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
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and are under examination in this Office Action. No claims have been allowed.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed limitation within claim 20 is not shown within the drawings, namely that the link under test (LUT) "is a multi-core optical fiber." Figure 3 illustrates a multi-fiber cable having a plurality of separate optical fibers extending between optical switches 14 and 15. Figures 1, 4, 8, and 10 illustrate a fiber under test, but do not depict a single optical fiber having a plurality of distinct cores. No figure identifies or illustrates a multi-core optical fiber as recited in claim 20. This feature must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required. Applicant is required to revise the specification to provide consistent terminology and grammatically complete and technically accurate sentences without introducing new matter.
Paragraph [0019] states that the terms "a" and "an" are intended "to de at least one." The word "de" appears to be an error for "be."
Paragraph [0032], after describing the second acquisition period 6 for the second OTDR, states that the following data-exchange period exchanges "the results of the first acquisition." Applicant must clarify whether the intended reference is to the second acquisition.
Paragraph [0035] recites "this may results," which appears to require correction to "this may result."
Paragraph [0038] recites "it may also be desirable exchange voice data," apparently omitting the word "to."
Paragraph [0046] recites "just after end of the and second data exchange period 26," which is grammatically incomplete and does not clearly identify the referenced period.
Paragraphs [0047] and [0058] recite "configured to utilizing," apparently intended to recite "configured to utilize."
Paragraph [0051] recites "a variety content media, such video," apparently intended to recite "a variety of content media, such as video."
Paragraph [0054] recites "low coupling ration," apparently intended to recite "low coupling ratio," and further refers to signals received on "the data receiver and data receiver 44" without clearly identifying the first referenced data receiver.
Paragraph [0055] recites selection of "a appropriate channel," apparently intended to recite "an appropriate channel."
Paragraph [0057] recites "Figures 7A-7B illustrates," which should be corrected for subject-verb agreement.
Paragraph [0059] recites "depending a level of optical power," apparently omitting the word "on."
Paragraph [0062] recites that time periods "may no longer impacted," apparently omitting the word "be."
Paragraph [0064] first identifies wavelength λ2 as the second wavelength, but later states that the acquisitions may be facilitated using "the first wavelength λ2." Applicant must correct the inconsistent wavelength designation.
Paragraph [0066] recites "Figure 10 illustrates of a system," which includes an extraneous word.
Paragraph [0068] recites "via implementation one or more switches," apparently omitting the word "of."
Paragraph [0069] contains the phrases "may be implement," "For examples," and "may typically carried out," which require grammatical correction.
Paragraph [0072] recites that a data transmitter may cause "a laser driver to cause through a laser driver, a laser to generate" an optical signal. The duplicated and incomplete language must be corrected.
Immediately preceding paragraph [0074], the specification contains the standalone editorial notation "Same note." The notation must be deleted or replaced with substantive disclosure, as appropriate, without introducing new matter.
Paragraph [0074] recites that the demultiplexer may "differentiate signals received wavelengths λ1 and λ2," apparently omitting language necessary to identify signals received at the respective wavelengths.
Paragraph [0075] refers to "the switches 79," although reference character 79 identifies a single switch.
Paragraph [0076] uses "wave division multiplexing (WDM)," whereas the remainder of the disclosure principally uses "wavelength division multiplexing (WDM)." Consistent terminology is required.
Paragraph [0079] identifies TDM as "time-domain reflectometry," paragraph [0080] and claims 7 and 19 identify TDM as "time-domain multiplexing," and the detailed description repeatedly identifies TDM as "time division multiplexing." Applicant must use technically accurate and consistent terminology throughout the specification and claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 7 and 19,
Claims 7 and 19 recite "time-domain multiplexing (TDM)," whereas the detailed description repeatedly identifies TDM as "time division multiplexing." The claim terminology should be made technically accurate and consistent with the detailed description.
Claim 19 further recites, "The method of claim 15, the first acquisition by the first OTDR occurs in a first time slot...." The claim is grammatically incomplete because it omits a transition, such as "wherein," between the reference to claim 15 and the further
limitation. Claim 19 should be amended, for example, to recite "The method of claim 15, wherein the first acquisition by the first OTDR occurs in a first time slot...."
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 14,
Claim 14 recites that "the time slot during the bidirectional measurement of the LUT is determined using time-domain reflectometry (TDM)." The recited limitation is indefinite because the application assigns materially inconsistent meanings to the acronym "TDM." Claims 7 and 19 identify TDM as "time-domain multiplexing." Paragraph [0079] repeats the claim-14 phrase "time-domain reflectometry (TDM)," while paragraphs [0007], [0030]-[0031], [0041]-[0050], [0059], [0061]-[0064], and [0067] repeatedly use TDM to refer to "time division multiplexing."
The disclosure further treats optical time-domain reflectometry and time-slot multiplexing as different technical operations. Paragraphs [0023]-[0026] describe optical time-domain reflectometry as the fiber-characterization operation performed by an optical time-domain reflectometer (OTDR). By contrast, paragraphs [0043]-[0050] and Figures 5, 6, and 8 describe identifying and controlling a multimedia-message time slot using TDM techniques, time controller 46, and TDM control block 57.
Accordingly, when claim 14 is read in light of the claims, specification, and drawings, it is unclear whether the claimed time slot must be determined using time division multiplexing, time-domain multiplexing, time-domain reflectometry, or some combination of these different operations. Each interpretation imposes a materially different requirement on the claimed apparatus. Although the wording may have resulted from a drafting error, the examiner cannot rewrite the claim to select one of the competing meanings. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the scope of claim 14 with reasonable certainty. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 14 are not reasonably certain, and claim 14 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for the 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.
As reiterated by the Supreme Court in KSR, and as set forth in MPEP 2141 (R-01.2024), II, the factual inquiries of Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103, are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and content of the prior art;
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
Considering objective evidence indicative of obviousness or non-obviousness, if present.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the examiner presumes that the subject matter disclosed in the prior art was created by another (i.e., not by the inventive entity) unless proven otherwise. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim, and any evidence of common ownership/assignment as of the effective filing date, so that the examiner may properly 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 claimed invention(s).
The nonpatent literature relied upon below is identified on the face of the documents as follows: VIAVI 8100 V2 Modules Series User Manual, document 78000010220, Revision 025, © 2021 VIAVI, LLC; and the EXFO FTB-3930 MultiTest Module User Guide, P/N 1043286, Version 3.1.2.7, printed in Canada in July 2006. Copies of these documents are cited and made of record with this Office action.
Claims 1, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the VIAVI 8100 V2 Modules Series User Manual, Rev. 025 (2021) in view of the EXFO FTB-3930 MultiTest Module User Guide, P/N 1043286, Version 3.1.2.7, printed July 2006, and Cahill et al. (US11405102B1), and further in view of Morreale et al. (WO2004019071A2).
Claim 1
The VIAVI 8100 V2 Modules Series User Manual (hereinafter “VIAVI Manual”) teaches a two-ended fiber-testing platform in which a master instrument and a slave instrument are connected at opposite ends of the same fiber under test, each instrument performs its acquisition in sequence, the resulting trace is transferred to the opposite instrument, and the instruments exchange user-selected messages through the fiber being tested.
“The master MTS/T-BERD performs the acquisition using the first wavelength in the list. The acquisition time selected on the Setup screen is displayed on each MTS/T-BERD, either in the ‘Local’ column or the ‘Remote’ column, depending on which MTS/T-BERD is considered. When the measurement is terminated, the message ‘Completed’ is displayed. The trace is transferred to the other MTS/T-BERD.” [VIAVI Manual, p. 203, Step 3].
“The slave MTS/T-BERD performs the acquisition using the same wavelength. The message acquisition time selected on the Setup screen is displayed on each MTS/T-BERD, either in the ‘Local’ column or the ‘Remote’ column, according to which MTS/T-BERD is considered. The message ‘Completed’ is displayed when the measurement is terminated. The trace is transferred to the master MTS/T-BERD.” [VIAVI Manual, p. 203, Step 4].
These disclosures teach initiating a bidirectional measurement of the fiber optic link under test, including initiating a first acquisition at the first test instrument, followed by a reciprocal acquisition at the remotely located second test instrument. The transfer of the first trace to the other instrument also establishes that the same paired instruments exchange information over the test arrangement as part of the bidirectional-measurement workflow.
The EXFO FTB-3930 MultiTest Module User Guide (hereinafter “EXFO User Guide”) expressly teaches a request to send a text message between test instruments located at opposite ends of the same fiber. The request is generated when the operator selects or enters message content and activates the Send control; the claim does not require that the request originate at the second OTDR or have any particular data structure.
“To facilitate communication between opposite ends of a fiber (especially on models with no talk set), you may send text messages to compatible units (such as FOT-930, FTB-3930, FOT-920 or FTB-3920) through their FasTesT ports. It is possible to send a predefined message or to write one of your own (maximum 30 characters).” [EXFO User Guide, p. 65, “Sending and Receiving Text Messages”].
“To send a text message: 1. Connect the units at each end of the same fiber via their FasTesT ports.... Scroll through the Predefined messages list and select a message. OR Enter a custom message in the New message text box. Press the Send button next to your type of message.... After a few seconds, your message will automatically appear on the receiving unit ... and on the Message log pane.” [EXFO User Guide, pp. 66-67, Steps 1-5].
The selection or entry of the message information and activation of the Send control is an express operator request received by the instrument software to send the selected multimedia message. The EXFO User Guide therefore supplies the claimed request, the receipt of information related to the message, preparation of the message by selecting or entering its content, and transmission to the opposite-end test instrument over the same fiber.
The VIAVI Manual independently corroborates the same message-selection, preparation, and same-fiber transmission functions in a paired optical-test platform.
“Once both Platforms are paired via the fiber to be tested, each one can send a message to the other Platform. This message can be sent to launch a test, to wait before launching the test, to clean the connectors....” [VIAVI Manual, p. 231, “Sending a message to the distant Platform”].
“Select the message to send.... Press the Send Message softkey. The message displays automatically on distant Platform.” [VIAVI Manual, pp. 232-233, Steps 3-4; FIGS. 132-133].
“Two types of messages are available: predefined messages (10); User-definable messages (4).... To enter a user message: select one of the last 4 messages ... press the empty box to open the edition keypad ... enter the text you want ... push the Enter key.... Push the Send Message soft key. On the distant MTS 8000, the message is displayed.” [VIAVI Manual, pp. 519-520, “Sending a message”].
Selecting a predefined message or entering user-defined text supplies the information related to the multimedia message; confirming the text prepares it; and activating Send causes its transmission.
“It is also possible to request from the slave MTS/T-BERD that the measurement is stopped, by pressing the button START/STOP. The master unit receives the request via a message on the screen: ‘Remote asks for stop, do you agree?’ If Yes, the measurement is stopped, if No, the measurement resumes.” [VIAVI Manual, p. 204, ‘Trace display functions’].
This disclosure further establishes that, before the bidirectional measurement has completed, the master instrument can receive an operator-generated request from the opposite-end instrument through the paired test arrangement. Read together with the same manual’s Send Message function and the EXFO message-selection and Send controls, the cited test platforms teach both receipt of a request during an incomplete bidirectional measurement and receipt of a request specifically to transmit selected message content.
Cahill additionally teaches the claimed first-OTDR/second-OTDR architecture and the inter-node communication channel over the fiber under test.
“Modules for optical time-domain reflectometry (OTDR) are connected via at least one fiber link of a fiber optic communication network. The modules can perform OTDR operations on the at least one fiber link. In addition, the modules can establish an inter-node communication channel between each other on the at least one fiber link. The channel allows the OTDR modules to synchronize their OTDR operations and to exchange information, such as OTDR traces, between each other.” [Cahill, Abstract; FIG. 1].
“In addition to performing OTDR and LCV, the OTDR modules 30A-B create a dual-direction signal and/or communication channel for communicating between nodes 20A-B.... this dual-direction, inter-node communication channel can allow the OTDR modules 30A-B to share their trace information with one another and to perform other communication functions.” [Cahill, col. 4, ll. 31-45; FIG. 1].
Cahill therefore supplies the express first-OTDR/second-OTDR communication architecture and confirms that the inter-node channel is not restricted to trace transfer, but also supports other communication functions between the opposite-end OTDR modules over the tested fiber link.
Cahill further teaches a timing decision that waits while the fiber communication or OTDR function is in use and then enters a communication-listen and transmission sequence, as well as synchronization that avoids conflicts with OTDR measurement windows.
“Accordingly, the protocol 150 may first determine whether the module 30 is currently performing an OTDR operation, and/or the protocol 150 may first determine whether the system 10 is operating in standard operations for fiber-optic communications (Decision 152). If either of these cases apply, then using the OTDR modules 30 for inter-node communications may be delayed. If acceptable for a given implementation, however, inter-node communications could be performed at appropriate times for the purposes disclosed herein.” [Cahill, col. 8, ll. 20-38; FIG. 8, decision 152].
“When the OTDR module 30 is not in use, a near-end OTDR’s receiver 34 operates in ‘Communication Listen’ mode to listen for communications (Block 154).” [Cahill, col. 8, ll. 38-41; FIG. 8, block 154].
“The inter-node communication channel can be used for OTDR synchronization. For example, the OTDR modules 30 on either side of a fiber span 42 can be synchronized using communications on the channel to avoid collisions in each other’s measurement window.” [Cahill, col. 10, ll. 1-5].
The wait decision and measurement-window synchronization teach determining when a non-conflicting communication interval is available during an overall OTDR test process. They also teach that the communication is deferred until the active OTDR use permits the communication interval, which is the functional substance of determining the claimed time slot.
Morreale expressly teaches implementing that interval selection by time-division multiplexing the service information and OTDR monitoring information on the optical transmission path.
“In accordance with another aspect of the invention, the probe signal and the service signal are time-division multiplexed at the first channel wavelength.” [Morreale, ¶ [0016]].
“The service signals and the LME signals may be bitwise multiplexed on the channel. That is, the service signals and LME signals may be time-division multiplexed (TDM).” [Morreale, ¶ [0030]].
“[T]he two signals are bitwise multiplexed (i.e., time-division multiplexed).” [Morreale, ¶ [0038]].
“Given this approximation, the backward scattered and reflected signal can be deconvolved and the backward scattered pulse shape q(t) determined, even while service channel information is being transmitted.” [Morreale, ¶ [0040], p. 8].
Morreale thus provides an express technical implementation for allocating the fiber between OTDR monitoring and service-message traffic, and expressly confirms that the backward-scattered measurement information can be determined even while service-channel information is being transmitted. In the proposed combination, the processor-controlled test instrument would receive the operator’s request before the overall bidirectional sequence had completed, retain the selected or entered message information, and transmit the prepared message in the next TDM interval assigned to service traffic without preventing extraction of the OTDR measurement signal.
The differences between claim 1 and the combined VIAVI/EXFO/Cahill disclosure are therefore limited to expressly allocating the prepared message to a time slot determined during the incomplete bidirectional measurement. Cahill expressly delays inter-node communication when the OTDR or fiber communication is in use, permits communication at appropriate times, and synchronizes the opposite-end OTDR modules to avoid collisions in measurement windows. Morreale expressly time-division multiplexes the OTDR probe and service information and determines the backscattered OTDR signal even while service information is transmitted. Applying those known timing controls to the paired test instruments and their user-requested text messages would have produced every step of claim 1 without changing the principle of operation of any reference.
A person of ordinary skill in optical test equipment would have been motivated to make this combination because the VIAVI and EXFO guides identify the practical need for opposite-end technicians to select, enter, request, and exchange messages over the same fiber being tested; VIAVI additionally demonstrates receipt of an opposite-end request before completion of the measurement; Cahill identifies the need to prevent communications from colliding with an OTDR measurement window; and Morreale provides the known TDM mechanism for separating service-message traffic from the OTDR probe signal while still recovering the measurement information. The combination would predictably preserve acquisition integrity, avoid a separate communication fiber, and reduce technician delay by allowing the request and message preparation to occur before the full bidirectional sequence has ended while assigning transmission to a non-conflicting TDM slot. The artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the cited systems already use paired fiber-test instruments, optical transmitters and receivers, software-controlled message interfaces, processor-controlled timing, and digital service data for their established functions. The resulting method is the predictable use of known OTDR communication, message-generation, and TDM controls according to their established functions, and claim 1 would have been obvious.
Claim 6
With respect to claim 6, all limitations of claim 1 are taught by the VIAVI Manual, the EXFO User Guide, Cahill, and Morreale for the reasons set forth above, except wherein claim 6 additionally requires that the multimedia message include one or more of voice, text, and chat data. The claim is satisfied by any one of the listed alternatives.
“To facilitate communication between opposite ends of a fiber ... you may send text messages to compatible units ... through their FasTesT ports. It is possible to send a predefined message or to write one of your own....” [EXFO User Guide, p. 65].
“Scroll through the Predefined messages list and select a message. OR Enter a custom message in the New message text box.... After a few seconds, your message will automatically appear on the receiving unit....” [EXFO User Guide, p. 67, Steps 4-5].
“Service communications can also include service signals representing voice communication between maintenance personnel located at various sites within the optical fiber communication system.” [Morreale, ¶ [0004]].
The EXFO User Guide expressly teaches text messages, including custom user-entered text, between opposite-end fiber-test instruments. That express text disclosure independently satisfies the “one or more” formulation of claim 6.
Morreale independently confirms that service-channel information in an optical monitoring system may include voice communication between maintenance personnel.
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to permit text and, where desired, voice content on the scheduled service-message channel because the channel is already a digital communication path between technicians using opposite-end optical-test equipment. Supporting these familiar content types would improve clarity, permit the technician to communicate test instructions or conditions, and use the same encoder, transmitter, timing controller, and receiver for their known purposes. The content selection would not change the optical timing architecture and would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Claim 6 would therefore have been obvious.
Claim 7
With respect to claim 7, all limitations of claim 1 are taught by the VIAVI Manual, the EXFO User Guide, Cahill, and Morreale for the reasons set forth above, except wherein claim 7 additionally requires that the time slot be determined using “time-domain multiplexing (TDM).” The above claim objection is maintained. Solely for purposes of applying the prior art, and consistent with the specification’s repeated use of TDM for time-division multiplexing and the claim’s time-slot context, the examiner interprets the intended limitation as time-division multiplexing.
“In accordance with another aspect of the invention, the probe signal and the service signal are time-division multiplexed at the first channel wavelength.” [Morreale, ¶ [0016]].
“The service signals and the LME signals may be bitwise multiplexed on the channel. That is, the service signals and LME signals may be time-division multiplexed (TDM).” [Morreale, ¶ [0030]].
“[T]he inter-node communication channel between the OTDR modules 30 can be achieved on multiple fiber spans 42 using optical switches 22 for time-division sharing.” [Cahill, col. 9, ll. 21-31].
Under the stated prior-art interpretation, these disclosures teach assigning different temporal portions of the shared optical path to OTDR monitoring and service communication. Morreale expressly uses time-division multiplexing and the TDM acronym, while Cahill applies time-division sharing directly to the communication channel between opposite-end OTDR modules.
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to determine the paired instruments’ message interval by time-division multiplexing because TDM permits the existing fiber and optical hardware to carry both measurement and message traffic without simultaneous interference. It would predictably preserve measurement integrity, provide deterministic scheduling, and avoid a second fiber. No inventive redesign would have been required; the controller would merely allocate the known requested message to a known TDM interval. Claim 7 would therefore have been obvious under the stated interpretation, while the terminology objection is maintained.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the VIAVI 8100 V2 Modules Series User Manual in view of the EXFO FTB-3930 MultiTest Module User Guide, Cahill et al., and Morreale et al., and further in view of Roux et al. (US20200072703A1).
Claim 2
With respect to claim 2, all limitations of claim 1 are taught by the VIAVI Manual, the EXFO User Guide, Cahill, and Morreale for the reasons set forth above, except wherein claim 2 additionally requires that the time slot occur upon completion of the first acquisition by the first OTDR and before initiation of the second acquisition by the second OTDR.
“The master MTS/T-BERD performs the acquisition using the first wavelength in the list.... When the measurement is terminated, the message ‘Completed’ is displayed. The trace is transferred to the other MTS/T-BERD.” [VIAVI Manual, p. 203, Step 3].
“The slave MTS/T-BERD performs the acquisition using the same wavelength.” [VIAVI Manual, p. 203, Step 4].
Roux expressly teaches the same ordered bidirectional sequence and the waiting state of the remote OTDR.
“At 314, the first OTDR device may perform OTDR acquisition with respect to the optical fiber 106 in the direction from location-A to location-B. At 334, the second OTDR device may be placed in a waiting mode during the OTDR acquisition by the first OTDR device.” [Roux, ¶ [0065]; FIG. 3].
“At 316, the second OTDR device may perform OTDR acquisition with respect to the optical fiber 106 in the direction from location-B to location-A.” [Roux, ¶ [0066]; FIG. 3].
The VIAVI Manual and Roux therefore expressly establish an interval between the end of the first-end acquisition and the beginning of the reciprocal second-end acquisition. Cahill and Morreale teach using that type of non-conflicting interval for the inter-node communication and determining it through synchronized time-division control.
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to place the pending message in this transition interval because the first laser acquisition has ended, the second acquisition has not begun, and use of the interval avoids collision with either measurement window. The choice uses an already-existing idle/wait state identified by Roux and an already-known TDM communication channel identified by Cahill and Morreale. It would predictably reduce technician delay without changing the acquisition sequence or optical hardware, and success would reasonably have been expected. Claim 2 would therefore have been obvious.
Claim 3
With respect to claim 3, all limitations of claim 1 are taught by the VIAVI Manual, the EXFO User Guide, Cahill, and Morreale for the reasons set forth above, except wherein claim 3 additionally requires that the time slot occur after completion of the first acquisition and after completion of an exchange of results of the first acquisition between the two OTDRs.
“When the measurement is terminated, the message ‘Completed’ is displayed. The trace is transferred to the other MTS/T-BERD.” [VIAVI Manual, p. 203, Step 3].
“The slave MTS/T-BERD performs the acquisition using the same wavelength.” [VIAVI Manual, p. 203, Step 4].
“[T]he OTDR device disclosed herein may provide for the exchange of all the relevant information using the DUT to generate a bi-directional combined schematic display of all optical events with respect to the DUT.” [Roux, ¶ [0043]].
“At 338, the second OTDR device may send the OTDR acquisition performed at 336 to the first OTDR device. At 318, the first OTDR device may receive the OTDR acquisition performed at 336 by the second OTDR device.” [Roux, ¶ [0067]; FIG. 3].
The VIAVI Manual expressly orders a first acquisition, transfer of the resulting trace to the other test instrument, and then the reciprocal acquisition. This creates a known transition after both the first acquisition and its result transfer have been completed. Roux confirms that exchange of acquisition information over the DUT is an integral part of the two-ended measurement process.
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to insert the scheduled message after the first trace transfer because doing so preserves the priority and completeness of the measurement-result exchange while still using the interval before the next acquisition. The message would use the same communication transmitter, receiver, and timing framework already used for inter-instrument exchange. This would predictably prevent interruption of the result transfer and provide a clear ordering rule for the controller. Claim 3 would therefore have been obvious.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the VIAVI 8100 V2 Modules Series User Manual in view of the EXFO FTB-3930 MultiTest Module User Guide, Cahill et al., and Morreale et al., and further in view of Laferriere et al. (US20230304892A1).
Claim 4
With respect to claim 4, all limitations of claim 1 are taught by the VIAVI Manual, the EXFO User Guide, Cahill, and Morreale for the reasons set forth above, except wherein claim 4 additionally requires that the LUT be a multi-fiber cable including a plurality of fibers.
Laferriere expressly teaches OTDR measurement of a multi-fiber cable and bidirectional testing of the fibers in that cable.
“A dual-end loopback-based multi-fiber cable measurement apparatus” includes “a near-end multi-fiber loopback device connected to a fiber optic reflectometer and to the near end of the multi-fiber cable” and “a far-end multi-fiber loopback device connected to the far end of the multi-fiber cable.” [Laferriere, Abstract; FIG. 1].
“Bidirectional measurement may also be implemented by connecting an OTDR 108 to the fiber cable 110, which would be connected to the last port/fiber of the multi-fiber connector A at 114. Thus, in two measurements, all of the fibers in the cable links may be tested in both directions.” [Laferriere, ¶ [0057]].
Laferriere directly supplies the claimed multi-fiber-cable environment and confirms that the individual fibers are tested in both directions. Applying the known opposite-end messaging and TDM controls of the base combination to Laferriere’s multi-fiber cable would merely use the same communication function during a larger, multi-fiber test job.
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use the combined system with a multi-fiber cable because bidirectional qualification commonly must be repeated over each fiber of a high-count cable, and the benefit of technician messaging becomes greater as the duration and number of fiber transitions increase. The adaptation requires only known optical switching or connector routing and does not alter how the message is encoded, scheduled, or received. Claim 4 would therefore have been obvious.
Claim 5
With respect to claim 5, all limitations of claim 4 are taught by the VIAVI Manual, the EXFO User Guide, Cahill, Morreale, and Laferriere for the reasons set forth above, except wherein claim 5 additionally requires that the message time slot be between testing a first fiber and testing a second fiber of the multi-fiber cable.
“During operation, the nodes 20A-B synchronize their fiber scans.... Using the communication channel (VSC) between the OTDR modules 30A-B over the link 40, the nodes 20A-B exchange their respective data with the other node.... The process 100 repeats ... for the next fiber span.” [Cahill, cols. 5-6; FIG. 4, blocks 102-110].
“This message can be sent to launch a test, to wait before launching the test, to clean the connectors....” [VIAVI Manual, p. 231].
“If the message ‘Go to Fiber No.’ is selected, use left and right direction keys to decrement/increment the fiber number.” [VIAVI Manual, p. 232, Note following FIG. 132].
“[I]n two measurements, all of the fibers in the cable links may be tested in both directions.” [Laferriere, ¶ [0057]].
These teachings establish a repeated fiber-by-fiber workflow, a known transition before the next fiber test, and technician messages expressly directed to the next fiber. The transition after completing one fiber and before beginning the next is therefore a known non-acquisition interval in the combined multi-fiber test process.
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to schedule the message in that interval because the optical switches or connector routing are already changing from the completed fiber to the next fiber, no acquisition pulse must be protected at that moment, and a “Go to Fiber No.” or other technician instruction is especially useful during that transition. The modification would use the known TDM controller to select the already-existing inter-fiber interval and the known message interface to transmit the instruction. It would predictably improve coordination and reduce testing errors, with a reasonable expectation of success. Claim 5 would therefore have been obvious.
Claims 8, 9, 10, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cahill et al. in view of Roux et al., further in view of the EXFO FTB-3930 MultiTest Module User Guide, and further in view of Morreale et al.
Claim 8
Cahill teaches an apparatus having two opposite-end OTDR modules coupled by a fiber under test, with processor, memory, transmitter, receiver, and software/electronics used for OTDR operations and inter-node communications.
“Each OTDR module 30A-B includes software and electronics 38 connected to a transmitter 32 and a receiver 34. As will be appreciated, such software and electronics 38 can be implemented in one or more processing units 39a and memory storage units 39b. The transmitter 32 and receiver 34 are connected via a circulator or coupler 36 to the same fiber span 42.” [Cahill, col. 4, ll. 51-60; FIG. 1].
“[T]he OTDR modules 30A-B create a dual-direction signal and/or communication channel for communicating between nodes 20A-B.... this dual-direction, inter-node communication channel can allow the OTDR modules 30A-B to share their trace information with one another and to perform other communication functions.” [Cahill, col. 4, ll. 31-45].
Cahill therefore teaches the processor, memory, data transmission hardware, opposite-end OTDR relationship, and common fiber path recited by claim 8. The software/electronics and processing units execute the OTDR and communication operations, while transmitter 32 is the claimed data-transmission component in structural and functional substance.
Roux teaches the claimed display and pulse generator in an OTDR apparatus that performs the bidirectional measurement and receives information from the remote OTDR.
“A pulse generator 104 may control a laser diode that sends light pulses into an optical fiber 106 under test.” [Roux, ¶ [0048]; FIG. 1].
“A sensor display generator 110 may analyze data received from various components of the OTDR device 100, as well as data received from another OTDR device ... to generate a sensor display 112 including a bi-directional combined schematic view of optical events along the optical fiber 106.” [Roux, ¶ [0050]; FIG. 1].
“The sensor display 112 may display measured characteristics of the optical fiber 106, for example, in the form of traces and other attributes.” [Roux, ¶ [0051]].
Roux’s Figures 4-6 and 24 further place a visible “SEND MESSAGE” control on the same sensor-display interface that presents the bidirectional test status and results. [Roux, FIGS. 4-6 and 24].
Roux thus supplies a pulse generator that generates the optical acquisition signal and a display that presents information related to the bidirectional measurement, exactly as required by claim 8.
The EXFO User Guide teaches the claimed message-generation control functions through the instrument software and operator interface.
“To facilitate communication between opposite ends of a fiber ... you may send text messages to compatible units ... through their FasTesT ports. It is possible to send a predefined message or to write one of your own....” [EXFO User Guide, p. 65].
“Scroll through the Predefined messages list and select a message. OR Enter a custom message in the New message text box. Press the Send button next to your type of message.... After a few seconds, your message will automatically appear on the receiving unit....” [EXFO User Guide, p. 67, Steps 4-5].
The instrument software receives information identifying or forming the message, prepares the message through selection or user entry, receives the operator’s Send request, and transfers the prepared message to the optical communication path for delivery over the same fiber. These are the claimed functions of the message-generation controller, whether implemented as a software module executed by Cahill’s processing unit or as dedicated control logic.
Cahill and Morreale teach the claimed time-controller function.
“If either of these cases apply, then using the OTDR modules 30 for inter-node communications may be delayed. If acceptable for a given implementation, however, inter-node communications could be performed at appropriate times for the purposes disclosed herein.” [Cahill, col. 8, ll. 30-38; FIG. 8, decision 152].
“The inter-node communication channel can be used for OTDR synchronization ... to avoid collisions in each other’s measurement window.” [Cahill, col. 10, ll. 1-5].
“The OTDR unit includes a timing generator 211, a light source 212, a service channel encoder 219, a detector 214, an amplifier 215, an A/D converter 216, a service channel decoder 220, a correlator 217 and controller 218.” [Morreale, ¶ [0028]; FIG. 2].
“The service signals and LME signals may be time-division multiplexed (TDM).” [Morreale, ¶ [0030]].
“[T]he backward scattered and reflected signal can be deconvolved and the backward scattered pulse shape q(t) determined, even while service channel information is being transmitted.” [Morreale, ¶ [0040], p. 8].
Cahill’s wait/synchronization logic and Morreale’s timing generator/controller expressly provide control circuitry or processor-executed logic that identifies a communication opportunity, avoids collision with an acquisition window, and supports service transmission while OTDR measurement information remains recoverable. When implemented in the processor/memory apparatus of Cahill and the display/pulse-generator OTDR and integrated SEND MESSAGE interface of Roux, the combined time-control logic determines the time slot in which the prepared message is delivered to the data transmitter.
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Cahill and Roux because both concern processor-controlled opposite-end OTDR instruments and the exchange and display of information over the DUT. Roux’s display and pulse generator are conventional OTDR components, while Cahill supplies the communication-capable processor, memory, transmitter, receiver, and same-fiber inter-node channel. The artisan would further have incorporated the EXFO User Guide’s message-selection, custom-entry, Send-request, and receiving-display software and Morreale’s timing/controller functions so technician messages could use the established channel without colliding with the optical acquisition. The combination consolidates known OTDR and communication functions in a known processor-controlled test instrument, removes the need for separate field-communication equipment, and uses every element according to its established function. The optical interfaces, software controls, and timing circuits are compatible, and a reasonable expectation of success would have existed. Claim 8 would therefore have been obvious.
Claim 9
With respect to claim 9, all limitations of claim 8 are taught by Cahill, Roux, the EXFO User Guide, and Morreale for the reasons set forth above, except wherein claim 9 additionally requires a data receiver to receive, over the LUT, one or more of an acquisition signal from a second OTDR, acquisition-results data from the second OTDR, and a multimedia message from the second OTDR. The “one or more” language is satisfied by any one of the alternatives, and the combined art teaches all three categories.
“Each OTDR module 30A-B includes ... a transmitter 32 and a receiver 34.... The transmitter 32 and receiver 34 are connected via a circulator or coupler 36 to the same fiber span 42.” [Cahill, col. 4, ll. 51-60; FIG. 1].
“At the nodes 20A-B, the WDM filters 44 can route OTDR measurement signals and communication signals to the OTDR module 30.... [T]he receiver 34 of the OTDR module 30A-B needs to support different types of inputs, namely one for OTDR measurement signals and another for communication signals.” [Cahill, col. 5, ll. 18-26; FIG. 2A].
“At 338, the second OTDR device may send the OTDR acquisition performed at 336 to the first OTDR device. At 318, the first OTDR device may receive the OTDR acquisition performed at 336 by the second OTDR device.” [Roux, ¶ [0067]; FIG. 3].
“When you receive a message: Your unit emits a short beep and displays the received message.” [EXFO User Guide, p. 68].
Cahill expressly configures the receiver for OTDR measurement signals and communication signals from the opposite-end module. Roux expressly receives remote acquisition data, and the EXFO User Guide expressly displays a text message received from the opposite-end test instrument. Thus, the combined receiver receives each category recited in claim 9, and in any event the “one or more” formulation is satisfied by any one of them.
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use the existing receiver path for these signal types because the opposite-end OTDR already returns or sends measurement information and communication data over the same fiber. Sharing the optical front end and separating the decoded information in software or receiver processing avoids redundant hardware and is the exact type of dual-input receiver contemplated by Cahill. Claim 9 would therefore have been obvious.
Claim 10
With respect to claim 10, all limitations of claim 8 are taught by Cahill, Roux, the EXFO User Guide, and Morreale for the reasons set forth above, except wherein claim 10 additionally requires that the time slot occur after completion of the first acquisition and before initiation of the second acquisition.
“At 314, the first OTDR device may perform OTDR acquisition ... from location-A to location-B. At 334, the second OTDR device may be placed in a waiting mode during the OTDR acquisition by the first OTDR device.” [Roux, ¶ [0065]].
“At 316, the second OTDR device may perform OTDR acquisition ... from location-B to location-A.” [Roux, ¶ [0066]].
“The inter-node communication channel can be used for OTDR synchronization.... [T]he OTDR modules 30 on either side of a fiber span 42 can be synchronized using communications on the channel to avoid collisions in each other’s measurement window.” [Cahill, col. 10, ll. 1-5].
These disclosures teach the exact transition interval between the first and second acquisitions. Cahill’s measurement-window synchronization and Morreale’s TDM controller make that transition available to the message transmitter without collision.
A person of ordinary skill would have selected this interval because both acquisition lasers are not simultaneously active, the first acquisition has already been preserved, and the second acquisition can begin immediately after the message interval. This is a predictable controller schedule using known waiting states. Claim 10 would therefore have been obvious.
Claim 13
With respect to claim 13, all limitations of claim 8 are taught by Cahill, Roux, the EXFO User Guide, and Morreale for the reasons set forth above, except wherein claim 13 additionally requires that the multimedia message include one or more of voice, text, and chat data.
“It is possible to send a predefined message or to write one of your own.... Enter a custom message in the New message text box.... After a few seconds, your message will automatically appear on the receiving unit....” [EXFO User Guide, pp. 65 and 67].
“Service communications can also include service signals representing voice communication between maintenance personnel located at various sites within the optical fiber communication system.” [Morreale, ¶ [0004]].
The EXFO User Guide expressly teaches text, including custom user-entered text, and Morreale expressly teaches maintenance voice. Because claim 13 requires only one or more listed content types, the EXFO custom-text disclosure independently satisfies the claim.
A person of ordinary skill would have included these content types for the same technician-coordination reasons stated for claim 6. The processor and message controller treat the content as digital data, and the scheduled optical channel transports it without changing the measurement hardware. Claim 13 would therefore have been obvious.
Claim 14
With respect to claim 14, all limitations of claim 8 are taught by Cahill, Roux, the EXFO User Guide, and Morreale for the reasons set forth above.
Claim 14 recites that the time slot is determined using “time-domain reflectometry (TDM).” The above § 112(b) rejection is maintained. Solely for purposes of applying the prior art, and without conceding definiteness or rewriting the claim, the examiner interprets the intended limitation as requiring time-division multiplexing, consistent with the predominant TDM disclosure and the time-slot context of the application.
“The service signals and the LME signals may be bitwise multiplexed on the channel. That is, the service signals and LME signals may be time-division multiplexed (TDM).” [Morreale, ¶ [0030]].
“[T]he inter-node communication channel between the OTDR modules 30 can be achieved on multiple fiber spans 42 using optical switches 22 for time-division sharing.” [Cahill, col. 9, ll. 21-31].
Morreale expressly uses TDM to divide the optical channel between the service signal and the OTDR monitoring signal. Cahill independently uses time-division sharing for the opposite-end OTDR communication channel. Under the stated prior-art interpretation, these disclosures teach the added limitation.
A person of ordinary skill would have used time-division multiplexing to determine the message slot because it allows the same optical path and receiver/transmitter hardware to support acquisition and communication without temporal overlap. The result is a deterministic and interference-avoiding schedule using known timing logic. Claim 14 would therefore have been obvious under the stated interpretation, while remaining indefinite for the reasons set forth above.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cahill et al. in view of Roux et al., further in view of the EXFO FTB-3930 MultiTest Module User Guide and Morreale et al., and further in view of Laferriere et al. and the VIAVI 8100 V2 Modules Series User Manual.
Claim 11
With respect to claim 11, all limitations of claim 8 are taught by Cahill, Roux, the EXFO User Guide, and Morreale for the reasons set forth above, except wherein claim 11 additionally requires that the LUT be a multi-fiber cable including a plurality of fibers.
“A dual-end loopback-based multi-fiber cable measurement apparatus” includes near-end and far-end multi-fiber loopback devices connected to a multi-fiber cable and a fiber optic reflectometer. [Laferriere, Abstract; FIG. 1].
“Bidirectional measurement may also be implemented ... Thus, in two measurements, all of the fibers in the cable links may be tested in both directions.” [Laferriere, ¶ [0057]].
Laferriere expressly provides the claimed multi-fiber cable and bidirectional measurement of its plurality of fibers. Incorporating the processor/display/message-controller apparatus of the base combination into that known multi-fiber test system would simply permit the same communication capability during a larger cable-qualification workflow.
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the combination because multi-fiber qualification involves repeated operations and opposite-end coordination, making integrated messages particularly useful. The implementation uses known switches, connectors, and software control and would not alter the principle of the base apparatus. Claim 11 would therefore have been obvious.
Claim 12
With respect to claim 12, all limitations of claim 11 are taught by Cahill, Roux, the EXFO User Guide, Morreale, Laferriere and VIAVI Manual for the reasons set forth above, except wherein claim 12 additionally requires that the message slot occur between testing a first fiber and testing a second fiber of the plurality.
“The process 100 repeats ... for the next fiber span 42a-b.” [Cahill, cols. 5-6; FIG. 4, decision 110].
“If the message ‘Go to Fiber No.’ is selected, use left and right direction keys to decrement/increment the fiber number.” [VIAVI Manual, p. 232].
“[I]n two measurements, all of the fibers in the cable links may be tested in both directions.” [Laferriere, ¶ [0057]].
The combined apparatus therefore includes a known next-fiber transition and a message specifically adapted to instruct the remote technician concerning the fiber number. Cahill and Morreale provide the synchronized TDM control for placing that message in the inter-fiber interval.
A person of ordinary skill would have used the interval between fibers because no acquisition is then being performed on either the completed fiber or the next fiber, and the message can coordinate the switch or connection to the next fiber. The schedule would improve reliability and reduce wrong-fiber errors through the predictable use of known controls. Claim 12 would therefore have been obvious.
Claims 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cahill et al. in view of Sridhar et al. (US20140072306A1), and further in view of the EXFO FTB-3930 MultiTest Module User Guide.
Claim 15
Cahill teaches two OTDR modules connected at opposite ends of the fiber under test, bidirectional OTDR acquisitions, WDM coupling, and an inter-node communication channel over the fiber.
“The OTDR modules 30A-B at the nodes 20A-B are typically connected to the fiber link 40 via a Wavelength Division Multiplexer (WDM) filter 24 or other device to route (switch) signals with wavelength selective switching.... One OTDR module 30A monitors the span 40 in the same direction as the WDM signals ... while the other OTDR module 30B monitors the span 40 in the opposite direction.” [Cahill, col. 5, ll. 6-18; FIG. 2A].
“At the nodes 20A-B, the WDM filters 44 can route OTDR measurement signals and communication signals to the OTDR module 30.” [Cahill, col. 5, ll. 18-26].
Cahill thus teaches implementing an optical wavelength for the opposite-end bidirectional OTDR measurement and sending communication information over the same fiber between the first and second OTDR modules.
Sridhar teaches using a first wavelength for an OTDR-capable channel and a second wavelength for a separate higher-bandwidth communication channel, with the channels operated concurrently between opposite nodes.
“[T]he optical system 10 supports two telemetry channels 26, 28 between the nodes 14, 16.... The two telemetry channels 26, 28 can be referred to as a low bandwidth communication channel (i.e., a 15XX telemetry/optical time domain reflectometer (OTDR) channel 26) and a high bandwidth communication channel (i.e., an OSC 28) that work in conjunction with one another.” [Sridhar, ¶ [0016]; FIG. 1].
“The channel 26 can be the low bandwidth communication channel that is also configured to perform OTDR functionality....” [Sridhar, ¶ [0017]].
“Concurrent with the channel 26, the optical system 10 can include the OSC 28 which can be a separate OSC wavelength ... used for the high bandwidth communication channel....” [Sridhar, ¶ [0018]].
“[S]eparate wavelengths are used by the channels 26, 28....” [Sridhar, ¶ [0019]].
“[T]he controller can be configured for operating concurrently and selecting between the high bandwidth communication channel and the low bandwidth communication channel....” [Sridhar, ¶ [0033]].
“[T]he first node comprises ... a second subsystem transmitting the first wavelength for the low bandwidth communication channel, wherein the first wavelength is further configured to provide optical time domain reflectometer (OTDR) functionality; and a third subsystem transmitting the second wavelength for the high bandwidth communication channel....” [Sridhar, claim 12; see also ¶ [0005]].
These passages expressly teach a first wavelength configured for OTDR functionality, determination and transmission of a distinct second wavelength for the higher-bandwidth communication channel, and concurrent controller operation of the two channels. Operating the second channel concurrently makes the communication available in real time rather than requiring the first-wavelength acquisition to become idle.
The EXFO User Guide supplies the claimed request and multimedia-message functions. Under the claim’s broad language, the request need not originate at the remote OTDR; the operator’s selection or entry of message content and activation of the Send control is a request received by the local instrument controller to send that message.
“To facilitate communication between opposite ends of a fiber ... you may send text messages to compatible units ... through their FasTesT ports. It is possible to send a predefined message or to write one of your own....” [EXFO User Guide, p. 65].
“To send a text message: 1. Connect the units at each end of the same fiber via their FasTesT ports.... Scroll through the Predefined messages list and select a message. OR Enter a custom message in the New message text box.” [EXFO User Guide, pp. 66-67, Steps 1-4].
“Press the Send button next to your type of message.... After a few seconds, your message will automatically appear on the receiving unit ... and on the Message log pane.” [EXFO User Guide, p. 67, Step 5].
The EXFO User Guide therefore expressly supplies a user request to send a text multimedia message, receipt of the selected or entered message information, and delivery to the opposite-end test instrument over the same fiber. In the proposed combination, a person of ordinary skill would configure the controller to accept that request before the overall bidirectional OTDR measurement had completed and to place the requested message on Sridhar’s concurrently operated second wavelength, thereby delivering it in real time to Cahill’s second OTDR without waiting for the first-wavelength acquisition to become idle.
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Cahill and Sridhar because both concern optical diagnostic/OTDR functions and communication between opposite nodes over a WDM fiber link. Cahill’s same-fiber communication can be constrained by OTDR measurement-window use, whereas Sridhar expressly provides a separate, concurrently operated communication wavelength. Using that second wavelength for the EXFO user-requested text message would predictably permit real-time communication without interrupting or corrupting the first-wavelength OTDR acquisition. The EXFO User Guide establishes the practical utility and conventional software controls for such messages between opposite-end field-test instruments. The combination would use known WDM filters, transmitters, receivers, processors, and message software for their established functions, and the artisan would reasonably expect success. Claim 15 would therefore have been obvious.
Claim 17
With respect to claim 17, all limitations of claim 15 are taught by Cahill, Sridhar, and the EXFO User Guide for the reasons set forth above, except wherein claim 17 additionally requires that the first and second wavelengths be implemented via wavelength-division multiplexing (WDM).
“Conventionally, optical service channels ... provide a wavelength on a link between two nodes for data communications there between. That is, OSCs are an additional wavelength in a wavelength division multiplexing (WDM) system....” [Sridhar, ¶ [0002]].
“Collectively, the filters 32, 34, 40, 42 can be referred to as coarse WDM filters which are configured to add/drop wavelengths....” [Sridhar, ¶ [0018]; FIG. 1].
“The OTDR modules 30A-B ... are typically connected to the fiber link 40 via a Wavelength Division Multiplexer (WDM) filter 24....” [Cahill, col. 5, ll. 6-18; FIG. 2A].
Sridhar and Cahill expressly implement the diagnostic/OTDR and communication wavelengths through WDM filters on the common fiber. The added limitation is therefore directly taught.
A person of ordinary skill would have used WDM because it is the conventional mechanism for carrying the two different wavelengths simultaneously on the same optical link while permitting wavelength-selective routing at each OTDR/node. This predictable selection provides concurrency and avoids a second fiber. Claim 17 would therefore have been obvious.
Claim 18
With respect to claim 18, all limitations of claim 15 are taught by Cahill, Sridhar, and the EXFO User Guide for the reasons set forth above, except wherein claim 18 additionally requires that the multimedia message include one or more of voice, text, and chat data.
“It is possible to send a predefined message or to write one of your own.... Enter a custom message in the New message text box.... After a few seconds, your message will automatically appear on the receiving unit....” [EXFO User Guide, pp. 65 and 67].
The EXFO custom text message expressly satisfies the “one or more” limitation. In the combined system, that text is carried on Sridhar’s concurrently operated high-bandwidth second wavelength and received by the opposite-end Cahill OTDR module.
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use text because it conveys technician instructions and status with low bandwidth, is already supported by paired test instruments, and is readily encoded on an optical service channel. The modification involves only familiar digital payload content and would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Claim 18 would therefore have been obvious.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cahill et al. in view of Sridhar et al. and the EXFO FTB-3930 MultiTest Module User Guide, and further in view of Hester et al. (US7046929B1).
Claim 16
With respect to claim 16, all limitations of claim 15 are taught by Cahill, Sridhar, and the EXFO User Guide for the reasons set forth above, except wherein claim 16 additionally requires that the multimedia message be sent via Internet Protocol (IP).
Hester expressly teaches Internet Protocol transport for data carried by an optical supervisory/service communication channel between optical-network nodes.
“The OSC/COM 920 module contains circuitry for inter-node communication via the OSC channel. The OSC channel may communicate data in a variety of data formats used in digital networks, such as TCP/IP, Ethernet, or ATM format. The OSC links may be configured to form a neighboring node data link. Alternately, data packets may contain address information (e.g., data frames) for transferring data further along the network.” [Hester, col. 11, ll. 14-28; FIG. 9].
Hester expressly supplies TCP/IP, which is an Internet Protocol suite, for the same type of optical inter-node service-channel data used by the combined Cahill/Sridhar system.
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to format the technician message using IP because IP provides standardized packet addressing, framing, routing, and interoperability for arbitrary digital content, including text and voice data. Sridhar already describes Ethernet and other communication formats for the optical service channel, and Hester expressly identifies TCP/IP. Substituting or selecting IP as the message transport would use known networking software for its intended purpose, would not alter the optical wavelength architecture, and would have a reasonable expectation of success. Claim 16 would therefore have been obvious.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cahill et al. in view of Sridhar et al. and the EXFO FTB-3930 MultiTest Module User Guide, and further in view of Roux et al., the VIAVI 8100 V2 Modules Series User Manual, and Morreale et al.
Claim 19
With respect to claim 19, all limitations of claim 15 are taught by Cahill, Sridhar, and the EXFO User Guide for the reasons set forth above, except wherein claim 19 additionally requires that the first OTDR acquisition occur in a first time slot, that exchange of results from that acquisition occur in a second time slot, and that the slots be determined via “time-domain multiplexing (TDM).” The above claim-form and terminology objections are maintained. Solely for prior-art analysis, the examiner interprets the intended TDM limitation as time-division multiplexing, consistent with the specification and the recited allocation of separate time slots.
“The master MTS/T-BERD performs the acquisition.... When the measurement is terminated ... [t]he trace is transferred to the other MTS/T-BERD.” [VIAVI Manual, p. 203, Step 3].
“[T]he OTDR device disclosed herein may provide for the exchange of all the relevant information using the DUT....” [Roux, ¶ [0043]].
“At 314, the first OTDR device may perform OTDR acquisition.... At 334, the second OTDR device may be placed in a waiting mode during the OTDR acquisition by the first OTDR device.” [Roux, ¶ [0065]; FIG. 3].
“The service signals and the LME signals may be bitwise multiplexed on the channel. That is, the service signals and LME signals may be time-division multiplexed (TDM).” [Morreale, ¶ [0030]].
The VIAVI Manual and Roux teach distinct ordered operations for the first acquisition and the subsequent exchange or transfer of its results. Morreale expressly teaches allocating OTDR monitoring and service information through time-division multiplexing, and Cahill synchronizes communication to avoid conflicts with measurement windows. Under the stated interpretation, the combination therefore establishes a first acquisition slot and a separate result-exchange slot determined by time-division control.
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to allocate the acquisition and result transfer to separate TDM slots because the acquisition uses high-power optical-pulse and backscatter-reception timing, whereas the result exchange uses digital communication. Separating the operations prevents interference, permits deterministic synchronization of the opposite-end instruments, and follows the sequential workflow already used by the VIAVI and Roux systems. The controller implementation would be routine and would have a reasonable expectation of success. Claim 19 would therefore have been obvious under the stated interpretation, while the objections are maintained.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cahill et al. in view of Sridhar et al. and the EXFO FTB-3930 MultiTest Module User Guide, and further in view of Laferriere et al.
Claim 20
With respect to claim 20, all limitations of claim 15 are taught by Cahill, Sridhar, and the EXFO User Guide for the reasons set forth above, except wherein claim 20 additionally requires that the LUT be a multi-core optical fiber.
“According to examples disclosed herein, the multi-fiber cable may include a multicore fiber cable.” [Laferriere, ¶ [0024]].
“The apparatus 100 may be applicable to multimode fibers as well as single mode fibers. Further, the apparatus 100 may be applied to the test of multi-core fibers (MCF) using connector type fan-out devices for MCF fibers.” [Laferriere, ¶ [0066]].
Laferriere expressly teaches applying an OTDR measurement apparatus to a multi-core fiber by using fan-out devices that expose the individual cores to the test architecture. This directly supplies the physical LUT limitation of claim 20.
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the combined two-wavelength bidirectional OTDR/message system to a multi-core fiber because each core is an optical transmission path that may be connected through a known fan-out to the same type of OTDR transmit and receive ports. The modification would extend the known test and communication functions to parallel cores, increase testing efficiency, and require only established fan-out coupling rather than a change in the optical measurement or message principles. The artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success based on Laferriere’s express multi-core OTDR teaching. Claim 20 would therefore have been obvious.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammed Abdelraheem, whose telephone number is (571) 272-0656. The examiner can normally be reached Monday–Thursday.
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 Payne, can be reached at (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 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.
/MOHAMMED ABDELRAHEEM/Examiner, Art Unit 2635
/DAVID C PAYNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights