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 .
DETAILED OFFICE ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending examination.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
1. Claims 1,2,3,4,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chang (USPAT 11848699) in view of Kassler ( USPUB 20150062562) .
As per claim 1, Chang teaches A server ( Server taught within Col. 17- lines 5-10- “… the computing system 500 may operate in the capacity of a server or a client machine in a client-server network environment, or as a peer machine in a peer-to-peer (or distributed) network environment….”) comprising: a processing device ( Processing taught within Col. 17- Lines 1-15- “….FIG. 5 illustrates an example of a computing system (or computing device) 500 that may be used to implement one or more of the embodiments described herein according to various embodiments of the present technology. The computing system 500 includes sets of instructions 524 for causing the computing system 500 to perform the processes and features discussed herein. The computing system 500 may be connected (e.g., networked) to other machines and/or computer systems. In a networked deployment, the computing system 500 may operate in the capacity of a server or a client machine in a client-server network environment,…”) ; an external interface configured for communication with an interface device at a first site and for communication with an interface device at a second site ( Interfaces for connecting fibers between sites taught within Col. 5- lines 25-39- “…external optical switches can be directly or indirectly coupled to a fiber trunk. The system also can include a communications interface that supports a high speed data communications link with a second system at a remote location. The second system can be architected similarly or identically to the system. For example, the system and the second system can have the same components. Through the communications link, data can be communicated between the system and the second system to perform automated uni-directional testing and bi-directional testing at both ends of each fiber of the fiber trunk….”) ; and a memory device configured to store a fiber strand connectivity testing application configured to test a fiber optic cable running from the first site to the second site, the fiber optic cable having a plurality of strands ( Multiple fiber strands/trunk connectivity test taught within FIGURE 3 AND Col. 6- lines 37-49- “… the fibers can be associated with a fiber trunk. The number of fibers can vary based on the type of the fiber trunk. The count of fibers in a fiber trunk can be, for example, 32 fibers, 64 fibers, 144 fibers, 3,456 fibers, more fibers, or fewer fibers. In some instances, fibers of a fiber trunk can be coupled (or connected) to a fiber patch panel. In those instances, the device 100 and, in particular, the internal optical switch 110 can be coupled to the fiber patch panel through a fiber patch cord. In some instances, fibers can be terminated with connectors and the connectors can be directly connected to the internal optical switch 110….”) ,
Chang does not explicitly teach the fiber strand connectivity testing application having logical code for enabling the processing device to perform steps of: coordinating the first site and the second site to generate a signal at a first end of the strands and to detect presence of the signal at a second end of the strands; receiving confirmation information from the first site and the second site pertaining to the signal being generated and detected; utilizing the confirmation information to match the first end of the strands with the second end of the strands for determining fiber strand connectivity between the first site and the second site; and creating a connectivity map showing the fiber strand connectivity.
However within analogous art, Kassler teaches the fiber strand connectivity testing application having logical code for enabling the processing device (logical code for testing connectivity taught within Paragraph [0017]- “…preferably a software algorithm, program or code residing on computer useable medium having control logic for enabling execution on a machine having a computer processor. The machine typically includes memory storage configured to provide output from execution of the computer algorithm or program….”) to perform steps of: coordinating the first site and the second site to generate a signal at a first end of the strands and to detect presence of the signal at a second end of the strands ( Paragraphs [0029-0031]- “…identifying each of the plurality of fibers 301-304 involves launching light into each of the fibers 301-304 from the OTDR instrument 200 and obtaining a plurality of OTDR traces having different signatures applied thereto by means of a respective one of a plurality of signature applying means connected to opposite ends, respectively, of the fibers 301-304, each of the fibers being identifiable by detecting its signature in the corresponding OTDR trace. In various embodiments, each signature may comprise an OTDR trace event caused by a physical phenomenon or combination of phenomena along the fiber. Each of the signatures may be applied to the respective one of the said plurality of fibers 301-304 by generating at least two backscatter events spaced apart from each other by a predetermined effective optical distance that is different from the predetermined distance between the at least two backscatter events of other signatures….”) ; receiving confirmation information from the first site and the second site pertaining to the signal being generated and detected (Detection of signal taught within Paragraphs [0037-0038]- “…the test manager program 235 preferably determines whether the OFLUT 408 has been connected to the OTDR tool 200. In an embodiment of the present invention, in order to detect whether the OFLUT 408 has been connected, the test manager program 235 preferably instructs the OTDR tool 200 to send a plurality of quick probe optical pulses. …”) ; utilizing the confirmation information to match the first end of the strands with the second end of the strands for determining fiber strand connectivity between the first site and the second site; and creating a connectivity map showing the fiber strand connectivity (Connectivity map taught within Fig. 5 and Paragraphs [0036-0037]- “…lead-in fiber may be similar to the launch fiber 406. During the test setup, a user preferably enters a plurality of identifiers corresponding to a plurality of fiber sets contained in a trunk fiber optic cable, such as the fiber optic cable 300 (shown in FIG. 3). The user preferably enters the identifiers by employing, for example, the plurality of user input controls 260 of the OTDR tool 200. The user may specify the number of fibers to test by various means, including, but not limited to, numeric entry, testing with just the launch fiber 406, receive fiber 416, and/or other lead-in fibers. Alternatively, a list of the fiber identifiers, received at step 502, may comprise a list of fiber sets that failed during previously run tests, assuming the OTDR tool 200 is configured to retest the failed fibers…”) .
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Di Kassler within the modified teaching of the Systems And Methods For Fast End-to-end, Bi-directional, Fiber Trunk Certification mentioned by Chang because the Optical fiber testing using OTDR instrument mentioned by Kassler provides a method and system for implementation of testing of optical fiber cables within optical communication network.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one in the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the Optical fiber testing using OTDR instrument mentioned by Kassler within the modified teaching of the Systems And Methods For Fast End-to-end, Bi-directional, Fiber Trunk Certification mentioned by Chang for implementing a system and method for testing of optical fiber cables within optical communication network.
As per claim 2, Combination of Chang and Kassler teach claim 1,
Chang teaches wherein the first end of the strands includes a first set of accessible terminations, and the second end of the strands includes a second set of accessible terminations ( Col. 6- Lines 45-49-“… the device 100 and, in particular, the internal optical switch 110 can be coupled to the fiber patch panel through a fiber patch cord. In some instances, fibers can be terminated with connectors and the connectors can be directly connected to the internal optical switch 110….”) .
As per claim 3, Combination of Chang and Kassler teach claim 2,
Chang teaches wherein the first and second sets of accessible terminations include ports, fiber connectors, or patch panel ports ( Col. 6- lines 45-49- “…In some instances, fibers of a fiber trunk can be coupled (or connected) to a fiber patch panel. In those instances, the device 100 and, in particular, the internal optical switch 110 can be coupled to the fiber patch panel through a fiber patch cord….”) .
As per claim 4, Combination of Chang and Kassler teach claim 2,
Chang does not explicitly teach wherein the logical code further enables the processing device to receive, via the external interface, identity information regarding an identification of each of the first and second sets of accessible terminations.
Within analogous art, Kassler teaches wherein the logical code further enables the processing device to receive, via the external interface, identity information regarding an identification of each of the first and second sets of accessible terminations ( Paragraph [0026]- “…One or more microprocessor(s) (CPU 232) may comprise hardware elements or hardware logic adapted to execute the software programs and manipulate the data structures. The one or more microprocessor(s) 232 may execute, for example, a test manager program 235, which may be stored in the memory/storage 234, to control operation of the OTDR instrument 200. The test manager program 235 may comprise program instructions stored on one or more computer-readable storage devices, which may include internal storage 234 of the OTDR instrument 200. …”) .
As per claim 7, Combination of Chang and Kassler teach claim 1,
Chang teaches wherein the logical code further enables the processing device to perform the steps of: receiving geolocation information from each of the first site and second site; and incorporating the geolocation information into the connectivity map ( Col. 12- lines 17-36- “… The system 200 and the system 250 can be geographically separate or remote from one another. For example, the system 200 can be located in a first data center at one end of a fiber trunk while the system 250 can be located in a second data center at the other end of the fiber trunk. The first data center and the second data center can be two locations or premises of a common entity (or enterprise) or different entities.”) .
As per claim 8, Combination of Chang and Kassler teach claim 1,
Chang teaches wherein the first site receives assistance from a technician and the second site does not receive assistance from a technician ( Col. 9 – lines 6-14- “…An operator of the device 100 can provide an input or command to the device 100 (e.g., the user interface 102) to select and initiate one or more desired tests. In some embodiments, when testing is initiated on a device (or system) of a coupled pair of devices (or systems), that device can assume the role of master and the other device can assume the role of slave. Accordingly, in this example, the device 100 assumes the role of master and the device 150 assumes the role of slave….”) .
As per claim 9, Combination of Chang and Kassler teach claim 1,
Chang teaches wherein neither the first site nor the second site receives assistance from a technician, and wherein the logical code further enables the processing device to perform the step of receiving a test initiation request from a remote technician to initiate a fiber strand connectivity test between the first site and the second site ( Col. 10- lines 65-66, Col. 11- lines 1- 12- “….the test report also can identify fibers associated with parameter values that do not satisfy associated threshold values and can indicate that the fibers exhibit unsatisfactory performance. In addition, the test report can provide aggregated test results that provide an indication about the performance level of the fiber trunk overall. The test results can be presented to the operator of the device 100 through the user interface 102 (and the operator of the device 150 through a user interface of the device 150)….testing of a potentially large number of fibers in a timeframe that is substantially shorter than the timeframe required by labor-intensive conventional techniques. In accordance with the present technology, technicians at a first data center in which the device 100 is located (and technicians at a second data center in which the device 150 is located) need only patch once prior to testing of fibers…”) .
As per claim 10, Chang teaches A multi-port testing system ( FIGURE 3) comprising: an optical switch having a plurality of accessible terminations configured for connection with a first end of multiple strands of a fiber optic cable to be tested ( Optical switching taught within Col. 13- Lines 12-30 – “…The system 200 can test fibers coupled to the external optical switch 220 when the external optical switch 220 is coupled to the optical test module 208 of the device 201. The CPU 204 can control the external optical switch 220 to select a first fiber (or corresponding port of the external optical switch 220) from among the fibers to which the external optical switch 220 is coupled….”) , a second end of the multiple strands of the fiber optic cable terminating at a remote location ( Multiple strands/trunk and remote location taught within Col. 14- lines 34-50 – “…. The system 300 and the system 350 can be geographically separate or remote from one another. For example, the system 300 can be located in a first data center at one end of a fiber trunk while the system 350 can be located in a second data center at the other end of the fiber trunk. The first data center and the second data center can be two locations or premises of a common entity (or enterprise) or different entities….”) ; a test unit configured to cause the optical switch to switch among the multiple strands at the first end for testing connectivity ( Optical switching taught within Col. 15- lines 39-55- “…which can function as a master switch, and the external optical switches 320a-320n to select fibers and to connect the fibers to the optical test module 308. The CPU 304 can control the internal optical switch 310 and a first external optical switch of the external optical switches 320a-320n to select a first fiber (or corresponding port of the first external optical switch) from among the fibers to which the first external optical switch is coupled. An identification of the first fiber can be provided to the system 350 over the communications link 314 to perform uni-directional testing and bi-directional testing at both ends of the first fiber….”) ; and an interface device configured to communicate with a server ( Interface/peer to peer network communication taught within Col. 18- “…routines and data can be obtained from centralized servers or peer-to-peer networks. Different portions of the routines and data can be obtained from different centralized servers and/or peer-to-peer networks at different times and in different communication sessions,…”),
Chang does not explicitly teach wherein the server is configured to coordinate the test unit with a second test unit at the remote location to enable one of the test unit and the second test unit to generate a signal at one end of the strands and to detect presence of the signal at another end of the strands; wherein the test unit is further configured to provide confirmation information to the server pertaining to the signal being generated or detected to enable the server to match the first end of the multiple strands with the second end of the multiple strands for determining fiber strand connectivity to create a connectivity map showing the fiber strand connectivity.
However within analogous art, Kassler teaches wherein the server is configured to coordinate the test unit with a second test unit at the remote location to enable one of the test unit and the second test unit to generate a signal at one end of the strands and to detect presence of the signal at another end of the strands ( Paragraphs [0029-0031]- “…identifying each of the plurality of fibers 301-304 involves launching light into each of the fibers 301-304 from the OTDR instrument 200 and obtaining a plurality of OTDR traces having different signatures applied thereto by means of a respective one of a plurality of signature applying means connected to opposite ends, respectively, of the fibers 301-304, each of the fibers being identifiable by detecting its signature in the corresponding OTDR trace. In various embodiments, each signature may comprise an OTDR trace event caused by a physical phenomenon or combination of phenomena along the fiber. Each of the signatures may be applied to the respective one of the said plurality of fibers 301-304 by generating at least two backscatter events spaced apart from each other by a predetermined effective optical distance that is different from the predetermined distance between the at least two backscatter events of other signatures….”) ; wherein the test unit is further configured to provide confirmation information to the server pertaining to the signal being generated or detected (Detection of signal taught within Paragraphs [0037-0038]- “…the test manager program 235 preferably determines whether the OFLUT 408 has been connected to the OTDR tool 200. In an embodiment of the present invention, in order to detect whether the OFLUT 408 has been connected, the test manager program 235 preferably instructs the OTDR tool 200 to send a plurality of quick probe optical pulses. …”) to enable the server to match the first end of the multiple strands with the second end of the multiple strands for determining fiber strand connectivity to create a connectivity map showing the fiber strand connectivity ( Connectivity map taught within Fig. 5 and Paragraphs [0036-0037]- “…lead-in fiber may be similar to the launch fiber 406. During the test setup, a user preferably enters a plurality of identifiers corresponding to a plurality of fiber sets contained in a trunk fiber optic cable, such as the fiber optic cable 300 (shown in FIG. 3). The user preferably enters the identifiers by employing, for example, the plurality of user input controls 260 of the OTDR tool 200. The user may specify the number of fibers to test by various means, including, but not limited to, numeric entry, testing with just the launch fiber 406, receive fiber 416, and/or other lead-in fibers. Alternatively, a list of the fiber identifiers, received at step 502, may comprise a list of fiber sets that failed during previously run tests, assuming the OTDR tool 200 is configured to retest the failed fibers…”) .
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Di Kassler within the modified teaching of the Systems And Methods For Fast End-to-end, Bi-directional, Fiber Trunk Certification mentioned by Chang because the Optical fiber testing using OTDR instrument mentioned by Kassler provides a method and system for implementation of testing of optical fiber cables within optical communication network.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one in the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the Optical fiber testing using OTDR instrument mentioned by Kassler within the modified teaching of the Systems And Methods For Fast End-to-end, Bi-directional, Fiber Trunk Certification mentioned by Chang for implementing a system and method for testing of optical fiber cables within optical communication network.
As per claim 11, Combination of Chang and Kassler teach claim 10,
Chang teaches wherein the test unit is configured to generate the signal ( Col. 1- lines 60-65-“… a device (or system) can include various components, including an optical test module communicatively coupled (or connected) to an internal optical switch. The internal optical switch can be coupled directly or indirectly to a fiber trunk. …”) .
As per claim 12, Combination of Chang and Kassler teach claim 10,
Chang teaches wherein the test unit is configured to detect the presence of the signal generated at the remote location and provide a notification to the server, via the interface device, when the test unit detects connectivity on one of the multiple strands ( Col. 4- lines 61-67 and Col. 5- lines 1-6- “…including an optical test module communicatively coupled (or connected) to an internal optical switch. The internal optical switch can be coupled directly or indirectly to a fiber trunk. The device also can include a communications interface that supports a high speed data communications link with a second device (or second system) at a remote location. The second device can be architected similarly or identically to the device. For example, the device and the second device can have the same components. Through the communications link, data can be communicated between the device and the second device to perform automated uni-directional testing and bi-directional testing at both ends of each fiber of the fiber trunk….”) .
As per claim 13, Combination of Chang and Kassler teach claim 10,
Chang teaches wherein the multi-port testing system is arranged in a data center ( Col. 6- lines 20-27- “…The device 100 and the device 150 can be geographically separate or remote from one another. For example, the device 100 can be located in a first data center at one end of a fiber trunk while the device 150 can be located in a second data center at the other end of the fiber trunk. The first data center and the second data center can be two different locations or premises of a common entity (or enterprise) or different entities….”) .
As per claim 14, Combination of Chang and Kassler teach claim 13,
Chang teaches wherein the multi-port testing system is arranged on a rack in the data center, and wherein the interface device is configured to provide geolocation information to the server ( Col. 12- lines 25-45- “… The system 200 and the system 250 can be geographically separate or remote from one another. For example, the system 200 can be located in a first data center at one end of a fiber trunk while the system 250 can be located in a second data center at the other end of the fiber trunk. The first data center and the second data center can be two locations or premises of a common entity (or enterprise) or different entities…. communications between the system 200 and the system 250. The communications link 214 can be one or more of various high speed data communications links. As just some examples, the communications link 214 can be Ethernet or Wi-Fi through an internal network (e.g., a network supported by an entity associated with the first data center and the second data center) or an external network…”) , the geolocation information related to geographical data pertaining to one or more of a location of the rack in the data center and a site for the data center( Col. 12- lines 17-36- “… The system 200 and the system 250 can be geographically separate or remote from one another. For example, the system 200 can be located in a first data center at one end of a fiber trunk while the system 250 can be located in a second data center at the other end of the fiber trunk. The first data center and the second data center can be two locations or premises of a common entity (or enterprise) or different entities.”).
As per claim 15, Combination of Chang and Kassler teach claim 10,
Chang teaches wherein the optical switch includes input from a technician for selecting a strand of the multiple strands at the first end of the optical fiber cable, and wherein the test unit is configured to provide test results to the technician ( Col. 10- lines 65-66, Col. 11- lines 1- 12- “….the test report also can identify fibers associated with parameter values that do not satisfy associated threshold values and can indicate that the fibers exhibit unsatisfactory performance. In addition, the test report can provide aggregated test results that provide an indication about the performance level of the fiber trunk overall. The test results can be presented to the operator of the device 100 through the user interface 102 (and the operator of the device 150 through a user interface of the device 150)….testing of a potentially large number of fibers in a timeframe that is substantially shorter than the timeframe required by labor-intensive conventional techniques. In accordance with the present technology, technicians at a first data center in which the device 100 is located (and technicians at a second data center in which the device 150 is located) need only patch once prior to testing of fibers…”) .
As per claim 16, Combination of Chang and Kassler teach claim 15,
Chang teaches wherein the test unit is configured as a fiber tester, fault locator, visual fault locator, tone detector, or multimeter, and wherein the interface device is configured as a mobile device operated by the technician for communicating information to the server ( Col. 6- lines 50-67- “…The user interface 102 can be or include, for example, an LCD display, screen (e.g., touch screen), or keypad through which an operator of the device 100 can interact with the device. For example, the user interface 102 can provide a menu of selectable options for the operator to initiate various types of testing, such as testing related to insertion loss, optical return loss, and fiber distance. In some embodiments, after initial patching associated with all targeted fibers (e.g., all fibers of the fiber trunk, a portion of the fibers of the fiber trunk) at both ends, a single input or command to the device 100 that selects a test (or multiple tests) is sufficient to initiate, perform, and complete the test (or multiple tests) for the targeted fibers without the need for additional manual action (or inputs or commands) on the device 100 (or device 150)….”) .
As per claim 17, Combination of Chang and Kassler teach claim 10,
Chang teaches further comprising a database configured to store a list of available strands, wherein the test unit is configured to remove a strand from the list when connectivity of the strand is confirmed ( Col. 10-lines 63- 67 and Col. 11- lines 1-11- “…27) After all or some of the fibers of a fiber trunk are tested, the device 100 (or the device 150) can generate a test report. The test report can provide information relating to test results and associated parameter values on a fiber-by-fiber basis. For example, the test report can identify fibers associated with parameter values that satisfy associated threshold values and can indicate that the fibers exhibit satisfactory performance. As another example, the test report also can identify fibers associated with parameter values that do not satisfy associated threshold values and can indicate that the fibers exhibit unsatisfactory performance. In addition, the test report can provide aggregated test results that provide an indication about the performance level of the fiber trunk overall….”) .
As per claim 18, Chang teaches A method for testing fiber strand connectivity of a fiber optic cable running from a first site to a second site( Col. 5- lines 25-39- “…external optical switches can be directly or indirectly coupled to a fiber trunk. The system also can include a communications interface that supports a high speed data communications link with a second system at a remote location. The second system can be architected similarly or identically to the system. For example, the system and the second system can have the same components. Through the communications link, data can be communicated between the system and the second system to perform automated uni-directional testing and bi-directional testing at both ends of each fiber of the fiber trunk….”), the fiber optic cable having multiple strands terminating at the first and second sites( FIGURE 3 AND Col. 6- lines 37-49- “… the fibers can be associated with a fiber trunk. The number of fibers can vary based on the type of the fiber trunk. The count of fibers in a fiber trunk can be, for example, 32 fibers, 64 fibers, 144 fibers, 3,456 fibers, more fibers, or fewer fibers. In some instances, fibers of a fiber trunk can be coupled (or connected) to a fiber patch panel. In those instances, the device 100 and, in particular, the internal optical switch 110 can be coupled to the fiber patch panel through a fiber patch cord. In some instances, fibers can be terminated with connectors and the connectors can be directly connected to the internal optical switch 110….”),
Chang does not explicitly teach the method comprising steps of: coordinating the first and second sites to generate a signal at a first end of the strands and to detect presence of the signal at a second end of the strands; receiving confirmation information from the first and second sites pertaining to the signal being generated and detected; utilizing the confirmation information to match the first end of the strands with the second end of the strands for determining fiber strand connectivity between the first site and the second site; and creating a connectivity map showing the fiber strand connectivity.
However within analogous art, Kassler teaches the method comprising steps of: coordinating the first and second sites to generate a signal at a first end of the strands and to detect presence of the signal at a second end of the strands ( Paragraphs [0029-0031]- “…ne known method of identifying each of the plurality of fibers 301-304 involves launching light into each of the fibers 301-304 from the OTDR instrument 200 and obtaining a plurality of OTDR traces having different signatures applied thereto by means of a respective one of a plurality of signature applying means connected to opposite ends, respectively, of the fibers 301-304, each of the fibers being identifiable by detecting its signature in the corresponding OTDR trace. In various embodiments, each signature may comprise an OTDR trace event caused by a physical phenomenon or combination of phenomena along the fiber. Each of the signatures may be applied to the respective one of the said plurality of fibers 301-304 by generating at least two backscatter events spaced apart from each other by a predetermined effective optical distance that is different from the predetermined distance between the at least two backscatter events of other signatures….”) ; receiving confirmation information from the first and second sites pertaining to the signal being generated and detected (Detection of signal taught within Paragraphs [0037-0038]- “…the test manager program 235 preferably determines whether the OFLUT 408 has been connected to the OTDR tool 200. In an embodiment of the present invention, in order to detect whether the OFLUT 408 has been connected, the test manager program 235 preferably instructs the OTDR tool 200 to send a plurality of quick probe optical pulses. …”) ; utilizing the confirmation information to match the first end of the strands with the second end of the strands for determining fiber strand connectivity between the first site and the second site; and creating a connectivity map showing the fiber strand connectivity (Connectivity map taught within Fig. 5 and Paragraphs [0036-0037]- “…lead-in fiber may be similar to the launch fiber 406. During the test setup, a user preferably enters a plurality of identifiers corresponding to a plurality of fiber sets contained in a trunk fiber optic cable, such as the fiber optic cable 300 (shown in FIG. 3). The user preferably enters the identifiers by employing, for example, the plurality of user input controls 260 of the OTDR tool 200. The user may specify the number of fibers to test by various means, including, but not limited to, numeric entry, testing with just the launch fiber 406, receive fiber 416, and/or other lead-in fibers. Alternatively, a list of the fiber identifiers, received at step 502, may comprise a list of fiber sets that failed during previously run tests, assuming the OTDR tool 200 is configured to retest the failed fibers…”) .
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Di Kassler within the modified teaching of the Systems And Methods For Fast End-to-end, Bi-directional, Fiber Trunk Certification mentioned by Chang because the Optical fiber testing using OTDR instrument mentioned by Kassler provides a method and system for implementation of testing of optical fiber cables within optical communication network.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one in the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the Optical fiber testing using OTDR instrument mentioned by Kassler within the modified teaching of the Systems And Methods For Fast End-to-end, Bi-directional, Fiber Trunk Certification mentioned by Chang for implementing a system and method for testing of optical fiber cables within optical communication network.
As per claim 20, Combination of Chang and Kassler teach claim 18,
Chang teaches wherein the signal is detected by an Optical Time-Domain Reflectometry (OTDR) detecting a passive signature ( Col. 10 – lines 40-55- “…bi-directional testing, uni-directional testing (e.g., fiber distance based on OTDR) can also be performed by the device 100 and the device 150. For example, the device 100, when it assumes the role of master, can generate pulses of a wavelength of light (e.g., 1550 nm) and instruct the device 150, when it assumes the role of slave, to remain quiet (inactive) while the device 100 performs measurements…”).
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Allowable Subject Matter
2. Claims 5,6 and 19 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.
3. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for objecting the claims as allowable subject matter:
As to claim 5 , prior art of record does not teach or suggest the limitation mentioned within claim 5 : “…the logical code further enables the processing device to perform the steps of: instructing the first site to inject the signal onto a selected strand at the first end; and instructing the second site to scan a list of available strands at the second end and reply with a notification when the signal is detected on one of the available strands.”
As to claim 6 , Claim 6 depends on objected allowable claim 5, therefore claim 6 is considered objected allowable over prior art of record.
As to claim 19 , prior art of record does not teach or suggest the limitation mentioned within claim 19 :”… instructing the first site to inject the signal onto a selected strand at the first end; instructing the second site to scan a list of available strands at the second end and reply with a notification when the signal is detected on one of the available strands; upon receiving the notification from the second end, informing the first site to stop injecting the signal onto the selected strand and start injecting the signal onto a next strand; and instructing the second site to scan the list of available strands at the second end and reply with a notification when the signal is detected on another one of the available strands.”
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Examiner’s Notes
4. The Examiner acknowledges the following prior arts below as pertinent to the current applications claim limitations and inventive concept, although the following prior arts shown below were not relied upon to address the limitations within the claim , they are analogous art mentioning the inventive concept key points on (Optical Transmission, WDM signal, variable wavelength bands , amplification of optical signal , controlling optical signal amplification etc.).
1) Ahmed Atef Ibrahim et al. ," A Design Fiber Performance Monitoring Tool (FPMT) for
Online Remote Fiber Line Performance Detection," 7th November 2022, Electronics 2022, 11, 3627,Pages 1-10.
2) Tabi Fouda Bernard Marie et al. ," Principle and Application State of Fully Distributed Fiber Optic Vibration Detection Technology Based on -OTDR: A Review,"30th July 2021, IEEE SENSORS JOURNAL, VOL. 21, NO. 15, AUGUST 1, 2021,Pages 16428- 16439.
3) Khouloud Abdelli et al.," Reflective fiber fault detection and characterization using long short-term memory," 4th June 2021, Journal of Optical Communications and Networking, Vol. 13, No. 10 ,October 2021, Pages E32-E39.
4) Nabihah Hashim et al.," Towards Reliable Fiber to the home Network: A Review of Fault Detection Techniques and Industry Adoption in Telecommunication," 13th June 2025, SSRN, Pages 1-30.
5) Barrier (USPAT 11515938)
6) VAEZ-GHAEMI et al. (USPUB 20220109498)
7) LIU, Cong-wei (CN 113063724)
8) Soto et al. (USPUB 20200044733)
9) GAO, Yu-mei (CN 109787681)
10) Philip (USPUB 20170310388)
11) SCHILDMAYER, FREDERICK ( CN 105938042 )
12) Soto et al. (USPUB 20140016926)
13) SMITH et al. (USPUB 20120086935)
14) Soto et al. (USPUB 20110211827)
15) Matteson et al. ( USPUB 20080052583)
16) Eslambolchi et al. ( USPAT 5754285 )
17) Gentile (USPAT 4875772)
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of Reference Cited for a listing of analogous art.
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR S ISMAIL whose telephone number is (571)272-9799 and Fax # is (571)273-9799. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00am-6:00pm.
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, David C. Payne can be reached on (571) 272-3024. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free)? If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OMAR S ISMAIL/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights