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 .
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, 2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper- US Pub #2015/0377692 in view of JP-2007139482 (Uchida et al). As to claims 1 and 7, Cooper discloses a vibration detector (100) and associated method of measuring vibration including using an optical source (150) and using an optical fiber (120) deployed in an environment to be sensed (monitoring the electronic submersible pump component) to receive optical signal pulses (obtain interference signals (310) and using a sensing apparatus (detector 160) to detect light to determine vibration (350), where the optical fiber comprises a plurality of separate sensing regions (sensors 110) having a plurality of reflector portions (reflectors 115/117) distributed along their lengths, and a plurality of pulse transmission portions (circulator 140, delay coil 125 and various other portions of the optical fiber 120 in which no reflector portions are provided), the plurality of sensing regions (sensors 110) being separated by pulse transmission portions and at least one transmission portion (near circulator 140) being located between the optical source and a first one (110) of the sensing regions, configured in use to transport (inject) the optical signal from the source to the sensing region (110) having the reflector (115/117) portions, wherein the optical fiber is a single continuous optical fiber through which both the optical signal pulses and all reflected or backscattered light propagate (there is only an optical fiber 120 disclosed and no reference to multiple fibers), and wherein the system is an optical fiber distributed (par[009]) acoustic sensor system arranged to sense vibrations incident upon the optical fiber, see figs. 1-3 and par[0010] et seq. Further, it is noted that the pulse transmission portions having a length greater than a distance between the reflector portions is not specifically recited. However, the depiction in fig. 2 illustrating the length L vs. ∆ x showing the various lengths of transmission portions as being relatively greater than a distance between the reflector portions ∆ x. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have included a recitation that the pulse transmission portions have a length greater than a distance between the reflector portions of the sensing regions given the depictions in the drawings and the indication that there is a delay coil 125 in order to minimize interference between the transmission pulses and the reflection pulses as in par[011]. Furthermore, Cooper lacks a teaching for the producing signals at a first pulse repetition rate dependent on a transit time for a pulse to traverse the sensing region and being greater than the time taken for a pulse to traverse a length including the transmission portion and sensing region. In a related prior art device, Uchida et al discloses an optical fiber sensing device including a single continuous fiber 4 with sensors 5, light source 1 and it is recited that the repetition time of the transmitted pulse is set to be greater than the round trip propagation time of the light i.e. the going and returning time of the light, see translation Abstract etc. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have specified the repetition rate of the transmission pulse as given by Uchida et al since this produces a one-pulse transmission method so that a single fiber can be used for transmission and reception without interference of reflections. As to claims 2 and 8, the acoustic parameter being measured is vibration based on interference signals received and reflected from the reflector portions from the multiple sensors 110 and determines the vibration that perturbs the path length of the optical fiber in dependence on backscatter/reflections from the plurality of transmission portions, see par[012] of Cooper. As to claim 4, note figs. 1 and 2 of Cooper depicting the different reflector portions (115/117) of each sensing region 110 are of a different type of broadband reflector for reflecting the swept laser light of a different wavenumber or essentially wavelength as indicated in par[011] where the locations of the sensors are selected such that different sensors monitor different components of a system. As to claim 5, note the depiction fig. 1 where the light source 150 along with circulator 140 and detector 160 seem to form a U shape where the reflector portion (115/117) of the first sensing region 110 are positioned at a far end of the outward leg (at light source 150) and continue to a top of the return leg of detector 160. As to claim 6, Cooper does not specify deploying the system in an oil well as indicated. However, applications of the system are indicated as a submersible pump or other purposes such as extraction or slurry pumping in a subsurface environment, see par[002] Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have applied the system to a pump of any subsurface environment such as an oil well since pumping from an oil well is a well-known subsurface environment.
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 1,2 and 4-8 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. In claim 1, on line 10, “the sensing region” lacks clear antecedent basis. Claims 2 and 4-8 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2 and 4-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NASHMIYA FAYYAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2192. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at (571)272-2160. 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.
NF
Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/N.S.F/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/LAURA MARTIN SWEENEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
