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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/16/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/16/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive, as the applied art does not explicitly teach a correspondence between an industrial scale lattice and a laboratory scale plug standard. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Nowak et al (“Hybrid Fiber Optic Cable for Strain Profiling and Crack Growth Measurement in Rock, Cement, and Brittle Installation Media” MDPI Sensors 2022, 22, 9685).
Applicant argues on page 7 that Lourdes does not teach or suggest the grid supports, positions or aligns a fiber-optic cable, or is capable of doing so.
Examiner’s position is that Lourdes teaches putting fiber optic sensors (FOS) on a support lattice (page 4, 2nd full paragraph “Embedding FOSs at the manufacturing stage of the structure and directly on a grid-reinforcement inside the arrangement”, also page 4, last paragraph in section 1 “There is a plethora of literature available on the embedding of FOSs in concrete, especially embedding FOSs on either steel or carbon reinforcement bars.”).
Applicant argues on page 7 that Lourdes does not teach or suggest the grid could be repurposed to support a precision sensor inside a rock-plug sized specimen.
Examiner’s position is that while the applicant admits to the laboratory-sized use of plug standards (paragraph 19 “Furthermore, in laboratory settings, it is a common practice to analyze plug standards.”), Lourdes does not explicitly teach a laboratory correspondence with large-scale concrete construction. Therefore, new art Nowak is introduced. Nowak teaches strain measurement in large-scale applications (Abstract “Brillouin scattering-based distributed fiber optic sensing (DFOS) technologies … have broad applicability for the long term and real-time monitoring of large concrete structures, underground mine excavations, pit slopes, and deep subsurface wellbores.”) and corresponding small-scale assemblies (Abstract “Laboratory scale testing demonstrates the ability of the hybrid fiber optic cable to measure strains across highly localized deformation zones in both tension and shear.”). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date would obviously be able to construct both large and small-scale assemblies of the claimed invention, making the teachings of Lourdes applicable to the invention of Liu as modified by Rambow.
Applicant argues on page 8 that the examiner has not articulated a proper rationale for combining Lourdes with Liu & Rambow, as Lourdes is directed to a different purpose and environment.
Examiner’s position is that the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2145(X)C. In this case, the invention of Liu is a fiber optic embedded in a geomaterial (Figure 1, translation p3 line 1 “optical fibers 2”, and Figure 1, translation p2 2nd paragraph “outer mould of cement or epoxy resin to form a protective housing 9”), the invention of Lourdes is a fiber optic embedded in a geomaterial (page 3, 3rd paragraph “large infrastructure made of concrete, i.e., buildings” and page 4, 2nd full paragraph “Embedding FOSs at the manufacturing stage of the structure and directly on a grid-reinforcement inside the arrangement”) where the difference is merely a matter of scale, and Novak teaches both large and small-scale assemblies of a fiber optic embedded in geomaterial (Abstract “Brillouin scattering-based distributed fiber optic sensing (DFOS) technologies … have broad applicability for the long term and real-time monitoring of large concrete structures, underground mine excavations, pit slopes, and deep subsurface wellbores.” and “Laboratory scale testing demonstrates the ability of the hybrid fiber optic cable to measure strains across highly localized deformation zones in both tension and shear.”). As such, one seeking to improve the invention of Liu as modified by Rambow would obviously encounter the teachings of Novak and Lourdes, and combine the teachings of Lourdes with the invention of Liu as modified by Rambow, in order to create a monitoring system for a large-scale project.
Applicant argues on page 8 that using the grid of Lourdes is not compatible with a confined plug geometry, rendering the combination not obvious.
Examiner’s position is that the new reference Novak teaches both large and small-scale assemblies (Abstract “Brillouin scattering-based distributed fiber optic sensing (DFOS) technologies … have broad applicability for the long term and real-time monitoring of large concrete structures, underground mine excavations, pit slopes, and deep subsurface wellbores.” and “Laboratory scale testing demonstrates the ability of the hybrid fiber optic cable to measure strains across highly localized deformation zones in both tension and shear.”), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to use those teachings to scale the inventions of Liu, Rambow & Lourdes with the teachings of Novak to create a monitoring system of any desired size.
Applicant argues on page 8 that the examiner’s conclusion ‘plug standards are known’ (presumably referring to the 8/18/25 office action, paragraph 5) is insufficient as the cited art does not teach a fiber-optic cable inside a plug standard, and one working with reservoir-rock characterization would not obviously turn to reinforce-concrete construction.
Examiner’s position is that claim 1 is directed to a fiber optic embedded in a geomaterial, and one seeing to improve such an invention would search for similar structure and not limit themselves to the analysis of reservoir rock samples. In this case, the invention of Liu is a fiber optic embedded in a geomaterial (Figure 1, translation p3 line 1 “optical fibers 2”, and Figure 1, translation p2 2nd paragraph “outer mould of cement or epoxy resin to form a protective housing 9”), the invention of Lourdes is a fiber optic embedded in a geomaterial (page 3, 3rd paragraph “large infrastructure made of concrete, i.e., buildings” and page 4, 2nd full paragraph “Embedding FOSs at the manufacturing stage of the structure and directly on a grid-reinforcement inside the arrangement”) where the difference is a matter of scale, and Novak teaches both large and small-scale assemblies of a fiber optic embedded in geomaterial (Abstract “Brillouin scattering-based distributed fiber optic sensing (DFOS) technologies … have broad applicability for the long term and real-time monitoring of large concrete structures, underground mine excavations, pit slopes, and deep subsurface wellbores.” and “Laboratory scale testing demonstrates the ability of the hybrid fiber optic cable to measure strains across highly localized deformation zones in both tension and shear.”). As such, one seeing to improve the invention of Liu as modified by Rambow would obvious encounter the teachings of Novak and Lourdes, and combine the teachings of Lourdes with the invention of Liu as modified by Rambow, in order to create a monitoring system for a large-scale project.
Applicant argues on pages 8-9 that moving the grid of Lourdes to a small plug would alter the functioning of the plug as a controlled standard.
Examiner’s position is that Novak teaches both large and small-scale assemblies of a fiber optic embedded in geomaterial (Abstract “Brillouin scattering-based distributed fiber optic sensing (DFOS) technologies … have broad applicability for the long term and real-time monitoring of large concrete structures, underground mine excavations, pit slopes, and deep subsurface wellbores.” and “Laboratory scale testing demonstrates the ability of the hybrid fiber optic cable to measure strains across highly localized deformation zones in both tension and shear.”) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to use the inventions of Liu, Rambow & Lourdes with the teachings of Novak to create a monitoring system of any desired size.
Applicant argues on pages 9-10 that Martin fails to remedy the deficiencies of Liu, Rambow & Lourdes.
Examiner’s position is that new art Novak teaches the applicant’s cited deficiencies.
Applicant argues on pages 10-11 that Den Boer fails to remedy the deficiencies of Liu, Rambow & Lourdes.
Examiner’s position is that new art Novak teaches the applicant’s cited deficiencies.
Applicant argues on pages 11-12 that Freeland fails to remedy the deficiencies of Liu, Rambow & Lourdes.
Examiner’s position is that new art Novak teaches the applicant’s cited deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-11, 15, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al (CN 2636238) in view of Nowak et al (“Hybrid Fiber Optic Cable for Strain Profiling and Crack Growth Measurement in Rock, Cement, and Brittle Installation Media”, Sensors 2022, 22, 9685) in view of Rambow et al (United States Patent 7245791) in view of Lourdes et al (“Fiber Optic Sensors Embedded in Textile-Reinforced Concrete for Smart Structural Health Monitoring: A Review”, Sensors 2021, 21(15), 4948), the combination of which is hereafter referred to as “LNRL”.
As to claim 1, Liu teaches a system (Abstract “the sensor comprises Bragg fibre grating, embedded in concrete”) comprising:
a plug standard formed of a geomaterial (Figure 1, translation p2 2nd paragraph “outer mould of cement or epoxy resin to form a protective housing 9”);
a fiber optic cable embedded within the plug standard (Figure 1, translation p3 line 1 “optical fibers 2”), the fiber optic cable configured to capture at least strain measurements of the plug standard (translation p2, paragraph under “Disclosure” “The purpose of the utility model is to provide a device for measuring strain of cement structure, with temperature compensation, directly buried in concrete, a single fibre Bragg grating sensor.”);
a support disposed within the plug standard, the support configured to position and retain the fiber optic cable in a predetermined location within the plug standard during formation of the plug standard (Figure 1, translation p3, lines 1-3 “the optical fiber 2 is covered with a thin front sleeve 3 and a rear thin sleeve 6. the two sleeves 3, 6 are made of stainless steel or made of polymer material” and translation p3, lines 9-11 “when assembling, firstly the optical fiber 2 inserted in the sleeve 3 and extending a certain length, then filling epoxy resin in the sleeve 3, the sleeve 3 and the optical fiber 2 bonded into a whole body,”); and
a joint attached to an end of the fiber optic cable outside of the plug standard (Figure 2, translation p3 3rd paragraph “In FIG. 2, display of sensor 10 is vertically embedded in the concrete 11, optical fibre joint connected with the external optical fibre 12.”), the joint configured to connect the fiber optic cable with a fiber optic interrogator Figure 3, translation p3 4th paragraph “an external optical fibre are respectively connected with broadband source (LED) 13 and spectrum analyzer 14”).
While Liu does not explicitly teach the plug standard is comprising consistent dimensions, composition, and physical properties to a rock plug sample collected from a reservoir, the applicant’s specification teaches that to do so is known in the art (paragraph 0019 “Furthermore, in laboratory settings, it is a common practice to analyze plug standards. Plug standards refer to man-made samples, in the form of rock plug samples (112), with consistent dimensions, composition, and physical properties.”), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to make a calibration standard have the same properties of the object being measured, in order to obtain accurate readings in a laboratory setting that would be commensurate with a rock plug sample collected from a reservoir in a real world setting. Additionally, Nowak teaches both large and small-scale assemblies of a fiber optic embedded in geomaterial (Abstract “Brillouin scattering-based distributed fiber optic sensing (DFOS) technologies … have broad applicability for the long term and real-time monitoring of large concrete structures, underground mine excavations, pit slopes, and deep subsurface wellbores.” and “Laboratory scale testing demonstrates the ability of the hybrid fiber optic cable to measure strains across highly localized deformation zones in both tension and shear.”) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to make a calibration standard have the same properties of the object being measured, in order to obtain accurate readings in a laboratory setting that would be commensurate with a rock plug sample collected from a reservoir in a real world setting.
While Liu does not explicitly teach the fiber optic cable is configured to capture temperature measurements, Liu teaches the strain measurements are temperature compensated indicating that temperature information was obtained (Abstract “measure the concrete at the same time of mechanical load and temperature influence”), and the presence of fibre Bragg grating sensors in the optic fibers (translation p3 1st line “Bragg gratings in optical fibers 2”). The use of fiber Bragg gratings (FBGs) in optic fibers to obtain both strain and temperature measurements is taught by Rambow. Rambow teaches an optic fiber wrapped around a cylindrical object that is subject to forces (Figure 1 with structure 20 and fiber 30, Abstract “Methods for determining a preferred application of a plurality of transducers or sensors to a structure are disclosed for monitoring and imaging deformation of the structure as it is subjected to various forces.”) where the optic fiber comprises fiber Bragg gratings (column 5:66-6:1 “a plurality of transducers that may comprise one or more conventional FBG sensors”) that obtain both strain and temperature measurements (column 2:59-60 “temperature, strain and other engineering parameters may be calculated”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the fiber optic cable be configured to capture temperature measurements, in order to better monitor the environment surrounding the plug.
While Liu teaches a support for the fiber optic (Figure 1, sleeves 3, 6), Liu as modified by Rambow does not teach the support is a lattice. However, it is known in the art as taught by Lourdes, Lourdes teaches the structural health monitoring of concrete (page 3, 3rd paragraph “Structural Health Monitoring (SHM). SHM involves the diagnosis of the “state” of the constituent materials, of the different parts, and of the full assembly of these parts constituting the whole structure, in all stages during its service life [15]. The inherent use of large infrastructure made of concrete, i.e., buildings”) and the use of embedded Fiber Optic Sensors (FOSs) on a lattice support (page 4, 2nd full paragraph “Embedding FOSs at the manufacturing stage of the structure and directly on a grid-reinforcement inside the arrangement” also page 4, last paragraph in section 1 “There is a plethora of literature available on the embedding of FOSs in concrete, especially embedding FOSs on either steel or carbon reinforcement bars.”, see Figures 1 and 2 for pictures of the lattice). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the support be a lattice, in order to simplify the creation of an embedded sensor by supporting the sensor during construction, that is, placing the sensor before pouring the concrete as opposed to drilling holes & inserting a sensor after the pour.
As to claim 2, LNRL teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Liu teaches the plug standard is cylindrically shaped (Figure 1, translation p2, 2nd paragraph under “Disclosure” “this utility model has the single Bragg fibre grating sensor comprises a dog bone shape”).
As to claim 4, LNRL teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Liu teaches the geomaterial is a solid material (translation p2, 2nd paragraph under “Disclosure” “this utility model has the single Bragg fibre grating sensor … made of cement or epoxy resin”).
As to claim 6, LNRL teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Liu teaches the end of the fiber optic cable exits the plug standard through an upper surface of the plug standard (Figure 2, the fiber comes out the top).
As to claim 7, LNRL teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Liu teaches the end of the fiber optic cable exits the plug standard through an outer surface of the plug standard (in the cross-sectional image in Figure 1, the fiber exits the sensor at connector 1).
As to claim 8, LNRL teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim1, in addition Liu teaches a cross-section of the plug standard is larger than a cross-section of the support lattice (Figure 1, translation p2, 2nd paragraph under “Disclosure” “a dog bone shape” where the sleeve is within the outer shape).
As to claim 9, LNRL teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Liu teaches a lower end of the support lattice is situated above a lower end of the plug standard (in Figure 1, the support 6 does not touch the outer end of the sensor, so in Figure 2 when the sensor is inserted in a material, the lower end of the support is above the bottom of the sensor).
As to claim 10, LNRL teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Liu teaches the support lattice extends a total length of the plug standard (Figure 1, the supports 3 & 6 extend the total length of the middle section of the sensor).
Additionally, Lourdes Figures 1 & 3 show mesh in the concrete region, Figure 4 shows mesh in the chape of the wall, and as one of the purposes of the mesh is to strengthen the wall it would have been obvious to have the mesh throughout the entire concrete structure, in order to both strengthen and monitor the entirety of the structure.
As to claim 11, LNRL teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Lourdes teaches the support lattice is formed of a mesh frame (Figures 1a, 1b & 2 “Biaxial textile carbon grid”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the support lattice be formed of a mesh frame, in order to strengthen the structure in two dimensions (and in Figure 3 with stacked layers, three dimensions).
As to claim 15, Liu teaches a method comprising:
supporting a fiber optic cable by securing the fiber optic cable along a support; forming a plug standard by forming a geomaterial around the support lattice such that that the fiber optic cable is embedded within the plug standard; (translation p2, 2nd paragraph under “Disclosure” talks about creating such a sensor, including “When assembling the thin sleeve is filled with epoxy resin, so that the thin sleeve and the optical fibre located at the inner part thereof are stuck to form a whole. the shell can be assembled finally filling each component in the interior, so that the rough outer surface of its inner surface and front thin sleeve is fixedly connected, does not produce any relative movement.”);
during formation of the plug standard, positioning and retaining the fiber optic cable in a predetermined location within the plug standard using the support lattice (Figure 1, translation p3, lines 9-11 “when assembling, firstly the optical fiber 2 inserted in the sleeve 3 and extending a certain length, then filling epoxy resin in the sleeve 3, the sleeve 3 and the optical fiber 2 bonded into a whole body,”);
connecting the fiber optic cable embedded within the plug standard to a fiber optic interrogator (Figure 3, elements 13 & 14, translation p3 4th paragraph “spectrum analyzer 14 connected by the broadband source (LED) 13 emits the incident light to the optical fiber, and receiving reflected light of each grating on the optical spectrum analysis by the spectrum analyzer”) by a joint attached to an end of the fiber optic cable outside of the plug standard (Figure 2, translation p3 3rd paragraph “In FIG. 2, display of sensor 10 is vertically embedded in the concrete 11, optical fibre joint connected with the external optical fibre 12.”); and
capturing at least strain measurements of the plug standard by the fiber optic cable embedded within the plug standard (translation p3, 3rd paragraph “The embedded way is mainly used to measure the strain caused by such as landslide.”).
While Liu does not explicitly teach the plug standard is comprising consistent dimensions, composition, and physical properties to a rock plug sample collected from a reservoir, the applicant’s specification teaches that to do so is known in the art (paragraph 0019 “Furthermore, in laboratory settings, it is a common practice to analyze plug standards. Plug standards refer to man-made samples, in the form of rock plug samples (112), with consistent dimensions, composition, and physical properties.”), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to make a calibration standard have the same properties of the object being measured, in order to obtain accurate readings in a laboratory setting that would be commensurate with a rock plug sample collected from a reservoir in a real world setting. Additionally, Nowak teaches both large and small-scale assemblies of a fiber optic embedded in geomaterial (Abstract “Brillouin scattering-based distributed fiber optic sensing (DFOS) technologies … have broad applicability for the long term and real-time monitoring of large concrete structures, underground mine excavations, pit slopes, and deep subsurface wellbores.” and “Laboratory scale testing demonstrates the ability of the hybrid fiber optic cable to measure strains across highly localized deformation zones in both tension and shear.”) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to make a calibration standard have the same properties of the object being measured, in order to obtain accurate readings in a laboratory setting that would be commensurate with a rock plug sample collected from a reservoir in a real world setting.
While Liu does not explicitly teach the fiber optic cable is configured to capture temperature measurements, Liu teaches the strain measurements are temperature compensated indicating that temperature information was obtained (Abstract “measure the concrete at the same time of mechanical load and temperature influence”), and the presence of fibre Bragg grating sensors in the optic fibers (translation p3 1st line “Bragg gratings in optical fibers 2”). The use of fiber Bragg gratings (FBGs) in optic fibers to obtain both strain and temperature measurements is taught by Rambow. Rambow teaches an optic fiber wrapped around a cylindrical object that is subject to forces (Figure 1 with structure 20 and fiber 30, Abstract “Methods for determining a preferred application of a plurality of transducers or sensors to a structure are disclosed for monitoring and imaging deformation of the structure as it is subjected to various forces.”) where the optic fiber comprises fiber Bragg gratings (column 5:66-6:1 “a plurality of transducers that may comprise one or more conventional FBG sensors”) that obtain both strain and temperature measurements (column 2:59-60 “temperature, strain and other engineering parameters may be calculated”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the fiber optic cable be configured to capture temperature measurements, in order to better monitor the environment surrounding the plug.
While Liu teaches a support for the fiber optic (Figure 1, sleeves 3, 6), Liu as modified by Rambow does not teach the support is a lattice. However, it is known in the art as taught by Lourdes, Lourdes teaches the structural health monitoring of concrete (page 3, 3rd paragraph “Structural Health Monitoring (SHM). SHM involves the diagnosis of the “state” of the constituent materials, of the different parts, and of the full assembly of these parts constituting the whole structure, in all stages during its service life [15]. The inherent use of large infrastructure made of concrete, i.e., buildings”) and the use of embedded Fiber Optic Sensors (FOSs) on a lattice support (page 4, 2nd full paragraph “Embedding FOSs at the manufacturing stage of the structure and directly on a grid-reinforcement inside the arrangement”, see Figures 1 and 2 for pictures of the lattice). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the support be a lattice, in order to simplify the creation of an embedded sensor by supporting the sensor during construction, that is, placing the sensor before pouring the concrete as opposed to drilling holes & inserting a sensor after the pour.
As to claim 17, LNRL teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 15, in addition Liu teaches creating the plug standard by forming a geomaterial around the support lattice comprises pouring the geomaterial into a mold (translation p3, 5th paragraph “In the above described optical fibre sleeve in we 3 2 bonded by epoxy resin integrally, and the sleeve 3 and the housing 9 are integrally poured”), and while a mold is not explicitly taught, it is obvious that when pouring a fluid into a container for it to stiffen (e.g. resin, concrete, gelatin), one uses a mold to constrain the fluid to a desired shape.
As to claim 18, LNRL teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 17, in addition Lourdes teaches inserting the support lattice within the mold prior to pouring the geomaterial into the mold (Figure 3 shows cement being poured onto a mesh lattice, and while a mold is not shown, it is obvious that when pouring a fluid into a container for it to stiffen, one uses a mold to constrain the fluid to a desired shape and pre-position anything you want embedded in the fluid. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to be inserting the support lattice within the mold prior to pouring the geomaterial into the mold, in order to more accurately position an embedded object in a hardening fluid.
As to claim 19, LNRL teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 17, in addition Liu teaches, subsequent to the geomaterial solidifying, removing the plug standard from the mold prior to capturing at least strain measurements and temperature measurements of the plug standard (Figure 1 shows a dog-bone sensor made of a geomaterial (translation p2 2nd paragraph “outer mould of cement or epoxy resin to form a protective housing 9”), and Figure 2 shows a sensor having been inserted into concrete or dirt (translation p3 3rd paragraph “sensor 10 is vertically embedded in the concrete 11, optical fibre joint connected with the external optical fibre 12. The embedded way is mainly used to measure the strain caused by such as landslide”), and as there are no teachings of the sensor being formed already embedded in the concrete or dirt, it is obvious that the sensor was formed in a mold in e.g. a factory, and then placed in the environment to be monitored, that is, the sensor is first created by using a mold then inserted into concrete or dirt and used to take measurements).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LNRL, and further in view of Martin et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20110042061).
As to claim 5, LNRL teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, with the exception of the geomaterial is a loose material. However, it is known in the art as taught by Martin. Martin teaches monitoring a well filled with a gravel slurry (Abstract “The well condition during gravel packing is monitored”) and as the applicant’s specification indicates it is known to reproduce sample properties, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the geomaterial be a loose material, in order to more easily monitor all types of samples and well conditions.
Claims 12-14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LNRL, and further in view of Den Boer et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20140345388).
As to claim 12, LNRL teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 11, with the exception of the fiber optic cable is helically wrapped along the support lattice. However, it is known in the art as taught by Den Boer. Den Boer teaches fiber optic sensors (paragraph 0005 “The present invention provides an improved fiber optic cable system for distributed acoustic sensing”) embedded in a material (paragraph 0005 “with cables on the surface or downhole”) where the fibers are deployed in a variety of patterns including the fiber optic is helically wrapped (Figure 1, element 11, paragraph 0010 “A sensing rod may be disposed in the elongated body and may contain at least one additional fiber. The additional fiber(s) may be substantially straight, helical, or sinusoidal.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the fiber optic in any desired pattern including a helical wrap, in order to most efficiently monitor a desired region of the structure.
As to claim 13, LNRL teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, with the exception of the system further comprises a mold configured to shape and support the plug standard. In this instance the limitation “mold” is interpreted along the lines of applicant’s Figure 4, element 148, a permanent structure surrounding the sensor, and this is known in the art as taught by Den Boer. Den Boer teaches a fiber optic sensor that detects stress (paragraph 0005 “The present invention provides an improved fiber optic cable system for distributed acoustic sensing that is more sensitive to signals travelling normal to its axis and is thus better able to distinguish radial strain from axial strain on the system.”) where the system further comprises a mold (Figure 1 shows a cable 12 with a helically wrapped fiber 11, see paragraph 0038) configured to shape and support the plug standard (see Figure 4 with outer coating 20, Figure 5 where this expands to fix the tube in a desired location, and Figure 6 where the sensor & wrapped fiber is inserted, see paragraphs 0058-0059). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the system further comprises a mold configured to shape and support the plug standard, in order to keep it in a desired location with good coupling to the surrounding environment.
As to claim 14, LNRL in view of Den Boer teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 13, in addition Den Boer teaches the mold is formed of a body having a cavity defined therein (Figure 4 shows an outer coating 20, Figure 5 shows the coating has expanded to fill the space outside, and Figure 6 shows the sensor inserted into the middle of the coating). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the mold is formed of a body having a cavity defined therein, in order to better locate the fiber to a desired position.
As to claim 16, LNRL teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 15, with the exception of wherein securing the fiber optic cable along the support lattice comprises helically wrapping the fiber optic cable around the support lattice. However, it is known in the art as taught by Den Boer. Den Boer teaches securing the fiber optic cable along the support lattice comprises helically wrapping the fiber optic cable around the support lattice (Figure 1, element 11, paragraph 0010 “A sensing rod may be disposed in the elongated body and may contain at least one additional fiber. The additional fiber(s) may be substantially straight, helical, or sinusoidal.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to be securing the fiber optic cable along the support lattice comprises helically wrapping the fiber optic cable around the support lattice, in order to most efficiently monitor a desired region of the structure.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LNRL, and further in view of Martin and further in view of Freeland et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20190033543).
As to claim 20, LNRL teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 17, in addition Rambow teaches capturing at least strain measurements and temperature measurements of the plug standard (Rambow column 2:59-60 “temperature, strain and other engineering parameters may be calculated”).
LNRL does not teach the geomaterial is a loose material. However, it is known in the art as taught by Martin. Martin teaches monitoring a well filled with a gravel slurry (Abstract “The well condition during gravel packing is monitored”) and as the applicant’s specification indicates it is known to reproduce sample properties, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the geomaterial be a loose material, in order to more easily monitor all types of samples and well conditions.
LNRL as modified by Martin above does not teach housing the plug standard within the mold while capturing measurements. However, it is known in the art as taught by Freeland. Freeland teaches a housing (Figure 9, paragraph 0067 “Outer layer 204”) around the fiber (Figure 9, paragraph 0066 “sensing fibers 36 and 38”), where the outer layer is interpreted as a mold along the lines of applicant’s Figure 4, element 148, a permanent structure surrounding the sensor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to be housing the plug standard within the mold while capturing measurements, in order to support and protect the optic fiber.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARREAS UNDERWOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-1536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0600-1400 EST.
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) 2705789. 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.
/J.C.U/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877