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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-20) in the reply filed on 08/17/26 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/02/26 has been acknowledged and considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a unique scannable identification marker” in claims 3 and 13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 wireless communication module in claims 1, 6, and 11-12 (figures 2 and 5B and paragraph [0040: e.g., the reader 102 may include a wireless transmitter (or transceiver) 220 for transmission of data related to the power detected at the optical fiber 104. The wireless transmissions may be in any know wireless technology but are particularly suited to short-range, low-power, low-maintenance, personal area networks like Bluetooth low energy (BLE), ZigBee, ANT, etc).
a unique scannable identification marker in claims 3 and 13 (show in the 112(a) & 112 (b) rejections).
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 § 112
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.
Claims 3 and 13 are 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.
Regarding claims 3 and 13; these claims invokes 112(f) as discussed above. The claims provide for the " a unique scannable identification marker" but in the specification does not show clearly " a unique scannable identification marker" to perform the claimed inventions. Therefore, there is no way to determine the metes and bounds of these limitations, since there are no limits imposed by structure, materials or acts, and can be performed by any means capable of performing the function, both known and unknown. Therefore, the claim is rejected under 112 second paragraph because the claim scope is indefinite.
Claims, which are dependent from rejected claims inherit the problems of these claims, and are therefore also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Regarding claims 3 and 13; the claim is rejected for a lack of written description for the reasons set forth above regarding 35 USC 112(b) and indefiniteness. This rejection is made because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all structure that performs the claimed function. Because applicant has not clearly set forth the corresponding structure that would allow one having ordinary skill in the art to make the apparatus with the corresponding functionality, this indicates that applicant has not provide provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention.
Claims, which are dependent from rejected claims inherit the problems of these claims, and are therefore also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 7-8, 11, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima et al (US 2010/0008676 hereinafter “Kojima”) in view of Tissot et al (US 2008/0069497 hereinafter “Tissot”).
Regarding claim 1 and 11; Kojima discloses an optical power measurement device (101 @ figure 1), comprising:
a ferrule (113 @ figures 1 and 2A) configured to at least partially surround an optical fiber (112 @ figure 1), the ferrule (113 @ figure 1) having a cavity exposing a portion of the optical fiber (112 @ figure 1);
a photodetector (118, 117 @ figure 1) positioned within the cavity of the ferrule (113 @ figure 1) and configured to detect optical energy from an exposed portion of the optical fiber (112 @ figure 1);
a housing (109a, 109b @ figure 1 and paragraph [0117]) at least partially enclosing the ferrule (113 @ figure 1), the housing (109a, 109b @ figure 1 and paragraph [0117]) being at least one of a connector (paragraph [0117]: e.g., When the communication light detecting device 101 is in use, to the both end faces of the optical coupling body 104, a ferrule 110c provided for an optical connector on the installation side and a ferrule 110y provided for an optical connector on the user side are respectively inserted and butt connected. In the ferrule 110c, an optical fiber 111c serving as the light transmitting path on the installation side is built in, and in the ferrule 110y, an optical fiber 111y serving as the light transmitting path on the user side is built in), a converter, or an adapter configured to be connected in line with a provider signal provided by a service provider (paragraph [0129]: e.g., The leakage light generated at the side faces of the light detecting use groove 114 is transmitted to the clad portion 103, is scatted at the ferrule 113 containing zirconia of a scattering material, and the scattered leakage light is received by the PD 118. The leakage light is converted by the PD 118 into an electrical signal, and the converted electrical signal is output as a visible light from the light output member 107 in the light detecting portion 108 via the circuit substrate 116) for non-disruptive measurement of the provider signal. See figure 1-34
Kojima discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for a reader electrically coupled to the photodetector, the reader being configured to receive a photodetector signal representative of the optical energy detected by the photodetector and determine an optical power level of the optical fiber; and a wireless communication module operably coupled to the reader and configured to transmit data related to the optical power level of the optical fiber to a mobile device. However, Tissot teaches that it is known in the art to provide a reader (906 @ figure 9) electrically coupled to the photodetector (108 @ figures 1 and 7), the reader (906 @ figure 9) being configured to receive a photodetector signal representative of the optical energy detected by the photodetector (108 @ figure 1) and determine an optical power level of the optical fiber (102, 107 @ figure 1 and paragraph [0019]: e.g., the waveguide 104 is an optical fiber having a core 102 and a cladding 107); and a wireless communication module (908 @ figure 9) operably coupled to the reader (906 @ figure 9) and configured to transmit data related to the optical power level of the optical fiber to a mobile device (paragraph [0034]: e.g., The data routing device may be a switch or a router that can process and forward data packets. The data routing device has a data processing subsystem 906 that may have a CPU and memory that are programmed to process data traffic that is routed by the device. Incoming and outgoing data traffic are via optical cables (not shown) that are connected to a local area network (LAN) optical cable interface 908 of the routing device... The interface 908 may include discrete optical subassemblies or transceiver packages in which the power tap monitor is integrated. In addition, the interface 908 may also include an integrated, LAN optical cable connector (that mates with one attached to the optical cable)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the optical power measurement device of Kojima with a reader electrically coupled to the photodetector, the reader being configured to receive a photodetector signal representative of the optical energy detected by the photodetector and determine an optical power level of the optical fiber; and a wireless communication module operably coupled to the reader and configured to transmit data related to the optical power level of the optical fiber to a mobile device as taught by Tissot for the purpose of improving communication light detecting device with a high detection sensitivity of communication light and with a high reliability in long term.
Regarding claims 4 and 14; Kojima discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the reader is configured to determine and store at least one of a highest detected power level, a lowest detected power level, a current detected power level, an optical transmission wavelength, and a direction of optical transmission at the optical fiber. However, Tissot teaches that it is known in the art to provide the reader (906 @figure 9) is configured to determine and store at least one of a highest detected power level, a lowest detected power level, a current detected power level (paragraph [0002]: e.g., detecting and monitoring the power level of an optical signal that is propagating in a waveguide), an optical transmission wavelength, and a direction of optical transmission at the optical fiber. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the optical power measurement device of Kojima with limitation above as taught by Tissot for the purpose of improving communication light detecting device with a high detection sensitivity of communication light and with a high reliability in long term.
It is noted that the term “at least one of:” is alternative.
Regarding claims 7 and 16; Kojima discloses further comprising a power supply (635 @ figure 3 and paragraph [0177]: e.g., The power supply portion 635 and the respective circuit substrates 623 of the communication light detecting devices 601 are connected via respective power supply cables 636) external to the reader (601 @ figure 12B).
Regarding claim 17; Kojima discloses further comprising a pushbutton switch (509 @ figure 9) configured to selectively power the reader (108 @ figure 1).
Regarding claims 8 and 18; Kojima discloses further comprising an output interface (116 @ figure 1 and paragraph [0115]) including at least one LED indicator (107 @ figure 1).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima in view of Tissot as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kewitsch (US 2008/0019642 submitted by IDS).
Regarding claim 2; Kojima in view of Tissot combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the housing is configured as at least one of a wall panel, a faceplate, or a wall-mounted enclosure. However, Kewitsch teaches that it is known in the art to provide the housing (14 @ figures 1A-1B) is configured as at least one of a wall panel (15, 26 @ figures 1A-1B), a faceplate, or a wall-mounted enclosure. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the optical power measurement device of Kojima with limitation above as taught by Kewitsch for the purpose of minimizing networking downtime and reducing maintenance costs.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima in view of Tissot as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Ishida et al (FR 2619003 A1 hereinafter “Ishida”).
Regarding claims 3 and 13; Kojima in view of Tissot combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the housing comprises a unique scannable identification marker for positive identification by the mobile device. However, Ishida teaches that it is known in the art to provide the housing (2 @ figures 6) comprises a unique scannable identification marker (22 @ figure 6: e.g., a scanning surface marker 22 is attached to an upper outer surface of the housing 2 as shown in FIG. 6. This marker 22 comprises, for example, a line segment indicating the position of a scanning plane of a tomographic image photographed by the imaging transducer 4, and the letters "L" and "R" denote the left and right positions on a display screen) for positive identification by the mobile device (figures 1-2: e.g., a driving section of the ultrasonic treatment transducer, an ultrasonic image-forming transducer, arranged so that it is mobile and intended to transmit and receive an ultrasonic wave of image formation so that a tomographic image of the object to be examined is obtained). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the optical power measurement device of Kojima with limitation above as taught by Ishida for the purpose of improving detection ultrasonic therapeutic treatment apparatus.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima in view of Tissot as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kassamakov et al (US 2007/0286556 hereinafter “Kassamakov”).
Regarding claims 5 and 15; Kojima in view of Tissot combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the wireless communication module is configured to transmit the data related to the optical power level using a Bluetooth Low Energy communication protocol. However, Kassamakov teaches that it is known in the art to provide the wireless communication module is configured to transmit the data related to the optical power level using a Bluetooth Low Energy communication protocol (paragraph [0047]: e.g., The second photodiode 61 is coupled to the micro-controller 28 such that information concerning the power of the optical light escaping from the fibre 31 may be relayed back to the controller 28 and processed to determine whether the handset 11 is in the open or closed position. Alternatively, the photodiode 61 may be configured to communicate the detected power level back to the controller 28 by wireless means, for example via a Bluetooth connection). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the optical power measurement device of Kojima with limitation above as taught by Kassamakov for the purpose of sensing accuracy the position of a hinged lid of a portable electronic device such as a mobile telephone.
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima in view of Tissot as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Sago et al (JP 2005 092 107 A hereinafter “Sago”).
Regarding claims 6 and 12; Kojima in view of Tissot combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the reader and the wireless communication module are integrated with the photodetector as a system-on-a-chip reader. However, Sago teaches that it is known in the art to provide the reader (21 @ figure 9) and the wireless communication module (15 @ figure 6) are integrated with the photodetector (16 @ figure 7) as a system-on-a-chip reader (21 @ figure 9: e.g., a reader / writer unit 21 connected to the antenna 20 for reading numerical data, and the lower limit value (threshold value) of the optical power level of the optical transmitter 15 required by the communication device 18 for the optical power level of the optical transmitter 15. A control unit 22 that is set in advance and a display unit 23 that displays a notification signal when numerical data of the optical power level read by the reader / writer unit 21 is equal to or lower than the lower limit value are provided). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the optical power measurement device of Kojima with limitation above as taught by Sago for the purpose of improving transmission component management system with a connector plug with memory.
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima in view of Tissot as applied to claim 8 and 11 above, and further in view of Poole (US Patent No. 5,708,265 submitted by IDS).
Regarding claims 9 and 19; Kojima in view of Tissot combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for a binary indicator signifying a presence or absence of the optical energy detected signal from the service provider. However, Poole teaches that it is known in the art to provide a binary indicator (A/D converter 706 @ figure 7) signifying a presence or absence of the optical energy detected signal from the service provider (col.3 lines 1-6: e.g., tapping optical energy from the optical fiber, a low-power measuring circuit for converting the tapped optical energy into a signal voltage, and an A/D circuit for converting the signal voltage into a digital code for indicating optical power on a digital display). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine optical power detection system of Kojima limitation above as taught by Poole for the purpose of the low-power operation of the measuring circuit increases battery life by orders of magnitude relative to known portable meters while reducing the physical size and weight of power supply batteries.
Regarding claims 10 and 20; Kojima discloses the at least one LED indicator (107 @ figure 1) utilizes different colors to indicate different power levels of the signal from the service provider (paragraph [0173]: e.g., when only the LED for discriminating existence and absence of communication light (the light output member 624) lights on in red (only red light emitting LED is active), it is implied that the communication light detecting device 601 is operating in normal as well as communication light is in existence. In this way, by making use of different color emitting LEDs, an advantage is obtained that such as failure of the communication light detecting device 601 and the existence and absence of communication light are simply and easily distinguished).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Benou et al (US2013/0343748) discloses detection of optical energy in an optical fiber, and more particularly, non-invasively determining whether an optical signal is being conveyed in optical fibers of an optical fiber ribbon.
2) Kawai (US 2011/0305415) discloses a single-core bidirectional optical communication module used to perform bidirectional optical communication using a single optical fiber cable and a single-core bidirectional optical communication connector (optical connector) having the single-core bidirectional optical communication module.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. 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.
/SN/
September 2, 2026
/SANG H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights