step of obtaining the characterization “power calculator….additional power that might be needed…. overcome losses due to one or more connectors” (0052, lines 13-20 Martin) includes the step of determining a connectivity status of a distal end “connectors” (fig 1, 133 Martin) of the optical fiber with respect to a cooperating testing device (fig 1, 110 Martin)., and wherein the step of providing the visible light at the specific power level “power calculator….additional power that might be needed…. overcome losses due to one or more connectors” (0052, lines 13-20 Martin) is based on the connectivity status, such that power is turned on once connectivity is determined.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin US 20180294873 in view of Imbsei US 6734411 in view of Brillhart US 20160356670.
With respect to claim 10 according to claim 8, the combination teaches the optical fiber testing apparatus wherein: the specific power level, to which the visible light source is set, is based on a connectivity status “power calculator….additional power that might be needed…. overcome losses due to one or more connectors” (0052, lines 13-20 Martin),
the cooperating testing device is one of distal optical network device having an optical source (fig 1, 110 Martin).
The combination does not teach an optical fiber testing apparatus and cooperating testing device are arranged in an Optical Loss Test Set (OLTS) configuration.
Brillhart, in the same field of endeavor as Martin of testing of optical fiber loss (0032 Brillhart), teaches a network technician seeking to certify a fiber optic cable may start with a light source and power meter set, a visual fault locator (VFL), and/or an Optical Loss Test Set (OLTS) main-remote pair (0032). At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to arrange the combination’s optical fiber testing apparatus and cooperating testing device in an OLTS configuration to certify an optical fiber.
Claim(s) 11, 12, & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin US 20180294873 in view of Imbsei US 6734411 in further view of Melontel, “How to use fiber optic adaptor???”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJGcDTLFGqo&lc=Ugypk6p5kQqxmArRXzh4AaABAg, July 18, 2022, hereafter Melontel.
With respect to claim 11 according to claim 1, the combination teaches the optical fiber testing apparatus
further comprising a coupler (fig1, 133 Martin) configured to enable the optical test unit (fig 1, 110) to transmit optical test pulses to the optical fiber (fig 1, 130 Martin) via and to receive reflection signals “reflections of light received back” from the optical fiber (0045, lines 1-5 Martin).
visible light source is configured to apply visible light (pg. 3, col 2, lines 63-pg. 4, col 3, lines 1-4 Imbsei) at the specific power level (fig 4, 420 Martin) to the optical fiber via the coupler.
The combination does not teach a singular optical port.
Melontel, in the same field of endeavor as Martin of fiber optics, implicitly teaches a singular optical port configured to connect with an optical fiber via a coupler (fig 1). At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine an optical port and coupler with the combination’s optical fiber testing to acquire the optical loss of a fiber under test.
PNG
media_image1.png
786
894
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 12 according to claim 11, the combination teaches the optical fiber testing apparatus wherein:
the optical test pulses include one or more wavelengths within a range of about 850 nm to about 1650 nm “1260-1360 nm” (0029, lines 5-8), and
the visible light includes one or more wavelengths within a range of about 400 nm
to about 700 nm “visible” (pg. 3, col 2, lines 63-pg. 4, col 3, lines 1-4 Imbsei).
With respect to claim 19 according to claim 16, the combination teaches the method wherein the step of obtaining the characterization includes the step of transmitting and receiving test signals “reflections of light received back” (0045, lines 1-5 Martin), and wherein the step of providing the visible light (pg. 3, col 2, lines 63-pg. 4, col 3, lines 1-4 Imbsei) includes the step of transmitting the visible light to the optical fiber.
The combination does not teach a singular optical port connected to the optical fiber.
Melontel, in the same field of endeavor as Martin of fiber optics, implicitly teaches a singular optical port configured to connect with an optical fiber via a coupler (fig 1). At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine an optical port and coupler with the combination’s optical fiber testing to acquire the optical loss of a fiber under test.
.
PNG
media_image2.png
392
446
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin US 20180294873 in view of Imbsei US 6734411 in further view of Oettinger US 20040208530 .
With respect to claim 14 according to claim 2, the combination teaches obtaining the characterization of the optical fiber and adapting the visible light source (pg. 3, col 2, lines 63-pg. 4, col 3, lines 1-4 Imbsei).
The combination does not teach repeated periodically responding to changes in the optical fiber occurring in real time.
Kassler, in the same field of endeavor of communications links, implicitly teaches a data link is repeatedly monitored (fig 2), after data link (fig 2, yes) is broken or is perfectly fine (fig 2, no). Examiner notes one of ordinary skill would understand repeating steps of characterizing optical fiber and adapting visible light source would enable continuous monitoring of a fiber in a real-time manner. At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to repeat the combination’s steps of characterizing optical fiber and adapting visible light source to enable real-time correction and continuous monitoring a fiber.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 & 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims or to include the limitation(s) and any intervening claims into the base claim. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 13, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “the coupler is configured as a fiber optic coupler or Y-coupler to enable passage of the visible light from the visible light source simultaneously with passage of the optical test pulses and reflection signals with respect to the optical test unit
”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 13.
As to claim 15, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “the analysis and control device is configured to boost the power of the visible light source to such a level that a) application of the boosted power to the optical fiber results in escaping light being emitted outside the optical fiber at an intensity that is safely detectable by a human eye, and b) detection range of the optical fiber testing apparatus is increased
”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAURICE C SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-2526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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, Kara Geisel can be reached at (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.
/MAURICE C SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2877