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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 15, 17, it is unclear what the phrase “using at least one of a difference between the baseline OTDR trace and the real-time OTDR trace and a derivative thereof” means. It is unclear what “thereof” refers to; the baseline, the real-time or both.
Regarding claims 6, 13, 20, “the expected local noise level” lacks proper antecedent basis.
The other dependent claims are indefinite based on their dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-11, 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Browning et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2006/0097140).
Regarding claims 1, 8, 15, Browning et al. disclose (Figs. 1A, 3, 4) an OTDR system and method of assisting a user in finding a temporary event along an optical fiber link using an Optical Time Domain Reflectometer (OTDR), the method comprising: performing ([0035]) at least one OTDR acquisition toward the optical fiber link to obtain a baseline OTDR trace (“baseline signal”), wherein each OTDR acquisition is performed by propagating in the optical fiber link under test, a pulsed test signal and detecting corresponding return light from the optical fiber link so as to obtain an OTDR trace representing backscattered and reflected light as a function of distance in the optical fiber link; repeating OTDR acquisitions in real-time to obtain real-time OTDR traces (Fig. 3C; 46 “monitor sensor line in real time”); and for each new OTDR acquisition, comparing the corresponding real-time OTDR trace to the baseline OTDR trace to detect a temporary deformation of the OTDR trace using at least one of a difference ([0036] “compare attenuations”) between the baseline OTDR trace and the real-time OTDR trace and a derivative thereof, said temporary deformation being indicative of the presence of the temporary event along the optical fiber link. Browning et al. further disclose (Fig. 1A) an OTDR acquisition device (14a, 14b or 14c) and a processing unit (C) and computer instructions ([0026]) as claimed.
Regarding claims 2-4, 7, 9-11, 14, 16-18, Browning et al. also disclose ([0037]) the temporary event comprises a pinch (“crimping” or “some other bend in the fiber optic cable”) of the optical fiber which causes a temporary deformation of the OTDR trace. Browning et al. also disclose ([0032]) estimating a position (location of the fault condition) of the temporary event and outputting a user notification ([0029], “audible and/or visual notification of a fault”) as claimed.
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) 6, 13, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Browning et al. in view of Desplat et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2022/0123833).
Regarding claims 6, 13, 20, Browning et al. disclose the claimed invention as set forth above. Browning et al. do not disclose using a detection threshold chosen automatically based on an expected local noise level. Desplat et al. teach ([0070]) determining a detection threshold (detection threshold) based on an expected local noise level (measurement noise). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the invention to provide such a step in the apparatus of Browning et al. in view of Desplat et al. to maintain good detection sensitivity as taught, known and predictable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 12 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH LUU whose telephone number is (571)272-2441. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5:30PM.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/THANH LUU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights