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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 1 is drawn to a program itself which can be considered as a signal per se. Specifically, it appears as though claim 1 is intended to be a computer readable medium claim. However the claim in question fails to have the medium clearly claimed and even further so that said medium is non-transitory. As such the claim for these reasons alone is not patent eligible. The examiner notes that the same logic applies to claim 13. Claim 13 although dependent from claim 7 as noted below is also not patent eligible, since 7 is patent eligible, adding what is effectively a signal in claim 13 is likewise ineligible.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites " A program configured to cause a computer to operate as an information processing apparatus comprising a controller configured to" which comprising steps of " acquire a waveform representing a temporal variation of returned light of pulsed light incident on an optical fiber; detect, based on the waveform, an event in the optical fiber; and cause the waveform and a pattern indicating the detected event to be displayed on a display, wherein the controller is configured to cause, as the pattern, an image including an indication of a travel direction of the pulsed light to be displayed on the display". Therefore, it is a process.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Judicial exception recited? Yes. Each limitation as recited in the claim, is a process that, under BRI covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic "controller" which is a mere indication of the field of use. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of a generic technical system does not take the claim limitation out of mental process grouping. Thus the claim recites a mental process.
Each limitation as recited in claim, is a process that, under its broadest limitation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic "controller" which is a mere indication of the field of use. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of a generic technical system does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping.
2A-Prong 2: Integrated into a practical application? No.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim when viewed alone or in combination recites data gathering such as "acquire a waveform representing a temporal variation of returned light of pulsed light incident on an optical fiber; detect, based on the waveform, an event in the optical fiber; and cause the waveform and a pattern indicating the detected event to be displayed on a display, wherein the controller is configured to cause, as the pattern, an image including an indication of a travel direction of the pulsed light to be displayed on the display".
Step 2B: No. The recited limitations " acquire a waveform representing a temporal variation of returned light of pulsed light incident on an optical fiber; detect, based on the waveform, an event in the optical fiber; and cause the waveform and a pattern indicating the detected event to be displayed on a display, wherein the controller is configured to cause, as the pattern, an image including an indication of a travel direction of the pulsed light to be displayed on the display" are merely data gathering. The recited "displaying on the display" are merely insignificant extra-solution activity and are merely data. A similar example being “a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);”, please see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). Such data has unlimited use which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Therefore, claim 1 is ineligible.
Similarly, claims 2-6 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7 recites "controller" which does not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the apparatus or medium to a particular environment, that is, implementation via an "controller. In other words, the apparatus and medium claims are no different from the reflectometer of claim 7 in substance; the method claim recites a mental process while the apparatus claim recites generic components configured to implement the same judicial exception. The claim do not amount to significantly more than the underlying mental process for the same reasons as applied above in claims 1-6.
Claims 8-13 depend from claim 7 and are rejected for the same reasons as claim 7 as the claims recite a judicial exception which is not integrated into a practical application nor provide an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roux et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2020/0072703 A1) in view of Leblanc et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2015/0198503 A1).
As to claims 1 and 7, Roux discloses and shows in figures 1 and 18, an optical time-domain reflectometer (100) configured to have pulsed light (via pulse generator 104) incident on an optical fiber (106) and measure a temporal variation of returned light, the optical time-domain reflectometer comprising a controller (108/116) configured to ([0046]; [0048]; [0049]; [0053]):
acquire a waveform (112) representing the temporal variation of the returned light ([0050]-[0051]);
detect, based on the waveform, an event (e.g. splice 1800) in the optical fiber ([0127]); and
cause the waveform and a pattern (as explicitly shown in figure 18, multiple patterns are shown to identify varying events) indicating the detected event to be displayed on a display (112) ([0127]),
Roux does provide some disclosure of patterns that identify the direction of pulsed light via a pattern. (Fig. 16, fig. 17; [0127]; shows in arrow on the left hand side, the waveform in the upper left hand corner also is a pattern showing one of ordinary skill in the art which direction the light travels, as light undergoes losses not amplification in OTDR, lastly the 0.00 measurement is a pattern defining the start point vs subsequent events in figure 17).
Merely for compact prosecution and to further provide evidence that such a pattern in known in the art.
Leblanc discloses and shows in figures 3B, 4A and 4C and in ([0036], ll. 1-4; [0053], ll. 7-18; [0060], ll. 7-11) a similar bi-directional OTDR system that uses the basic concept of using a controller (computer 16) to present the graphs in the noted figures with a pattern (i.e. identifier that shows via arrows linked to the data the direction of the light relative to the graph (i.e. the A-B or B-A identifier). Obviously this basic pattern of identification (direction with arrows) could be added to Figures 16-18 of Roux in order to more clearly identify the displayed data to a more junior OTDR user so that one could rapidly identify where the splices are relative to the users position.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Roux wherein the controller is configured to cause, as the pattern, an image including an indication of a travel direction of the pulsed light to be displayed on the display in order to provide the advantage of increased efficiency as providing simple arrow based identifiers near the events so the user knows what direction the event was detected in yields a more easy to use display interface for knowing how far from the user the event/issue resides. The examiner notes again that this information is already implied and easily deducible in multiple ways from the display techniques used in Roux, and merely adding arrows further details the display event data/patterns.
The subject matter of claims 7 and 1 relate in that the technical features of apparatus claim 7 are in each case suitable for implementing the method/program of claim 1, therefore the method is obvious in view of the above apparatus rejection.
As to claims 2 and 8, Roux discloses and shows in figure 16-18, an optical time-domain reflectometer, wherein the controller is configured to:
acquire a first waveform (shown in upper left hand corner of display in figure 16) representing a temporal variation of returned light of pulsed light incident in a first direction (i.e. from A to B) on the optical fiber ([0123]);
acquire a second waveform (shown in upper hand corner of display in figure 17) representing a temporal variation of returned light of pulsed light incident in a second direction (i.e. from B to A) on the optical fiber ([0124]);
detect, based on the first waveform, one or more first events that are events in the optical fiber (all events explicitly shown in figure 16 via icons/distances e.g. splice at 4936.66 m) ([0123]);
detect, based on the second waveform, one or more second events (all events explicitly shown in figure 17 via icons/distances e.g. splice at 610.10 m) that are events in the optical fiber ([0125]);
associate a first event detected and a second event detected at a same position as the first event with each other ([0127]); and
Roux as modified by Leblanc does not explicitly disclose where the first waveform, the second waveform, a pattern indicating the first and second events associated with each other, a pattern indicating a first event that is not associated with any second event, and a pattern indicating a second event that is not associated with any first event to be displayed on the display.
However, Roux does disclose in ([0127]) a combination of all the events/patterns associated with both sets of measurements from both OTDRs. Further obviously any event not present in one of the two event images of figures 16-17 would be present in the combined image. Lastly, it is obvious that the image of figure 18 is a simplified image not showing all the components/interface as shown in figures 16-17. As such obviously, the two waveforms explicitly shown in figures 16-17 could also likewise be shown in figure 18 to provide the predictable result of showing more detail on the fiber under test for the user to review.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Roux in view of Leblanc where the first waveform, the second waveform, a pattern indicating the first and second events associated with each other, a pattern indicating a first event that is not associated with any second event, and a pattern indicating a second event that is not associated with any first event to be displayed on the display in order to provide the advantage of increased accuracy as providing as much of the data to the user as possible yields the predictable result of informing said user of any measurement taken and any faults/events present in the sample fiber under test.
As to claims 3 and 9, Roux as modified by Leblanc discloses and shows in figure 18, an optical time-domain reflectometer, wherein the controller is configured to cause, as the pattern indicating the first and second events associated with each other, an image including an indication of the first and second directions to be displayed on the display ([0127], from Roux, and Figures 3B, 4B and 4D from Leblanc, the again obvious concept and for the same modification and motivation as noted above the likewise labeling of each of the first and second events with the appropriate directions of light travel and displaying them is likewise obvious).
As to claims 4 and 10, Roux discloses an optical time-domain reflectometer, wherein the controller is configured to: cause, as the pattern indicating the first event that is not associated with any second event, an image including an indication of the first direction to be displayed on the display (any event from Fig. 16 not found in Fig. 17, [0123]); and cause, as the pattern indicating the second event that is not associated with any first event, an image including an indication of the second direction to be displayed on the display (any event from Fig. 17 not found in Fig. 16) ([0125]).
As to claims 5 and 11, Roux as modified by Leblanc discloses an optical time-domain reflectometer wherein the controller is configured to cause the image including the indication of the first direction and the image including the indication of the second direction to be highlighted (shown via square around event at 4936.66 m in figure 16) and displayed on the display ([0127], from Roux, and Figures 3B, 4B and 4D from Leblanc, the again obvious concept and for the same modification and motivation as noted above the likewise labeling of each of the first and second events with the appropriate directions of light travel and displaying them is likewise obvious)..
As to claims 6 and 12, Roux discloses an optical time-domain reflectometer, wherein the controller is configured to cause at least one of a physical quantity (e.g. distance, loss, or reflectance) related to the event indicated by the pattern or a type of the event to be displayed in a vicinity of the pattern (explicitly shown in figures 16-18) ([0125]; [0127], ll. 6-12).
As to claim 13, A program configured to cause an optical time-domain reflectometer to operate as the optical time-domain reflectometer according to claim 7 ([0151]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P LAPAGE whose telephone number is (571)270-3833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5:30.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at 571-272-2287. 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 P LaPage/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877