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
The examiner notes, on page 6 of applicant’s response filed May 26, 2026, that the phrase “one or both of A or B” as found in the claims is intended to cover A only, B only, and both A and B. The examiner agrees with this interpretation of the phrase. However, the use of the phrase in conjunction with the amendments to claims 1 and 15 gives rise to issues under 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 112(d) for claims that depend from claims 1 and 15. These rejections can be found below. The examiner notes that new claim 28 also requires a 35 USC 112(d) rejection for reasons unrelated to the “one or both of A or B” phrasing.
The examiner agrees with applicant that the amendment to claim 12 overcomes the rejection of that claim under 35 USC 112(b) in the previous Office action mailed March 2, 2026. This rejection is hereby withdrawn.
The examiner agrees with applicant that the amendments to claims 1 and 15 and the addition of claim 27 are claims that are not anticipated or rendered unpatentable over the prior art. A statement as to the allowability of at least these claims can be found below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9, 13, 14, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As noted above, for this discussion, the phrase “one or both of A or B” as found in the claims is intended to cover A only, B only, and both A and B.
As for claim 9, the claim depends on claim 1. Claim 1 recites, in part, the limitations “one or both of the following: computing a dispersion-normalized attenuation constant for a fiber among the one or more fibers based on a logarithmic derivative of the scaled optical power with respect to the accumulated chromatic dispersion; or identifying a fiber type based on a logarithmic derivative of the scaled optical power with respect to the accumulated chromatic dispersion”. Claim 9 further limits claim 1 to comprise “identifying the fiber type based on the logarithmic derivative of the scaled optical power with respect to the accumulated chromatic dispersion.” As a result, claim 9 is unclear for the situation where claim 1 requires either just the identifying limitation, or both the computing and the identifying limitations. In those instances, does that mean that claim 9 is repeating the identifying limitation that has already been performed? Clarification is required.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 9, thereby containing all the limitations of the claim on which they depend.
As for claim 21, the claim depends on claim 15. Claim 15 recites, in part, the limitations “one or both of the following: compute a dispersion-normalized attenuation constant for a fiber among the one or more fibers based on a logarithmic derivative of the scaled optical power with respect to the accumulated chromatic dispersion; or identify a fiber type based on a logarithmic derivative of the scaled optical power with respect to the accumulated chromatic dispersion.” Claim 21 further limits claim 15 to state that the processing circuitry is further configured to “compute the dispersion-normalized attenuation constant for the fiber among the one or more fibers based on the logarithmic derivative of the scaled optical power with respect to the accumulated chromatic dispersion.” As a result, claim 21 is unclear for the situation where claim 15 requires either just the computing limitation, or both the computing and the identifying limitations. In those instances, does that mean that claim 21 is repeating the computing limitation that has already been performed? Clarification is required.
As for claim 22, the claim depends on claim 15. Claim 15 recites, in part, the limitations “one or both of the following: compute a dispersion-normalized attenuation constant for a fiber among the one or more fibers based on a logarithmic derivative of the scaled optical power with respect to the accumulated chromatic dispersion; or identify a fiber type based on a logarithmic derivative of the scaled optical power with respect to the accumulated chromatic dispersion.” Claim 22 further limits claim 15 to state that the processing circuitry is further configured to “identify the fiber type based on the logarithmic derivative of the scaled optical power with respect to the accumulated chromatic dispersion.” As a result, claim 22 is unclear for the situation where claim 15 requires either just the identifying limitation, or both the computing and the identifying limitations. In those instances, does that mean that claim 22 is repeating the identifying limitation that has already been performed? Clarification is required.
As for claim 23, the claim depends on claim 1. Claim 1 recites, in part, the limitations “one or both of the following: computing a dispersion-normalized attenuation constant for a fiber among the one or more fibers based on a logarithmic derivative of the scaled optical power with respect to the accumulated chromatic dispersion; or identifying a fiber type based on a logarithmic derivative of the scaled optical power with respect to the accumulated chromatic dispersion”. Claim 23 further limits claim 1 to comprise “computing the dispersion-normalized attenuation constant for the fiber among the one or more fibers based on the logarithmic derivative of the scaled optical power with respect to the accumulated chromatic dispersion.” As a result, claim 23 is unclear for the situation where claim 1 requires either just the computing limitation, or both the computing and the identifying limitations. In those instances, does that mean that claim 23 is repeating the computing limitation that has already been performed? Clarification is required.
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 23, thereby containing all the limitations of the claim on which they depend.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 9, 21-23, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
As noted above, for this discussion, the phrase “one or both of A or B” as found in the claims is intended to cover A only, B only, and both A and B.
As for claim 9, the claim depends on claim 1. Claim 1 recites, in part, the limitations “one or both of the following: computing a dispersion-normalized attenuation constant for a fiber among the one or more fibers based on a logarithmic derivative of the scaled optical power with respect to the accumulated chromatic dispersion; or identifying a fiber type based on a logarithmic derivative of the scaled optical power with respect to the accumulated chromatic dispersion”. Claim 9 repeats the limitation of claim 1 that sets forth “identifying the fiber type based on the logarithmic derivative of the scaled optical power with respect to the accumulated chromatic dispersion.” As a result, claim 9 fails to further limit claim 1 due to the repetition of the identifying step, especially in a scenario where the selection of claim 1 is either the identifying step alone or the computing and identifying step together. By repeating a limitation already found in claim 1, claim 9 cannot be seen to further limit claim 1.
As for claim 21, the claim depends on claim 15. Claim 15 recites, in part, the limitations “one or both of the following: compute a dispersion-normalized attenuation constant for a fiber among the one or more fibers based on a logarithmic derivative of the scaled optical power with respect to the accumulated chromatic dispersion; or identify a fiber type based on a logarithmic derivative of the scaled optical power with respect to the accumulated chromatic dispersion.” Claim 21 further limits claim 15 to state that the processing circuitry is further configured to “compute the dispersion-normalized attenuation constant for the fiber among the one or more fibers based on the logarithmic derivative of the scaled optical power with respect to the accumulated chromatic dispersion.” As a result, claim 21 fails to further limit claim 15 due to the repetition of the computing function, especially in a scenario where the selection of claim 15 is either the computing function alone or the computing and identifying function together. By repeating a limitation already found in claim 15, claim 21 cannot be seen to further limit claim 15.
As for claim 22, the claim depends on claim 15. Claim 15 recites, in part, the limitations “one or both of the following: compute a dispersion-normalized attenuation constant for a fiber among the one or more fibers based on a logarithmic derivative of the scaled optical power with respect to the accumulated chromatic dispersion; or identify a fiber type based on a logarithmic derivative of the scaled optical power with respect to the accumulated chromatic dispersion.” Claim 22 further limits claim 15 to state that the processing circuitry is further configured to “identify the fiber type based on the logarithmic derivative of the scaled optical power with respect to the accumulated chromatic dispersion.” As a result, claim 22 fails to further limit claim 15 due to the repetition of the identifying function, especially in a scenario where the selection of claim 15 is either the identifying function alone or the computing and identifying function together. By repeating a limitation already found in claim 15, claim 22 cannot be seen to further limit claim 15.
As for claim 23, the claim depends on claim 1. Claim 1 recites, in part, the limitations “one or both of the following: computing a dispersion-normalized attenuation constant for a fiber among the one or more fibers based on a logarithmic derivative of the scaled optical power with respect to the accumulated chromatic dispersion; or identifying a fiber type based on a logarithmic derivative of the scaled optical power with respect to the accumulated chromatic dispersion”. Claim 23 further limits claim 1 to comprise “computing the dispersion-normalized attenuation constant for the fiber among the one or more fibers based on the logarithmic derivative of the scaled optical power with respect to the accumulated chromatic dispersion.” As a result, claim 23 fails to further limit claim 1 due to the repetition of the computing step, especially in a scenario where the selection of claim 1 is either the computing step alone or the computing and identifying step together. By repeating a limitation already found in claim 1, claim 23 cannot be seen to further limit claim 1.
As for claim 28, the claim recites the further limitation of claim 12, and states “identifying a fiber type based on the second wavelength independent metric m2.” However, claim 12 already recites “identifying the fiber type based on the second wavelength independent metric m2.” As a result, claim 28 repeats the limitation found in claim 12, and therefore cannot further limit the claim on which it depends. Should claim 28 depend on claim 27?
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 10-12, 15, and 26-27 are allowed in view of the prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claims 1 and 15, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method (claim 1) and an apparatus comprising processing circuitry (claim 15), the method and apparatus being allowable for the reasons given in the previous Office action of record mailed March 2, 2026 with regard to original claim 9, in combination with the rest of the limitation of the above claim.
As to claim 27, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method, the method being allowable for the reason given in the previous Office action of record mailed March 2, 2026 with regard to original claim 11, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael A. Lyons whose telephone number is (571)272-2420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. 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.
/Michael A Lyons/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 July 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights