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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 20, “wave form” should be –waveform-- to be consistent throughout the claim. Claim 7 requires the same change for consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-7 and 9-13 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, 9 and 16-18, 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 first waveform (112 from figure 16) representing the temporal variation of the returned light of a first pulsed light the first pulsed light being injected by an optical time-domain reflectometer (as disclosed the OTDR device at location A) in a first direction from a first end of an optical fiber and the returned light of the first pulsed light being detected by the optical time-domain reflectometer at the first end of the optical fiber ([0050]-[0051]; [0123]);
automatically acquire a second waveform (112 from figure 17) representing a temporal variation of returned light of a second pulsed light, the second pulsed light being injected by the optical time-domain reflectometer(as disclosed the OTDR device at location B) in a second direction from a second end of the optical fiber and the returned light of the second pulsed light being detected by the optical time-domain reflectometer at the second end of the optical fiber ([0050]-[0051]; [0124]);
detect, based on the first waveform, one or more of first events (e.g. splice 1800) in the optical fiber ([0127]); and
detect, based on the second waveform, one or more second events (e.g. splice 1800 measured from other direction, but also Roux explicitly discloses “optical events”) in the optical fiber ([0127])
Roux does not explicitly disclose to cause the first waveform and the second waveform and a pattern indicating the detected events to be displayed as a single image on a display or wherein the controller is configured to cause, for each of the first events that are not associated with the second events, the second events that are not associated with the first events, and the first and second events that are associated with each other, an image including an indication of a travel direction of the pulsed light as a pattern, superimposed at each of all positions in the waveform of the return light at which events are detected, to be displayed on the display.
However, Leblanc does disclose and show in figure 3A-B and in ([0053]) the use of an image (Fig. 3B) that overlaps a set of first events with second events (represented by circles and squares representing exaggerated loss and apparent gains) of two OTDR signals travelling in opposite directions (A to B and B to A) on the same fiber line under test. Obviously this figure is intended to be displayed as is done in the noted figures to relay to a human user the information analyzed. Roux further provides evidence in ([0127]) a combination of all the events/patterns associated with both sets of measurements from both OTDRs.
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 to cause the first waveform and the second waveform and a pattern indicating the detected events to be displayed as a single image on a display or wherein the controller is configured to cause, for each of the first events that are not associated with the second events, the second events that are not associated with the first events, and the first and second events that are associated with each other, an image including an indication of a travel direction of the pulsed light as a pattern, superimposed at each of all positions in the waveform of the return light at which events are detected, to be displayed on the display in order to provide the advantage of increased efficiency as explicitly noted in Leblanc such a graph becomes more clear as it allows for cancelling bias introduced by different backscattering characteristics.
Roux in view of Leblanc does not explicitly disclose where all of the claimed steps are done “automatically”.
However, firstly both Roux and Leblanc are computer based implementations of the testing methodology claimed. As such it is implied that some level of the actions takin within their respective disclosure are automated. Merely for compact prosecution the examiner further points out that automating a manual activity is within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958).
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 with automating the steps as claimed in order to provided the advantage of expected results and increased efficiency as obviously automating any series of steps reduces time required to perform said steps in a predictable and well-known manner.
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 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, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program configured to cause an optical time-domain reflectometer to operate as the optical time-domain reflectometer according to claim 7 ([0151]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner does in part agree with applicant’s argument that in figures 4A and 4C, that individual images are used to correlate the optical evens of the bi-direction OTDR measurements. However, the rejection as a whole is still maintained as applicant is responsible for the reference as a whole. Specifically figures 3A-B explicitly show the feature which applicant has claimed as novel. Specifically as reproduced below, Leblanc explicitly discloses the use of a single image to show the overlapping of both waveforms in a manner in which one can deduce optical evens by correlation between said waveforms. As such the rejection has been maintained.
PNG
media_image1.png
660
1062
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action (specifically the shifting of which reference taught which features). 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 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
Prosecution Insights