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 .
Status of Claims
The examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 10 and 12, and the addition of new claims 22-29. Claims 10-16 and 18-29 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-9 and 17 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 10-16 and 18-29 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 27 March 2025 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 12-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 12, line 4 recites the limitation “said fiber” which should be amended to recite “said optical fiber” to provide proper antecedence in the claim. Claims 13-16 depend on claim 12 and are therefore also objected to.
Further regarding claim 12, line 6 recites the limitation “moving of said segment changes a radius of curvature of said portion” which should be amended to recite “moving of said segment changes a radius of curvature of said segment” to provide proper antecedence in the claim. Claims 13-16 depend on claim 12 and are therefore also objected to.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 10-16 and 18-29 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 claim 10, lines 1-3 recite the limitation “A system comprising: a device for smoothing spectral transmission modulations in an optical fiber, the device comprising…”. It is unclear, from format of claim 10 (e.g. lack of line indentations or other distinguishing means), which limitations are comprised in the claimed device and which limitations are generic to the claimed system as a whole. For instance, it is unclear, from the formatting of claim 10, if the claimed light source is part of the claimed device, or if they are both different elements in the claimed system. Therefore, claim 10 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Claims 11 and 22-29 depend on claim 10 and are therefore also rejected to under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner assumes applicant intends to indicate that the element comprised in the device recited in claim 10 are the “at least on holder” and the “fiber bender”, while the “light source” represents a different element of the claimed system. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
Further regarding claim 10, line 10 recites the limitation “an optical fiber having a portion of its length arranged in said device”. However, claim 10 previously introduces “an optical fiber” on line 2, and further previously recites “a portion of said optical fiber” on line 4. It is unclear if the “optical fiber” and the “portion” recited on line 10 of claim 10 is intended to refer to the same “optical fiber” and “portion” recited on lines 2 and 4 of claim 10 respectively, or if the “optical fiber” and the “portion” recited on line 10 of claim 10 are referring to different claim elements. Therefore, claim 10 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Claims 11 and 22-29 depend on claim 10 and are therefore also rejected to under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner assumes the “optical fiber” and the “portion” recited on line 10 of claim 10 is intended to be the same elements as the “optical fiber” and “portion” recited on lines 2 and 4 of claim 10 respectively. Thus, the examiner is interpreting line 10 of claim 10 to instead recite ‘wherein the optical fiber has the portion of its length arranged in said device’. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
Further regarding claim 10, line 13 recites the limitation “a spectroscopic measurement using a tunable diode laser absorption spectroscopy (TDLAS)”. It is unclear what is meant by “using a tunable diode laser absorption spectroscopy”. The use of the term “a tunable diode laser absorption spectroscopy” appears to refer to some sort of hardware component that is used to perform a tunable diode laser absorption spectroscopy measurement, however the claim does not recite any elements capable of making such a measurement. Therefore, claim 10 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Claims 11 and 22-29 depend on claim 10 and are therefore also rejected to under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner assumes, from the language used on pg. 12 lines 36-38 of the specification, that applicant intends for line 13 of claim 10 to recite ‘a spectroscopic measurement using tunable diode laser absorption spectroscopy (TDLAS)’. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
Regarding claim 12, lines 8-9 recite the limitation “a spectroscopic measurement using a tunable diode laser absorption spectroscopy (TDLAS)”. It is unclear what is meant by “using a tunable diode laser absorption spectroscopy”. The use of the term “a tunable diode laser absorption spectroscopy” appears to refer to some sort of hardware component that is used to perform a tunable diode laser absorption spectroscopy measurement, however the claim does not recite any elements capable of making such a measurement. Therefore, claim 12 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Claims 13-16 depend on claim 12 and are therefore also rejected to under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner assumes, from the language used on pg. 12 lines 36-38 of the specification, that applicant intends for lines 8-9 to instead recite ‘a spectroscopic measurement using tunable diode laser absorption spectroscopy (TDLAS)’. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
Regarding claim 14, line 2 recites the limitation “carrying out a spectroscopic measurement”. It is unclear if the spectroscopic measurement recited in claim 14 is intended to be the same spectroscopic measurement as the spectroscopic measurement previously recited in claim 12, or if the two spectroscopic measurements are intended to be different measurements. Therefore, claim 14 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Claims 15-16 depend on claim 14 and are therefore also rejected to under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner assumes applicant intends for line 2 of claim 14 to instead recite ‘carrying out the spectroscopic measurement’. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
Regarding claim 18, line 1 recites the limitation “the device of claim 5”. Claim 5 has been cancelled by the applicant, thus it is unclear what “the device of claim 5” is referring to. Therefore, claim 18 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Since new claim 25 recites limitations that provide proper antecedent basis for the limitations recited in claim 18, the examiner assumes applicant intends for claim 18 to instead depend on claim 25. Furthermore, since this claim is being interpreted to depend on claim 25, which depends on the system of claim 10, the examiner further assumes applicant intends for line 1 of claim 18 to recite ‘The system of claim 25’. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend and renumber claim 18 accordingly.
Regarding claim 19, line 1 recites the limitation “the device of claim 1”. Claim 1 has been cancelled by the applicant, thus it is unclear what “the device of claim 1” is referring to. Therefore, claim 19 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Since claim 10 recites limitations that provide proper antecedent basis for the limitations recited in claim 19, the examiner assumes applicant intends for claim 19 to instead depend on claim 10. Furthermore, since this claim is being interpreted to depend on the system of claim 10, the examiner further assumes applicant intends for line 1 of claim 19 to recite ‘The system of claim 10’. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend claim 19 accordingly.
Regarding claim 20, line 1 recites the limitation “the device of claim 7”. Claim 7 has been cancelled by the applicant, thus it is unclear what “the device of claim 7” is referring to. Therefore, claim 20 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Since new claim 25 recites limitations that provide proper antecedent basis for the limitations recited in claim 20, the examiner assumes applicant intends for claim 20 to instead depend on claim 25. Furthermore, since this claim is being interpreted to depend on claim 25, which depends on the system of claim 10, the examiner further assumes applicant intends for line 1 of claim 20 to recite ‘The system of claim 25’. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend and renumber claim 20 accordingly.
Regarding claim 21, line 1 recites the limitation “the device of claim 1”. Claim 1 has been cancelled by the applicant, thus it is unclear what “the device of claim 1” is referring to. Therefore, claim 21 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Since claim 10 recites limitations that provide proper antecedent basis for the limitations recited in claim 21, the examiner assumes applicant intends for claim 21 to instead depend on claim 10. Furthermore, since this claim is being interpreted to depend on the system of claim 10, the examiner further assumes applicant intends for line 1 of claim 21 to recite ‘The system of claim 10’. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend claim 21 accordingly.
Regarding claim 22, line 1 recites the limitation “the device of claim 10”. Claim 10 is directed to “a system”, and while the system comprises “a device”, claim 10 itself is directed to a system, not a device. Therefore, claim 22 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Claims 23-24 and 27 depend on claim 22 and are therefore also rejected to under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner assumes applicant intends for line 1 of claim 22 to instead recite ‘the system of claim 10’. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
Regarding claim 23, line 1 recites the limitation “the device of claim 22”. Claim 22 depends on claim 10 which is directed to “a system”, and while the system comprises “a device”, claim 10 itself is directed to a system, not a device. Therefore, claim 23 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner assumes applicant intends for line 1 of claim 23 to instead recite ‘the system of claim 22’. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
Regarding claim 24, line 1 recites the limitation “the device of claim 22”. Claim 22 depends on claim 10 which is directed to “a system”, and while the system comprises “a device”, claim 10 itself is directed to a system, not a device. Therefore, claim 24 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner assumes applicant intends for line 1 of claim 24 to instead recite ‘the system of claim 22’. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
Regarding claim 25, line 1 recites the limitation “the device of claim 10”. Claim 10 is directed to “a system”, and while the system comprises “a device”, claim 10 itself is directed to a system, not a device. Therefore, claim 25 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner assumes applicant intends for line 1 of claim 25 to instead recite ‘the system of claim 10’. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
Regarding claim 26, line 1 recites the limitation “the device of claim 10”. Claim 10 is directed to “a system”, and while the system comprises “a device”, claim 10 itself is directed to a system, not a device. Therefore, claim 26 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner assumes applicant intends for line 1 of claim 26 to instead recite ‘the system of claim 10’. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
Regarding claim 27, line 1 recites the limitation “the device of claim 22”. Claim 22 depends on claim 10 which is directed to “a system”, and while the system comprises “a device”, claim 10 itself is directed to a system, not a device. Therefore, claim 27 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner assumes applicant intends for line 1 of claim 27 to instead recite ‘the system of claim 22’. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
Regarding claim 28, line 1 recites the limitation “the device of claim 10”. Claim 10 is directed to “a system”, and while the system comprises “a device”, claim 10 itself is directed to a system, not a device. Therefore, claim 28 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner assumes applicant intends for line 1 of claim 28 to instead recite ‘the system of claim 10’. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
Regarding claim 29, line 1 recites the limitation “the device of claim 10”. Claim 10 is directed to “a system”, and while the system comprises “a device”, claim 10 itself is directed to a system, not a device. Therefore, claim 29 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner assumes applicant intends for line 1 of claim 29 to instead recite ‘the system of claim 10’. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 11, 14-15, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the system of claim 10, wherein said light source is emitting light with a variable wavelength” on lines 1-2. However, claim 10 previously recites the limitation “said light source is configured to be swept over a wavelength range…” on line 12. Sweeping a light source over a wavelength range causes light from the light source to be emitted with a variable wavelength. Therefore, the limitations recited in claim 11 do not limit the system of claim 10 as they are inherent to the limitation “said light source is configured to be swept over a wavelength range…” found on line 12 of claim 10. Thus, claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) for being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends on.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the method of claim 12, comprising transmitting a light through said optical fiber for carrying out the spectroscopic measurement” (see interpretation of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) above) on lines 1-2. However, claim 12 previously recites the limitation “sweeping a light source connected to said optical fiber over a wavelength range for performing a spectroscopic measurement” on lines 7-8. Since the light source recited in claim 12 is connected to said optical fiber, the swept light must be transmitted through said optical fiber to perform the spectroscopic measurement recited in claim 12. Therefore, the limitations recited in claim 14 do not limit the method of claim 12 as they are inherent to the limitation “sweeping a light source connected to said optical fiber over a wavelength range for performing a spectroscopic measurement” found on lines 7-8 of claim 12. Thus, claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) for being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends on.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the method of claim 14, wherein said light has a wavelength which is varied over time” on lines 1-2. However, claim 12, in which claim 15 depends on through claim 14, previously recites “sweeping a light source connected to said optical fiber over a wavelength range” on line 7. Sweeping a light source over a wavelength range causes emitted light to have a wavelength which is varied over time. Therefore, since the limitations of claim 14 were also determined to be inherent to the limitations recited in claim 12 (see rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) above), the limitations recited in claim 15 do not limit the method of claim 14 as they are inherent to the limitation “sweeping a light source connected to said optical fiber over a wavelength range” found on line 7 of claim 12. Thus, claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) for being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends on.
Regarding claims 18-21, each of these claims depends on a previously cancelled claim (e.g. claim 18 depends on the device of claim 5, claim 19 depends on the device of claim 1, claim 20 depends on the device of claim 7, and claim 21 depends on the device of claim 1, wherein applicant has cancelled all of claims 1-9 and 17). Therefore, claims 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for being of improper dependent form as they do not reference a claim previously set forth.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 10-15, 22-26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (US 2008/0192241 A1, of record), as evidenced by Koyata (US 2009/0109698 A1, of record), in view of Ide (US Patent No. 4,636,070 A, of record) and Masterson et al. (US 2008/0002186 A1), hereinafter Masterson.
Regarding claim 10, He teaches a system (see Fig. 1) comprising:
a device (Fig. 1 bending unit 10, abstract) for smoothing spectral transmission modulations in an optical fiber (Fig. 1 optical fiber 12; paragraph 0051 discusses that the device achieves a sufficient signal-to-noise ratio of light transmitting through the optical fiber, thus it is seen by the examiner that the device of He teaches the intended use of smoothing spectral transmission modulations; further, bending a fiber inherently smooths spectral transmission modulations, as evidenced by Koyata in paragraphs 0093 and 0097-0099), the device comprising:
at least one holder (Fig. 1 jaws 20 and 22) configured to couple a portion of said optical fiber to said device (see Fig. 1 where a portion of the optical fiber 12 is coupled to the device);
a fiber bender (Fig. 1 bending unit 10 comprises actuator unit 36, secondary drive motor 66, connecting rods 32A-C, coupling 34, and anvil member 38, these elements together act as the fiber bending member) configured to cyclically move (paragraph 0027; imparting an oscillation onto the fiber is equivalent to cyclical motion; see also paragraph 0068-0069) a segment of said portion orthogonally to a longitudinal axis of said portion (paragraph 0045 “The actuator unit 36 moves the coupling 34 to and fro along the longitudinal axis CL, which causes the jaws 20 and 22 to bend the fiber 12 inserted between them”; the longitudinal axis CL is orthogonal to the longitudinal axis of the optical fiber portion 12, see Fig. 1) from an initial position (paragraph 0050-0051), wherein said fiber bender is positioned adjacent to said at least one holder (see Fig. 1, the components of the bending unit 10 which bend the fiber 12 are adjacent to jaws 20 and 22) and whereby said movement changes a radius of curvature of said portion (paragraph 0050-0051; changing bend radius changes the fiber’s radius of curvature (paragraph 0018); see also paragraph 0055-0057), thereby smoothing the spectral transmission modulations in the optical fiber by reducing interference originating from the optical fiber (He: bending the fiber to change its radius of curvature inherently smooths spectral transmission modulations by reducing interference originating from the fiber, as evidenced by Koyata in paragraphs 0093 and 0097-0099 (bending the optical fiber in the manner disclosed by Koyata changes its radius of curvature, see for example Koyata Fig. 10A-C)),
wherein the optical fiber has the portion of its length arranged in said device (see Fig. 1),
While He teaches gathering a portion of a light signal from the optical fiber (see He paragraph 0076), He does not teach a light source connected to said optical fiber, wherein said light source is configured to be swept over a range of wavelengths for performing a spectroscopic measurement using tunable diode laser absorption spectroscopy (TDLAS) such that variations in a baseline are reduced when carrying out said spectroscopic measurement.
Ide, which relates to systems including a fiber bender, teaches a light source connected to said optical fiber, wherein said light source is configured to be swept over a range of wavelengths (Ide: Fig. 1-2 light source 12, col. 6 lines 51-62, col. 9 lines 52-55).
Therefore, since He teaches the system can be used across a range of wavelengths (see He paragraph 0050, 0080), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of He to include a light source connected to said optical fiber, wherein said light source is configured to be swept over a range of wavelengths, as taught by Ide, for the benefit of providing light sufficient to calibrate the system of He at multiple wavelengths, which is identified as a need in He (see He paragraph 0054).
Yet remaining, He, as modified by Ide, does not teach said light source is configured to be swept over a range of wavelengths for performing a spectroscopic measurement using tunable diode laser absorption spectroscopy (TDLAS) such that variations in a baseline are reduced when carrying out said spectroscopic measurement (emphasis added via bolded words).
Masterson, which relates to bending optical fibers to smooth transmissions, teaches a light source (Masterson: Fig. 1 lasers 12), connected to an optical fiber (see Masterson Fig. 1, paragraph 0026), which is configured to be emitted over a wavelength range for performing a spectroscopic measurement (Masterson: see paragraph 0026, 0034, 0072-0073) using tunable diode laser absorption spectroscopy (Masterson: paragraph 0026, 0034, 0072) such that variations in a baseline are reduced when carrying out said spectroscopic measurement (Masterson: paragraph 0067-0074, 0100-0102).
Therefore, since He teaches the use of a spectral analyzer in the system (see He paragraph 0076), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of He (as modified by Ide) to have said light source be configured to be swept over a range of wavelengths for performing a spectroscopic measurement using tunable diode laser absorption spectroscopy (TDLAS) such that variations in a baseline are reduced when carrying out said spectroscopic measurement, as taught by Masterson, for the benefit of providing sufficient means to perform an optical spectrum measurement which is identified as a need in He (see paragraph 0076 of He).
Regarding claim 11, He, as evidenced by Koyata and as modified by Ide and Masterson, teaches the system of claim 10, as outlined above, and further teaches said light source is emitting light with a variable wavelength (see Ide col. 6 lines 51-57).
Regarding claim 12, He teaches a method of smoothing spectral transmission modulations in an optical fiber (paragraphs 0001, 0034, 0051, 0073, see also Fig. 1 which shows optical fiber 12; further, bending a fiber inherently smooths spectral transmission modulations, as evidenced by Koyata in paragraphs 0093 and 0097-0099), comprising:
coupling said optical fiber to at least one holder (paragraph 0044 “two sets of jaws 20 and 22 between which time fiber 12 is slidably inserted for bending”);
moving a segment of said optical fiber (paragraphs 0031, 0044-0045), using a fiber bender arranged adjacent to said at least on holder (Fig. 1 bending unit 10 comprises actuator unit 36, secondary drive motor 66, connecting rods 32A-C, coupling 34, and anvil member 38, these elements together act as the fiber bending member and are arranged adjacent to the jaws 20 and 22), orthogonally to a longitudinal axis of said optical fiber (paragraph 0045 “The actuator unit 36 moves the coupling 34 to and fro along the longitudinal axis CL, which causes the jaws 20 and 22 to bend the fiber 12 inserted between them”; the longitudinal axis CL is orthogonal to the longitudinal axis of the optical fiber portion 12, see Fig. 1) cyclically (paragraph 0027; imparting an oscillation onto the fiber is equivalent to cyclical motion, see also paragraph 0068-0069), wherein said moving of said segment changes a radius of a curvature of said segment (paragraph 0050-0051; changing bend radius changes the fiber’s radius of curvature (paragraph 0018); see also paragraph 0055-0057).
While He teaches gathering a portion of a light signal from the optical fiber (see He paragraph 0076), He does not teach sweeping a light source connected to said optical fiber over a wavelength range for performing a spectroscopic measurement using tunable laser absorption spectroscopy such that variations in a baseline are reduced when carrying out said spectroscopic measurement.
Ide, which relates to methods involving bending optical fibers, teaches sweeping a light source connected to said optical fiber over a wavelength range (Ide: Fig. 1-2 light source 12, col. 6 lines 51-62, col. 9 lines 52-55).
Therefore, since He teaches the system which performs the method can be used across a range of wavelengths (see He paragraph 0050, 0080), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of He to include sweeping a light source connected to said optical fiber over a wavelength range, as taught by Ide, for the benefit of providing light sufficient to calibrate the system of He at multiple wavelengths, which is identified as a need in He (see He paragraph 0054).
Yet remaining, He, as modified by Ide, does not teach sweeping a light source connected to said optical fiber over a wavelength range for performing a spectroscopic measurement using tunable laser absorption spectroscopy such that variations in a baseline are reduced when carrying out said spectroscopic measurement (emphasis added via bolded words).
Masterson, which relates to bending optical fibers to smooth transmissions, teaches emitting light from a light source connected to an optical fiber over a range of wavelengths (Masterson: paragraph 0026) for performing a spectroscopic measurement (Masterson: see paragraph 0026, 0034, 0072-0073) using tunable diode laser absorption spectroscopy (Masterson: paragraph 0026, 0034, 0072) such that variations in a baseline are reduced when carrying out said spectroscopic measurement (Masterson: paragraph 0067-0074, 0100-0102).
Therefore, since He teaches the use of a spectral analyzer in the method (see He paragraph 0076), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of He (as modified by Ide) to include sweeping a light source connected to said optical fiber over a wavelength range for performing a spectroscopic measurement using tunable laser absorption spectroscopy such that variations in a baseline are reduced when carrying out said spectroscopic measurement, as taught by Masterson, for the benefit of providing sufficient means to perform an optical spectrum measurement which is identified as a need in He (see paragraph 0076 of He).
Regarding claim 13, He, as evidenced by Koyata and as modified by Ide and Masterson, teaches the method of claim 12, as outlined above, and further teaches coupling said optical fiber to two holders (Fig. 1 optical fiber 12 coupled to jaws 20 and 22), thereby arranging a portion of said optical fiber between said two holders (see Fig. 1), using said fiber bender arranged between said two holders (Fig. 1 the elements of the fiber bending member are arranged between jaws 20 and 22) to move said segment being part of said portion (paragraph 0045).
Regarding claim 14, He, as evidenced by Koyata and as modified by Ide and Masterson, teaches the method of claim 12, as outlined above, and further teaches transmitting a light through said optical fiber for carrying out the spectroscopic measurement (Masterson: paragraph 0026; see also He paragraph 0076).
Regarding claim 15, He, as evidenced by Koyata and as modified by Ide and Masterson, teaches the method of claim 14, as outlined above, and further teaches wherein said light has a wavelength which is varied over time (see Ide col. 6 lines 51-62, col. 9 lines 52-55).
Regarding claim 22, He, as evidenced by Koyata and as modified by Ide and Masterson, teaches the system of claim 10, as outlined above, and further teaches the device comprises two of said at least one holder (He: Fig. 1 jaws 20 and 22), and said portion and said fiber bender are arranged between the two holders (see He Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 23, He, as evidenced by Koyata and as modified by Ide and Masterson, teaches the system of claim 22, as outlined above, and further teaches at least one of said two holders is configured for slidingly hold said optical fiber (paragraph 0044 “bending unit 10 comprises two sets of jaws 20 and 22 between which time fiber 12 is slidably inserted for bending”), whereby said portion slides in a longitudinal axial direction in said at least one of said two holders when said segment is moved (Fig. 1 and paragraph 0044-0045, given the movement of the elements of the bending unit 10, the optical fiber inherently moves in a longitudinal axial direction).
Regarding claim 24, He, as evidenced by Koyata and as modified by Ide and Masterson, teaches the system of claim 22, as outlined above, and further teaches said fiber bender is an actuator (Fig. 1 actuator unit 36 is part of bending unit 10) connected to a first holder of said two holders (Fig. 1 actuator 36 is connected to coupling 34 which is connected to jaws 20 and 22) and being configured for cyclically moving said first holder towards a second holder of said two holders and then away from said second holder (paragraph 0027, 0068 which discuss the cyclical movement and paragraph 0045 “the actuator unit 36 urges the connecting rods 32A and 32B towards the anvil member 38”; urging the connecting rods which couple to jaws 20 and 22 effectively moves the jaws towards each other, since this is done as an oscillation, either/both of the jaws 20 and 22 are moved towards each other and then subsequently moved away) whereby said segment moves orthogonally to a longitudinal axis of said portion from said initial position and then back to said initial position (Fig. 1, paragraph 0027, 0045, 0068; since the actuator imparts an oscillation on the jaws 20 and 22, the fiber 12 is taken from an initial position and then returned to an initial position by the oscillation, this movement is in the direction of longitudinal axis CL, which is orthogonal to the longitudinal axis of the portion of optical fiber 12).
Regarding claim 25, He, as evidenced by Koyata and as modified by Ide and Masterson, teaches the system of claim 10, as outlined above, and further teaches said fiber bender is a force applier (Fig. 1 bending unit 10 has anvil 38 which applies a force onto the optical fiber 12 as a result from movement of connecting rods 32A-C) configured to apply a force on said portion orthogonally to a longitudinal axis of said portion (Fig. 1 moving connecting rods 32A-C pulls the fiber portion 12 towards anvil 38, the anvil 38 exerts a force along the longitudinal axis CL which is orthogonal to the longitudinal axis of the fiber 12), thereby moving said segment (Fig. 1 the movement of connecting rods 32A-C moves the fiber portion to be bent around the anvil 38).
Regarding claim 18, He, as evidenced by Koyata and as modified by Ide and Masterson, teaches the system of claim 25, as outlined above, and further teaches wherein said force is a mechanical force (He: Fig. 1 force provided by anvil 38 is a normal force), pushing at said portion orthogonally to said longitudinal axis to change said radius of said curvature (He: Fig. 1 the anvil 38 provides a pushing force against the optical fiber 12 as the connecting rods 32A-C pull the jaws 20 and 22 downward, this changes the radius of curvature of the fiber (see paragraph 0050-0051, paragraph 0055-0057)).
Regarding claim 19, He, as evidenced by Koyata and as modified by Ide and Masterson, teaches the system of claim 10, as outlined above, and further teaches said radius is larger than a minimum bend radius of said optical fiber when a force is applied thereon (He: Fig. 1, paragraph 0029, 0050-0051, 0079; applying a force to the fiber 12 by moving the connecting rods 32A-C upwards results in a radius larger than the minimum bend radius).
Regarding claim 26, He, as evidenced by Koyata and as modified by Ide and Masterson, teaches the system of claim 10, as outlined above, and further teaches said radius is larger than a minimum bend radius of said optical fiber (paragraph 0029 “the apparatus further comprises means for limiting the bending radius to a predetermined minimum value without leaked light having been detected”), when said segment is moved (Fig. 1, paragraph 0029, paragraph 0050-0051, 0079; applying a force to the fiber 12 by moving the connecting rods 32A-C upward results in the movement of the optical fiber and a radius larger than the minimum bend radius).
Regarding claim 28, He as evidenced by Koyata and as modified by Ide and Masterson, teaches the system of claim 10, as outlined above, and further teaches said at least one holder is a slit (Fig. 1 jaws 20 and 22 are functionally equivalent to a slit as the jaw members 20A-B and 22A-B combine to create an opening slit for the optical fiber 12) configured to hold said optical fiber(see Fig. 1, paragraph 0044).
Claims 16, 21, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He as evidenced by Koyata and in view of Ide and Masterson as applied to claims 10, 12 and 14-15 above, and further in view of Petersburg et al. ("Modal Noise Mitigation through Fiber Agitation for Fiber-fed Radial Velocity Spectrographs", of record), hereinafter Petersburg.
Regarding claim 16, He, as evidenced by Koyata and as modified by Ide and Masterson, teaches the method of claim 15, as outlined above, and further teaches teach varying said radius with a time of a period (He: paragraph 0027, 0068-0069), but does not teach the time of the period being the same as a measuring time for one wavelength.
Petersburg, which is related to bending optical fibers, teaches agitating an optical fiber portion for a period of time being the same as a measuring time for one wavelength (Petersburg: page 6 left column “All exposure times are set to 2.0 s to match the rotation periods of the large-amplitude agitators”, see also the paragraph bridging pages 4 and 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the period of varying the radius of He (as evidenced by Koyata and as modified by Ide and Masterson) to be the same as a measuring time for one wavelength, as taught by Petersburg, for the benefit of further improving the signal to noise ratio of the light of He (as evidenced by Koyata and as modified by Ide and Masterson).
Regarding claim 21, He, as evidenced by Koyata and as modified by Ide and Masterson, teaches the system of claim 10, as outlined above, and further teaches said fiber bender is a motor (He: paragraph 0045), but does not teach said motor rotating at least one blade configured to move said segment by applying a force cyclically.
Petersburg, which is related to bending an optical fiber, teaches a motor which rotates at least one blade (Petersburg: Fig. 2 circular agitator is functionally equivalent to the at least one blade, Fig. 13 caption “Both linear and circular agitators have independent DC motors”) configured to move said segment (Petersburg: see Fig. 2 description, page 4 left col. first paragraph) by applying a force cyclically (Petersburg: pg. 6 right col. final paragraph “any periodic rotation used as fiber agitation should complete its cycle within a single detector exposure”, thus the force applied by the circular agitator is cyclical).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of He (as evidenced by Koyata and as modified by Ide and Masterson) to have the motor rotate at least one blade configured to move said segment by applying a force cyclically, as taught by Petersburg, for the benefit of improving the signal to noise ratio emanating from the fiber (see Petersburg section 4.1 Method of Agitation and Fiber Geometry).
Regarding claim 29, He, as evidenced by Koyata and as modified by Ide and Masterson, teaches the system of claim 10 as outlined above, and further teaches said fiber bender is a motor (He: paragraph 0045), but does not teach said motor rotating at least one blade configured to move said segment.
Petersburg, which is related to bending an optical fiber, teaches a motor which rotates at least one blade (Petersburg: Fig. 2 circular agitator is functionally equivalent to the at least one blade, Fig. 13 caption “Both the linear and circular agitators have independent DC motors”) configured to move said segment (Petersburg: see Fig. 2 description, page 4 left column first paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the fiber bender of He (as evidenced by Koyata and as modified by Ide and Masterson) with the fiber bending member of Petersburg which includes a motor that rotates at least one blade configured to move said segment. The circular agitator of Petersburg beneficially improves the signal to noise ratio emanating from the fiber (see Petersburg section 4.1 Method of Agitation and Fiber Geometry).
Claims 20 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He as evidenced by Koyata and in view of Ide and Masterson as applied to claims 10, 12, 14-15, 22, and 25 above, and further in view of Martinez (US 4,729,630, of record).
Regarding claim 20, He, as evidenced by Koyata and as modified by Ide and Masterson, teaches the system of claim 25, as outlined above, but does not teach said initial position is when no force is applied thereon by said fiber bender.
Martinez, which relates to devices that bend optical fibers, teaches an initial position of an optical fiber in which no force is applied thereon by said fiber bender (Martinez: Fig. 2 shows the optical fiber between points 52 not under any force from bending pin 66, thus the optical fiber is straight; see also col. 3 line 29 through col. 4 line 41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of He (as evidenced by Koyata and as modified by Ide and Masterson) to have the initial position of the optical fiber be when no force is applied thereon by said fiber bender, as taught by Martinez, as doing so beneficially enables a reading of the optical fiber prior to any bending from the bending unit.
Regarding claim 27, He, as evidenced by Koyata and as modified by Ide and Masterson, teaches the system of claim 22, as outlined above, but does not teach said two holders are arranged for positioning said portion in said initial position as a straight position, before said segment is moved.
Martinez, which is related to devices that bend fiber optics, teaches two holders for an optical fiber (Martinez: Fig. 2 housings 58) where said two holders are arranged for positioning said portion in said initial position as a straight position (Martinez: Fig. 2 the portion of the optical fiber 14 between points 52 is straight, this is the portion being bent by the transducer 10), before said segment is moved (Martinez: Fig. 2 shows segment of optical fiber between points 52 which has not been moved).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the holders of He (as evidenced by Koyata and as modified by Ide and Masterson) to be arranged for positioning said portion in said initial position as a straight position, before said segment is moved, as taught by Martinez, as doing so beneficially enables a reading of the optical fiber prior to any bending from the bending unit.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zlodeev et al. ("Transmission spectra of a double-clad fibre structure under bending." Quantum Electronics 43.6 (2013): 535.) relates to the measurement of transmission spectra of a fiber structure as it is bent.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH J HANEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm eastern time.
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.
/NOAH J. HANEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877