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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, regarding the 102 and 103 rejections, filed 6/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues prior art Hartog (US20090263069A1) does not teach the couple-in device to be spaced apart from the first laser light source such that a length of a first section of the first optical fiber from the first laser light source to the couple-in device is between 1 km and 100 km (see remarks page 7), however, the examiner disagrees.
The applicant argues that the length of Hartog's downstream fibers and the curves shown in Fig. 2 cannot be relied upon to teach a length of a first section of the first optical fiber from the first laser light source to the couple-in device is between 1 km and 100 km (see remarks page 7-10). The lengths of the downstream fiber 24 and the curves in Fig. 2 provide teaching that an optical signal through at least a 1 km length of fiber can still provide measurements in an optical fiber sensing system. Further, the first section of optical fiber does not appear to perform any specific or unique function besides transmitting the laser to the couple-in device. Based on Fig. 6 and [0015] of the applicant's specification, the laser pulses are already weakened by the propagation through the first section of the first optical fiber to the couple-in device. Thus, the fiber is simply used to transmit the signal over a distance, which is a common and well known function of optical fibers. Additionally, Hartog teaches the optical powers and the locations of the components along the sensing fiber can be varied as desired ([0058]) and it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See MPEP 2144.04 Sec. V. C.
Further, the applicant argues that it would not have been mere optimization or routine experimentation to modify a system that relies upon immediate, local amplification of pulse signals to move the location of initial amplification over 1 km away (see remarks page 11). However, the claims do not appear to disallow the amplification locally at the laser source. Additionally, Hartog teaches that if longer fibers are required, the relative shortfall can be addressed by increasing their gain ([0044]). Thus, if a longer optical fiber was used between the first light source and the couple-in device, it would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make appropriate modifications to the signal in order for it to be transmitted through a longer optical fiber with minimal loss.
Further, as the general conditions of the 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. Thus, Hartog would reasonably suggest the use of optical fibers with a length of at least 1 km (or up to 10 km in the dependent claims) as the function of the optical fiber and the behavior of light through the optical fiber would have been well known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to in order to efficiently arrange the device in a given space.
As such, claims 1-4, 7, 9-12, 14-18 and 20 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartog. Claims 5, 6, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartog in view of Rowen (previously cited) and Claim 19 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartog in view of Kerfoot (previously cited).
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: “evaluation device” in claims 1 and 20.
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.
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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “evaluation device” which uses the generic placeholder “device” 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. Accordingly, the limitation on “evaluation device” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to at least a detector shown as reference 9 in applicant’s Fig. 1 ([0051]).
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 1-4, 7, 9-12, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20090263069A1 by Hartog (previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Hartog teaches an apparatus for spatially resolved measurement of a physical quantity (at least Fig. 1 and 5; data graphs in Figures 2, 4, 6-8, and 11-13 all show spatially resolved measurement since the x-axis corresponds to a distance which is a spatial parameter), comprising:
a first optical fiber for the spatially resolved measurement (Fig. 1 [0031] first length of optical fiber 26 and the optical fibers connecting optical source 12 to optical fiber 26, continues to fiber 28 and 30);
a second optical fiber (see Fig. 1 optical fiber connecting second optical source 22 to polarisation scrambler 22; [0032]);
a couple-in device connecting the second optical fiber to the first optical fiber ([0032] "a wavelength division multiplexer (not shown) combines the probe pulses and the pump light");
a first laser light source for generating laser pulses (optical source 12 and pulse amplifier module 18; [0031]), wherein the laser pulses are coupled into the first optical fiber and generate signals for measuring the physical quantity by backscattering and/or reflection ([0031] "Each probe pulse leaves the pulse amplifier module 18 and enters a first port of an optical circulator 20, the second port of which launches the pulses (via a polarisation scrambler 22) into a sensing fiber 24 that is deployed in a region of interest"; " measure Brillouin backscattered light"), wherein the signals generated are coupled out of the first optical fiber ([0033] Backscattered light produced within the sensing fiber 24 returns to the launch end of the fiber 24, and passes through the polarisation scrambler 22 circulator 20, filter 38, to receiver/detector 40);
an evaluation device configured to determine the physical quantity to be measured in a spatially resolved manner from the signals coupled out ([0033] optical detector and receiver 40; see data figures with x-axis as distance for spatial resolution); and
a second laser light source (second optical source 36) for generating pump laser radiation in continuous operation ([0032] second optical source 36 produces continuous-wave light at a pump wavelength), wherein the pump laser radiation causes amplification of the laser pulses and/or of the signals generated in the first optical fiber ([0032] "so that Raman amplification can occur in the sensing fiber 24") wherein:
the pump laser radiation generated by the second laser light source is coupled into the second optical fiber and is coupled from the second optical fiber into the first optical fiber by the couple-in device ([0032]; Fig. 1); and
wherein the couple-in device is spaced apart from the first laser light source (Fig. 1 shows that optical source 12 is spaced apart from polarisation scrambler 22 and unshown wavelength division multiplexer).
Although Hartog does not explicitly teach wherein a length of a first section of the first optical fiber from the first laser light source to the couple-in device is between 1 km and 100 km, Hartog does teach that the sensing fiber 24 comprises a first length of fiber 26 of 50 km, a second length of fiber 28 of 25 km, and a third length of fiber 30 of 25 km ([0031]). Further, Hartog teaches in Fig. 2 two examples (curves 52 and 54) that show the probe signal without any pump power can still obtain results up to 50 km. Additionally, 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.
Thus, it would be well-known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the length of a first section of the first optical fiber from the first laser light source to the couple-in device (before the pump source is coupled in) to be between 1 km and 100 km in order to efficiently arrange the device in a given space.
Regarding claim 2, Hartog teaches the apparatus of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the laser pulses in the first optical fiber generate a signal usable to measure the physical quantity by at least one of: Brillouin scattering ([0031] "measure Brillouin backscattered light"), Rayleigh scattering ([0058] various embodiment can measure Rayleigh backscatter), and reflection at multiple reflection centers, including fiber Bragg gratings or other distributed reflectors.
Regarding claim 3, Hartog as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the physical quantity to be measured is at least one of: a temperature, a dynamically changing temperature, a strain, a dynamically changing strain, a vibration, and an acoustic signal ([0033] "determine parameters relating to the sensing fiber 24 and its environment, such as temperature, strain, or attenuation").
Regarding claim 4, Hartog as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the apparatus is configured to amplify, by a Raman effect, the laser pulses or the signals generated ([0032] "so that Raman amplification can occur in the sensing fiber 24"; [0034] "co-propagating pump light amplifies the probe pulse as it travels down the first length 26 of the sensing fiber 24 by the action of Raman amplification").
Regarding claim 7, Hartog as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the couple-in device comprises a wavelength multiplexer or a multi-port circulator ([0032] "a wavelength division multiplexer (not shown) combines the probe pulses and the pump light").
Regarding claim 9, Hartog as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 1 and although Hartog does not explicitly teach wherein the length of the first section of the first optical fiber is between 5 km and 75 km, Hartog does teach that the sensing fiber 24 comprises a first length of fiber 26 of 50 km, a second length of fiber 28 of 25 km, and a third length of fiber 30 of 25 km ([0031]). Further, Hartog teaches in Fig. 2 two examples (curves 52 and 54) that show the probe signal without any pump power can still obtain results up to 50 km. Additionally, 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.
Thus, it would be well-known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the length of the first section of the first optical fiber is between 5 km and 75 km in order to efficiently arrange the device in a given space.
Regarding claim 10, Hartog as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 1 and although Hartog does not explicitly teach wherein the length of the first section of the first optical fiber is between 10 km and 50 km, Hartog does teach that the sensing fiber 24 comprises a first length of fiber 26 of 50 km, a second length of fiber 28 of 25 km, and a third length of fiber 30 of 25 km ([0031]). Further, Hartog teaches in Fig. 2 two examples (curves 52 and 54) that show the probe signal without any pump power can still obtain results up to 50 km. Additionally, 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.
Thus, it would be well-known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the length of the first section of the first optical fiber is between 10 km and 50 km in order to efficiently arrange the device in a given space.
Regarding claim 11, Hartog as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 1 and Hartog further teaches wherein the first optical fiber has a second section that extends away from the couple-in device for coupling-in the pump laser radiation from the first section of the first optical fiber ([0031] first length of fiber 26 extending from polarisation scrambler 22).
Regarding claim 12, Hartog as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 11 and Hartog further teaches comprising: an active optical fiber doped with erbium ([0031] erbium-doped fiber amplifier (EDFA) 32), wherein the pump laser radiation in the active optical fiber causes an amplification of the laser pulses and/or the signals generated in the first optical fiber ([0031] EDFA positioned between the first length of fiber 26 and the second length of fiber 28"; [0034] the first fiber length 26 acts as a distributed Raman amplifier; [0036] power fain due to EDFA).
Regarding claim 14, Hartog as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 12 and Hartog further teaches wherein the active optical fiber adjoins the second section of the first optical fiber on a side facing away from the first section of the first optical fiber ([0031] optical fiber 26 adjoins EDFA 32 on a side facing away from the optical fiber connecting fiber 26 to source 12) , wherein a third section of the first optical fiber ([0031] fiber 28) adjoins the active optical fiber on a side facing away from the second section of the first optical fiber (EDFA 32 adjoins fiber 28 on a side facing away from fiber 26; see Fig. 1 or 5).
Regarding claim 15, Hartog as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 14 and Hartog further teaches wherein a length of the second section of the first optical fiber from the couple-in device for coupling-in the pump laser radiation to the active optical fiber is between 10 km and 180 km ([0031] sensing fiber 24 comprises a first length of fiber 26 of 50 km; fiber 26 connects coupler and active optical fiber).
Regarding claim 16, Hartog as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 15 and Hartog further teaches wherein the length of the second section of the first optical fiber is between 50 km and 150 km ([0031] sensing fiber 24 comprises a first length of fiber 26 of 50 km; fiber 26 connects coupler and active optical fiber).
Regarding claim 17, Hartog as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 15 and although Hartog does not explicitly teach wherein a total length of the first, second, and third sections of the first optical fiber is greater than 100 km, Hartog teaches the sensing fiber 24 comprises a first length of fiber 26 of 50 km, a second length of fiber 28 of 25 km, and a third length of fiber 30 of 25 km ([0031]; where fiber 24 is the second section and 28 is third section, thus the total length of the second and third fiber can be up to 75km). Further, as explained in claims 8-10, Hartog does not explicitly teach a length of the first section of the first optical fiber connecting the source to the coupler. However, Hartog teaches in Fig. 2 two examples (curves 52 and 54) that show the probe signal without any pump power can still obtain results up to 50 km. Thus, if the length of the first section is more than 25km, then the total length will be greater than 100km. Additionally, 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.
Thus, it would be well-known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the total length of the first, second, and third sections of the first optical fiber to be greater than 100 km in order measure over longer distances, thus increasing the efficiency of the device.
Regarding claim 18, Hartog as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 1 and Hartog further teaches comprising a multi-port circulator or a fiber Bragg grating to partially couple pump laser radiation coupled into the first optical fiber via the couple-in device into the first section of the first optical fiber ([0031]; [0033] circulator 20; a portion of the pump light from source 36 coupled with the wavelength division multiplexer would enter the fiber connecting source 14 to polarisation scrambler 22).
Regarding claim 20, Hartog as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 1 and although Hartog teaches further comprising a multi-port circulator ([0031]; [0033] circulator 20), Hartog does not explicitly teach wherein signals moving back in the first optical fiber via the multi-port circulator are coupled into the second optical fiber from which they are coupled out and supplied to the evaluation device for the spatially resolved measurement of the physical quantity to be measured. Instead, Hartog teaches signals moving back in the first optical fiber via the multi-port circulator are coupled into a third optical fiber (see Fig. 1, fiber connecting circulator 20, filter 38, and detector 40; [0033]) from which they are coupled out and supplied to the evaluation device (detector 40).
However, Hartog teaches that other optical sources, detection arrangements, and processing apparatus can be employed ([0058]). Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See MPEP 2144.04 Sec. V. C. Thus, it would be well-known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange to components in Hartog such that the signals moving back in the first optical fiber via the multi-port circulator are coupled into the second optical fiber from which they are coupled out and supplied to the evaluation device for the spatially resolved measurement of the physical quantity to be measured in order to achieve a more compact design.
Claims 5, 6, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartog in view of US20190101419A1 by Rowen et al. (hereinafter "Rowen"; previously cited).
Regarding claim 5, Hartog as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 4 and further teaches wherein the first laser light source generates laser pulses having a first wavelength ([0031] wavelength of probe pulse) and the second laser light source generates a pump laser radiation having a second wavelength ([0032] pump wavelength), the first wavelength being greater than the second wavelength ([0032] pump wavelength is shorter than probe wavelength).
Although, Hartog does not explicitly teach wherein a wavelength difference between the first and second wavelengths corresponds to possible wavelength shifts in a Raman spectrum of a material of a core of the first optical fiber, Harthog does teach that the pump wavelength is shorter than the probe wavelength so that Raman amplification can occur in the sensing fiber.
Further, Rowen does address this limitation. Rowen and Hartog are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of Raman amplification.
Rowen teaches the respective pump wavelength is shorter than the probe wavelength, such that a corresponding frequency difference between the respective pump wavelength and the probe wavelength is a multiple of a frequency shift for which a Raman scattering coefficient is at least 25% of a resonant Raman scattering coefficient ([0031]).
Thus, 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 include that the wavelength difference between the first and second wavelengths corresponds to possible wavelength shifts in a Raman spectrum of a material of a core of the first optical fiber, 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. One would use a wavelength difference that efficiently caused Raman amplification to occur in the specific type of fiber being used.
Regarding claim 6, Hartog modified by Rowen teaches the apparatus of claim 5, and although, Hartog does not explicitly teach wherein the wavelength difference between the first and second wavelengths is not found in a maximum of the Raman spectrum of the material of the core of the first optical fiber, and wherein a distance between the maximum of the Raman spectrum and the wavelength difference between the first and second wavelengths is between 10 nm and 40 nm. Hartog does teach that the pump wavelength is shorter than the probe wavelength so that Raman amplification can occur in the sensing fiber.
Further, Rowen does address this limitation.
Rowen teaches the respective pump wavelength is shorter than the probe wavelength, such that a corresponding frequency difference between the respective pump wavelength and the probe wavelength is a multiple of a frequency shift for which a Raman scattering coefficient is at least 25% of a resonant Raman scattering coefficient ([0031]).
Thus, 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 include that the wavelength difference between the first and second wavelengths is not found in a maximum of the Raman spectrum of the material of the core of the first optical fiber, and wherein a distance between the maximum of the Raman spectrum and the wavelength difference between the first and second wavelengths is between 10 nm and 40 nm, 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. One would use a wavelength difference that efficiently caused Raman amplification and did not cause measurement error due to overlap.
Regarding claim 13, Hartog as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 12 and Hartog further teaches wherein the laser pulses have a length in the range of 10 to 1,000 ns ([0031] 100ns).
Although Hartog does not explicitly teach wherein the apparatus is configured to achieve a population inversion in the active optical fiber due to a duty cycle of less than 0.1% of the first laser light source, 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. Since population inversion is required to perform amplification instead of absorption, it would be well-known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention configure the apparatus to achieve this limitation in order to efficiently perform Raman amplification which is the purpose of Hartog.
Further, Hartog does not explicitly teach wherein returning signals have a power between 1 pW and 1,000 pW, wherein the pump laser radiation has a power in the range of 1 mW to 100 mW.
However, Rowen does address this limitation. Rowen and Hartog are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of Raman amplification.
Rowen teaches wherein returning signals have a power between 1 pW and 1,000 pW (This range corresponds lower power signals in the range of to -90dBm to -60dBm; Fig. 6 shows OTDR difference signals in this range; [0026] this graph corresponds to the absolute value of the difference between two consecutive probe light measurements on a logarithmic scale, thus a returning signal, and Y axis shows the power in dBm), wherein the pump laser radiation has a power in the range of 1 mW to 100 mW ([0063] Raman pump laser 218 provides light pulses having a power of between 50 mW up to 10 watts). Additionally. Rowen also teaches wherein the laser pulses have a length in the range of 10 to 1,000 ns ([0013] 100 nanoseconds).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the optical source parameters as such for Raman amplification. Further, 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. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Hartog to include wherein returning signals have a power between 1 pW and 1,000 pW, wherein the pump laser radiation has a power in the range of 1 mW to 100 mW as suggested by Rowen in order to avoid unwanted effects such as non-linear phenomena including spontaneous Raman scattering ([0017]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartog in view of US6320884B1 by Kerfoot et al. (hereinafter "Kerfoot").
Regarding claim 19, Hartog as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and although Hartog teaches that other optical sources, detection arrangements, and processing apparatus can be employed ([0058]), Hartog is silent as to wherein the second laser light source comprises a plurality of laser apparatuses, at least two of the laser apparatuses generating pump laser radiations with different wavelengths and/or polarizations, and wherein the pump laser radiations emanating from individual ones of the laser apparatuses are coupled to one another via wavelength multiplexing and/or polarization coupling before being coupled into the second optical fiber.
However, Kerfoot does address this limitation. Kerfoot and Hartog are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of Raman amplification.
Kerfoot teaches wherein the second laser light source (Fig. 4, pump unit 35) comprises a plurality of laser apparatuses (pump sources 32 and 33), at least two of the laser apparatuses generating pump laser radiations with different wavelengths and/or polarizations (pump source 32 is 1453nm and source 33 is 1495nm), and wherein the pump laser radiations emanating from individual ones of the laser apparatuses are coupled to one another via wavelength multiplexing and/or polarization coupling before being coupled into the second optical fiber (WDM or wavelength division multiplexer coupler 31; see Fig. 4; col 3 lines 1-10).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a pump source with multiple lasers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Hartog to include wherein the second laser light source comprises a plurality of laser apparatuses, at least two of the laser apparatuses generating pump laser radiations with different wavelengths and/or polarizations, and wherein the pump laser radiations emanating from individual ones of the laser apparatuses are coupled to one another via wavelength multiplexing and/or polarization coupling before being coupled into the second optical fiber as suggested by Kerfoot in order to generate pump energy at different wavelength selected to maximize the amplifier bandwidth (col 3 lines 8-10).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US6456426B1 by Bolshtyansky teaches Raman amplifiers with modulated pumps with fiber spans on the order of 40-160 km (col 3 line 15).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
/KAITLYN E KIDWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights