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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting
as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,206,449 (Campos et al). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations recited in claims 21-25 of the instant application are encompassed by claims 1-21 of US Patent No. 12,206,449 (Campos et al).
Instant Application No. 19/033,313 (Claim 21)
US Patent No. 12,206,449 (Claim 11)
A hybrid telecommunication and sensing (HTS) system for
monitoring a fiber-optic network, comprising:
an aggregation hub configured to communicate with a plurality of end devices through the fiber-optic network;
A hybrid telecommunication and sensing (HTS) system for
monitoring a fiber-optic network, comprising:
an aggregation hub configured to communicate with a plurality of end devices through the fiber-optic network (i.e., see Claim 11 of US Patent No. 12,206,449);
a transceiver configured to transmit coherent optical signals on a first fiber strand of the fiber-optic network;
a transceiver configured to transmit coherent optical signals on a first fiber strand of the fiber-optic network (i.e., see Claim 11 of US Patent No. 12,206,449);
an analysis engine including (a) a probe signal generator configured to transmit direct detection probe signals on the first fiber strand concurrently with the coherent optical signals coexisting on the first fiber strand, and (b) a probe signal processor configured to (i) receive scattered energy from the direct
detection probe signals, (ii) analyze data representing the scattered energy
to monitor a first condition affecting the fiber-optic network, and (iii)
determine at least one event associated with the monitored first condition affecting the fiber-optic network,
wherein the direct detection probe signals are pulsed at shorter durations and higher power densities than the coherent transmission signals.
an analysis engine including (a) a probe signal generator configured to transmit direct detection probe signals on the first fiber strand concurrently with the coherent optical signals coexisting on the first fiber strand, and (b) a probe signal processor configured to (i) receive scattered energy from the direct detection probe signals, (ii) analyze data representing the scattered energy to monitor a first condition affecting the fiber-optic network, and (iii) determine at least one event associated with the monitored first condition
affecting the fiber-optic network (i.e., see Claim 11 of US Patent No. 12,206,449),
wherein the direct detection probe signals are pulsed at shorter durations and higher power densities than the coherent transmission signals (i.e., see Claim 11 of US Patent No. 12,206,449).
Regarding claim 22, as similarity described above, Campos et al discloses wherein the probe signal processor is further configured to receive one or both of backscatter and forward scatter from the direct detection probe signals (i.e., see Claim 12 of US Patent No. 12,206,449).
Regarding claim 23, as similarity described above, Campos et al discloses
wherein the probe signal processor is further configured to receive the data from one or more of the plurality of end devices over an out-of-band channel (i.e., see Claim 13 of US Patent No. 12,206,449).
Regarding claim 24, as similarity described above, Campos et al discloses
wherein the direct detection probe signals are generated by one or more of the plurality of end devices (i.e., see Claim 14 of US Patent No. 12,206,449).
Regarding claim 25, as similarity described above, Campos et al discloses
wherein the direct detection probe signals and the coherent optical signals are (a) co-propagated, or (b) counter-propagated (i.e., see Claim 14 of US Patent No. 12,206,449).
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.
Claims 26-33 and 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being
anticipated by Effenberger (US Patent No. 8,750,703).
Regarding claim 26, referring to Figures 1 and 2, Effenberger teaches a hybrid telecommunication and sensing (HTS) system for an optical network (i.e., Figs. 1 and 2), comprising:
a hub (i.e., OLT 110, Figs. 1 and 2) configured for operable communication with a plurality of end devices (i.e., ONTs 120, Figs. 1 and 2) over a plurality of optical fibers, respectively;
a transceiver (i.e., OLT 110, Figs. 1 and 2) configured to transmit and receive coherent optical signals to and from, respectively, the plurality of end devices (i.e., ONTs 120, Figs. 1 and 2) by way of the plurality of respective optical fibers;
a probe signal generator (i.e., OTDR apparatus 200 comprises tunable optical transmitter 210, Figs. 1 and 2) configured to generate a first probe signal (i.e., first OTDR signal, Figs. 1 and 2) on a first optical fiber (i.e., first fiber 282) of the plurality of optical fibers at a first wavelength, and a second probe signal (i.e., second OTDR signal, Figs. 1 and 2) on a second optical fiber (i.e., second fiber 282, Figs. 1 and 2) of the plurality of optical fibers at a second wavelength different from the first wavelength;
a probe signal processor (i.e., detector 250 and spectrum analyzer 260, Figs. 1 and 2) configured to (a) receive scattered energy from the first and second probe signals, (b) determine a first event affecting a monitored condition of the first optical fiber based on the received scattered energy from the first probe signal (i.e., Figures 1 and 2, col. 3, lines 27-67, col. 4, lines 1-67, col. 5, lines 1-67, col. 6, lines 1-67, col. 7, lines 1-67, and col. 8, lines 1-38).
Regarding claim 27, Effenberger further teaches wherein the probe signal processor (i.e., detector 250 and spectrum analyzer 260, Figs. 1 and 2) is further configured to identify a characteristic of the determined first event based on at least one of location, type, source, intensity, and duration information analyzed for the received scattered energy from the first probe signal.
Regarding claim 28, Effenberger further teaches wherein the monitored condition relates to at least one of temperature, strain, vibration, refractive index, electromagnetic energy, tensile force, compressive force, physical movement, and light scattering fiber optic cable damage (i.e., Figs 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 29, Effenberger further teaches wherein the probe signal processor (i.e., detector 250 and spectrum analyzer 260, Figs. 1 and 2) is further configured to determine a second event affecting a second monitored condition of the second optical fiber.
Regarding claim 30, Effenberger further teaches wherein the second monitored condition is different from the first monitored condition (i.e., Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 31, Effenberger further teaches wherein the probe signal processor (i.e., detector 250 and spectrum analyzer 260, Figs. 1 and 2) is further configured to determine at least one of the first and second events a posteriori based on the received scattered energy from the first and second probe signals.
Regarding claim 32, Effenberger further teaches wherein the hub (i.e., OLT 110, Figs. 1 and 2) is centralized, and further configured to utilize the received scattered energy from the first and second probe signals such that the first and second optical fibers, as well as the respective end devices connected thereto, serve as a enhanced distributed fiber optic sensing (DFOS) array for the centralized hub.
Regarding claim 33, Effenberger further teaches wherein the hub is an aggregation hub (i.e., OLT 110, Figs. 1 and 2), and wherein the probe signal generator is disposed within the aggregation hub (i.e., OTDR apparatus 200 comprises tunable optical transmitter 210, Figs. 1 and 2)(i.e., col. 6, lines 44-67).
Regarding claim 37, Effenberger further teaches wherein the first and second probe signals are direct detection signals (i.e., Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 38, Effenberger further teaches wherein the first and second probe signals are each pulsed at shorter durations than the durations in which the coherent optical signals are transmitted (i.e., Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 39, Effenberger further teaches wherein the probe signal generator (i.e., OTDR apparatus 200 comprises tunable optical transmitter 210, Figs. 1 and 2) is further configured to generate the first probe signal at a third wavelength on a third optical fiber of the plurality of optical fibers different from the first and second optical fibers.
Regarding claim 40, Effenberger further teaches where wherein the probe signal generator (i.e., OTDR apparatus 200 comprises tunable optical transmitter 210, Figs. 1 and 2) is further configured to, after the determination of the first event affecting the first optical fiber, generate a third probe signal over the first optical fiber to monitor a subsequent condition of the first optical fiber.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 34-36 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.
Claims 21-25 are allowed (if overcome the double patent above).
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 21-25 are allowable because Effenberger (US Patent No. 8,750,703)
and Lee et al (Pub. No.: US 2009/0080880), takes alone or in combination, fails to teach an aggregation hub configured to communicate with a plurality of end devices through the fiber-optic network; a transceiver configured to transmit coherent optical signals on a first fiber strand of the fiber-optic network; an analysis engine including (a) a probe signal generator configured to transmit
direct detection probe signals on the first fiber strand concurrently with the
coherent optical signals coexisting on the first fiber strand, and (b) a probe
signal processor configured to (i) receive scattered energy from the direct
detection probe signals, (ii) analyze data representing the scattered energy
to monitor a first condition affecting the fiber-optic network, and (iii)
determine at least one event associated with the monitored first condition
affecting the fiber-optic network, wherein the direct detection probe signals are pulsed at shorter durations and higher power densities than the coherent transmission signals.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al (Pub. No.: US 2009/0080880) discloses apparatus for monitoring failure positions in wavelength division multiplexing passive optical networks and wavelength division multiplexing passive optical network systems having the apparatus.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from
the examiner should be directed to Hanh Phan whose telephone number is
(571)272-3035. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful
the examiner's supervisor, Kenneth Vanderpuye, can be reached on (571)272-
3078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or
proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300. Any inquiry of a general nature or
relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the
receptionist whose telephone number is (703)305-4700.
/HANH PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634
