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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0028], “LDF (light defusing fiber)” should read “LDF (light diffusing fiber)”.
In paragraph [0029] and similarly in [0043], “position G1 with coordinates (X,Y) = (8,2)” should likely read “position G2 with coordinates (X,Y) = (8,2)”.
In paragraph [0054], the applicant should consider whether they want “by the position measuring system (301 to 304)” to say, “by the position measuring system (301 to 305)”.
In the reference sign list (paragraph [0056]), the applicant should consider adding “30-3” to the line for “Light source”.
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.
Claim 4 is 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitations "one of the light sources" and “another of the light sources”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 only recites a singular light source while these limitations of claim 4 allude to multiple light sources. It is unclear whether a second light source has been added, or if the light source of claim 1 may be composed of multiple distinct light sources. Note that this distinction is relevant because the light source of claim 1 is claimed to have two wavelengths. As best understood by the examiner, the applicant is that the light source of claim 1 may be composed of multiple distinct light sources, which is to say, neither of the light sources in claim 4 are intended to emit more than one wavelength on their own. Examination will proceed under this assumption.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss (US 7329857 B1) in view of Official Notice.
Regarding claim 1, Weiss teaches:
A position measuring system ([Col. 10, Lines 15-47] “FIG. 8 shows a schematic layout of another embodiment of a side-emitting fiber optic position sensor 900”) comprising:
a position measuring device mounted on an object to be measured ([Col. 10, Lines 15-47] “A second, movable "ring-type" photodetector 918 is located at the unknown, variable position, X, where it measures a reduced, attenuated intensity of side-emitted light… A set of equations similar to equations (1)-(6) can be derived that express the unique relationship between measured light intensity and position along the fiber”. The object to be measured may correspond to the detector itself, its housing, or anything it may be attached to.);
an optical fiber installed in a movement area of the object to be measured ([Col. 10, Lines 15-47] “light source 912 illuminates the left end of side-emitting fiber 910”); and
a light source configured to cause light […] to be incident on the optical fiber ([Col. 10, Lines 15-47] “light source 912 illuminates the left end of side-emitting fiber 910”),
wherein the position measuring device includes a light receiving unit configured to receive scattered light emitted from a side surface of the optical fiber ([Col. 10, Lines 15-47] “A pair of photodetectors 916 & 918 measure the intensity of light emitted at two different axial positions along fiber 910… A second, movable "ring-type" photodetector 918 is located at the unknown, variable position, X, where it measures a reduced, attenuated intensity of side-emitted light…”),
[…] a correspondence between information on the scattered light and a position of the object to be measured ([Col. 10, Lines 15-47] “A set of equations similar to equations (1)-(6) can be derived that express the unique relationship between measured light intensity and position along the fiber”), and
[…]
This embodiment of Weiss does not explicitly teach:
a light source configured to cause light having at least two wavelengths to be incident on the optical fiber
a database configured to store a correspondence between information on the scattered light and a position of the object to be measured, and
a determination unit configured to determine, based on the correspondence stored in the database, a position of the object to be measured from information on the scattered light received by the light receiving unit.
However, Weiss teaches, in the context of another embodiment, a variety of light source options, thus teaching:
a light source configured to cause light having at least two wavelengths to be incident on the optical fiber ([Col. 5, Lines 27-35] “Light source 12 may be a continuous, steady-state source; or it may be modulated, amplitude modulated, frequency modulated, pulsed, or any combination thereof. Multiple light sources may be used at the same, or different, axial position along fiber 10; with each source having a unique wavelength, modulation pattern, modulation frequency, etc. Using appropriate filtering and digital processing, the photodetector signals can be [de-modulated] to separate out the individual contributions from each independent light source.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the embodiment of Weiss with the diverse contemplation of light sources of Weiss as reasonable and predictable options for a light source.
The combination still fails to explicitly teach:
a database configured to store a correspondence between information on the scattered light and a position of the object to be measured, and
a determination unit configured to determine, based on the correspondence stored in the database, a position of the object to be measured from information on the scattered light received by the light receiving unit.
However, another embodiment of Weiss teaches the use of a processor to handle calculations, thus teaching:
a determination unit configured to determine, based on the correspondence […], a position of the object to be measured from information on the scattered light received by the light receiving unit ([Col. 7, Lines 3-10] “Integrated processor 50… for…, analyzing the data and calculating the unknown position, X, etc.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the processor of Weiss into the other taught embodiments of Weiss to automate calculations.
The modified embodiment still fails to teach:
a database configured to store a correspondence between information on the scattered light and a position of the object to be measured, and
a determination unit configured to determine, based on the correspondence stored in the database, a position of the object to be measured from information on the scattered light received by the light receiving unit.
The examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that it is well-known and common in the field to implement calculations like the one noted above in the form of database lookup tables.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the embodiment of Weiss with a well-known lookup table to reduce potentially redundant calculations.
Regarding claim 4, Weiss in view of Official Notice teaches the position measuring system of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein one of the light sources is connected to one end of the optical fiber (FIG. 8; [Col. 10, Lines 15-47] “light source 912 illuminates the left end of side-emitting fiber 910”), and
[…]
the another of the light sources outputting light having wavelength different from wavelength of light outputted from the one of the light sources ([Col. 5, Lines 27-35] “Multiple light sources may be used at the same, or different, axial position along fiber 10; with each source having a unique wavelength, modulation pattern, modulation frequency, etc.”).
The combination does not explicitly teach:
another of the light sources is connected to the other end of the optical fiber,
However, the location of the light sources is an obvious design choice.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have placed the two light sources at opposite ends of the fiber to, for example, eliminate the need for a combiner/multiplexer.
Regarding claim 5, Weiss in view of Official Notice teaches the position measuring system of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the information on the scattered light is light intensity at each wavelength ([Col. 10, Lines 15-47] “A set of equations similar to equations (1)-(6) can be derived that express the unique relationship between measured light intensity and position along the fiber”).
Regarding claim 6, Weiss in view of Official Notice teaches the position measuring system of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the information on the scattered light is color information ([Col. 10, Lines 15-47] “A set of equations similar to equations (1)-(6) can be derived that express the unique relationship between measured light intensity and position along the fiber”. The examiner notes that “color information” is simply a representation of intensity information at a particular choice of wavelengths.).
Regarding claim 7, the device of claim 7 is encompassed in scope by the system of claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 8, the method of claim 8 matches the scope of the system of claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss in view of Official Notice and further in view of Thorlabs (FC/PC Fiber Optic Light Trap: thorlabs.com/84e6e06b-0589-41f8-bc3e-25621c5b5673#FTFC1-CAD-PDF.pdf, dated 2016, retrieved from the internet on 01/02/2026).
Regarding claim 2, Weiss in view of Official Notice teaches the position measuring system of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the light source is connected to one end of the optical fiber (FIG. 8; [Col. 10, Lines 15-47] “light source 912 illuminates the left end of side-emitting fiber 910”), and
[…]
The combination does not explicitly teach:
the position measuring system further comprises a terminator connected to the other end of the optical fiber.
However, fiber terminators were well-known in the art for capping the ends of optical fibers, as shown, for example, by the commercially available fiber terminator of Thorlabs. Putting a fiber terminator onto the open end (the right end, in FIG. 8) of this embodiment would have been an obvious choice. Thus teaching:
the position measuring system further comprises a terminator connected to the other end of the optical fiber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the position sensor of Weiss in view of Official Notice with the fiber terminator of Thorlabs to reduce unwanted back-reflections.
Regarding claim 3, Weiss in view of Official Notice and further in view of Thorlabs teaches the position measuring system of claim 2, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the light source is formed of one wavelength variable light source that performs wavelength switching in a predetermined cycle ([Col. 5, Lines 27-35] “Light source 12 may be a continuous, steady-state source; or it may be modulated, amplitude modulated, frequency modulated, pulsed, or any combination thereof.” Alternating pulses of differing frequencies is a reasonable choice based on the contemplations of Weiss.), and
the position measuring device further has a function of detecting the wavelength switching of the light source ([Col. 5, Lines 27-35] “Using appropriate filtering and digital processing, the photodetector signals can be [de-modulated] to separate out the individual contributions from each independent light source.” Note that the filtering and processing described here works on light consisting of multiple frequencies, agnostic as to whether that light was sourced from more than one light source.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Manjunath et al. (US 20190025839 A1) teaches a lookup table which stores the relationship between intensity and distance from a source ([0031]).
Westerhoff et al. (US 20240126008 A1) show the relationship between light intensity, distance along a side-emitting fiber, and distance away from the fiber (FIG. 12).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN C. GRANT whose telephone number is (571)272-0402. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at (571)270-3603. 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.
/SEAN C. GRANT/Examiner, Art Unit 3645 `
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645