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 Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed February 9, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6-8, 12, 14-17, 19-21, 23-25, 27, 28, 30, 32, 34 and 35 remaining pending
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 12, and 24 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.
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 1-4, 6-8, 12, 14-17, and 19-21 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.
Claims 1 and 12 recite the newly amended limitation “the perturbations thus being non-invasive to the fiber and external to a light path of the fiber”. However, the claims are to an optical fiber, not an optical device that includes an optical fiber. The wording of the claim limitation implies the perturbation is a separate element such as a coating around the outside of the fiber and not part of the claimed optical fiber. The perturbations cannot both be part of the optical fiber, and non-invasive to the optical fiber. Thus, the limitations of the claims are unclear. For purposes of examination below, the examiner is interpreting the limitation to mean the perturbations do not interfere with the light path of the fiber.
Claims 2-4, 6-8, 14-17, and 19-21 are rejected by dependency.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haliburton (US20190301278A1) in view of Zhu (Zhu, M., Leandro, D., López-Amo, M., and Murayama, H. (2019). "Quasi-distributed vibration sensing using OFDR and weak reflectors," Opt. Lett. 44, 1884-1887), Kalish (US6304705B1) and Westbrook (Westbrook, P. S., Feder, K. S., Kremp, T., Monberg, E. M., Wu, H., Zhu, B., Huang, L., Simoff, D. A., Shenk, S., Handerek, V. A., Karimi, M., Nkansah, A., & Yau, A. (2020). Enhanced Optical Fiber for Distributed Acoustic Sensing beyond the Limits of Rayleigh Backscattering. iScience, 23(6), 101137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2020.101137).
Regarding claim 1, Haliburton teaches an optical fiber for use in distributed vibration sensing (paragraph [0002]), the optical fiber comprising perturbations (paragraph [0014]), the perturbations being spaced apart using spacings (Figs. 2, 3A).
Haliburton fails to teach the perturbations being imparted either externally to a mode field diameter of the optical fiber or through the use of fusion splicing of fiber lengths to form said optical fiber, the perturbations thus being non- invasive to the fiber and external to a light path of the fiber, and the spacings are of a size selected to amplify minute interferometric Raleigh scattering.
However, in the same field of invention of high backscattering optical fibers, Zhu teaches splicing fibers together to create perturbations (reflectors) that increase backscattering (page 1885, 2nd column, last paragraph).
Zhu discloses fusion splicing perturbations leads to an increase in signal to noise ratio, allowing for the signals to be easier identified (page 1885, 2nd column, last paragraph). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to combine the optical fiber taught in Haliburton with the perturbations from fusion splicing taught in Zhu to easier identify signals.
Haliburton as modified by Zhu fails to teach the perturbations thus being non- invasive to the fiber and external to a light path of the fiber, the spacings are of a size selected to amplify minute interferometric Raleigh scattering.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical fibers, Kalish teaches an optical fiber with perturbations that in the coating of the optical fiber (column 4, lines 55-60; perturbations 26 shown in the outer coating 18 in Fig. 1).
Kalish discloses an advantage of the perturbations being external to the core and cladding of the optical fiber is the improvement of the bandwidth of the optical fiber (column 5, lines 13-15). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the optical fiber taught in Haliburton as modified by Zhu with the perturbations in the coating taught in Kalish in order to improve the bandwidth of the fiber.
Haliburton as modified by Zhu and Kalish fails to disclose the spacings are of a size selected to amplify minute interferometric Raleigh scattering.
However, in the same field of endeavor of enhancing backscattering in optical fibers, Westbrook uses perturbations (Bragg gratings, page 2, first paragraph) to enhance Rayleigh scattering with signals less than 0.5 dB/km = 5x10-4 dB (abstract). The examiner was unable to find a widely used definition for “minute interferometric Rayleigh backscattering” and is using the specification of the current application to define the term as signals on the order of 1x10-4 dB (paragraph [0008] of the specification).
Westbrook discloses that Rayleigh scattering is a universal trait of optical fibers, and enhancing the weak signal is useful to increase detection sensitivity (page 2, top of 1st paragraph). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to combine the optical fiber taught in Haliburton as modified by Zhu with the minute interferometric Rayleigh backscattering taught in Westbrook to increase detection sensitivity.
Regarding claim 2, Haliburton in view of Zhu, Kalish and Westbrook teaches the device as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches said perturbations are imparted in groups of at least one perturbation, each group equidistantly spaced along said fiber at a first, inter-group, spacing (Haliburton: Fig. 2 depicts different groups of perturbations (222a, 222B, 222D) at different distances (L1, L2, etc.); paragraph [0026] teaches one embodiment may have uniform spacing).
Regarding claim 3, Haliburton in view of Zhu and Westbrook teaches the device as explained above in claim 2, and further teaches each group comprises a plurality of equidistant perturbations spaced apart at a second, intragroup, spacing (Haliburton: Fig. 3A shows perturbations spanning between two distances; paragraph [0030]).
Regarding claim 4, Haliburton in view of Zhu and Westbrook teaches the device as explained above in claim 3, and further teaches at least one of said inter-group and intragroup spacings comprises said spacings selected to amplify minute interferometric Raleigh scattering, or wherein at least one of said inter-group spacing and said intragroup spacing (Haliburton: paragraph [0016]) is selected using empirical testing to maximize a reflected signal from minute interferometric Rayleigh scattering (Westbrook: page 8, “Application in DAS” section discloses empirical testing) to maximize a reflected signal from minute interferometric Rayleigh scattering (Haliburton: paragraph [0016]) in the presence of a given vibration (paragraph [0002]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to combine the device taught in Haliburton as modified by Zhu, Kalish and Westbrook with the empirical methods taught in Westbrook as it is important and routine to actually test the applicability of the method (Westbrook: page 8, 1st paragraph under “Application in DAS” section).
Regarding claim 6, Haliburton in view of Zhu and Westbrook teaches the device as explained above in claim 3, and further teaches at least one of said inter-group spacing and said intragroup spacing is selected using empirical testing (Westbrook: page 8, “Application in DAS” section discloses empirical testing) to maximize a reflected signal from minute interferometric Rayleigh scattering to maximize a reflected signal from minute interferometric Rayleigh scattering (Haliburton: paragraph [0016]) in the presence of a given vibration (Haliburton: paragraph [0002]), and said vibration is one member of the group consisting of: humans, animals, light vehicles, heavy vehicles, (Haliburton: paragraph [0011]) light mechanical-engineering activity, heavy mechanical engineering activity, drilling, (Haliburton: paragraphs [0005], [0006]) and geological activity (Haliburton: paragraph [0014]).
As discussed above in claim 4, a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to combine the device taught in Haliburton as modified by Zhu, Kalish and Westbrook with the empirical methods taught in Westbrook as it is important and routine to actually test the applicability of the method.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haliburton (US20190301278A1) in view of Zhu (Zhu, M., Leandro, D., López-Amo, M., and Murayama, H. (2019). "Quasi-distributed vibration sensing using OFDR and weak reflectors," Opt. Lett. 44, 1884-1887), Kalish (US6304705B1) and Westbrook (Westbrook, P. S., Feder, K. S., Kremp, T., Monberg, E. M., Wu, H., Zhu, B., Huang, L., Simoff, D. A., Shenk, S., Handerek, V. A., Karimi, M., Nkansah, A., & Yau, A. (2020). Enhanced Optical Fiber for Distributed Acoustic Sensing beyond the Limits of Rayleigh Backscattering. iScience, 23(6), 101137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2020.101137) as applied above to claim 1, in further view of Chen (US9290406B2).
Regarding claim 7, Haliburton in view of Zhu, Kalish and Westbrook teaches the device as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach imparting of said perturbations comprises printing.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical fibers with controlled perturbations, Chen teaches perturbations being introduced via laser printing (Column 6, lines 21-26).
Chen discloses printing the perturbations improves bandwidth without introducing attenuation (column 1, lines 40-34). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to combine the optical fiber taught in Haliburton in view of Zhu, Kalish and Westbrook with the printing method of imparting perturbations taught in Chen, as this method improves bandwidth without introducing attenuation.
Regarding claim 8, Haliburton in view of Zhu, Kalish, Westbrook and Chen teaches the device as explained above in claim 7, and further teaches said perturbations are laser printed, or wherein said perturbations are imparted into a coating layer of said fiber (Chen: column 6, lines 21-26).
As discussed above in claim 7, a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to combine the optical fiber taught in Haliburton in view of Zhu, Westbrook and Chen with the printing method of imparting perturbations taught in Chen, as this method improves bandwidth without introducing attenuation.
Claims 12, 14-17, 19,and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haliburton (US20190301278A1) in view of Kalish (US6304705B1) and Westbrook (Westbrook, P. S., Feder, K. S., Kremp, T., Monberg, E. M., Wu, H., Zhu, B., Huang, L., Simoff, D. A., Shenk, S., Handerek, V. A., Karimi, M., Nkansah, A., & Yau, A. (2020). Enhanced Optical Fiber for Distributed Acoustic Sensing beyond the Limits of Rayleigh Backscattering. iScience, 23(6), 101137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2020.101137).
Regarding claim 12, Haliburton teaches an apparatus (Fig. 2, 200) for detecting vibrations comprising (paragraph [0002]): at least one optical fiber having perturbations (paragraph [0014]) external to a mode field diameter of said optical fiber (paragraphs [0025], [0026]); and a detection device configured to detect Rayleigh scattering from said perturbations (paragraph [0015]), said perturbations (Fig. 3A, 320A, 320B, 320C, 320D) being separated by spacings (L1 to L2, L3 to L4, etc.).
Haliburton fails to teach the perturbations thus being non-invasive to the fiber and external to a light path of the fiber; and said spacings being selected to amplify minute interferometric Raleigh scattering.
However, Kalish teaches an optical fiber with perturbations that in the coating of the optical fiber (column 4, lines 55-60; perturbations 26 shown in the outer coating 18 in Fig. 1).
Kalish discloses an advantage of the perturbations being external to the core and cladding of the optical fiber is the improvement of the bandwidth of the optical fiber (column 5, lines 13-15). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the optical fiber taught in Haliburton with the perturbations in the coating taught in Kalish in order to improve the bandwidth of the fiber.
Haliburton as modified by Kalish fails to teach said spacings being selected to amplify minute interferometric Raleigh scattering.
However, Westbrook uses perturbations (Bragg gratings, page 2, first paragraph) to enhance Rayleigh scattering with signals less than 0.5 dB/km = 5x10-4 dB (abstract). The examiner was unable to find a widely used definition for “minute interferometric Rayleigh backscattering” and is using the specification of the current application to define the term as signals on the order of 1x10-4 dB (paragraph [0008] of the specification as published in US20240110823A1).
A person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to combine the optical fiber taught in Haliburton as modified by Kalish with the minute interferometric Rayleigh backscattering taught in Westbrook as Rayleigh scattering is universal in all optical fiber, and enhancing the weak signal (minute signal) is very useful to increase detection sensitivity (Westbrook: page 2, top of 1st paragraph).
Regarding claim 14, Haliburton in view of Kalish and Westbrook teaches the apparatus and explained above in claim 12, and further teaches said perturbations are imparted in groups equidistantly spaced along said fiber at a first, inter-group, spacing (Haliburton: Fig. 2 depicts different groups of perturbations (222a, 222B, 222D) at different distances (L1, L2, etc.); paragraph [0026] teaches one embodiment may have uniform spacing).
Regarding claim 15, Haliburton in view of Kalish and Westbrook teaches the apparatus as explain above in claim 14, and further teaches each group comprises a plurality of equidistant perturbations spaced apart at a second, intragroup, spacing (Haliburton: Fig. 3A shows perturbations spanning between two distances; paragraphs [0026], [0030]).
Regarding claim 16, Haliburton in view of Kalish and Westbrook teaches the apparatus as explained above in claim 15, and further teaches at least one of said first and said second spacings comprises said spacings selected to amplify minute interferometric Raleigh (Westbrook: abstract).
A person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to combine the optical fiber taught in Haliburton as modified by Kalish and Westbrook with the minute interferometric Rayleigh backscattering taught in Westbrook as Rayleigh scattering is universal in all optical fiber, and enhancing the weak signal (minute signal) is very useful to increase detection sensitivity (Westbrook: page 2, top of 1st paragraph).
Regarding claim 17, Haliburton in view of Kalish and Westbrook teaches the apparatus as explained above in claim 12, and further teaches at least one of said inter-group spacing and said intragroup spacing is selected using empirical testing (Westbrook: page 8, “Application in DAS” section discloses empirical testing) to maximize the SNR of a reflected signal from Rayleigh scattering in the presence of a given vibration (Haliburton: paragraphs [0016], [0026]), or wherein at least one of said inter-group spacing and said intragroup spacing is selected in the presence of a vibration (Haliburton: paragraph [0002]) obtained from one member of the group consisting of: humans, animals, light vehicles, heavy vehicles (similar environments depicted in Fig. 4), light mechanical-engineering activity, heavy mechanical engineering activity, drilling, (paragraphs [0005], [0006]) and geological activity (paragraph [0014]).
As discussed above in claim 4, a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to combine the device taught in Haliburton as modified by Kalish and Westbrook with the empirical methods taught in Westbrook as it is important and routine to actually test the applicability of the method.
Regarding claim 19, Haliburton in view of Kalish and Westbrook teaches the device as explained above in claim 17, but does not explicitly teach a plurality of optical fibers wherein at least one fiber comprises a spacing selected for one member of said group and another of said fibers comprises a spacing selected for one other member of said group.
However, duplication of parts holds no patentable significance if a new and unexpected result is not produced. See MPEP 2144.04 VI.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to duplicate the optical fiber and reasonably expect the same result of detecting vibrations. In addition, both optical fibers maintain the same function of sensing vibration, and it would be obvious to configure the multiple fibers to detect the vibrations from different sources to enhance the performance of the device.
Regarding claim 35, Haliburton in view of Kalish and Westbrook teaches the apparatus as explained above in claim 12, but Haliburton does not explicitly teach the detection device is configured to detect interferometric patterns from Rayleigh scattering from said perturbations, wherein said patterns are of an order of magnitude of 1x10-4 dB.
However, Haliburton teaches a detection device (paragraph [0020] discloses one end of the optical fiber is configured to receive optical signals. The claim is directed at the detection device, and the patterns being on an order of magnitude of 1x10-4 dB is an intended result. A detector can easily be configured to detect that order of magnitude.
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haliburton (US20190301278A1) in view of Kalish (US6304705B1) and Westbrook (Westbrook, P. S., Feder, K. S., Kremp, T., Monberg, E. M., Wu, H., Zhu, B., Huang, L., Simoff, D. A., Shenk, S., Handerek, V. A., Karimi, M., Nkansah, A., & Yau, A. (2020). Enhanced Optical Fiber for Distributed Acoustic Sensing beyond the Limits of Rayleigh Backscattering. iScience, 23(6), 101137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2020.101137) as applied above to claim 12, in further view of Chen (US9290406B2).
Regarding claim 20, Haliburton in view of Kalish and Westbrook teaches the apparatus as explained above in claim 12, but fails to teach said perturbations are imparted by printing into a coating of said fiber.
However, Chen teaches an embodiment where laser beams introduce perturbations (Column 6, lines 21-26).
A person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to combine the optical fiber taught in Haliburton as modified by Kalish and Westbrook with the printing method of imparting perturbations taught in Chen, as this method improves bandwidth without introducing attenuation (Chen: column 1, lines 30- 34).
Regarding claim 21, Haliburton in view of Kalish, Westbrook and Chen teaches the device as explained above in claim 20, and further teaches said printing comprises laser printing (column 6, lines 21-26).
A person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to combine the optical fiber taught in Haliburton as modified by Kalish, Westbrook and Chen with the laser printing method of imparting perturbations taught in Chen, as this method improves bandwidth without introducing attenuation (Chen: column 1, lines 30- 34).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haliburton (US20190301278A1) in view of Kalish (US6304705B1) and Westbrook (Westbrook, P. S., Feder, K. S., Kremp, T., Monberg, E. M., Wu, H., Zhu, B., Huang, L., Simoff, D. A., Shenk, S., Handerek, V. A., Karimi, M., Nkansah, A., & Yau, A. (2020). Enhanced Optical Fiber for Distributed Acoustic Sensing beyond the Limits of Rayleigh Backscattering. iScience, 23(6), 101137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2020.101137) as applied above to claim 12, in further view of Zhu (Zhu, M., Leandro, D., López-Amo, M., and Murayama, H. (2019). "Quasi-distributed vibration sensing using OFDR and weak reflectors," Opt. Lett. 44, 1884-1887).
Regarding claim 23, Haliburton in view of Kalish and Westbrook teaches the apparatus as explained above in claim 12, but fails to teach at least one optical fiber is constructed by splicing together of smaller fibers of predetermined lengths, the perturbations imparted by said fusion splicing.
However, Zhu teaches splicing fibers together to create perturbations (reflectors) that increase backscattering (page 1885, 2nd column, last paragraph).
A person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to combine the optical fiber taught in Haliburton as modified by Kalish and Westbrook with the perturbations from fusion splicing taught in Zhu as it increases signal to noise ratio so signals can be identified easier (Zhu: page 1885, 2nd column, last paragraph).
Claims 24, 25, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US9290406B2) in view of Kalish (US6304705B1) and Westbrook (Westbrook, P. S., Feder, K. S., Kremp, T., Monberg, E. M., Wu, H., Zhu, B., Huang, L., Simoff, D. A., Shenk, S., Handerek, V. A., Karimi, M., Nkansah, A., & Yau, A. (2020). Enhanced Optical Fiber for Distributed Acoustic Sensing beyond the Limits of Rayleigh Backscattering. iScience, 23(6), 101137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2020.101137).
Regarding claim 24, Chen teaches a method of producing an optical fiber for detection of vibrations from Rayleigh scattering, the method comprising: coating of a fiber with a primary coating, and printing perturbations (column 6, lines 21-26), said perturbations being printed at spacings (column 3, lines 36-42).
Chen fails to teach the perturbations being in the primary coating, the perturbations thus being non-invasive to the fiber and external to a light path of the fiber, or said spacings being of a size selected to amplify minute interferometric Raleigh scattering.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical fibers, Kalish teaches an optical fiber with perturbations that in the coating of the optical fiber (column 4, lines 55-60; perturbations 26 shown in the outer coating 18 in Fig. 1).
Kalish discloses an advantage of the perturbations being external to the core and cladding of the optical fiber is the improvement of the bandwidth of the optical fiber (column 5, lines 13-15). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the optical fiber taught in Chen with the perturbations in the coating taught in Kalish in order to improve the bandwidth of the fiber.
Chen as modified by Kalish fails to teach said spacings being of a size selected to amplify minute interferometric Raleigh scattering.
However, Westbrook uses perturbations (Bragg gratings, page 2, first paragraph) to enhance Rayleigh scattering with signals less than 0.5 dB/km = 5x10-4 dB (abstract).
Westbrook discloses that Rayleigh scattering is a universal trait of optical fibers, and enhancing the weak signal is useful to increase detection sensitivity (page 2, top of 1st paragraph). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to combine the optical fiber taught in Haliburton as modified by Kalish with the minute interferometric Rayleigh backscattering taught in Westbrook to increase detection sensitivity.
Regarding claim 25, Chen as modified by Kalish and Westbrook teaches the method as explained above in claim 24, and Chen further teaches said printing is carried out while said primary coating is still hot from the coating process (Kalish: column 6, lines 12-16 discloses the particles (perturbations) are added to the coating material. The examiner is interpreting this to mean the coating is still hot).
As discussed above in claim 24, a person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the optical fiber production method taught in Chen as modified by Kalish and Westbrook with the perturbations in the coating method in Kalish in order to improve the bandwidth of the fiber.
Regarding claim 28, Chen as modified by Kalish and Westbrook teaches the method as explained above in claim 24, and further teaches said printing into said primary coating comprises laser printing (Chen: column 6, lines 21-26).
Claims 27 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US9290406B2) in view of Kalish (US6304705B1) and Westbrook (Westbrook, P. S., Feder, K. S., Kremp, T., Monberg, E. M., Wu, H., Zhu, B., Huang, L., Simoff, D. A., Shenk, S., Handerek, V. A., Karimi, M., Nkansah, A., & Yau, A. (2020). Enhanced Optical Fiber for Distributed Acoustic Sensing beyond the Limits of Rayleigh Backscattering. iScience, 23(6), 101137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2020.101137) as applied above to claim 24 in further view of Haliburton (US20190301278A1).
Regarding claim 27, Chen in view of Kalish and Westbrook teaches the method as explained above in claim 24, but fails to teach printing said perturbations in groups equidistantly spaced along said fiber at a first, inter-group, spacing, and wherein each group comprises a plurality of equidistant perturbations spaced apart at a second, intragroup, spacing.
However, Haliburton teaches an embodiment where the perturbations are printed equidistantly (paragraph [0026]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to combine the method of printing perturbations taught in Chen as modified by Kalish and Westbrook with the spacing of the perturbation taught in Haliburton in order to provide the desired guided backscattering (paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 34, Chen in view of Kalish and Westbrook teaches the method as explained above in claim 24, but fails to teach the method further comprising detecting vibrations over an area by:
burying said optical fiber in said area; and
connecting to said optical fiber a Coherent Optical Time Domain Reflectometer (C-OTDR) to detect Rayleigh scattering of light travelling through said optical fiber.
However, Haliburton teaches a buried device (paragraphs [0015], [0018]) which detects vibrations in a desired area (paragraph [0002]) and uses a coherent optical time domain reflectometry (C-OTDR) method to measure backscattering (paragraph [0032]).
C-OTDR is a well-known method in the art. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be able to apply the known technique and achieve the predictable result of detecting backscattering.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US9290406B2) in view of Kalish (US6304705B1) and Westbrook (Westbrook, P. S., Feder, K. S., Kremp, T., Monberg, E. M., Wu, H., Zhu, B., Huang, L., Simoff, D. A., Shenk, S., Handerek, V. A., Karimi, M., Nkansah, A., & Yau, A. (2020). Enhanced Optical Fiber for Distributed Acoustic Sensing beyond the Limits of Rayleigh Backscattering. iScience, 23(6), 101137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2020.101137) as applied above to claim 24 in further view of Zhu (Zhu, M., Leandro, D., López-Amo, M., and Murayama, H. (2019). "Quasi-distributed vibration sensing using OFDR and weak reflectors," Opt. Lett. 44, 1884-1887).
Regarding claim 30, Chen as modified by Kalish and Westbrook teaches the method as explained above in claim 24, but fails to teach introducing perturbations into said optical fiber at predetermined spacings by fusion splicing.
However, Zhu teaches splicing fibers together to create perturbations (reflectors) that increase backscattering (page 1885, 2nd column, last paragraph).
A person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to combine the optical fiber taught in Chen as modified by Kalish and Westbrook with the perturbations from fusion splicing taught in Zhu as it increases signal to noise ratio so signals can be identified easier (Zhu: page 1885, 2nd column, last paragraph).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US9290406B2) in view of Kalish (US6304705B1), Westbrook (Westbrook, P. S., Feder, K. S., Kremp, T., Monberg, E. M., Wu, H., Zhu, B., Huang, L., Simoff, D. A., Shenk, S., Handerek, V. A., Karimi, M., Nkansah, A., & Yau, A. (2020). Enhanced Optical Fiber for Distributed Acoustic Sensing beyond the Limits of Rayleigh Backscattering. iScience, 23(6), 101137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2020.101137), and of Zhu (Zhu, M., Leandro, D., López-Amo, M., and Murayama, H. (2019). "Quasi-distributed vibration sensing using OFDR and weak reflectors," Opt. Lett. 44, 1884-1887) as applied to claim 30 above, in further view of Haliburton (US20190301278A1).
Regarding claim 32, Chen in view of Kalish, Westbrook and Zhu teaches the method as explained above in claim 30, and further teaches using empirical testing (Westbrook: page 8, “Application in DAS” section discloses empirical testing).
As discussed above in claim 4, a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to combine the method of Chen as modified by Kalish, Westbrook and Zhu with the empirical methods taught in Westbrook as it is important and routine to actually test the applicability of the method.
Chen as modified by Kalish, Westbrook and Zhu does not teach at least one of said inter-group spacing and said intragroup spacing is selected to maximize the SNR of a reflected signal from Rayleigh scattering in the presence of a given vibration.
However, Haliburton teaches the perturbation spacing is selectively chosen to provide the desired backscatter (paragraphs [0016], [0026]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to combine the method taught in Chen as modified by Kalish, Westbrook and Zhu with the spacing taught in Haliburton in order to increase backscattering to a level suitable for high performance sensing (paragraph [0003]).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandria Mendoza whose telephone number is (571)272-5282. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur 9:00 - 6:00 CDT.
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 on (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.
/ALEXANDRIA MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877