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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5-9 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. This is a second non-final office action.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Culshaw, B. et al., US 20030154802 A1 (hereinafter Culshaw), in view of , and in view of Weber, D. et al., U.S. Patent No. US 20150342307A1 (hereinafter Weber).
Regarding claim 1, Culshaw teaches an assembly comprising a set of strands (Fig. 3 para [0056] lines 1-9), the strands for a mooring cable (para [0028] last sentence) extending mainly in a direction of tension (the rope extends in the direction of the tension) in which the set of strands is configured to experience tensile stresses (strain and stress are related, see evidentiary reference: Thévenaz, Luc, et al. "Applications of distributed Brillouin fiber sensing." International Conference on Applied Optical Metrology. Vol. 3407. SPIE, 1998; section 3.1), “the light propagating through the diagnostic fiber between an entrance end and an exit end” (the entrance is connected to the laser and the exit is link to the detector), and in that the assembly comprises a diagnostic device comprising:- “a light source arranged to send a light beam into the diagnostic fiber at the entrance end” (Fig. 4 shows a laser is connected to the coupler of the fiber under test),- “a first optical sensor configured to deliver a signal representative of a light intensity at the exit end of the diagnostic fiber” (Fig. 4 shows a detector is connected to the coupler of the fiber under test), “the light intensity at the exit end of the diagnostic fiber being correlated to a mechanical state of the diagnostic fiber” (this is Fig. 5, para [0060] lines 8-16).
Culshaw fails to teach “all the strands that form the set are made from a same material with a same mechanical tensile strength”, “characterized in that the strands made of transparent nylon are able to conduct light at least for certain wavelengths of light”, “in that at least one strand of the set forms a diagnostic fiber so that the diagnostic fiber is configured to conduct light”.
Weber teaches “all the strands that form the set are made from a same material with a same mechanical tensile strength, characterized in that the strands made of transparent nylon are able to conduct light at least for certain wavelengths of light”, in that at least one strand of the set forms a diagnostic fiber so that the diagnostic fiber is configured to conduct light” (fig. 11 shows fibers 15-17 (para [0041] lines 1-11; ) can be made of nylon (para [0026] lines 10-12) and these fibers can be formed a rope (para [0026] last sentence); note that in fig. 11 fiber 15 conducts light; fig. 11 of Weber is an obvious choice to replace the fiber under test of Culshaw).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the fiber under test of Culshaw to all fibers nylon of Weber because nylon fibers offer good abrasion resistance or be highly flexible (e.g., to stretch without exhibiting plastic deformation) (para [0026] lines 10-12) and in order to obtain predictable result of an easier manufacturing (only having to deal with one material creating the rope).
Regarding claim 2, Culshaw teaches the assembly according to claim 1, characterized in that the set of strands is a mooring cable (para [0028] last sentence).
Regarding claim 5, Culshaw teaches the assembly according to claim 1, “characterized in that the entrance end and the exit end are one and a same end of the diagnostic fiber” (Fig. 4 “Coupler 95/5” shows this limitation) and in that “the diagnostic fiber comprises a distal end opposite the entrance end and reflecting the light inside the diagnostic fiber” (Fig. 4 shows the “Reflective end” as the distal end).
Regarding claim 9, Culshaw teaches the assembly according to claim 1, characterized in that it comprises “a communication module programmed to send the signal from the optical sensor or sensors to a remote control unit” (this is element 61 in Fig. 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Culshaw and Weber as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Danisch, L. A. et al., US 20020088931 A1 (hereinafter Danisch).
Regarding claim 3, Culshaw does not teach the assembly according to claim 1, characterized in that the set of strands is a fabric band or a strap.
Danisch, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the assembly according to claim 1, characterized in that the set of strands is a fabric band (Fig. 54 para [0244] lines 1-3) or a strap.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Danisch to Culshaw to have the assembly according to claim 1, characterized in that the set of strands is a fabric band or a strap in order to sense the bend and twist on the fabric (para [0244] lines 19-22) in order to provide flexure signals indicating the local state of flexure present at the sensing locations (para [0024] last sentence).
Regarding claim 6, Culshaw does not teach the assembly according to claim 1, characterized in that the diagnostic fiber is folded in two so that the entrance end and the exit end are juxtaposed.
Danisch, from the same field of endeavor, the assembly according to claim1, characterized in that the diagnostic fiber is folded in two so that the entrance end and the exit end are juxtaposed (Fig. 24 shows fiber 105 is folded into 150A and 105B, these two fibers are side by side to one another).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Danisch to Culshaw to have the the assembly according to claim 1, characterized in that the diagnostic fiber is folded in two so that the entrance end and the exit end are juxtaposed in order to enhance the measurement of the bending signal (para [0188] line 6).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Culshaw and Weber as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Norling, B., US 5031987 A (hereinafter Norling).
Regarding claim 7, Culshaw does not teach the assembly according to claim 1, characterized in that the diagnostic device further comprises: - a second optical sensor, and - a beam splitter arranged to split a light beam from the light source into a first beam sent into the diagnostic fiber and a second beam sent into the second optical sensor.
Norling, from the same field of endeavor as Culshaw, teaches the assembly according to claim 1, characterized in that the diagnostic device further comprises: - a second optical sensor (this is “71 in Fig. 9”, col 9 lines 14-16), and – “a beam splitter arranged to split a light beam from the light source into a first beam sent into the diagnostic fiber and a second beam sent into the second optical sensor” (the beam splitter is “68”, col 9 lines 14-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Norling to Culshaw to have the assembly according to claim1, characterized in that the diagnostic device further comprises: - a second optical sensor, and- a beam splitter arranged to split a light beam from the light source into a first beam sent into the diagnostic fiber and a second beam sent into the second optical sensor in order to check if the optical fiber is broken or not (col 9 lines 8-11).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Culshaw and Weber as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Johnson, A. et al., US 5182449 A (hereinafter Johnson).
Regarding claim 8, Culshaw teaches the assembly according to claim 1, characterized: - in that the set of strands comprises several diagnostic fibers (Fig. 3 shows element 10 has several diagnostic fibers).
However, Culshaw fails to teach the first optical sensor is a camera generating images of the exit ends of the diagnostic fibers.
Johnson, from the same field of endeavor as Culshaw, teaches the first optical sensor is a camera generating images of the exit ends of the diagnostic fibers (Fig. 1 element 22, col 4 lines 9-17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Johnson to Culshaw to have the first optical sensor is a camera generating images of the exit ends of the diagnostic fibers in order to detect the light intensity, frequency, and phase shift (col 4 lines 9-17) in order to measure the stress of the structure (col 1 para 5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO FABIAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8-12, 1-5).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/ROBERTO FABIAN JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877