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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Amendment
The amendment filed on 07/28/2026 has been entered into this application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a remote monitoring device” within the claim(s).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yanagimachi (2022/0303039 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 18 and 19, Yanagimachi discloses an optical fiber monitoring system/method is included in an optical network system 1 in (figs. 1-15) comprising:
a multi-core optical fiber is an optical fiber including a plurality of cores, in which a pair of cores is designated/assigned as a core pair from among the plurality of cores of the (i.e. multi-core optical fibers 207), and to which a plurality of the core pairs are allocated as transmitting and receiving core pairs, as can be seen in depicted drawing (figs. 12-14) (see abstract) [pars. 0009-11, 0016, 0030-32]; and
a remote monitoring device an optical network management device 100 configured to acquire/obtain/extract a monitoring result indicating a state of the optical fiber by use of monitoring light/signal(s) for each of the core pairs of the (i.e. multi-core optical fibers 207) [pars. 0070-71], wherein
the remote monitoring device optical network management device 100 acquires/obtain/extract, according to a first monitoring result/output being the monitoring result of a first core pair included in the plurality of core pairs, a second monitoring result indicating a state of a second core pair being another core pair according to monitor information which has been received from the monitor 210 [pars. 0073] and/or in accordance with an attribute of the path, a wavelength to which the path is to be assigned, the multi-core optical fiber having an optical amplifier attached thereto (see abstract) [pars. 0013, 0015-17 and 0044].
For the purpose of clarity, the method claim 18 is taught/suggested by the functions shown/stated/set forth with regards to the system claim 1 as rejected above as being anticipated by Yanagimachi. The structure recited in claim 19 is symmetrical to the structure recited in claim 1, as such, claim 19 is rejected above as being anticipated by Yanagimachi.
As to claims 2-5 and 20, Yanagimachi also discloses a structure that is use in optical fiber monitoring system that is implementing limitations such as, wherein the remote monitoring device optical network management device 100 include transponders 202 [pars. 0070, 0072, 0085] includes an optical transmitter/receiver configured to transmit the monitoring light/signal(s) to one core of a selected core pair, and receive return light of the monitoring light/signal(s) from another core of the selected core pair is assigns a path from a transmitting node to a receiving node in an optical network system including a multi-core optical fiber [pars. 0011, 0016], and the monitoring result/outputs from cores [pars. 0071-72] includes information indicating whether a path through which the monitoring light/signal(s) propagates is normal/efficient/desired/ a band, a distance, a level of importance, a type, [pars. 0018, 0044, 0102] or abnormal (claims 2 and 20);
wherein the monitoring result/outputs from cores includes information of at least one of presence or absence of attributes of the path (i.e. breaking of a path through which the monitoring light and the return light propagate, and a loss [pars. 0041, 0057, 0080, 0102] (claim 3);
wherein, when the first monitoring result/outputs from cores indicates normality/efficiency/type/band of the path, the remote monitoring device optical network management device 100 selects the second core pair from another optical fiber not including the first core pair is included in the path assignment section (12) that is control by optical network management device 100 [pars. 0042-45] (claim 4); and wherein, when the first monitoring result/output indicates normality/efficiency/type/band of the path, the remote monitoring device optical network management device 100, includes the path assignment section (12) that is control by optical network management device 100 [pars. 0042-45] selects the second core pair that is included in multicores from another optical fiber not including the first core pair [pars. 0042-45] (claim 5).
As to claims 6-8, Yanagimachi also discloses a structure that is use in optical fiber monitoring system that is implementing limitations such as, wherein, when the first monitoring result/outputs from cores [pars. 0071-72] indicates normality/efficiency/type/band of the path, the remote monitoring device optical network management device 100 includes the path assignment section (12) that is control by optical network management device 100 [pars. 0042-45] selects the second core pair from a core pair from the multicores in which crosstalk of the monitoring light/signal(s) with the first core pair is smaller [pars. 0011, 0016] (claim 6); and wherein, when the first monitoring result/outputs from cores [pars. 0071-72] indicates normality/efficiency/type/band of the path, the remote monitoring device optical network management device 100 includes the path assignment section (12) that is control by optical network management device 100 [pars. 0042-45] selects the second core pair from a core pair in which crosstalk of the monitoring light/signal(s) with the first core pair is smaller [pars. 0011, 0016, 0063-64] (claims 7 and 8).
As to claims 9-13, Yanagimachi also discloses a structure that is use in optical fiber monitoring system that is implementing limitations such as, wherein, when the first monitoring result/outputs from cores indicates abnormality (i.e. crosstalk between the cores) of the path, the remote monitoring device optical network management device 100 includes the path assignment section (12) that is control by optical network management device 100 [pars. 0042-45] selects the second core pair from another core pair of an optical fiber including the first core pair from the multicores [pars. 0063-64] (claim 9, 10 and 11); and wherein, when the first monitoring result/outputs from cores [pars. 0071-72] indicates abnormality (i.e. crosstalk between the cores) of the path, the remote monitoring device optical network management device 100 includes the path assignment section (12) that is control by optical network management device 100 [pars. 0042-45] selects the second core pair from another optical fiber not including the second core pair from the multicores [pars. 0063-64] (claims 12 and 13).
As to claims 14-15, Yanagimachi also discloses a structure that is use in optical fiber monitoring system that is implementing limitations such as, wherein, when the first monitoring result/outputs from cores [pars. 0071-72] indicates abnormality (i.e. crosstalk between the cores) of the path, the remote monitoring device optical network management device 100 includes the path assignment section (12) that is control by optical network management device 100 [pars. 0042-45] selects the second core pair from another core pair from the multicores [pars. 0063-64] to which a component shared with the first core pair is connected as can be seen in depicted drawing (figs. 1, and 7-14) (claim 14 and 15).
As to claim 16, Yanagimachi also discloses a structure that is use in optical fiber monitoring system that is implementing limitations such as, wherein the first core pair and the second core pair that is included in the multicores [pars. 0063-64] share an excitation light source devices that provide specific wavelengths of light of an optical amplifier optical amplifier 105 to be used in each of the core pairs of the multicores (see abstract) [pars. 0009-10, 0013-15, 0052-53].
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) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagimachi (2022/0303039 A1) in view of Harker et al. (2021/0396927 A1).
As to claim 17, Yanagimachi teaches of the features of claim 17 as applied to 1, comprising an excitation light source devices that provide specific wavelengths of light [par. 0041] of an optical amplifier optical amplifier 105 to be used in each of the core pairs of the multicores (see abstract) [pars. 0009-10, 0013-15, 0052-53]. Yanagimachi also teaches of uncoupled multi-core optical fibers and coupled multi-core optical fibers [pars. 0062-65].
Yanagimachi fail to explicitly specify wherein the excitation light source devices that provide specific wavelengths of light includes a plurality of light emitting elements, decouples and couples excitation light being output from the light emitting element, and supplies the excitation light to the optical amplifier connected to each of a plurality of core pairs.
Harker from the same field of endeavor teaches of optical fiber/fibres testing equipment typically uses various type of light source(s) such as an incandescent bulb or a visible spectrum light emitting diode (LED) as its optical source to provide …. test light for launch into a fibre(s) under test (Harker, [pars. 0042, 0063]) in order to test splices or flaws in the fibre(s) structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Yanagimachi as desired appropriate such as in the manner set forth in applicant’s claim 17, in view of the teaching of Harker in order to test splices or flaws in the fibre(s) structure, since the propose modification of the prior art would not change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, and since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CC1954).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/remarks, (see pages 6-7), filed on 16 March 2007, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments:
a) Applicant argues that Specifically, Yanagimachi fails to disclose "a remote monitoring device configured to acquire a monitoring result indicating a state of the optical fiber by use of monitoring light for each of the core pairs," as set forth in the pending claim 1.
Applicant argues that …., Yanagimachi fails to disclose "the remote monitoring device acquires, according to a first monitoring result being the monitoring result of a first core pair included in the plurality of core pairs, a second monitoring result indicating a state of a second core pair being another core pair," as further recited in claim 1.
Examiner's response:
With respect to argument (a), it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that this/these argument(s) is/are not persuasive because the teachings or suggestions of the prior art that have been used as evidence within a rejection of the claimed invention in view of the prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103, as set forth by the Court, are to be evaluated and determined not just from one or more specifically identified quotes to individual sections of the text of the prior art document but are in fact to be evaluated and determined from all that the prior art document teaches or suggests, In re BODE et al, 193 USPQ 12 at 17 (CCPA, 1977), with some reliance on the knowledge of one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made in order to provide an enabling disclosure, In re BODE et al, 193 USPQ 12 at 16 (CCPA, 1977). In this case, optical network management device 100 discloses a system that is configured to transmit/receive signal/light from optical fiber core(s) multi-core optical fiber includes core pair(s). Transmission capacity of light for each of the core (core pairs) per optical fiber is an indicating state of the optical fiber core/core pairs. Therefore, each successful result acquired by the optical fiber for transmitting and/or receiving within a path/pair(s) of optical fiber cores for signal/light is indication of state of the optical fiber monitoring light for each of the optical fiber core, if the optical fiber is/are not damage, and is an indication of the optical fiber cores for monitoring light through the cores/path(s).
In conclusion, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that this/these argument(s) is/are not persuasive. Applicant has argued the patentability of dependent claims, based solely upon the patentability of independent claim(s), and has presented no additional arguments exclusively pertaining to the claims, since the applicant has not argued the examiner’s position about the rejection(s) regarding the dependent claims, in the previous Official action. The applicant has acquiesced.
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 Isiaka Akanbi whose telephone number is (571) 272-8658. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur R. Chowdhury can be reached on (571) 272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ISIAKA O AKANBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights