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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/18/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended independent claim 1 to add new issues which require additional search consideration. The corresponding new rejections are shown below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1- 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Somer et al (CZ 33050 U1) in view of Hasegawa (US 20210396617 A1) in further view of Mallik et al (“Single mode fiber-optic temperature sensor fabricated using wet etching”) in further view of Kozlov et al (US20170146371).
Regarding claim 1, Somer discloses a temperature sensor (fiber optic high temperature sensor) comprising: a light source (light source) outputting test light; a sensor optical fiber (2) transmitting, when the test light is inputted (para [0032]), the test light at any temperature within a temperature range of 20° C. to 150° C (up to 1000 ° C); a light receiver (photodetector) receiving the test light transmitted (para [0034]) by the sensor optical fiber (2); the sensor optical fiber (2); the test light (light source) received by the light receiver (photodetector); wherein the sensor optical fiber (2) ; the sensor optical fiber (2) ; the test light (light source) received by the light receiver (photodetector).
Somer fails to explicitly disclose a loss of 0.3 dB/m or more; the detection unit detects the temperature with a change in the intensity, a core, a clad provided on an outer circumference of the core; a refractive index; transmitted in the core; change rate of 0.008 μW/∘C or higher within the temperature range of 20° C. to 150°.
Hasegawa teaches a loss of 0.3 dB/m; the detection unit (5) detects the temperature with a change in the intensity (para [0067] line 33-34); a core (31ba); a clad (31bb) provided on an outer circumference of the core (para [0024]); a refractive index (para [0024]) difference between the core (31ba) and the clad (31bb); transmitted in the core (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Somer’s fiber optic high temperature sensor with a cladded core and detection unit as taught by Hasegawa because the sensing sensitivity will be greater and the sensor performance will be better monitored.
The combination of Somer and Hasegawa fails to explicitly disclose change rate of 0.008 μW/∘C or higher within the temperature range of 20° C. to 150°.
Mallik teaches change rate of 0.008 μW/∘C and less than 3.0 uW/°C (The sensitivity drops to less than 1.5 μW/∘C) within the temperature range of 20° C. to 150° (see section 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Somer as modified with Mallik’s change of rate within a temperature because the sensitivity will be greatly improved.
Somer as modified fails to explicitly disclose a core diameter of 40-50 um and an overall outer diameter of 150-200 um.
Kozlov teaches a core diameter of 40-50 μm (para [0038]) and an overall outer diameter of 150-200 μm (para [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Somer’s as modified fiber optic high temperature sensor with core and outer diameters as taught by Kozlov because these are ideal for light transmission and accurate measurement of temperature.
Regarding claim 2, The combination of Somer, Hasegawa and Mallik discloses the temperature sensor (fiber optic high temperature sensor) wherein, in the sensor optical fiber (2) a diameter of the core (31ba) is equal to or more than ten times a thickness (Fig. 2B) of the clad (31bb).
The reasons for combining and motivations are the same as the ones listed in above.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Somer, Hasegawa and Mallik discloses the temperature sensor (fiber optic high temperature sensor) and the sensor optical fiber (2) wherein a plurality of nanostructures (31bc; Hasegawa), exist near an interface between the core (31ba) and the clad (bb); and a cross-sectional diameter of a cross section of each of the nanostructures is 100 nm or less (para [0035]), the cross section being perpendicular to a longitudinal direction (para [0035]) of the sensor optical fiber (2; Somer), and the nanostructures (31bc) are distributed in areas in the longitudinal direction, each of the areas having a length below 1 m (para [0035]).
The reasons for combining and motivations are the same as the ones listed in above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIREILLE SANDRA SADATE-MOUALEU whose telephone number is (571)272-2862. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0730-1700.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/MIREILLE S SADATE-MOUALEU/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights