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 amendment filed 2/27/26 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: as in claims 1 and 7, including an optical distributed sensor system in which the optical fiber is a “single, continuous optical fiber through which both the optical signal pulses and all reflected or backscattered light propagate”.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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. As to claims 1 and 7, on lines 17-19, it is unclear where the support is found in the specification for the recitation of the “transmission portions having a length greater than a distance between the reflector portions”, please specify where the support can be found. Also, it is unclear where support is found for the recitation of “wherein the optical fiber is a single, continuous optical fiber…”. Please identify such a single, continuous fiber in the figures as no reference numeral can be identified as such. It is noted that the recitation regarding Figure 30 shows a further arrangement where “two DAS systems are multiplexed on to a single fiber” which does not provide support for the recitation of claim 1 referring to a single continuous optical fiber das system. As to claims 1 and 7, in the last clause, it is noted that each instance of “the transmission portion” lacks clear antecedent basis as there are multiple transmission portions claimed.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There is no support found for the optical fiber is “single, continuous fiber through which both the optical and signal pulses and all reflected or backscattered light propagate” in an optical fiber distributed sensor system.
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 WO2015/057224 (Barfoot et al), see translation. As to claims 1 and 7, as best understood, 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, Barfoot et al disclose a distributed optical fiber sensing system including an interrogator 100 with an optical transmitter 112 and receiver 114 along with a transmission fiber portion 102 and sensing regions S1-S4 with reflectors 110a-d, see fig. 1 and it is further disclosed that the pulse rate of the interrogator being higher based on the length of the sensing region as opposed to the entire length of the sensed fiber, see par[012]. Further, the pulse rate can be increased by separating the sensing fiber into multiple regions that are 1 km long and the sensing fiber can be optimized to generate more optical backscatter to increase the signal to noise ratio of the backscatter signal received. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have included a pulse rate based on the length of the sensing region into the device of Cooper since Barfoot et al teach that the pulse rate can be higher based on the length of the sensing region as opposed to the entire length of the fiber being used, see par[012 translation]. 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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that Barfoot teaches a dual fiber topology and this is the mechanism by which Barfoot achieves regional selection and higher effective rates per section as opposed a single bidirectional fiber path and using Barfoot’s second fiber and its downhole routing hardware into the system of Cooper would not be a routine transformation. Such an argument is not found persuasive because it is noted that Cooper already includes a single fiber construction and the rejection does not rely upon the teachings of Barfoot for the single fiber construction. The only teaching of Barfoot that is used is found in par[012] which merely refers to being able to use a higher pulse rate when it is based on the length only of the sensing region as opposed to using the entire length of the sensing fiber which leads to an increased pulse rate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the teaching of using a higher pulse rate for the pulse repetition rate used in the Cooper device since Barfoot indicates using only the length of the sensing regions as opposed to the entire length of the optical fiber to determine the pulse rate works to prevent interference from backscatter of different pulses and allowing for a higher pulse rate. It is irrelevant that the mode of operation of the Barfoot device includes using a dual fiber system as the system is not being combined with the Cooper system. Further, it is argued that Cooper’s reference to a delay coil does not appear to include the required textual information. Such an argument is not found persuasive because the Fig. 2 drawing includes actual depictions of the L vs. ∆ x relationship and “d” is the total length of the sensor and is given a size of 12 inches or less and ∆ x is given as 6 inches or less and it is further specified that the length of the delay coil is greater than “d”, see figs. 1 and 2 and par[10] et seq. So the depiction and the discussion clearly show that the transmission portion length (including the delay coil 125) is much greater than reflection portions. Again it is noted and emphasized that there is no disclosure regarding such a recitation and therefore is not clear as above. Furthermore, it is noted that many of the rejections from the final rejection of 4/21/25 were never addressed in their entirety in the response of 9/22/05. Please ensure that all of the rejections are addressed and not overlooked.
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 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/SPE, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights