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 .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on April 20, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no reasonable search and examination burden exists because there is no serious burden in examining the listed inventions simultaneously, as one or more common features are recited in both independent claims, and the fact that the method can be practiced by a system/network with built-in testing and/or diagnostic capabilities would not have any material effect on the search burden of the claimed inventions. This is not found persuasive because as stated in the restriction requirement of February 25, 2026:
‘Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).’
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 1, 3, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (WO 2020168833 A1)-using machine translation in view of DeWind 2025/0085140 and Liu et al. (WO 2024/0914486).
As for claim 1, Zhang in an optical fiber monitoring method and device discloses/suggests the following: a method for testing an optical fiber (abstract, FIG. 7, with apparatus for the practice of the method: FIGS. 5-6, 15-16), the method comprising: emitting, from a first light source of an optical power meter at a first time, a first light pulse in a first direction through an optical fiber (FIG. 5: first light pulse from 1 with OTDR: see port 1 of circulator D; port 3 demonstrates connection to a power meter of OTDR; with first light going to toward reflection device in 2; noting that the test fiber is between 1 and 2; see FIGS. 6, 15, and 16 as well with a second OTDR in 2); reflecting, by a reflection device, a grating device (last three lines of page 4), the first light pulse in a second direction through the optical fiber, the second direction opposite the first direction; receiving, at the optical power meter, the reflected light pulse at a second time after the first time; determining, by circuitry associated with the optical power meter, a time delay between the first time and the second time; and measuring, by the circuitry, a length of the optical fiber based on the time delay (see apparatus FIGS. 5-6, 15, 16 along with Figs. 8-14; using a reflection device, a grating device, solves the problem of being able to obtain total length of an optical fiber being tested by OTDRs: page 4: last five paragraphs starting at ‘Although the double-ended OTDR…’; noting circuitry: page 5: eighth paragraph starting ‘In actual implementation…’
As for the reflection device, the grating device, being a fiber Bragg grating (FBG), Zhang does not explicitly state this, but Zhang does not appear to limit the type of grating device that may be used (last three lines of page 4). Nevertheless, DeWind in a single channel optical coefficient data teaches using FBGs to determine lengths of optical fiber such as optical delays (abstract: Fig. 1 with TABLE 1) and Liu in an apparatus and methods for verifying network continuity teaches that the length of drop fibers can be measured by measuring the time-of-flight of a pulse of an optical testing signal reflected by an FBG (FIG. 10: 166, 168, 116, and 118 with paragraph 0062).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the grating device be fiber Bragg grating (FBG) in order to provide a reflective event to determine the total length of the optical fiber under test via OTDR.
As for claim 3, Zhang, DeWind and Liu discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Zhang discloses/suggests coupling a first end of the optical fiber to the optical power meter; and coupling a second end of the optical fiber to a second light source, wherein the FBG is disposed between the second end of the optical fiber and the second light source (FIG. 6: noting location of grating device being at entrance of the OTDRs; FIG. 15: grating devices with OTDRs and a switch; FIG. 16: grating devices with OTDRs and an optical coupler).
As for claim 7, Zhang, DeWind and Liu discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 3). In addition, Zhang discloses/suggests wherein coupling the second end of the optical fiber to the light source comprises: coupling the optical fiber directly to the second light source; coupling the optical fiber to a socket-plug-type connector and coupling the socket-plug-type connector to the second light source; or coupling the optical fiber to a cable-type connector and coupling the cable-type connector to the second light source (FIG. 6: note location of grating device relative to the nearest OTDR in 1 and 2).
As for claim 10, Zhang, DeWind and Liu discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Zhang discloses/suggests wherein the first light pulse is emitted onto the optical fiber at a first end of the optical fiber, and wherein the FBG is disposed at a second end of the optical fiber (FIG. 5: see grating device relative to length of fiber under test).
5. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (WO 2020168833 A1) in view of DeWind 2025/0085140 and Liu et al. (WO 2024/0914486) further in view of Eyal et al. (12,044,557) and Berthold et al. (2007/0252998).
As for claim 2, Zhang, DeWind and Liu discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). As for wherein the first light pulse is a rectangular light pulse with a pulse width less than 50 microseconds, Zhang is silent. Nevertheless, Eyal in an interrogation of arrays of equally spaced weak reflectors in optical fibers teaches interrogating an FBG with a rectangular pulse (col. 8, lines 30-50). And Berthold in an apparatus for continuous readout of Fabry Perot fiber optical sensor teaches using a pulse of 50 microseconds to interrogate an optical fiber that is 10 km (paragraph 0040). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first light pulse be a rectangular light pulse with a pulse width less than 50 microseconds in order to interrogate an optical fiber under 10 km with an FBG to verify its total length.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 4-6, 8, and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but appear to be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: please refer to the attached PTO-892.
Fax/Telephone Numbers
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gordon J. Stock, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 272-2431.
The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 10:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
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.
/GORDON J STOCK JR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights