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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, see Page 8, Section I. CLAIM OBJECTIONS, filed 06/26/2026, with respect to claims 3, 8 and 20 have been fully considered and are acknowledged. The objection to claim 3 in Office Action of 04/01/2026 has been withdrawn, and the objection to claims 8 and 20 is maintained.
Applicant’s amendments, see Pages 8-9, Section II. REJECTION OF CLAIMS 10-12, 14 AND 16 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), filed 06/26/2026, with respect to claims 10-12, 14 and 16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of said claims in Office Action of 04/01/2026 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference US-2011/0255077-A1.
Applicant’s amendments, see Pages , filed 06/26/2026, with respect to claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of said claims in Office Action of 04/01/2026 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection for claims 13 and 15 is made in view of newly found prior art reference US-2011/0255077-A1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 10-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10-13, 15-16 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rogers (US 2011/0255077 A1).
Regarding independent Claim 10, Rogers discloses a cable identification system, comprising:
a laser pulse generator (Figure 5; [0057] “a laser 14 controlled by pulsing circuitry 60”) connected to a first optical-fiber cable segment (Figure 5; [0057] “sensor fibre 10”) and configured to emit laser pulses into the first optical-fiber cable segment (Figure 5; [0057] “two different launch state polarisations can be used as successive pulses of otherwise identical probe light to be launched into the sensor fibre”); and
a polarization detection device (Figure 5; [0057] “detector 20”) connected to the first optical-fiber cable segment (Figure 5; [0057] “sensor fibre 10”) and configured to make one or more determinations (Figure 5; [0059] “determination of a profile of a parameter indicative of environmental influence 24”; [0002] “environmental influences such as static pressure, temperature, mechanical movement, and vibration”) relating to a relationship (a physical relationship would be implicit between two connected sensor fibre segments) between the first optical-fiber cable segment (Figure 5; [0057] “sensor fibre 10”) and a second optical-fiber cable segment ([0069] “The sensor fibre may be made up of multiple joined segments”, implying a second segment) based upon backscattered light received from the first optical-fiber cable segment (Figure 5; [0058] “probe light backscattered from the sensor fibre”).
Regarding Claim 11, Rogers discloses the cable identification system of claim 10, wherein the polarization detection device (Figure 5; [0057] “detector 20”) is configured to:
determine a first measure of polarization (Figure 5; [0051] “detector 20 or analyser 22 may select for further analysis, or discard, the retardation beat frequency signal from one or more launch polarisation states”, wherein “retardation beat frequency signal from one or more launch polarisation states” is interpreted as comprising a first measure of polarization) based upon first backscattered light received (Figure 5; [0058] “probe light backscattered from the sensor fibre”) from the first optical-fiber cable segment (Figure 5; [0057] “sensor fibre 10”); and
determine a second measure of polarization (Figure 5; [0051] “detector 20 or analyser 22 may select for further analysis, or discard, the retardation beat frequency signal from one or more launch polarisation states”, wherein “retardation beat frequency signal from one or more launch polarisation states” is interpreted as comprising a second measure of polarization) based upon second backscattered light received (Figure 5; [0058] “probe light backscattered from the sensor fibre”) from the first optical-fiber cable segment (Figure 5; [0057] “sensor fibre 10”).
Regarding Claim 12, Rogers discloses the cable identification system of claim 11, wherein:
the one or more determinations (Figure 5; [0059] “determination of a profile of a parameter indicative of environmental influence 24”; [0002] “environmental influences such as static pressure, temperature, mechanical movement, and vibration”) comprise determining whether the first optical-fiber cable segment (Figure 5; [0057] “sensor fibre 10”) is connected to the second optical-fiber cable segment ([0069] “The sensor fibre may be made up of multiple joined segments”, implying a second segment) based upon the first measure of polarization (Figure 5; [0051] “the retardation beat frequency signal from one or more launch polarisation states” is interpreted as comprising a first measure of polarization) and the second measure of polarization (Figure 5; [0051] “the retardation beat frequency signal from one or more launch polarisation states” is interpreted as comprising a second measure of polarization).
Regarding Claim 13, Rogers discloses the cable identification system of claim 11, wherein:
a message is generated (Figure 5; [0037] “Derived data relating to … the one or more environmental influences may be displayed by the analyser 22”) based upon the first measure of polarization (Figure 5; [0051] “the retardation beat frequency signal from one or more launch polarisation states” is interpreted as comprising a first measure of polarization) and the second measure of polarization (Figure 5; [0051] “the retardation beat frequency signal from one or more launch polarisation states” is interpreted as comprising a second measure of polarization).
Regarding Claim 15, Rogers discloses the cable identification system of claim 11, wherein the polarization detection device comprises:
a polarization splitter (Figure 5; [0059] “a polarisation beam splitter 90”) configured to split the first backscattered light ([0059] “The beam splitter divides the conditioned backscattered probe light”), received from the first optical-fiber cable segment (Figure 5; [0058] “probe light backscattered from the sensor fibre”), into first X-polarized light and first Y-polarized light ([0059] “into two orthogonal polarisations”);
a first photo-detector (Figure 5; [0059] “first and second photodetectors 92, 94 respectively”) configured to sense the first X-polarized light received (Figure 5; [0059] “two orthogonal polarisations which are then passed to first and second photodetectors 92, 94 respectively”) from the polarization splitter (Figure 5; [0059] “a polarisation beam splitter 90”);
a second photo-detector (Figure 5; [0059] “first and second photodetectors 92, 94 respectively”) configured to sense the first Y-polarized light received (Figure 5; [0059] “two orthogonal polarisations which are then passed to first and second photodetectors 92, 94 respectively”) from the polarization splitter (Figure 5; [0059] “a polarisation beam splitter 90”); and
a processor (Figure 5; [0059] “signal processing element 96”) configured to determine the first measure of polarization (Figure 5; [0051] “detector 20 or analyser 22 may select for further analysis, or discard, the retardation beat frequency signal from one or more launch polarisation states”, wherein “retardation beat frequency signal from one or more launch polarisation states” is interpreted as comprising a first measure of polarization) based upon a first signal from the first photo-detector and a second signal from the second photo-detector (Figure 5; [0059] “signals from the photodetectors are then stored and/or processed further at signal processing element 96, before passing to analyser element 22”).
Regarding Claim 16, Rogers discloses the cable identification system of claim 10, comprising:
an optical circulator (Figure 5; [0058] “circulator 78”) connected to the laser pulse generator (Figure 5; [0057] “a laser 14 controlled by pulsing circuitry 60”), the first optical-fiber cable segment (Figure 5; [0057] “sensor fibre 10”), and the polarization detection device (Figure 5; [0057] “detector 20”), wherein the optical circulator is configured to:
conduct laser pulses from the laser pulse generator to the first optical-fiber cable segment (Figure 5; [0058] “The two pulses of probe light are passed, at different times, into a beam combiner 70 which forms a part of a polarisation processing unit (PPU) 72. The output from the PPU 72 is amplified at a first erbium doped fibre amplifier 74, and conditioned using a first dense wave division multiplexing filter 76, before being injected into a fibre optic link 80 using circulator 78. The fibre optic link 80 carries the successive pulses of probe light having two different launch state polarisations to the sensor fibre 10”); and
conduct backscattered light from the first optical-fiber cable segment to the polarization detection device (Figure 5; [0058] “probe light backscattered from the sensor fibre, which is routed through the circulator 78 and into detector 20”).
Regarding Claim 21, Rogers discloses the cable identification system of claim 11, wherein the polarization detection device comprises:
a polarization splitter (Figure 5; [0059] “a polarisation beam splitter 90”) configured to split the first backscattered light ([0059] “The beam splitter divides the conditioned backscattered probe light”), received from the first optical-fiber cable segment (Figure 5; [0058] “probe light backscattered from the sensor fibre”), into first X-polarized light and first Y-polarized light ([0059] “into two orthogonal polarisations”).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents 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.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers (US 2011/0255077 A1) in view of Chen et al. (US 2007/0046928 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Rogers discloses the cable identification system of claim 11, but does not specifically teach that the polarization detection device is configured to determine a first polarization change based upon the first measure of polarization and the second measure of polarization; and
the one or more determinations are made based upon whether the first polarization change is within a defined range of polarization changes.
However, Chen, in the same field of polarization optical time domain reflectometry, teaches that the polarization detection device (Figure 1: element 20 is an OTDR; [0039] “OTDR 20 can be … a POTDR apparatus which has polarization detection capability”) is configured to determine a first polarization change based upon the first measure of polarization and the second measure of polarization (Figure 2; [0044] “for a single trace (100 or 102), a change in the variation of intensity traces 100 and 102 exceeding 0.3 dB in less than 1 km of fiber path length indicates the starting point of a defectively high PMD section of fiber”); and
the one or more determinations ([0041] “to effect a polarization sensitive measurement”) are made based upon whether the first polarization change is within a defined range of polarization changes (Figure 3; [0049] “values of the absolute intensity variation difference trace 104 which are everywhere in the fiber (i.e. across the entire length of the fiber) less than 0.15 dB indicates that the particular fiber has acceptable PMD”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Rogers with the teachings of Chen, such that the polarization detection device is configured to determine a first polarization change based upon the first measure of polarization and the second measure of polarization; and the one or more determinations are made based upon whether the first polarization change is within a defined range of polarization changes, because “Such measurements can be employed to non-destructively determine whether the PMD of the fiber is above a predetermined threshold at some point along the length of the fiber without having to destroy the fiber.” (Chen, para 7)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-9, and 17-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent Claim 1, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a polarization disturbance device configured to induce a change in polarization of a second optical-fiber cable segment.
Claims 3-9 are dependent thereupon, and also included in the allowable subject matter.
Regarding independent Claim 17, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a cable support assembly connected to the plate and configured to support a first optical-fiber cable segment proximate the plate, wherein the cable support assembly comprises one or more cable support components attached to the plate and configured to support the first optical-fiber cable segment proximate the plate, and wherein the cable support assembly is configured to maintain the first optical-fiber cable segment in a coiled state comprising one or more windings wound around an axis that is orthogonal to a surface of the plate; and
a movement assembly configured to move the plate to change a position of the first optical-fiber cable segment from a first position to a second position, wherein the first position corresponds to a first angle of the plate relative to the base and the second position corresponds to a second angle of the plate relative to the base.
Claims 18-20 are dependent thereupon, and also included in the allowable subject matter.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-2011/0216996-A1 discloses a fibre optic sensing method and apparatus for determining location and direction information of disturbances occurring in the environment of a sensor optical fibre. The method comprises launching optical pulses into at least one polarization eigenmode of a polarization maintaining fibre as the sensor optical fibre, detecting temporal speckle patterns of light backscattered from the at least one polarization eigenmode of the fibre, and comparing the temporal speckle patterns to determine the location and direction information of a disturbance in the environment of the sensor optical fibre. The location information may be a distance along the fibre, and the direction information may be a direction radially from the axis of the fibre. The apparatus or instrument may be used to detect disturbance over long distances such as pipes, pipelines, or wells. Other applications include detecting intruders entering a controlled area.
US-2011/0149271-A1 discloses systems and methods for enhancing the resolution of an optical time-domain reflectometer (“OTDR”). One embodiment of the disclosure of this application is related to a device, comprising an optical measuring component collecting a first set of measurement data from a forward trace along an optical fiber with the optical measuring device using depolarized light, and a processing component calculating loss along the length of fiber. The optical measuring device further collects a second set of measurement data from a backward trace along the optical fiber with the optical measuring device using depolarized light.
US-2008/0225276-A1 discloses a method of simultaneously specifying the wavelength dispersion and nonlinear coefficient of an optical fiber. Pulsed probe light and pulsed pump light are first caused to enter an optical fiber to be measured. Then, the power oscillation of the back-scattered light of the probe light or idler light generated within the optical fiber is measured. Next, the instantaneous frequency of the measured power oscillation is obtained, and the dependency of the instantaneous frequency relative to the power oscillation of the pump light in a longitudinal direction of the optical fiber is obtained. Thereafter, a rate of change in the longitudinal direction between phase-mismatching conditions and nonlinear coefficient of the optical fiber is obtained from the dependency of the instantaneous frequency. And based on the rate of change, the longitudinal wavelength-dispersion distribution and longitudinal nonlinear-coefficient distribution of the optical fiber are simultaneously specified.
US-2006/0285105-A1 discloses a polarized lightwave reflectometry method including the steps of sending at least two polarized light signals into the optical fiber to be tested, the signals presenting a determined angular offset relative to each other so that the polarization mode dispersion coefficient remains independent of any rotation of polarization in the optical fiber under test; extracting a scalar parameter of the relative noise type for each trace obtained by back-scattering of the light signal; and estimating the polarization mode dispersion coefficient by a function having a single scalar input, which function is of the type based on exponentials and has the form exp (a+bP+cP−1).
US-2004/0084611-A1 discloses a method for screening fiber polarization mode dispersion using a polarization optical time domain reflectometer. A pulse radiation is emitted into the fiber under test, and the backscattered radiation is measured by the POTDR and used to obtain a POTDR trace. The POTDR trace is then analyzed to compare the variation of signals along the length of the fiber, the variation in signals relating to the level of PMD along the length of the fiber. Because high levels of PMD correspond to localized levels of low variability, by setting the variability of signal threshold sufficiently low, fibers having unacceptably high localized PMD can be identified and removed.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Akbar H Rizvi whose telephone number is (571) 272-5085. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 am - 6:30 pm.
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 R 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.
/AKBAR H. RIZVI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights