CTNF 18/923,170 CTNF 83973 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 12 is 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. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 12 recites the limitation " OLG " in line 3 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of this action, OLG is interpreted as a typo for OLT. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-4, 11-16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2025/0253944 A1 to Wey et al. and United States Patent Application Publication 2023/0087839 A1 to Yokokura et al . Regarding Claim 1 , Wey discloses an apparatus, comprising a polarization sensing element coupled to an optical receiver in a passive optical network ( Fig. 1, PON (100); ¶ 40, DSP processes received data signal and analyzes variability of the state of polarization ) (PON), the polarization sensing element configured to extract polarization-dependent information from a received optical signal and monitor the extracted polarization-dependent information to recognize changes in polarization ( Fig. 1, PON (100); ¶ 40, DSP processes received data signal and analyzes variability of the state of polarization ), generating therefrom a fault message indicative of abnormalities in fiber spans within an optical distribution network (ODN) of the PON used to transmit optical signals to the optical receiver ( Fig. 5A, ONU transmits alert to OLT of PON (Fig. 1, 100); which indicate physical issues or damage to the fiber, ¶ 40 .) Wey does not expressly disclose recognizing changes in polarization above a defined threshold. Yokokura discloses another system that monitors polarization variation and issues an alarm when the variation exceeds a specified threshold ( ¶ 36 ). Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize changes in polarization above a defined threshold (as disclosed by Yokokura ) in the system disclosed by Wey . The suggestion/motivation would have been to ignore transient or small impairments and only issue an alarm when a significant polarization event occurs. Wey and Yokokura are from the same art with respect to optical communication, and are therefore analogous art. Regarding Claim 2 , Wey discloses wherein the fault message is indicative of physical changes in a fiber span itself as well as environmental changes surrounding the fiber span such as vibrational and temperature changes ( ¶ 13, changes in polarization indicate adverse environmental issues .) Regarding Claim 3 , Wey discloses wherein the polarization sensing element is coupled to an optical network unit (ONU) optical receiver and used to recognize polarization changes in a downstream transmission from an optical line terminal (OLT) to the ONU ( Fig. 1, sensing element in each ONU (115-1 thru 115-N) analyzes optical signal from OLT (135) ). Regarding Claim 4 , Wey discloses wherein the fault message generated by the ONU polarization sensing element is provided as an input to an optical transmitter at the ONU for upstream transmission to the OLT ( Fig. 5A, 515, ONU transmits alert to OLT ). Regarding Claim 11 , Wey discloses an apparatus, comprising: a plurality of polarization sensing elements, each polarization sensing element associated with a separate optical network unit (ONU) optical receiver of a passive optical network (PON) in a one-to-one relationship ( Fig. 1, PON (100); ¶ 40, DSP in each ONU processes received data signal and analyzes variability of the state of polarization ), each polarization sensing element configured to extract polarization-dependent information from a received optical signal and monitor the extracted polarization-dependent information to recognize changes in polarization ( Fig. 1, PON (100); ¶ 40, DSP processes received data signal and analyzes variability of the state of polarization ), generating therefrom a fault message indicative of abnormalities in fiber spans within an optical distribution network (ODN) of the PON used to transmit optical signals from an optical line terminal (OLT) to the associated ONU optical receiver ( Fig. 5A, ONU transmits alert to OLT of PON (Fig. 1, 100); which indicate physical issues or damage to the fiber, ¶ 40 .) Wey does not expressly disclose recognizing changes in polarization above a defined threshold. Yokokura discloses another system that monitors polarization variation and issues an alarm when the variation exceeds a specified threshold ( ¶ 36 ). Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize changes in polarization above a defined threshold (as disclosed by Yokokura ) in the system disclosed by Wey . The suggestion/motivation would have been to ignore transient or small impairments and only issue an alarm when a significant polarization event occurs. Regarding Claim 12 , Wey discloses wherein a fault message generated by one or more polarization sensing elements of the plurality of polarization sensing elements is transmitted upstream to the OLG as an ODN maintenance message ( Fig. 5A, 515, ONU transmits alert to OLT ). Regarding Claim 13 , Wey discloses wherein the OLT is configured to analyze the fault message received from one or more polarization sensing elements and ascertain therefrom an identity of a specific fiber span within the ODN experiencing abnormal functionality ( Fig. 5B, analysis of fault message to determine which fiber is affected .) Regarding Claim 14 , Wey discloses a method of monitoring optical fiber spans within an ODN, comprising identifying one or more PON receivers for use in monitoring the ODN; locating a polarization sensing element at each identified PON receiver; and at each identified PON receiver, monitoring changes in polarization of a received optical signal ( Fig. 1, PON (100); ¶ 40, DSP in each ONU processes received data signal and analyzes variability of the state of polarization ); and generating a fault message when polarization changes, the fault message indicative of an abnormal condition at a fiber span along a signal path through the ODN to the identified PON receiver ( Fig. 5A, ONU transmits alert to OLT of PON (Fig. 1, 100); which indicate physical issues or damage to the fiber, ¶ 40 .) Wey does not expressly disclose generating a fault message when polarization changes become greater that a defined noise threshold. Yokokura discloses another system that monitors polarization variation and generates a fault message when polarization changes become greater that a defined noise threshold ( ¶ 36 ). Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize changes in polarization above a defined threshold (as disclosed by Yokokura ) in the system disclosed by Wey . The suggestion/motivation would have been to ignore transient or small impairments and only issue an alarm when a significant polarization event occurs. Regarding Claim 15 , Wey discloses identifying a plurality of ONU receivers as the one or more PON receivers; and transmitting generated fault messages upstream through the ODN to a monitoring element at the OLT, including an identification of the transmitting ONU receiver within the fault message ( Fig. 5B, ¶ 46 .) Regarding Claim 16 , Wey discloses wherein the generated fault messages are transmitted as physical layer operation and maintenance message from the identified ONU receiver to the OLT ( ¶ OMCI Alarm is a PLOAM message .) Regarding Claim 19 , Wey discloses analyzing, at an OLT, a number of individual ONUs reporting a same fault message; and identifying a particular fiber span exhibiting abnormal behavior based upon a plurality of signal paths coupling the individual ONUs to the OLT ( Fig. 5B .) Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 5-10, 17-18, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL G DOBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9781. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST. 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, Kenneth Vanderpuye can be reached at 5712723078. 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. /DANIEL G DOBSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634 06/12/2026 Application/Control Number: 18/923,170 Page 2 Art Unit: 2634 Application/Control Number: 18/923,170 Page 3 Art Unit: 2634 Application/Control Number: 18/923,170 Page 4 Art Unit: 2634 Application/Control Number: 18/923,170 Page 5 Art Unit: 2634 Application/Control Number: 18/923,170 Page 6 Art Unit: 2634 Application/Control Number: 18/923,170 Page 7 Art Unit: 2634
Prosecution Insights