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 .
Priority
Applications 17/447,267 filed on 09/09/2021, claims foreign priority to EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE (EPO) 19 162 729.8 filed on 03/14/2019.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to amendments submitted on 08/14/2025 wherein claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
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.
Claims 1-2, 10-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oldewurtel et al., hereinafter Oldewurtel, U.S. Pub. No 2018/0022367 A1, in view of Kunigami et al., U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0051123.
Regarding Independent claim 1 Oldewurtel teaches:
“A fiber optic sensor unit for detecting a mechanical force acting on a rail, “comprising: at least one first sensor fiber” (Oldewurtel, Abstract)
“a first elongated fiber optic strain sensor and a second elongated fiber optic strain sensor, wherein the at least one first sensor fiber comprises the first elongated fiber optic strain sensor, wherein the first and second elongated fiber optic strain sensors are fiber Bragg gratings, wherein either both fiber Bragg gratings are inscribed in one sensor fiber or each of the fiber Bragg gratings is inscribed in a separate sensor fiber” (Oldewurtel, fig. 1, ¶ 0061: Oldewurtel teaches an axle-counting device where the “rail-contacting half SK1 comprises a sensor fiber SF having two fiber Bragg gratings FBG1, FBG2” (¶ 0061).)
“wherein the at least one sensor fiber on both ends adjacent the first and the second elongated fiber optic strain sensors are attached to a single common sensor plate” (Oldewurtel, fig. 1 ¶ 0061: Oldewurtel teaches “two fiber Bragg gratings FBG1, FBG2” which are mounted on a bracket T in order to mount on a rail (¶ 0061) where the bracket T discloses a “single common sensor plate.”)
Oldewurtel does not teach:
“wherein the first elongated fiber optic strain sensor and the second elongated fiber optic strain sensor are arranged in an x-typeelongated fiber optic strain sensor and the second elongated fiber optic strain sensor are arranged in an angle of 60° to 120° to each other; and
“wherein the sensor plate comprises a recess, wherein the at least one fiber spans the recess where the first and second elongated fiber optic strain sensors are positioned freely within the recess without contact to the sensor plate”
Kunigami teaches:
“wherein the first elongated fiber optic strain sensor and the second elongated fiber optic strain sensor are arranged in an x-type (Kunigami, fig. 2-fig. 4, fig. 7, ¶ 0190: Kunigami teaches “the optical fiber 20x and the optical fiber 20y are arranged in a serpentine fashion at mutually different heights (see figs. 2 to 4), whereas, as viewed in the plan, the FBG sensors 22 are disposed at locations where the optical fiber 20x and the optical fiber 20y intersect at right angle (see fig. 7)” (¶ 0190).)
“wherein the sensor plate comprises a recess, wherein the at least one fiber spans the recess where the first and second elongated fiber optic strain sensors are positioned freely within the recess without contact to the sensor plate” (Kunigami, fig. 3, ¶ 0197-¶ 0200: Kunigami teaches a “stress direction converter 29” with a ”flat portion 28” and “stress transmitting sections 30x that are bridged from two opposite sides of the flat portion 28 to respective ends of the gratings 26x and other stress transmitting sections 30y that are bridged from two other opposite sides of the flat portion 28 to respective ends of the gratings 26y” (¶ 0197) where “optical fibers 20y are disposed at a position lower than the optical fibers 20x (see figs. 2 to 4)” (¶ 0200). Fig. 3 depicts an area bounded by a flat portion 28 and inclined sections 32x and 32y forming a recess in the stress direction converter 29 where the recess is bridged by the optical fibers 20x and 20y thereby disclosing the fibers are “positioned freely within the recess without contact to the sensor plate.”)
Both Oldewurtel and Kunigami fiber optic sensors containing fiber Bragg grating to determine stress 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 have substituted Oldewurtel’s sensor with Kunigami’s as it is well understood, routine, and conventional to substitute one sensor with another sensor in order to provide a system where stress “detection accuracy can easily be improved” (Kunigami, ¶ 0088).
Regarding claim 2 Oldewurtel teaches:
“the first strain sensor and the second strain sensor have different Bragg wavelengths” (Oldewurtel, fig. 1, ¶ 0061: Oldewurtel teaches “The fiber Bragg gratings FBG1, FBG2 have different Bragg wavelengths λ1, λ2.” (¶ 0061).)
Oldewurtel does not teach:
“wherein the strain sensors are at a distance to each other in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal extensions of the strain sensors.”
Kunigami teaches:
“wherein the strain sensors are at a distance to each other in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal extensions of the strain sensors” (Kunigami, fig. 2-fig. 4, fig. 7, ¶ 0190: Kunigami teaches “the optical fiber 20x and the optical fiber 20y are arranged in a serpentine fashion at mutually different heights (see figs. 2 to 4), whereas, as viewed in the plan, the FBG sensors 22 are disposed at locations where the optical fiber 20x and the optical fiber 20y intersect at right angle (see fig. 7)” (¶ 0190).)
Both Oldewurtel and Kunigami teach fiber optic sensors containing fiber Bragg grating to determine stress 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 have modified the fiber optic sensor unit as taught by Oldewurtel to include the two fiber optic strain sensor arranged orthogonal to each other as disclosed by Kunigami as arranging fiber optic strain sensors orthogonally with respect to each other enables the determination of stress in more than one direction which gives a more accurate measure of stress in order to provide a system where stress “detection accuracy can easily be improved” (Kunigami, ¶ 0088).
Regarding claim 10 Oldewurtel as modified does not teach:
“the first elongated fiber optic strain sensor and the second elongated fiber optic strain sensor are arranged in an angle of 90° to each other.”
Kunigami teaches:
“the first elongated fiber optic strain sensor and the second elongated fiber optic strain sensor are arranged in an angle of 90° to each other” (Kunigami, fig. 2-fig. 4, fig. 7,
¶ 0191: “the FBG sensors 22 are disposed at locations where the optical fiber 20x and the optical fiber 20y intersect at right angle (see fig. 7)” (¶ 0190).)
Both Oldewurtel and Kunigami teach fiber optic sensors containing fiber Bragg grating to determine stress 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 have modified the fiber optic sensor unit as taught by Oldewurtel to include the two fiber optic strain sensor arranged in an angle of 90° to each other as disclosed by Kunigami as arranging fiber optic strain sensors orthogonally with respect to each other enables the determination of stress in more than one direction which gives a more accurate measure of stress in order to provide a system where stress “detection accuracy can easily be improved” (Kunigami, ¶ 0088).
Regarding claim 11 Oldewurtel as modified teaches:
“the rail having a longitudinal extension and a neutral axis, which extends along the longitudinal extension” (Oldewurtel, fig 13a-13c: Figs. 13a-13c depict a rail S with a neutral axis (NF) along a longitudinal extension.)
“the fiber optic sensor unit according to claim 1 for detecting optical signals in dependence of the shear strain acting on the rail” (Oldewurtel: Oldewurtel as modified teaches the fiber optic sensor unit according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above) where the fiber optic sensor unit detects a shear stress signal acting on a rail (¶ 0010).)
wherein the fiber optic sensor unit is mounted at the rail such that the fiber Bragg gratings are oriented obliquely with respect to the neutral axis; (Oldewurtel, fig. 13a-13c, ¶ 0010, Oldewurtel teaches the “the fiber Bragg grating being arranged obliquely with respect to the neutral fiber” (¶ 0010) where the “neutral fiber” (NF) discloses the neutral axis as can be seen in figs 13a-13c.)
“a light source which is adapted for coupling light into the sensor fibers of the fiber optic sensor unit” (Oldewurtel, fig 9, ¶ 0070: Oldewurtel teaches “Light is couples into the sensor fibers SF via a light source L in each case” (¶ 0070).)
“a signal-processing unit for processing signals detected by the fiber optic sensor unit, wherein the signal-processing unit comprises a photo diode.” (Oldewurtel, fig. 9, fig 10, ¶ 0070-¶ 0071: Fig. 9 depicts a signal processing unit SV (¶ 0070). Oldewurtel teaches “Fig 10 shows how the reflected light is subsequently processed in the signal-processing units SV” (¶ 0071) disclosing fig 10 depicts the “signal-processing units SV” which comprise a photo diode (see PD1 PD2 of fig 10, ¶ 0071).)
Regarding claim 12 Oldewurtel as modified teaches:
“the signal processing unit comprises an edge filter with a falling edge and a raising edge, and that the first fiber Bragg grating has a Bragg wavelength at the raising edge and the second fiber Bragg grating has a Bragg wavelength at the falling edge of the edge filter” (Oldewurtel, fig 2, fig 3, ¶ 0062-¶ 0065: Fig 2 depicts a signal processing unit SV which contains a filter F which “has two filter edges K1, K2” (¶ 0062) disclosing “the signal processing unit comprises an edge filter.” Oldewurtel teaches “the first fiber Bragg grating is compressed owing to an approaching load and the Bragg wavelength λ1 of the first fiber Bragg grating FBG1 is shifted to larger wavelengths, i.e. along the rising filter edge K1” and “the Bragg wave-length λ2 of the second fiber Bragg grating FBG2 is therefore shifted to larger wavelengths (along the falling filter edge K2)” (¶ 0065) disclosing the edge filter has a “falling edge and a raising edge” and “the first fiber Bragg grating has a Bragg wavelength at the raising edge and the second fiber Bragg grating has a Bragg wavelength at the falling edge of the edge filter”).
Regarding claim 13 Oldewurtel as modified teaches:
“the strain sensors are arranged symmetrically to a plane comprising the neutral axis of the rail” (Oldewurtel, fig 13a-13c, ¶ 0035, ¶ 0077: Oldewurtel teaches the fiber Bragg gratings are fastened to the rail at the same angle with respect to the neutral fiber where the neutral fiber discloses the neutral axis (¶ 0035, ¶ 0077) disclosing the sensors are arranged symmetrically to a plane comprising the neutral axis of the rail.)
Regarding claim 14 Oldewurtel as modified teaches:
“the strain sensors are arranged symmetrically to a plane perpendicular to the neutral axis of the rail” Oldewurtel, fig 13a-13c, ¶ 0035: Oldewurtel teaches the Bragg gratings are “attached to the rail in parallel with one another at an angle of from
±
30
°
t
o
±
60
°
.
in particular of
±
45
°
,
with respect to the neutral fiber (neutral axis)” (¶ 0035) disclosing the sensors are arranged symmetrically to a plane perpendicular to the neutral axis of the rail.)
Regarding claim 15 Oldewurtel as modified teaches:
“An axle-counting device comprising at least one light source and at least one counting unit, wherein each counting unit comprises at least one fiber optic sensor unit according to claim 1, the at least one fiber optic sensor unit being adapted for mounting to a rail, and a signal-processing unit comprising a photo diode, wherein the light source is adapted for coupling light into the sensor fibers of the fiber optic sensor unit” (Oldewurtel, fig 9, 10, and 15, ¶ 0070-¶ 0079: Oldewurtel teaches an axle-counting device comprising “two counting units ZP each having two rail-contacting halves SKI, SK2” (¶ 0079) where SKI and SK2 each contain a sensor fiber with a fiber Bragg grating which are “pre-assembled on a bracket T such that they can be mounted on a rail S simply in the desired orientation” (¶ 0061), a light source L where “light is coupled into the sensor fibers SF via a light source L in each case” (¶ 0070), and an optoelectronic component which is part of the signal-processing unit SV (¶ 0070, fig 9). The signal processing unit SV contains, among other parts, photodiodes (¶ 0071, PD1, PD2 of fig 10).)
Regarding Independent claim 16 Oldewurtel teaches:
“An axle-counting method for rail bound vehicles” (Oldewurtel, ¶ 0061), “comprising the following method steps:”
“a) coupling, via at least one sensor fiber, light into a first and a second fiber optic strain sensor being fiber Bragg gratings of a fiber optic sensor unit which is attached to a rail” (Oldewurtel, fig 1, ¶ 0061: Oldewurtel teaches “The rail-contacting half SK1 comprise a sensor fiber SF having two fiber Bragg gratings FBG1, FBG2” (¶ 0061) and “Light is coupled into the sensor fiber SF by means of a light source L” (¶ 0061) disclosing “coupling, via at least one sensor fiber, light into a first and a second fiber optic strain sensor being fiber Bragg gratings of a fiber optic sensor unit which is attached to a rail”).
“b) detecting light reflected by the first and the second fiber optic strain sensor by a photo diode, as a result of which a shear stress signal of the rail is received in each case, wherein each fiber optic strain sensor has a reflection spectrum having a reflection peak which is at a Bragg wavelength and has a full width at half maximum” (Oldewurtel, fig 10, claim 1, ¶ 0071: Oldewurtel teaches “The light reflected in the two sensor fibers SF is transmitted from the sensor fibers SF into the optoelectronic components OEC, in which the light is split by means of a beam splitter ST. The reflected light is filtered within a first channel in each case by means of wavelength filters F having filter edge K and detected as shear stress signals S1, S2 by means of first photo diodes PD1” (¶ 0071) disclosing “detecting light reflected by the first and the second fiber optic strain sensor by a photo diode, as a result of which a shear stress signal of the rail is received in each case” as the light would not be transmitted if it had not been detected. Oldewurtel teaches “each fiber Bragg grating has a reflection spectrum having a reflection peak which is as a Bragg wavelength and has a full width at half maximum” (claim 1) disclosing “each fiber optic strain sensor has a reflection spectrum having a reflection peak which is at a Bragg wavelength and has a full width at half maximum”).
“c) generating a shear stress difference signal from the two received shear stress signals” (Oldewurtel, claim 1: Oldewurtel teaches “detecting the light reflected by two fiber Bragg gratings spaced apart from one another; generating a shear stress difference signal” (claim 1) disclosing “generating a shear stress difference signal from the two received shear stress signals”
“d) generating a wheel signal within a signal-processing unit if the shear stress difference signal exceeds a predetermined upper limiting value or falls below a predetermined lower limiting value” (Oldewurtel, claim 1: Oldewurtel teaches “generating a wheel signal within a signal-processing unit if the shear stress difference signal exceeds a predetermined upper limiting value or falls below a predetermined lower limiting value” (claim 1).)
“either both fiber Bragg gratings are inscribed in one sensor fiber or each of the fiber Bragg gratings is inscribed in a separate sensor fiber” (Oldewurtel, fig 1, fig 13c, ¶ 0061, ¶ 0076: Fig. 1 depicts “a sensor fiber SF having two fiber Bragg gratings FBG1, FBG2” (¶ 0061). Fig. 13c depicts an embodiment where fiber Bragg gratings FBG1 and FBG2 are each “written into its own sensor fiber SF1, SF2” (¶ 0076).)
“the full width at half maximum of the reflection peak of the first fiber optic strain sensor and the full width at half maximum of the reflection peak of the second fiber optic strain sensor deviate in their respective full width at half maximums from each other by a maximum of 200%” (Oldewurtel, ¶ 0030-¶ 0031: Oldewurtel teaches “it is particularly advantageous if the Bragg wavelengths of the two fiber Bragg gratings do not differ by more than 5 nm, and the full width at half maximum of one fiber Bragg grating is at least 0.05 nm and the full width at half maximum of the other FBG is at most 5 nm” (¶ 0031) Percent difference is a method for determining a percentage difference between two numerical values with respect to each other where
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
=
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
x
100
%
.
If the difference between the Bragg wavelengths of the two fiber Bragg gratings was 5nm, the percent difference would be
5
(
5
+
0.05
)
2
X
100
%
=
198
%
which is less than 200% therefore Oldewurtel teaches “the full width at half maximum of the reflection peak of the first fiber optic strain sensor and the full width at half maximum of the reflection peak of the second fiber optic strain sensor deviate in their respective full width at half maximums from each other by a maximum of 200%.”)
Oldewurtel does not teach:
“the fiber optic strain sensors which are used are arranged in an x-type geometry,
the first strain sensor and the second strain sensor are arranged in an angle of 60° to 120° to each other,
a single sensor plate comprises a recess, wherein the at least one fiber spans the recess such that the strain sensors are positioned freely within the recess without contact to the sensor plate; and
Kunigami teaches:
“the fiber optic strain sensors which are used are arranged in an x-type geometry, the first strain sensor and the second strain sensor are arranged in an angle of 60° to 120° to each other” (Kunigami, fig. 2-fig. 4, fig. 7, ¶ 0190: Kunigami teaches “the optical fiber 20x and the optical fiber 20y are arranged in a serpentine fashion at mutually different heights (see figs. 2 to 4), whereas, as viewed in the plan, the FBG sensors 22 are disposed at locations where the optical fiber 20x and the optical fiber 20y intersect at right angle (see fig. 7)” (¶ 0190).)
“a single sensor plate comprises a recess, wherein the at least one fiber spans the recess such that the strain sensors are positioned freely within the recess without contact to the sensor plate” (Kunigami, fig. 3, ¶ 0197-¶ 0200: Kunigami teaches a “stress direction converter 29” with a ”flat portion 28” and “stress transmitting sections 30x that are bridged from two opposite sides of the flat portion 28 to respective ends of the gratings 26x and other stress transmitting sections 30y that are bridged from two other opposite sides of the flat portion 28 to respective ends of the gratings 26y” (¶ 0197) where “optical fibers 20y are disposed at a position lower than the optical fibers 20x (see figs. 2 to 4)” (¶ 0200). Fig. 3 depicts an area bounded by a flat portion 28 and inclined sections 32x and 32y forming a recess in the stress direction converter 29 where the recess is bridged by the optical fibers 20x and 20y thereby disclosing the fibers are “positioned freely within the recess without contact to the sensor plate.”)
Both Oldewurtel and Kunigami fiber optic sensors containing fiber Bragg grating to determine stress 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 have substituted Oldewurtel’s sensor with Kunigami’s as it is well understood, routine, and conventional to substitute one sensor with another sensor in order to provide a system where stress “detection accuracy can easily be improved” (Kunigami, ¶ 0088).
Regarding claim 17 Oldewurtel as modified teaches:
“the sensor fiber which is used comprises both, the first and the second fiber optic strain sensors, the first and the second fiber optic strain sensors being arranged in a row and having different Bragg wavelengths” (Oldewurtel, fig 13a, fig 13b, ¶ 0012, ¶ 0037: Oldewurtel teaches “that sensor fibers each having two fiber Bragg gratings that are arranged in a row and have different Bragg wavelengths are used at two sensor positions that are spaced apart from one another in the rail direction and in that the shear stress difference signal is generated optically within a signal-processing unit” (¶ 0012) disclosing “the sensor fiber which is used comprises both, the first and the second fiber optic strain sensors, the first and the second fiber optic strain sensors being arranged in a row and having different Bragg wavelengths” as the “converter structure has the task of enhancing the relatively low strain level of the shear stress in order to be able to detect low axle loads as well” (¶ 0037) disclosing the sensors are “strain sensors”).
“the shear stress difference signal is generated optically by a spectral overlap of the reflection peaks of the two fiber optic strain sensors during the transition from an unloaded state to a loaded state” (Oldewurtel, ¶ 0016: Oldewurtel teaches “the shear stress difference signal being generated optically by a spectral overlap of the reflection peaks of the two fiber Bragg gratings during the transition from an unloaded state to a loaded state” discloses “the shear stress difference signal is generated optically by a spectral overlap of the reflection peaks of the two fiber optic strain sensors during the transition from an unloaded state to a loaded state”).
Regarding claim 19 Oldewurtel as modified does not teach:
“the first strain sensor and the second strain sensor are arranged in an angle of 90° to each other.”
Kunigami teaches:
“the first strain sensor and the second strain sensor are arranged in an angle of 90° to each other” (Kunigami, fig. 2-fig. 4, fig. 7, ¶ 0191: “the FBG sensors 22 are disposed at locations where the optical fiber 20x and the optical fiber 20y intersect at right angle (see fig. 7)” (¶ 0190).)
Both Oldewurtel and Kunigami teach fiber optic sensors containing fiber Bragg grating to determine stress 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 have modified the fiber optic sensor unit as taught by Oldewurtel to include the two fiber optic strain sensor arranged in an angle of 90° to each other as disclosed by Kunigami as arranging fiber optic strain sensors orthogonally with respect to each other enables the determination of stress in more than one direction which gives a more accurate measure of stress in order to provide a system where stress “detection accuracy can easily be improved” (Kunigami, ¶ 0088).
17. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oldewurtel as modified by Kunigami as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al., hereinafter Chen, U.S. Pub. 2002/0028034 A1.
Regarding claim 3 Oldewurtel as modified does not teach:
“the sensor plate comprises at least one groove in which the at least one sensor fiber is attached”
Chen teaches:
“the sensor plate comprises at least one groove in which the at least one sensor fiber is attached” (Chen, fig 6, ¶ 0083-¶ 0086: Chen teaches “Carrier 215 has etched grooves 222 to provide partial insolation with respect to loose FBG 210 as well as to simplify alignment of the optical fiber 225 during flatpack fabrication” (¶ 0084) where “carries 215” discloses a “sensor plate” which contains “etched grooves 222” to “simplify alignment of the optical fiber 225” which contains FBG sensors 210 and 205 (¶ 0085) thereby disclosing “at least one groove in which the at least one sensor fiber is attached” where “pressure activated acrylic and epoxy adhesive films” (¶ 0086) are used to “attach” the “at least one sensor fiber”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the axle counting method using a fiber optic sensor unit for detecting a mechanical variable that acts on the rail as taught by Oldewurtel as modified by including grooves in the carrier as taught by Chen to produce a more compact sensor in order to provide a system with “improvements in the performance and reliability of optical fiber components, while at the same time, reducing costs” (Chen ¶ 0008).
Regarding claim 4 Oldewurtel does not teach:
“the at least one groove is etched.”
Chen teaches:
“the at least one groove is etched” (Chen, fig 6, ¶ 0083-¶ 0086: Chen teaches “Carrier 215 has etched grooves 222 to provide partial insolation with respect to lose FBG 210 as well as to simplify alignment of the optical fiber 225 during flatpack fabrication” (¶ 0084) disclosing “the at least one groove is etched”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the axle counting method using a fiber optic sensor unit for detecting a mechanical variable that acts on the rail as taught by Oldewurtel as modified by including etched grooves as taught by Chen as etching provides greater precision than other methods of machining metals in order to provide a system with “improvements in the performance and reliability of optical fiber components, while at the same time, reducing costs” (Chen ¶ 0008).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oldewurtel as modified by Kunigami and Chen as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Udd et al., hereinafter Udd, U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0122826 A1.
Regarding claim 5 Oldewurtel as modified does not teach:
“the at least one groove comprises two grooves being a first groove and a second groove, wherein the first groove and the second groove are part of the same sensor plate, wherein the two grooves are at different height levels of the sensor plate.”
Udd teaches:
“the at least one groove comprises two grooves being a first groove and a second groove, wherein the first groove and the second groove are part of the same sensor plate, wherein the two grooves are at different height levels of the sensor plate” (Udd, fig 30, fig 31, ¶ 0067-¶ 0068: Udd teaches “Fig. 31 illustrates an F?T sensor 3100 having an underlaying plate 3104” where the “underlaying plate 3104 could have grooves or like structures (not shown) of constant or differing depths (see Fig 30 for an example of a suitable underlaying plate 3000 having grooves 3004, 3008(1), and 3008(2) of differing depths)” (¶ 0068) “the first groove and the second groove are part of the same sensor plate, wherein the two grooves are at different height levels of the sensor plate”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the axle counting method using a fiber optic sensor unit for detecting a mechanical variable that acts on the rail as taught by Oldewurtel as modified by including grooves of different heights as disclosed by Udd to produce a more compact sensor in order to provide a system where “the longitudinal strain and temperature can be accurately measured” (Udd, ¶ 0061).
Regarding claim 6 Oldewurtel as modified teaches:
“the at least one first sensor fiber comprises both the first fiber Bragg grating as well as the second fiber Bragg grating” (Oldewurtel, fig. 1, ¶ 0061: Oldewurtel teaches an axle-counting device where the “rail-contacting half SK1 comprises a sensor fiber SF having two fiber Bragg gratings FBG1, FBG2” (¶ 0061).)
Regarding claim 7 Oldewurtel as modified does not teach:
“the at least one first sensor fiber comprises two sensor fibers, each fiber Bragg grating being part of a separate sensor fiber.”
Chen teaches:
“the at least one first sensor fiber comprises two sensor fibers, each fiber Bragg grating being part of a separate sensor fiber” (Chen, ¶ 0083: Chen teaches “FBG 205 and FBG 210 may exist in separate, optically coupled fibers, or coexist in a single fiber” disclosing “the at least one first sensor fiber comprises two sensor fibers, each fiber Bragg grating being part of a separate sensor fiber”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the axle counting method using a fiber optic sensor unit for detecting a mechanical variable that acts on the rail as taught by Oldewurtel as modified by including fiber Bragg grating with separate sensor fibers as taught by Chen to provide working sensors that are independent of each other to provide a system with “improvements in the performance and reliability of optical fiber components, while at the same time, reducing costs” (Chen ¶ 0008).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oldewurtel as modified by Kunigami as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Müller et al., hereinafter Müller, U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0274909 A1.
Regarding claim 8 Oldewurtel as modified does not teach:
“the sensor plate is attached to a base plate for mounting the fiber optic sensor on the rail, wherein the base plate has a continuous bottom plane.”
Müller teaches:
“the sensor plate is attached to a base plate for mounting the fiber optic sensor on (an object), wherein the base plate has a continuous bottom plane” (Müller, fig 1, fig 2,
¶ 0025: Müller teaches “It should be assumed that the intermediate carrier 500 mounted to a measurement object expands together with the measurement object in a direction shown by arrows Δx” (¶ 0025) where “the intermediate carrier 500” discloses “the base plate.” As can be seen in fig 1, 301-302 disclose “the sensor plate” and are attached to “the intermediate carrier 500” which is mounted to “a measurement object”). Fig 2 depicts “the intermediate carrier 500” with a “a continuous bottom plane.” Therefore Müller discloses “the sensor plate is attached to a base plate for mounting the fiber optic sensor on the (an object), wherein the base plate has a continuous bottom plane”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the axle counting method using a fiber optic sensor unit for detecting a mechanical variable that acts on the rail as taught by Oldewurtel as modified by including a base plate as taught by Müller as the base plate would provide a continuous surface for attachment to the object being measured in order to provide a system “where an improved measurement of elongations and/or compressions of a measurement object may be provided” (Müller, ¶ 0052).
Oldewurtel teaches measurement system attached to “a rail” (Oldewurtel, ¶ 0025).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oldewurtel as modified by Kunigami as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ramos, hereinafter Ramos, U.S. Pat. No. 6,246,048 B1.
Regarding claim 9 Oldewurtel as modified does not teach:
“the sensor plate includes a mechanical amplifier, which transfers and multiplies the alternation of length from the rail to the fiber Bragg grating.”
Ramos teaches using a tube placed over a fiber optic containing an optical fiber to amplify the strain where the strain is due to pressure on a mechanical structure (col 4 line 20-61). Oldewurtel teaches the mechanical structure as a rail (¶ 0009-¶ 0010).
Therefore the combination of Ramos with Oldewurtel as modified discloses the limitation “the sensor plate includes a mechanical amplifier, which transfers and multiplies the alternation of length from the rail to the fiber Bragg grating.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the axle counting method using a fiber optic sensor unit for detecting a mechanical variable that acts on the rail as taught by Oldewurtel as modified by including a mechanical amplifier as disclosed by Ramos to increase the magnitude of the mechanical signal in order to improve the clarity of the signal without needing additional electrical power.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oldewurtel as modified by Kunigami as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Tsai et al., hereinafter Tsai, U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0202860 A1.
Regarding claim 18 Oldewurtel as modified teaches:
“method steps a) to d) are carried out (see claim 16 above)
Oldewurtel as modified does not teach:
“a further fiber optic sensor unit which is attached to another rail of the track wherein the two fiber optic sensor units are spaced apart from one another in the rail direction.”
Tsai teaches:
“a further fiber optic sensor unit which is attached to another rail of the track wherein the two fiber optic sensor units are spaced apart from one another in the rail direction” (Tsai, fig 3, ¶ 0028: Tsai teaches “Fig. 3 shows three FBG units 14 installed on each of the two tracks 12 at three different locations” (¶ 0028) disclosing “a further fiber optic sensor unit which is attached to another rail of the track.” Fig 3 depicts the FBG units as being “spaced apart from one another in the rail direction”).
Both Oldewurtel and Tsai are concerned with railway safety and 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 have modified the axle counting method using a fiber optic sensor unit for detecting a mechanical variable that acts on the rail as taught by Oldewurtel as modified by including fiber Bragg gratings on more than one rail as disclosed by Tsai to provide redundancy in measurement calculations in order to provide a “fiber optic track circuit (that) is accurate and reliable” (Tsai, ¶ 0039).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oldewurtel as modified by Kunigami as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eric Udd, U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0321799 A1.
Regarding claim 20 Oldewurtel as modified does not teach:
“the step of detecting light reflected by the first and the second fiber optic strain sensor by the photo diode is evaluated without an optical chip.”
Eric Udd teaches:
“the step of detecting light reflected by the first and the second fiber optic strain sensor by the photo diode is evaluated without an optical chip.” (Eric Udd, fig 16, ¶ 0058: Udd teaches light is detected by an “optical detector 1636, such as a photodiode” (¶ 0058) which is output to an “end-user processor 1656” (¶ 0058) to convert the “output information 1648 into a form suitable for an end user” (¶ 0058) where the “end-user processor” “may be any suitable processor, such as a general purpose computer” (¶ 0058) disclosing evaluating light detected by a photo diode without an optical chip.)
Both Oldewurtel and Eric Udd teach fiber optic sensors containing fiber Bragg grating to determine stress 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 have modified the axle counting method using a fiber optic sensor unit for detecting a mechanical variable that acts on the rail as taught by Oldewurtel as modified to include the evaluation of the detected light without an optical chip as taught by Eric Udd in order to provide a system for evaluating detected light of a fiber optic strain sensor using well-known electronic components rather than specialized and expensive optical chips.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (remarks), filed on 08/14/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) page 7-9 of Applicant’s remarks Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments persuasive with regard to the amendments. New grounds for rejection necessitated by the amendments are presented above.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fernald et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,394,488, teaches amplifying strain detected by Bragg gratings using a mechanical amplifier.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Denise R Karavias whose telephone number is (469)295-9152. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 - 3:00 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, Arleen M. Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/DENISE R KARAVIAS/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/MICHAEL J DALBO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857