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 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1, 3, 8, 10-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hartog et al. (US 2005/0117830), hereinafter Hartog.
Claims 1,13: Hartog discloses an optical fiber characteristic measurement apparatus (Fig. 3a), and corresponding method, comprising:
a first light source (1) configured to emit first superimposition light to be superimposed on pump light (from 10) (“a source 1 launches probe pulses 4 into a first section of fibre 50 through a directional coupler 3… A second, wavelength-selective, coupler 8 is used to launch pump light 10 into the fibre” [0038]);
a pump light amplifier (11a) configured to amplify light in which the pump light and the first superimposition light are combined (“This arrangement is illustrated in FIG. 3a, in which a pair of circulators 13a, 13b have been used to separate the light on entering the sub-assembly 71, which includes amplifiers 11a and 11b and a filter 12, and to re-combine the light prior to leaving the sub-assembly” [0044]);
a circulator (13b) configured to cause amplified light output from the pump light amplifier (11a) to be incident on a first end of a fiber under test (60), and configured to take out return light from the fiber under test (60) (“This arrangement is illustrated in FIG. 3a, in which a pair of circulators 13a, 13b have been used to separate the light on entering the sub-assembly 71, which includes amplifiers 11a and 11b and a filter 12, and to re-combine the light prior to leaving the sub-assembly” [0044]);
a filter (12) configured to attenuate a component of the first superimposition light contained in at least one of the amplified light or the return light (“This arrangement is illustrated in FIG. 3a, in which a pair of circulators 13a, 13b have been used to separate the light on entering the sub-assembly 71, which includes amplifiers 11a and 11b and a filter 12, and to re-combine the light prior to leaving the sub-assembly” [0044]); and
a measurement unit (2) configured to measure a characteristic of the fiber under test (60) by detecting the return light (“an OTDR backscatter measuring apparatus, represented schematically by a source 1, detector 2 and coupler 3, launches high power pulses 4 into a first fibre 5” [0026]).
Claim 3: Hartog further discloses wherein the filter (12) is connected between the pump light amplifier (11a) and the circulator (13b) (evident from figure).
Claim 8: Hartog further discloses wherein the first light source (1) is configured to emit the first superimposition light as pulsed light (“a source 1 launches probe pulses 4 into a first section of fibre 50 through a directional coupler 3” [0038]).
Claim 10: Hartog further discloses:
a second light source (10) configured to emit second superimposition light to be superimposed on the return light (Figs. 3a/3b) (“The pump power is routed along the path shown by the arrows, namely into one amplifier 11b (in this case the amplifier for the return signals, again the preferred option)” [0045]); and
a return light amplifier (11b) configured to amplify light in which the return light and the second superimposition light are combined (“This arrangement is illustrated in FIG. 3a, in which a pair of circulators 13a, 13b have been used to separate the light on entering the sub-assembly 71, which includes amplifiers 11a and 11b and a filter 12, and to re-combine the light prior to leaving the sub-assembly” [0044]).
Claim 11: Hartog further discloses an optical coupler (3) configured to split, from the pump light, reference light to be combined with the return light in order to detect the return light (similar concept as for Fig. 4a: “Directional coupler 3 is now sited remotely, immediately prior to the region of interest in which section 6 is deployed. The signals returning from section 6 are routed through coupler 3 and back to the instrumentation through a separate fibre 5b” [0050]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartog.
Claim 2: Hartog does not explicitly disclose connecting the filter between the circulator and the measurement unit.
However, Hartog discloses that “[a] filtering operation allows the effect of spurious light accompanying the probe pulse… to be removed prior to the critical final section. In general, these functions must be applied to the probe pulse or the backscatter signal.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hartog’s apparatus by moving the filter (12) so that it is connected between the circulator (13b) and the measurement unit (2) for the purpose of removing spurious light, which may be generated within the region of the fiber under test, before the signal is detected by the measurement unit.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartog as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsuura et al. (EP 4177573), hereinafter Matsuura.
Claim 4: Hartog is silent with respect to the first light source emits the first superposition light as a direct current component of light.
Matsuuraa, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical fiber characterization, discloses an optical fiber characteristic measurement apparatus (Fig. 1),
wherein a first light source (11a) is configured to emit first superimposition light as a direct current component of light (“Specifically, the driving signal generator 11b adds a DC bias current and a sinusoidal AC current to generate the driving signal D1” [0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hartog’s first light source to emit the first superposition light as a direct current component of light for the purpose of modulating the signal to prevent detector saturation.
Claim 5: Hartog is silent with respect to the first light source emits the first superposition light as light with a direct current component and an alternating current component.
Matsuuraa, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical fiber characterization, discloses an optical fiber characteristic measurement apparatus (Fig. 1),
wherein a first light source (11a) is configured to emit first superimposition light as light with a direct current component and an alternating current component (“Specifically, the driving signal generator 11b adds a DC bias current and a sinusoidal AC current to generate the driving signal D1” [0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hartog’s first light source to emit the first superposition light as light with a direct current component and an alternating current component for the purpose of modulating the signal to prevent detector saturation.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartog, in view of Matsuura as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Takahashi et al. (US 2014/0098362), hereinafter Takahashi.
Claim 6: Hartog is silent with respect to controlling the intensity of light from the first light source.
Takahashi, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical fiber characterization, discloses an optical fiber characteristic measurement apparatus (Figs. 1A/5A), wherein a first light source is configured to control intensity of emitted light of based on detection intensity of return light (“Thus, the pulse of the already attenuated feedback probe light beam is subjected to stimulated Brillouin scattering at the intensity of the attenuated pump light beam” [0114]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hartog’s first light source to use feedback to control the intensity of the emitted light for the purpose of preventing detector saturation. It is evident that, in this modified apparatus, Hartog’s light source controls the intensity of the direct current component of light.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartog, in view of Matsuura as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Myong et al. (US 2015/0323419), hereinafter Myong.
Claim 7: Hartog is silent with respect to configuring the first light source to control intensity of the direct current component based on a length of a time period during which pulsed light is turned off.
Myong, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical fiber monitoring, discloses an optical fiber characteristic measurement apparatus (Fig. 1), wherein a first light source is configured to control intensity of emitted light based on a length of a time period (“The first measurement control signal may be a control signal that controls the monitoring light receiver 330 to measure an optical intensity of a monitoring light received during a period of time spanning from “t1” to “thalf” with a delay time being set at “0.”” [0065]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hartog’s first light source to control intensity of emitted light based on a length of a time period for the purpose of preventing detector saturation. It would be furthermore obvious for this length of a time period to correspond to a time period during which pulsed light is turned off since pulsing inherently modulates signals to prevent overloading a circuit.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartog as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tur et al. (US 2016/0273998), hereinafter Tur.
Claim 12: Hartog is silent with respect to an optical coupler configured to split probe light from the pump light so that it is incident on a second end of the fiber under test.
Tur, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical time-domain analysis, discloses an optical fiber characteristic measurement apparatus (Fig. 1B), the apparatus comprising:
an optical coupler (see figure below) configured to split, from the pump light, probe light to be incident on a second end of a fiber under test (FUT), the second end being opposite to a first end [0028].
PNG
media_image1.png
421
665
media_image1.png
Greyscale
modification of Fig. 1B of Tur to show the optical coupler
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hartog’s apparatus with an optical coupler that allows probe light to be incident on the second end of the fiber under test for the purpose of providing orthogonally polarized beams to prevent unwanted interference (Tur [0028]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 9: None of the prior art, alone or in combination, teaches or discloses the optical fiber characteristic measurement apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the first light source is configured to control a time period during which the first superimposition light is turned on, so that the pulsed light as the first superimposition light is turned on in a time period during which pulsed light as the pump light is turned off.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to HINA F AYUB whose telephone number is (571)270-3171. The Examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm ET Mon-Fri.
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 on 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 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Hina F Ayub/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights