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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/03/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments overcome the objections of claims 8, 11, 16, and 19. The objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments overcome the previous 112b rejections of claims 9-11 and 17-19. The previous 112b rejections have been withdraw, however, new rejections have been made below.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, the applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the newly amended limitations related to at least "a delay of at least two clock cycles" and " interrogator further configured to isolate sensor returns based on the FBG returns". However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The limitations relating to the processor, speed, clock cycle, and delay are taught by Berthold as recited in the rejection of claim 2 in the previous office action (mailed 09/25/2025 page 10). The applicant has not provided any argument as to why Berthold would not teach these limitations. Berthold teaches at least a delay of at least two clock cycles ([0049] a delay coil 118 length of 100 m provides a delay time of 1 μs=1000 μs, which accounts for two trips through the delay coil for light transmitted to and reflected from the FP pressure sensor 100).
The limitation relating to the "interrogator further configured to isolate sensor returns based on the FBG returns" appears to be similar to the limitation recited in claim 1 which was taught by Berthold (FOA mailed 09/25/2025 page 13). The applicant has not provided any argument as to why Berthold would not teach these limitations. Berthold teaches correcting to isolate the sensor returns from the combination of the sensor returns and the FBG returns, wherein the correcting includes using the measuring of the FBG returns arriving at the interrogator before the sensor returns to isolate the sensor returns ([0042] "wavelengths used to read the FP pressure sensor 100, the FBG temperature sensor 102 is transparent"; "During the time period of the FBG scan, the optical switch must be instructed to reduce the width of the light pulse so that there is no interference from the FP pressure sensor 100"). Additionally, Berthold teaches the output of the temperature sensor (FBG) can be used to correct the pressure sensor (FP optical sensor) output for temperature dependent changes in the pressure sensor gap ([0022]). Thus, the sensor returns are isolated based on the FBG returns.
For further explanation, the examiner notes that that the peaks of the FBG taught by Berthold are similar to the calibration coefficients of the claimed invention. Berthold teaches the control logic 126 is used to tune the laser 110 to find the wavelength location of the peak of the FBGs ([0024] see Fig. 2 or 3) and the peak reflected wavelength is temperature dependent since both the refractive index and spacing of the index variations are functions of temperature ([0025]). A calibration coefficient defines the mathematical relationship between a measured wavelength and a physical quantity such as temperature, thus the peaks are calibration coefficients. As such, the references to Berthold in the rejection below have been updated to reflect this explanation.
Regarding claim 12, the applicant argues that claim 12 has been amended similarity to claim 1, however, it appears the only new limitation added to claim 12 was "isolating the sensor return based on the FBG return" which is addressed in the response above and the rejection of claim 18 (FOA mailed 09/25/2025 page 19). Further, the dependent claims are argued with respect to the independent claims and are also addressed by the responses above.
Additionally, these amendments introduce new clarity issues that are addressed below. As such, the rejection has been maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites “isolating the sensor return based on the FBG return” in line 13 which should read “isolating the sensor returns based on the FBG returns”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 1-6 and 8-11 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recite “the interrogator having a processor with a speed and a clock cycle, wherein the speed of the CPU is inverse of the clock cycle” in line 16. There is no antecedent basis for “the CPU”. Is the CPU the same as the processor? For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as the interrogator having a CPU with a speed and a clock cycle, wherein the speed of the CPU is inverse of the clock cycle”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-6, and 8-11 are rejected based on their dependencies.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “wherein the interrogator has a CPU with a speed and a clock cycle, wherein the speed of the CPU is inverse of the clock cycle, wherein the delay span has a length that is long enough to delay the sensor returns from the optical sensor to arrive at the interrogator after the FBG returns by at least a span of time of two times the clock cycle”. Although claim 1 does not use exact same language as the limitations of claim 2, all the limitations of claim 2 are now recited in claim 1. Claim 1 recites “the interrogator having a processor with a speed and a clock cycle, wherein the speed of the CPU is inverse of the clock cycle, wherein the delay span has a length along the fiber that is configured to create a delay of at least two clock cycles between when the interrogator receives the FBG returns and when the interrogator receives the sensor returns, thereby delaying the sensor returns with respect to the FBG returns”. Thus, claim 2 fails to further limit claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-10 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20070252998A1 by Berthold et al. (hereinafter “Berthold”; previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Berthold teaches a system comprising (at least Fig. 1A):
an illuminator (tunable laser 110; [0022]);
an optic fiber (optical fiber 116; [0022]) having a length between a first end of the optic fiber (first end at coupler 114) and a second end of the optic fiber (second end at FP sensor 100), wherein the first end is operatively connected to the illuminator for transmitting illumination along the length of the optic fiber (fiber 116 is coupled to laser 110 by coupler 114 also called power splitter; [0022];
an optical sensor (Fabry-Perot sensor 100) operatively connected to the second end for reflecting sensor returns of the illumination back along the length of the optic fiber ([0022]);
a fiber Bragg grating (FBG) formed in the optic fiber between the first end and the optical sensor (FBG 102; [0022]), wherein the FBG is configured for reflecting FBG returns of the illumination back along the optic fiber to the first end ([0022]), wherein the FBGs are configured to include encoded data ([0022] FBG 102 contains data for temperature measurement),including calibration coefficient data for the optical sensor ([0042] peak position of FBG; [0024]-[0025] peak position of FBG is calibration coefficient which defines the mathematical relationship between a measured wavelength and a physical quantity such as temperature), and wherein the interrogator is configured to decode the encoded data based on the FBG returns ([0022] processor 124 converts signal from FBG to output temperature);
a delay span (delay coil 118) in the optic fiber between the FBGs and the optical sensor ([0022]); and
an interrogator (tunable laser 110, optical switch 112, PD and amplifier 120, A/D converter 122, CPU 124, and control logic 126 form the interrogator as shown in applicant’s Fig. 1; [0021]-[0022]) operatively connected to the first end to receive the sensor returns and the FBG returns from the optic fiber (Fig. 1; coupler 114),the interrogator having a processor (processor unit 124 124; [0022]) with a speed and a clock cycle ([0042] speed and clock cycle and determined by optical switch 112 which in controlled by control logic 126 [0026]), wherein the speed of the CPU is inverse of the clock cycle (this is the definition of CPU speed and thus implicit; [0042]), wherein the delay span has a length along the fiber that is configured to create a delay of at least two clock cycles ([0042] “signal level determines the time needed for interrogation and sampling in order to minimize errors due to noise”; [0049] “a delay coil 118 length of 100 m provides a delay time of 1 μs=1000 μs, which accounts for two trips through the delay coil for light transmitted to and reflected from the FP pressure sensor 100 (see FIG. 1A)”, thus the time would be two clock cycles) between when the interrogator receives the FBG returns and when the interrogator receives the sensor returns ([0022] “delay line assures that the signals from the embedded reflector 101, the FBG 102 and the FP 100 do not interfere with one another during the detection”; [0041]; [0049]), thereby delaying the sensor returns with respect to the FBG returns ([0022] “delay line assures that the signals from the embedded reflector 101, the FBG 102 and the FP 100 do not interfere with one another during the detection”; [0041]; [0049]), the interrogator further configured to isolate the sensor returns based on the FBG returns ([0042] “wavelengths used to read the FP pressure sensor 100, the FBG temperature sensor 102 is transparent“; “During the time period of the FBG scan, the optical switch must be instructed to reduce the width of the light pulse so that there is no interference from the FP pressure sensor 100”, "light reflected from the FBG temperature sensor 102 is detected, analyzed, and the peak position located, before light in the same wavelength band reflected from the FP sensor 100 arrives at the detector 120"; [0022] output of the temperature sensor can be used to correct the pressure sensor output for temperature dependent changes in the pressure sensor gap), wherein the interrogator is configured to convert a combination of the FBG returns and the sensor returns into engineering units as output indicative of a measurement of a measurand at the optical sensor ([0022] “processor unit 124 (CPU) where software converts the modulated light signals from the FBG and FP sensors 102, 100 into engineering units”).
Although this embodiment does not include “a set of FBGs”, Berthold teaches that the system could also be configured with more than one FBG sensor 102 ([0022]). It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use multiple FBG together. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify this embodiment of Berthold to include a set of fiber Bragg grating (FBGs) formed in the optic fiber wherein the FBGs are configured for reflecting FBG returns of the illumination back along the optic fiber to the first end in order to perform multiple reflections which offers a more robust measurement.
Further, even if Berthold does not explicitly teach in this embodiment wherein the encoded data includes calibration coefficient data for the optical sensor, Berthold teaches that the output of the temperature sensor can be used to correct the pressure sensor output for temperature dependent changes in the pressure sensor gap ([0022]). The applicant states in the remarks "To use such temperature in correcting a signal indicative of pressure, one must know the calibration coefficient data associated with temperature correction" (remarks filed 09/11/2025 page 10 paragraph 6). Thus, if Berthold is using the output of the temperature sensor to correct the pressure sensor, the calibration coefficient data would inherently be known based on the applicant's explanation. Further, Berthold teaches, in reference to a different embodiment, wherein the encoded data includes calibration coefficient data for the optical sensor ([0053] “control logic 126 is used keep track of the calibration constants and length of fiber for each channel”; sensor ([0022] “processor unit 124 (CPU) where software converts the modulated light signals from the FBG and FP sensors 102, 100 into engineering units”).
Thus, it would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calibrate date when performing measurements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the first embodiment to include wherein the encoded data includes calibration coefficient data for the optical sensor as suggested by the second embodiment and the applicant’s remarks in order to increase accuracy.
Regarding claim 2, Berthold as modified above teaches the system of claim 1, and Berthold further teaches wherein the interrogator has a CPU (processor unit 124 124; [0022]) with a speed and clock cycle, ([0042] speed and clock cycle and determined by optical switch 112 which in controlled by control logic 126 [0026]), wherein the speed of the CPU is inverse of the clock cycle (this is the definition of CPU speed and thus implicit; [0042]), wherein the delay span has a length that is long enough to delay the sensor returns from the optical sensor to arrive at the interrogator after the FBG returns ([0022] “delay line assures that the signals from the embedded reflector 101, the FBG 102 and the FP 100 do not interfere with one another during the detection”; [0041]; [0049]) by at least a span of time of two times the clock cycle ([0042] “signal level determines the time needed for interrogation and sampling in order to minimize errors due to noise”; [0049] “a delay coil 118 length of 100 m provides a delay time of 1 μs=1000 μs, which accounts for two trips through the delay coil for light transmitted to and reflected from the FP pressure sensor 100 (see FIG. 1A)”, thus the time would be two clock cycles).
Regarding claim 3, Berthold as modified above teaches the system of claim 1, and Berthold further teaches wherein the optical sensor includes a Fabry-Perot interferometer ([0022] “Fabry-Perot sensor”).
Regarding claim 4, Berthold as modified above teaches the system of claim 3, and Berthold further teaches wherein the illuminator includes a tunable laser ([0026] tunable laser source 110).
Regarding claim 5, Berthold as modified above teaches the system of claim 4, and Berthold further teaches wherein the interrogator is operatively connected to the tunable laser to control the tunable laser to interrogate the optical sensor over a series of differing illumination wavelengths ([0022] “interrogated at two different wavelength bands within the tuning range”), wherein the interrogator is configured to receive the FBG returns and the sensor returns for each of the differing illumination wavelengths to form the engineering units as output ([0022] “software converts the modulated light signals from the FBG and FP sensors 102, 100 into engineering units”).
Regarding claim 6, Berthold as modified above teaches the system of claim 5, and Berthold further teaches wherein the engineering units are mechanical strain, temperature and/or pressure ([0022] “engineering units for temperature and pressure”).
Regarding claim 8, Berthold as modified above teaches the system of claim 6, and Berthold teaches wherein the interrogator is configured to use the coefficient calibration data in converting the sensor returns into the engineering units ([0022] processor 124 converts signal from FBG to output temperature; [0024]-[0025] peak locations; [0042] peak position located).
Even if Berthold does not explicitly teach in this embodiment wherein the interrogator is configured to use the coefficient calibration data in converting the sensor returns into the engineering units Berthold does address this limitation in a different embodiment.
Berthold teaches wherein the interrogator is configured to use the coefficient calibration data in converting the sensor returns into the engineering units ([0053] “control logic 126 is used keep track of the calibration constants and length of fiber for each channel”; sensor ([0022] “processor unit 124 (CPU) where software converts the modulated light signals from the FBG and FP sensors 102, 100 into engineering units”; [0024]-[0025] peak locations; [0042] peak position located).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calibrate date when performing measurements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the first embodiment to include wherein the encoded data includes calibration coefficient data for the optical sensor, wherein the interrogator is configured to use the coefficient calibration data in converting the sensor returns into the engineering units as suggested by the second embodiment in order to increase accuracy.
Regarding claim 9, Berthold as modified above teaches the system of claim 5, and Berthold teaches wherein the interrogator is configured to use the calibration coefficient data in converting the combination of the FBG returns and the sensor returns into the engineering units (([0022] processor 124 converts signal from FBG to output temperature; [0024]-[0025] peak locations; [0042] peak position located).
Even if Berthold does not explicitly teach in this embodiment wherein the interrogator is configured to use the calibration coefficient data in converting the combination of the FBG returns and the sensor returns into the engineering units, Berthold does address this limitation in a different embodiment.
Berthold teaches wherein the interrogator is configured to use the calibration coefficient data in converting the combination of the FBG returns and the sensor returns into the engineering units ([0053] “control logic 126 is used keep track of the calibration constants and length of fiber for each channel”; sensor ([0022] “processor unit 124 (CPU) where software converts the modulated light signals from the FBG and FP sensors 102, 100 into engineering units”; [0024]-[0025] peak locations; [0042] peak position located).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calibrate date when performing measurements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the first embodiment to include wherein the interrogator is configured to use the calibration coefficient data in converting the combination of the FBG returns and the sensor returns into the engineering units as suggested by the second embodiment in order to increase accuracy.
Regarding claim 10, Berthold as modified above teaches the system of claim 9, and Berthold further teaches wherein the interrogator is configured to perform a method for separating calibration coefficient data from optical sensor data ([0042]), wherein the method includes:
measuring the FBG returns arriving at the interrogator before the sensor returns due to the length the delay span ([0042] “ensure that light reflected from the FBG temperature sensor 102 is detected, analyzed, and the peak position located, before light in the same wavelength band reflected from the FP sensor 100 arrives at the detector 120”);
measuring a combination of the sensor returns and the FBG returns at some time after the measuring of the FBG returns arriving before the sensor returns ([0042]); and
correcting to isolate the sensor returns from the combination of the sensor returns and the FBG returns, wherein the correcting includes using the measuring of the FBG returns arriving at the interrogator before the sensor returns to isolate the sensor returns ([0042] “wavelengths used to read the FP pressure sensor 100, the FBG temperature sensor 102 is transparent“; “During the time period of the FBG scan, the optical switch must be instructed to reduce the width of the light pulse so that there is no interference from the FP pressure sensor 100”;"light reflected from the FBG temperature sensor 102 is detected, analyzed, and the peak position located, before light in the same wavelength band reflected from the FP sensor 100 arrives at the detector 120").
Regarding claim 12, Berthold teaches a method comprising (at least Fig. 1A):
illuminating a first end of an optic fiber (tunable laser 110), wherein illumination is first incident upon a fiber Bragg grating (FBG) (FBG 102; [0022];), then passes through a delay span of fiber (delay coil 118), then reflects off of an optical sensor at a second end of the optic fiber (Fabry-Perot sensor 100; [0022]);
receiving FBG returns reflected from the FBG at the first end of the optic fiber before arrival at the first end of a sensor returns reflected from the optical sensor ([0022] “delay line assures that the signals from the embedded reflector 101, the FBG 102 and the FP 100 do not interfere with one another during the detection”; [0041]; [0049]), wherein the FBGs are configured to include encoded data ([0022] FBG 102 contains data for temperature measurement), including calibration coefficient data for the optical sensor ([0042] peak position of FBG; [0024]-[0025] peak position of FBG is calibration coefficient which defines the mathematical relationship between a measured wavelength and a physical quantity such as temperature), and wherein the interrogator is configured to decode the encoded data based on the FBG returns ([0022] processor 124 converts signal from FBG to output temperature);
receiving combined returns including the FBG returns and the sensor returns ([0049] detector 120 receives light reflected from both FBG and FP; [0022]);
isolating the sensor return based on the FBG return ([0042] “wavelengths used to read the FP pressure sensor 100, the FBG temperature sensor 102 is transparent“; “During the time period of the FBG scan, the optical switch must be instructed to reduce the width of the light pulse so that there is no interference from the FP pressure sensor 100”, "light reflected from the FBG temperature sensor 102 is detected, analyzed, and the peak position located, before light in the same wavelength band reflected from the FP sensor 100 arrives at the detector 120"; [0022] output of the temperature sensor can be used to correct the pressure sensor output for temperature dependent changes in the pressure sensor gap);
converting a combination of the FBG returns and the sensor returns into engineering units indicative of a measurement of a measurand at the optical sensor ([0022]); and
outputting the engineering units ([0022]).
Although this embodiment does not include “a set of FBGs”, Berthold teaches that the system could also be configured with more than one FBG sensor 102 ([0022]). It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use multiple FBG together. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify this embodiment of Berthold to include a set of fiber Bragg grating (FBGs) formed in the optic fiber wherein the FBGs are configured for reflecting FBG returns of the illumination back along the optic fiber to the first end in order to perform multiple reflections which offers a more robust measurement.
Further, even if Berthold does not explicitly teach in this embodiment wherein the encoded data includes calibration coefficient data for the optical sensor, Berthold teaches that the output of the temperature sensor can be used to correct the pressure sensor output for temperature dependent changes in the pressure sensor gap ([0022]). The applicant states in the remarks "To use such temperature in correcting a signal indicative of pressure, one must know the calibration coefficient data associated with temperature correction" (remarks filed 09/11/2025 page 10 paragraph 6). Thus, if Berthold is using the output of the temperature sensor to correct the pressure sensor, the calibration coefficient data would inherently be known based on the applicant's explanation. Further, Berthold teaches, in reference to a different embodiment, wherein the encoded data includes calibration coefficient data for the optical sensor ([0053] “control logic 126 is used keep track of the calibration constants and length of fiber for each channel”; sensor ([0022] “processor unit 124 (CPU) where software converts the modulated light signals from the FBG and FP sensors 102, 100 into engineering units”).
Thus, it would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calibrate date when performing measurements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the first embodiment to include wherein the encoded data includes calibration coefficient data for the optical sensor as suggested by the second embodiment and the applicant’s remarks in order to increase accuracy.
Regarding claim 13, Berthold as modified above teaches the method of claim 12, and Berthold further teaches wherein the delay span has a length that is long enough to delay the sensor returns from the optical sensor to arrive at the first end after the FBG returns ([0022] “delay line assures that the signals from the embedded reflector 101, the FBG 102 and the FP 100 do not interfere with one another during the detection”; [0041]; [0049]) by at least a span of time of two times a clock cycle of a CPU (processor unit 124 124; [0022]; [0042] speed and clock cycle and determined by optical switch 112 which in controlled by control logic 126 [0026]), operatively connected to the first end ([0042] “signal level determines the time needed for interrogation and sampling in order to minimize errors due to noise”; [0049] “a delay coil 118 length of 100 m provides a delay time of 1 μs=1000 μs, which accounts for two trips through the delay coil for light transmitted to and reflected from the FP pressure sensor 100 (see FIG. 1A)” thus the time would be two clock cycles).
Regarding claim 14, Berthold as modified above teaches the method of claim 12, and Berthold further teaches wherein the optical sensor includes a Fabry-Perot interferometer ([0022] “Fabry-Perot sensor”), the illumination is produced by an illuminator that includes a tunable laser ([0026] tunable laser source 110), and further comprising:
controlling the tunable laser to interrogate the optical sensor over a series of differing illumination wavelengths ([0022] “interrogated at two different wavelength bands within the tuning range”); and
receiving the FBG returns and the sensor returns for each of the differing illumination wavelengths to form the engineering units as output ([0022] “software converts the modulated light signals from the FBG and FP sensors 102, 100 into engineering units”).
Regarding claim 15, Berthold as modified above teaches the method of claim 14, and Berthold further teaches wherein the engineering units are mechanical strain, temperature and/or pressure ([0022] “engineering units for temperature and pressure”).
Regarding claim 16, Berthold as modified above teaches the method of claim 15, and Berthold further teaches comprising:
decoding the encoded data based on the FBG returns to obtain the calibration coefficient data ([0022] processor 124 converts signal from FBG to output temperature; [0024]-[0025] peak locations; [0042] peak position located); and
using the calibration coefficient data in converting the sensor returns converting the sensor returns into the engineering units ([0022]; [0024]-[0025], [0042]).
Even if Berthold does not explicitly teach in this embodiment encoded data that includes calibration coefficient data for the optical sensor, decoding the encoded data to obtain the calibration coefficient data, and using the calibration coefficient data in converting the sensor returns, Berthold does address this limitation in a different embodiment.
Berthold teaches calibration coefficient data for the optical sensor ([0053] “control logic 126 is used keep track of the calibration constants and length of fiber for each channel”; sensor ([0022] “processor unit 124 (CPU) where software converts the modulated light signals from the FBG and FP sensors 102, 100 into engineering units”;).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calibrate date when performing measurements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the first embodiment to include encoded data that includes calibration coefficient data for the optical sensor, decoding the encoded data to obtain the calibration coefficient data, and using the calibration coefficient data in converting the sensor returns as suggested by the second embodiment in order to increase accuracy.
Regarding claim 17, Berthold as modified above teaches the method of claim 16, and Berthold further teaches wherein using the calibration coefficient data includes using the calibration coefficient data in converting the combined returns into the engineering units (([0022]; [0024]-[0025], [0042]).
Even if Berthold does not explicitly teach in this embodiment wherein using the calibration coefficient data includes using the calibration coefficient data in converting the combined returns into the engineering units, Berthold does address this limitation in a different embodiment.
Berthold teaches wherein using the calibration coefficient data includes using the calibration coefficient data in converting the combined returns into the engineering units ([0053] “control logic 126 is used keep track of the calibration constants and length of fiber for each channel”; sensor ([0022] “processor unit 124 (CPU) where software converts the modulated light signals from the FBG and FP sensors 102, 100 into engineering units”).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calibrate date when performing measurements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the first embodiment to include wherein using the calibration coefficient data includes using the calibration data in converting the combined return into the engineering units as suggested by the second embodiment in order to increase accuracy.
Regarding claim 18, Berthold as modified above teaches the method of claim 17, and Berthold further teaches further comprising separating calibration coefficient data from optical sensor data ([0042]), including:
measuring the FBG returns arriving at the first end of the fiber before the sensor returns due to the length the delay span ([0042] “ensure that light reflected from the FBG temperature sensor 102 is detected, analyzed, and the peak position located, before light in the same wavelength band reflected from the FP sensor 100 arrives at the detector 120”);
measuring a combination of the sensor returns and the FBG returns at some time after the measuring of the FBG returns that arrived before the sensor returns ([0042]); and
correcting to isolate the sensor returns from the combination of the sensor returns and the FBG returns, wherein the correcting includes using the measuring of the FBG returns arriving at the interrogator before the sensor returns to isolate the sensor returns ([0042] “wavelengths used to read the FP pressure sensor 100, the FBG temperature sensor 102 is transparent“; “During the time period of the FBG scan, the optical switch must be instructed to reduce the width of the light pulse so that there is no interference from the FP pressure sensor 100”).
Claims 11, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berthold as applied to claims 10 and 18 above, and further in view of US20040113056A1 by Everall et al. (hereinafter “Everall”; previously cited) and Practical strain isolation in embedded fiber Bragg gratings by Shafir et al. (hereinafter “Shafir”; previously cited).
Regarding claim 11, Berthold as modified above teaches the system of claim 10, and Berthold further teaches wherein the optic fiber is connected to a single channel of the interrogator (Fig. 1; see one channel coupler 114 and optical switch 112), wherein the calibration coefficient data is encoded in the FBGs whose reflections are separated in wavelength space ([0041]-[0042]) , wherein spacings between consecutive FBGs in wavelength space represent ON bits separated by some number of OFF bits corresponding to the spacings ([0042] “Light pulse time duration, which is determined by the sum of the time required to switch on light from the laser light source, interrogate and sample reflected light from the sensor (Item 1 above) and switch off the light”; on-off repetition rate; [0040] “light is off, there is no backscattering in the fiber F to interfere with sensor signal detection”).
Although Berthold does not explicitly teach wherein spacings between consecutive FBGs in wavelength space represent two ON bits separated by some number of OFF bits and wherein a single FBG of the FBGs denotes a start of encoding which allows a first bit to be an OFF bit, this appears to be an implicit function of the system taught by Berthold.
However, Everall can be further relied upon to teach this limitation. Everall and Berthold are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of optical interrogation systems.
Everall teaches (at least Fig. 14) a CFBG 144 (chirped FBG) for use with a wavelength evaluation apparatus 86, wherein there are two short electrical drive pulses, wherein the first electrical drive pulse in each pair serves to switch the SOA 82 (semiconductor optical amplifier) on as a reflected optical pulse arrives from a grating being interrogated, thereby transmitting and amplifying the reflected optical pulse. The second electrical drive pulse acts to switch the SOA 82 on again as the re-reflected optical pulse arrives back from the CFBG 144, thereby transmitting (and amplifying) the optical pulse back to the grating being interrogated ([0159]-[0160]). The two short electrical drive pulses correspond to the two ON bits separated by some number of OFF bits wherein a single FBG of the FBGs denotes a start of encoding which allows a first bit to be an OFF bit.
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use spacings between consecutive FBGs in wavelength space to represent ON and OFF bits to control an optical interrogator. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Berthold to include wherein spacings between consecutive FBGs in wavelength space represent two ON bits separated by some number of OFF bits and wherein a single FBG of the FBGs denotes a start of encoding which allows a first bit to be an OFF bit as suggested by Everall in order to avoid unwanted noise, this decreasing error ([0157]).
Further, Berthold does not explicitly teach wherein all the FBGs are strain isolated and are configured to be isothermal with one another.
However, Shafir does address this limitation. Shafir and Berthold are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of fiber Bragg gratings.
Shafir teaches strain isolated gratings (abstract; page 26 col 1 ¶ 2) and temperature isolated gratings (page 26 col 2 ¶ 4).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use strain-isolated and isothermal fiber Bragg gratings in a temperature sensor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Berthold to include wherein all the FBGs are strain isolated and are configured to be isothermal with one another as suggested by Shafir in order to increase measurement accuracy.
Regarding claim 19, Berthold as modified above teaches the method of claim 18, and Berthold further teaches wherein the optic fiber is connected to a single channel of the interrogator (Fig. 1; see one channel coupler 114 and optical switch 112), wherein the calibration coefficient data is encoded in the FBGs whose reflections are separated in wavelength space ([0041]-[0042]) , wherein spacings between consecutive FBGs in wavelength space represent ON bits separated by some number of OFF bits corresponding to the spacings ([0042] “Light pulse time duration, which is determined by the sum of the time required to switch on light from the laser light source, interrogate and sample reflected light from the sensor (Item 1 above) and switch off the light”; on-off repetition rate; [0040] “light is off, there is no backscattering in the fiber F to interfere with sensor signal detection”).
Although Berthold does not explicitly teach wherein spacings between consecutive FBGs in wavelength space represent two ON bits separated by some number of OFF bits and wherein a single FBG of the FBGs denotes a start of encoding which allows a first bit to be an OFF bit, this appears to be an implicit function of the system taught by Berthold.
However, Everall can be further relied upon to teach this limitation. Everall and Berthold are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of optical interrogation systems.
Everall teaches (at least Fig. 14) a chirped FBG CFBG 144 (chirped FBG) for use with a wavelength evaluation apparatus 86, wherein there are two short electrical drive pulses, wherein the first electrical drive pulse in each pair serves to switch the SOA 82 (semiconductor optical amplifier) on as a reflected optical pulse arrives from a grating being interrogated, thereby transmitting and amplifying the reflected optical pulse. The second electrical drive pulse acts to switch the SOA 82 on again as the re-reflected optical pulse arrives back from the CFBG 144, thereby transmitting (and amplifying) the optical pulse back to the grating being interrogated ([0159]-[0160]). The two short electrical drive pulses correspond to the two ON bits separated by some number of OFF bits wherein a single FBG of the FBGs denotes a start of encoding which allows a first bit to be an OFF bit.
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use spacings between consecutive FBGs in wavelength space to represent ON and OFF bits to control an optical interrogator. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Berthold to include wherein spacings between consecutive FBGs in wavelength space represent two ON bits separated by some number of OFF bits and wherein a single FBG of the FBGs denotes a start of encoding which allows a first bit to be an OFF bit as suggested by Everall in order to avoid unwanted noise, this decreasing error ([0157]).
Further, Berthold does not explicitly teach wherein all the FBGs are strain isolated and are configured to be isothermal with one another.
However, Shafir does address this limitation. Shafir and Berthold are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of fiber Bragg gratings.
Shafir teaches strain isolated gratings (abstract; page 26 col 1 ¶ 2) and temperature isolated gratings (page 26 col 2 ¶ 4).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use strain-isolated and isothermal fiber Bragg gratings in a temperature sensor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Berthold to include wherein all the FBGs are strain isolated and are configured to be isothermal with one another as suggested by Shafir in order to increase measurement accuracy.
Regarding claim 20, Berthold modified by Everall further modified by Shafir teaches the method of claim 19, and Berthold further teaches further comprising after interrogating the optical sensor for a series of differing wavelengths, resetting cumulative error by shutting off the laser for a sufficient time to clear the sensor returns and start interrogating the optical sensor for another series of differing wavelengths ([0042] “Time is required to tune the laser 110 from one step to the next over the tuning range”; [0041] “light is off, there is no backscattering in the fiber F to interfere with sensor signal detection”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITLYN E KIDWELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at 571-272-2287. 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.
/KAITLYN E KIDWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877