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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (Claims 1-14 and 21-32) and within Invention I, an election of Species II (Claims 1-9, 11-12, 14, 21-29, and 31-32) in the reply filed on 31 December 2025 is acknowledged. See paragraph below regarding claim 32.
Claims 10, 13, and 30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species (species I and III) , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 31 December 2025.
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected device (Fourier spectrometer), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 31 December 2025.
Claims 33-35 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method for measuring a quantity, the quantity being a force, temperature, or both, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 31 December 2025.
Regarding claim 32, applicant included claim 32 within the election of species II, where species II is drawn to routing signals to a slab interferometer. Claim 32 does not focus on routing signals to a slab interferometer, and is instead directed towards routing signals to a tunable interferometer, falling within non-elected Species I. Claim 32 is illustrated by figure 29, comprising two reference sensors, and a plurality of Fabry-Perot interferometers FP, as disclosed in the claim. For these reasons, the election of Species II does not include claim 32, and therefore claim is withdrawn from consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) was/were filed on 30 June 2023. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, and therefore are considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to for the following reasons:
the claim should read “the method of claim 4, further comprising propagating the first portion…” instead of leading off with “propagating”.
On line 1, “sensor reflections signal” should read “sensor reflection signal”, removing the plural of reflection. Additionally, lines 1-2 read “propagating the first portion of the sensor reflections signal together with the second portion of the routed reflection signal…” – the claim should be amended to recite “second portion of the sensor reflection signal” for consistency within the claim and it’s independent.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the sensor optical path includes cavity body first reflecting surface” on line 2 should read “the sensor optical path includes a cavity body first reflecting surface”.
two commas appear on line 10: “as tapped sensor reflection signals, , and”. One comma should be removed.
Claim 21 is objected to: “executable instructions that cause the processor perform the logic” on page 2 line 20 should read “executable instructions that cause the processor to perform the logic”.
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“sensor cavity body includes a cap bonded to open end” on line 2 should read “bonded to an open end”;
“the injection light optical path includes cavity body” on line 3 should read “includes a cavity body”;
“at least one optical path difference being from among optical path difference” on page 2 line 12 should read “path difference being from among an optical path difference…”
“optical path difference between the cavity body second reflecting surface and the cavity body third reflecting surface” on lines 13-15 should read “an optical path difference between…”
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.
Claims 4-9, 11-12, 14, 21-29 and 31 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.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase ”near equal” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Neither the specification nor the claim provides a means to ascertain the degree to which the optical path difference should be to be considered “near equal” to the hollow cavity optical path difference. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that the optical path difference being within a scalar multiple of the hollow cavity optical path difference will read on the claim.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites the limitation “the sensor optical path” on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that the sensor optical path corresponds to the optical path between the first reflecting surface and second reflecting surface of the sensor. “Sensor optical path distance” and “sensor optical path difference” have been given antecedence, but the “sensor optical path” itself has not.
The claim recites the limitations “the hollow cavity first facing surface” and “the hollow cavity second facing surface” on lines 5-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any hollow cavity first and second facing surfaces will read on the claim.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites the limitation “the cavity body sensor reflection signals” on claim 21, page 2 ll. 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that “the cavity body sensor reflection signals” correspond to “sensor reflection optical signals” received from the sensor cavity body disclosed on claim 21, page 1 ll. 11. “The cavity body sensor reflection signals” should be amended as “the sensor reflection optical signals”, or page 1 ll. 11 should be corrected to “receive, from the sensor cavity body, cavity body sensor reflection signals…”.
The claim recites the limitation “the routed sensor reflection signals” on page 2 ll. 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that “the routed sensor reflection signals” correspond to “the routed cavity body reflection signals” appearing on page 2 ll. 5. This issue is similar to the preceding rejection where the nomenclature is inconsistent. “The routed sensor reflection signals” should be amended to “the routed cavity body reflection signals”.
The claim recites the limitation “the logic” on page 2 ll. 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any processor capable of obtaining changes in the hollow cavity optical path difference will read on the claim.
Regarding claim 24, the phrase ”near equal” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Neither the specification nor the claim provides a means to ascertain the degree to which the optical path difference should be to be considered “near equal” to the hollow cavity optical path difference. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that the optical path difference being within a scalar multiple of the hollow cavity optical path difference will read on the claim.
Regarding claim 28, the claim recites the limitation “the hollow cavity” on line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any hollow cavity will read on the claim. While “hollow cavity first facing surface” and “hollow cavity second facing surface” have been given antecedence, the hollow cavity itself has not.
The claim recites the limitation “the dual optical path” on page 2 ll. 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The dual optical path in relation to the interferometer was disclosed in claim 24, on which claim 28 is not dependent. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any dual optical path will read on the claim.
The claim recites the limitation “the optical path difference between the cavity body third reflecting surface and the cavity body fourth reflecting surface”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any optical path difference between the cited surfaces will read on the claim.
Claims 5-7, 9, 11-12, and 14 are rejected due to their dependence on the deficiency of at least claim 4.
Claims 22-23, 25-27, 29 and 31 are rejected due to their dependence on the deficiency of at least claim 21.
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.
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 1-3, 21-23, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 6,014,215 A by Lothar U. Kempen et al. (herein after “Kempen”) in view of “Chronology of Fabry-Perot Interferometer Fiber-Optic Sensors and Their Applications: A Review” by Md. Rajibul Islam et al. (doi:10.3390/s140407451) (herein after “Islam”), and further in view of US 2020/0386583 A1 by Mahmoud Farhadiroushan et al. (herein after “Mahmoud”).
Regarding claim 1, Kempen discloses a method for measuring at least pressure, acceleration, strain, or temperature (Kempen col. 1 ll. 21-26 discloses parameter measurements of fluid pressure), comprising: injecting a light in a manner providing successive incidence with a sensor first reflecting surface and a sensor second reflecting surface (Kempen fig. 1 and col 3 ll. 45-57 and col 4 ll. 13-15, 46-50 disclose a fiber optic sensor system 10 discloses an illumination source 12 which transmits light to an optical coupler 24 and is directed to a test mirror assembly 35; test mirror assembly comprises two reflecting surfaces M1 and M2 [sensor first reflecting surface and sensor second reflecting surfaces respectively]; col 5 ll. 32-33 discloses an activation of light source and a continuous scanning procedure with the light source activated [injecting a light providing successive incidence]) supported by structure that, responsive to changes in the pressure, acceleration, strain, or temperature, or combinations or sub-combinations thereof (Kempen col 3 ll. 45-57 discloses interferometric fiber optic sensor system 10 of fig. 1 adapted to measure pressure [responsive to changes in pressure, acceleration, strain, temperature or combinations/subcombinations thereof]), changes a sensor optical path difference between the first reflecting surface and the second reflecting surface (Kempen col. 6 ll. 30-39 and figs. 1 and 4 disclose an optical path length difference x between M1 and M2 due to pressure applied to M2 [x being a change in sensor optical path difference between first and second reflecting surfaces),
receiving sensor reflections, comprising reflections of the injected light from the first reflecting surface, and reflections of the injected light from the second reflecting surface (Kempen figs. 1 and col. 5 ll. 6-13 disclose that light reflected from mirrors M1 and M2 are transmitted to coupler 24 [received sensor reflections]), and
computerized measuring of the pressure, acceleration, strain, or temperature, or combinations or sub-combinations thereof, including computerized detection of changes in the sensor optical path difference (Kempen fig. 1 and col 5 ll. 16-25 discloses a signal processing unit 18 which obtains reflected signals from M-1 and M2 as output from photodetector to determine pressure P applied to the system; signal processing unit 18 may be a computer [computerized measuring of pressure]; col 6 equation 1 discloses the change of sensor optical path difference, and equations 2-3 relate the optical path difference to the pressure applied to the mirror M2 [computerized detection of changes in the sensor optical path difference])
Kempen is silent to routing the sensor reflections to an interferometer that includes a first optical path, having a first optical path length, starting at a first optical path start and ending at a first reflector, and includes a second optical path, having a second optical path length, starting at a second optical path start and ending at a second reflector;
propagating the sensor reflections within the interferometer, comprising propagating a first portion of the sensor reflections along the first optical path to incidence with the first reflector, propagating a second portion of the sensor reflections along the second optical path to incidence with the second reflector, propagating first reflector reflections of the first portion of the sensor reflections, along the first optical path, to the first optical path start, and propagating second reflector reflections of the second portion of the sensor reflections, along the second optical path, to the second optical path start.
However, Islam does address this limitation. Kempen and Islam are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they relate to interferometric sensors measuring either temperature, pressure, or strain.
Islam discloses “routing the sensor reflections to an interferometer that includes a first optical path, having a first optical path length, starting at a first optical path start and ending at a first reflector, and includes a second optical path, having a second optical path length, starting at a second optical path start and ending at a second reflector” (Islam section 2.1.1 (pg. 7454-7455) and fig. 1 disclose a cavity Fabry-Perot fiber sensor comprising a glass tube with an air gap, core, and cladding appears coupled to an LED [cavity Fabry-Perot fiber is equivalent to the two mirrors M--1 and M2 of Kempen]; light reflected by surfaces surrounding the air gap are routed to Michelson interferometer at the top left quadrant of the figure, where a beam splitter BS splits the optical path into optical paths comprising mirrors at each end [mirror w/ PZT at one end is considered the first reflector and mirror with motorized stage is considered the second reflector]; each leg to the respective mirror comprises a respective optical path length [first and second optical path lengths], the starting points of which are considered at the beam splitter and ending at the respective mirrors); and
“propagating the sensor reflections within the interferometer, comprising propagating a first portion of the sensor reflections along the first optical path to incidence with the first reflector” (Islam fig. 1; light split by beam splitter BS is incident to mirror w/ PZT [propagating a first portion of the sensor reflections along first optical path to incidence with first reflector]), “propagating a second portion of the sensor reflections along the second optical path to incidence with the second reflector” (Islam fig. 1; other portion of light split by beam splitter BS is incident to mirror w/ motorized stage [propagating a second portion of the sensor reflections along second optical path to incidence with second reflector]), “propagating first reflector reflections of the first portion of the sensor reflections, along the first optical path, to the first optical path start” (Islam fig. 1; once light is reflected at mirror w/ PZT, it returns along first optical path to first optical path start), “and propagating second reflector reflections of the second portion of the sensor reflections, along the second optical path, to the second optical path start” (Islam fig. 1; once light is reflected at mirror w/ motorized stage it returns along second optical path to second optical path start).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kempen to incorporate routing the sensor reflections to an interferometer that includes a first optical path, having a first optical path length, starting at a first optical path start and ending at a first reflector, and includes a second optical path, having a second optical path length, starting at a second optical path start and ending at a second reflector and propagating the sensor reflections within the interferometer, comprising propagating a first portion of the sensor reflections along the first optical path to incidence with the first reflector, propagating a second portion of the sensor reflections along the second optical path to incidence with the second reflector, propagating first reflector reflections of the first portion of the sensor reflections, along the first optical path, to the first optical path start, and propagating second reflector reflections of the second portion of the sensor reflections, along the second optical path, to the second optical path start as suggested by Islam for the advantage of enabling the detection of pressure deflection while enabling the use of an LED light as a light source, serving as an economical light source option (i.e. reducing cost of the interferometer) (Islam page 7455, section 2.1.2, ll. 1-8).
Kempen when modified by Islam is silent to phase shifting splitting a combination of the first reflector reflections of the first portion of the sensor reflections and the second reflector reflections of the second portion of the sensor reflections into separate channel signals, comprising first channel signals, second channel signals, and third channel signals, mutually spaced from another with respect to phase; and
computerized measuring of the pressure, acceleration, strain, or temperature, or combinations or sub-combinations thereof, including computerized detecting of changes in the sensor optical path difference, based on the first channel signals, second channel signals, and third channel signals.
However, Mahmoud does address these limitations. Kempen, Islam, and Mahmoud are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are interferometric sensors measuring either temperature, pressure, or strain.
Mahmoud discloses “phase shifting splitting a combination of the first reflector reflections of the first portion of the sensor reflections and the second reflector reflections of the second portion of the sensor reflections into separate channel signals, comprising first channel signals, second channel signals, and third channel signals, mutually spaced from another with respect to phase” (Mahmoud fig. 1 and [0049]-[0050] generally disclose an interferometer for measuring amplitude, phase, frequency of an optical signal, i.e. an optical signal received from sensor first reflecting surface and sensor second reflecting surface; three photodetectors 112 [first channel], 113 [second channel], and 114 [third channel] measure intensity of interference signal components from the interferometer [first, second, and third channel signals], where optical coupler 104 imparts relative phase shifts of 0°, -120°, and +120° [mutually spaced from another with respect to phase]); and
“computerized measuring of the pressure, acceleration, strain, or temperature, or combinations or sub-combinations thereof, including computerized detecting of changes in the sensor optical path difference, based on the first channel signals, second channel signals, and third channel signals” (Mahmoud fig. 7 shows outputs of photodetectors 112, 113, 114 input to processor unit 714 [computer]; [0166] discloses that the sensor system [i.e. at least partial outputs of photodetectors 112, 113, and 114 to processor unit of fig. 7] are used within a temperature sensor system, or any other sensed parameter that perturbs the path length of the optical fiber [any other sensed parameter here includes pressure, where pressure has been detectable within both Kempen and Islam]; parameter is sensed based on perturbed path length of optical fiber [computerized detecting of changes in optical path difference]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kempen and Islam to incorporate phase shifting splitting a combination of the first reflector reflections of the first portion of the sensor reflections and the second reflector reflections of the second portion of the sensor reflections into separate channel signals, comprising first channel signals, second channel signals, and third channel signals, mutually spaced from another with respect to phase; and computerized measuring of the pressure, acceleration, strain, or temperature, or combinations or sub-combinations thereof, including computerized detecting of changes in the sensor optical path difference, based on the first channel signals, second channel signals, and third channel signals as suggested by Mahmoud for the advantage of improving signal visibility and sensitivity by utilizing the multiple samples of the photodetector outputs (Mahmoud [0057]).
Regarding claim 2, Kempen when modified by Islam and Mahmoud discloses the method of claim 1. Kempen when modified by Islam are silent to the method of claim 1, wherein the phase shift distributing is configured to space the first channel signals, second channel signals, and third channel signals uniformly by 120 degrees.
However, Mahmoud does address this limitation.
Mahmoud discloses the method of claim 1, “wherein the phase shift distributing is configured to space the first channel signals, second channel signals, and third channel signals uniformly by 120 degrees” (Mahmoud [0049] discloses that optical coupler 104 introduces relative phase shifts of 0°, -120°, and +120° [space first, second, third channel signals uniformly by 120 degrees]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kempen in view of Islam to incorporate wherein the phase shift distributing is configured to space the first channel signals, second channel signals, and third channel signals uniformly by 120 degrees as suggested by Mahmoud for the advantage of improving signal visibility and sensitivity by utilizing the multiple samples of the photodetector outputs (Mahmoud [0057]).
Regarding claim 3, Kempen when modified by Islam and Mahmoud discloses the method of claim 1, and Kempen further teaches the method wherein the computerized measuring of the pressure, acceleration, strain, or temperature, or combinations or sub-combinations thereof is configured to perform dynamic measuring of a pressure, acceleration, strain, or temperature on the sensor cavity body (Kempen col 10 ll. 65-67 discloses that the pressure sensor enables high precision at the same time having a large dynamic range [pressure detectable via dynamic measuring]; additionally, intensity of signal detected by photodetector is shown in fig. 3 as a function of time – the steps of fig. 2 are repeatable and therefore a dynamic pressure measurement is enabled by repeating the steps of fig. 2).
Regarding claim 21, Kempen discloses a system for measuring at least pressure, acceleration, strain, or temperature (Kempen col. 1 ll. 21-26 discloses parameter measurements of fluid pressure), comprising:
a sensor cavity body, configured to receive an injection light and to provide an injection light optical path for the injected light that includes a hollow cavity first facing surface and a hollow cavity second facing surface (Kempen fig. 1 and col 3 ll. 45-57 and col 4 ll. 13-15, 46-50 disclose a fiber optic sensor system 10 discloses an illumination source 12 which transmits light to an optical coupler 24 and is directed to a test mirror assembly 35; test mirror assembly comprises two reflecting surfaces M1 and M2 [sensor first reflecting surface and sensor second reflecting surfaces respectively]; col 5 ll. 32-33 discloses an activation of light source and a continuous scanning procedure with the light source activated [injecting a light providing successive incidence]), and configured such that changes in the force change a hollow cavity optical path difference between the hollow cavity first facing surface and the hollow cavity second facing surface (Kempen col 3 ll. 45-57 discloses interferometric fiber optic sensor system 10 of fig. 1 adapted to measure pressure [responsive to changes in pressure, acceleration, strain, temperature or combinations/subcombinations thereof]; col. 6 ll. 30-39 and figs. 1 and 4 disclose an optical path length difference x between M1 and M2 due to pressure applied to M2 [x being a change in sensor optical path difference between first and second reflecting surfaces);
a splitter-router (Kempen fig. 1 and col 3 ll. 58 – col 4 ll. 2 discloses an optical coupler 24 [splitter-router]), configured to:
receive a sourced light from a light source (Kempen fig. 1 and col. 3 ll. 58 – col 4 ll. 2 discloses illumination source 12 which emits light directed to optical coupler),
route the sourced light as the injected light, over an optical fiber to the sensor cavity body (Kempen fig. 1 and col. 3 ll. 58 – col. 4 ll. 2 discloses the illumination source 12 coupled to test mirror assembly 35 [route sourced light via optical coupler 24 to sensor cavity body 35]),
receive from the sensor cavity body sensor reflection optical signals, which are responsive to the injected light and comprise hollow cavity first reflection signals from the hollow cavity first facing surface and hollow cavity second reflection signals from the hollow cavity second facing surface (Kempen figs. 1 and col. 5 ll. 6-13 disclose that light reflected from mirrors M1 and M2 [having been emitted by illumination source 12 to the test cavity 35] are transmitted back to optical coupler 24 [received sensor reflections]; mirrors M-1 and M2 reflect hollow cavity first reflection signals and hollow cavity second reflection signals, respectively),
route at least a portion of the cavity body sensor reflection signals as routed cavity body reflection signals (Kempen fig. 1 and col 5 ll. 6-13 disclose light reflected from mirrors M1 and M2 are transmitted back to optical coupler 24; light routed via the optical coupler 24 from the mirrors are considered routed cavity body reflection signals), and
a computer implemented dynamic measuring logic, comprising a processor coupled to a data memory and an instruction memory, the instruction memory storing processor executable instructions that cause the processor [to] perform the logic to detect changes in the hollow cavity optical path difference (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; Kempen fig. 1 and col 5 ll. 16-25 disclose signals obtained by a signal processing unit 18 [at least routed cavity body reflection signals], where the signal processing unit 18 is one of a digital signal processor or a computer; one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes a computer as containing a processor coupled to data memory and instruction memory, executing stored instructions to cause the processor to perform a task; the signal processing unit 18 determines a magnitude of pressure P applied to a transducer surface 20 [the pressure applied to transducer surface 20 changes the optical path length between M1 and M2 [changes in the hollow cavity optical path difference]])
Kempen is silent to an interferometer, configured to:
receive the routed cavity body reflection signals,
propagate the routed cavity body reflection signals such that a first portion of the routed cavity body reflection signals arrives, via a first optical path, at a first reflector and a second portion of the routed cavity body reflection signals arrives, via a second optical path, at a second reflector, and
reflect from the first reflector a portion of the routed sensor reflection signals, as interferometer first reflector signals, and reflect from the second reflector of another portion of the routed sensor reflection signals, as interferometer second reflector signals.
However, Islam does address these limitations. Kempen and Islam are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they relate to interferometric sensors measuring either temperature, pressure, or strain.
Islam discloses “an interferometer” (Islam section 2.1.1 (pg. 7454-7455) and fig. 1 disclose a Michelson interferometer), “configured to:
receive the routed cavity body reflection signals” (Islam section 2.1.1 (pg. 7454-7455) and fig. 1 disclose a fiber Fabry-Perot cavity comprising a glass tube with an air gap, core, and cladding coupled to an LED [fiber Fabry-Perot cavity is equivalent to the test mirror assembly 35 of Kempen]; light reflected by surfaces surrounding the air gap are routed to Michelson interferometer at the top left quadrant of the figure),
“propagate the routed cavity body reflection signals such that a first portion of the routed cavity body reflection signals arrives, via a first optical path, at a first reflector and a second portion of the routed cavity body reflection signals arrives, via a second optical path, at a second reflector” (Islam section 2.1.1 (pg. 7454-7455) discloses that the Michelson type interferometer where a beam splitter BS splits the routed cavity body reflection signals following the routed optical path into optical paths comprising mirrors at each end [mirror w/ PZT at one end is considered the first reflector and mirror with motorized stage is considered the second reflector]; each leg to the respective mirror represent a respective optical path [first and second optical paths]), “and
reflect from the first reflector a portion of the routed sensor reflection signals, as interferometer first reflector signals, and reflect from the second reflector of another portion of the routed sensor reflection signals, as interferometer second reflector signals” (Islam fig. 1; the light incident to the mirror w/ PZT is reflected as interferometer first reflector signals and light incident to the mirror w/ motorized stage is reflected as interferometer second reflector signals).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kempen to incorporate an interferometer configured to receive the routed cavity body reflection signals, propagate the routed cavity body reflection signals such that a first portion of the routed cavity body reflection signals arrives, via a first optical path, at a first reflector and a second portion of the routed cavity body reflection signals arrives, via a second optical path, at a second reflector, and reflect from the first reflector a portion of the routed sensor reflection signals, as interferometer first reflector signals, and reflect from the second reflector of another portion of the routed sensor reflection signals, as interferometer second reflector signals as suggested by Islam for the advantage of enabling the detection of pressure deflection while enabling the use of an LED light as a light source, serving as an economical light source option (i.e. reducing cost of the interferometer) (Islam page 7455, section 2.1.2, ll. 1-8).
Kempen when modified by Islam is silent to a phase shifting splitter, configured to: receive and combine, into interferometer reflector signals, the interferometer first reflector signals and the interferometer second reflector, separate the interferometer reflector signals into separate channel signals, comprising first channel signals, second channel signals, and third channel signals, mutually spaced from one another with respect to phase, and a computer implemented dynamic measuring logic comprising a processor to detect changes in the hollow cavity optical path difference based on the first channel signals, second channel signals, and third channel signals.
However, Mahmoud does address this limitation. Kempen, Islam, and Mahmoud are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are interferometric sensors measuring either temperature, pressure, or strain.
Mahmoud discloses “a phase shifting splitter (Mahmoud fig. 1 and [0049]-[0050] discloses an optical coupler 104 imparting relative phase shifts [phase shifting splitter]), configured to:
receive and combine, into interferometer reflector signals, the interferometer first reflector signals and the interferometer second reflector (Mahmoud fig. 1 and [0049]-[0050] generally disclose an interferometer for measuring amplitude, phase, frequency of an optical signal, i.e. interferometer first and second reflector signals),
“separate the interferometer reflector signals into separate channel signals, comprising first channel signals, second channel signals, and third channel signals, mutually spaced from one another with respect to phase” (Mahmoud fig. 1 and [0049]-[0050] disclose three photodetectors 112 [first channel], 113 [second channel], and 114 [third channel] measure intensity of interference signal components [interferometer reflector signals] from the interferometer [separate into first, second, and third channel signals], where optical coupler 104 imparts relative phase shifts of 0°, -120°, and +120° [mutually spaced from another with respect to phase]), and
“a computer implemented dynamic measuring logic comprising a processor to detect changes in the hollow cavity optical path difference based on the first channel signals, second channel signals, and third channel signals” (Mahmoud fig. 7 shows outputs of photodetectors 112, 113, 114 input to processor unit 714 [computer]; [0166] discloses that the sensor system [i.e. at least partial outputs of photodetectors 112, 113, and 114 to processor unit of fig. 7] are used within a temperature sensor system, or any other sensed parameter that perturbs the path length of the optical fiber [any other sensed parameter here includes pressure, where pressure has been detectable within both Kempen and Islam]; parameter is sensed based on perturbed path length of optical fiber [computerized detecting of changes in optical path difference based on first, second, and third channels]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kempen in view of Islam to incorporate a phase shifting splitter, configured to: receive and combine, into interferometer reflector signals, the interferometer first reflector signals and the interferometer second reflector, separate the interferometer reflector signals into separate channel signals, comprising first channel signals, second channel signals, and third channel signals, mutually spaced from one another with respect to phase, and a computer implemented dynamic measuring logic comprising a processor to detect changes in the hollow cavity optical path difference based on the first channel signals, second channel signals, and third channel signals as suggested by Mahmoud for the advantage of improving signal visibility and sensitivity by utilizing the multiple samples of the photodetector outputs (Mahmoud [0057]).
Regarding claim 22, Kempen when modified by Islam and Mahmoud discloses the system of claim 21. Kempen when modified by Islam is silent to the system of claim 21, wherein the phase shifting splitter is further configured to space the first channel signals, second channel signals, and third channel signals uniformly by 120 degrees.
However, Mahmoud does address this limitation.
Mahmoud discloses the system of claim 21, “wherein the phase shifting splitter is further configured to space the first channel signals, second channel signals, and third channel signals uniformly by 120 degrees” (Mahmoud [0049] discloses that optical coupler 104 introduces relative phase shifts of 0°, -120°, and +120° [space first, second, third channel signals uniformly by 120 degrees]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kempen in view of Islam to incorporate wherein the phase shifting splitter is further configured to space the first channel signals, second channel signals, and third channel signals uniformly by 120 degrees as suggested by Mahmoud for the advantage of improving signal visibility and sensitivity by utilizing the multiple samples of the photodetector outputs (Mahmoud [0057]).
Regarding claim 23, Kempen when modified by Islam and Mahmoud discloses the system of claim 21, and Kempen further teaches the system wherein the computer implemented dynamic measuring logic is further configured to perform the dynamic measuring of a pressure or acceleration on the sensor cavity body (Kempen col 10 ll. 65-67 discloses that the pressure sensor enables high precision at the same time having a large dynamic range [pressure detectable via dynamic measuring]; additionally, intensity of signal detected by photodetector is shown in fig. 3 as a function of time – the steps of fig. 2 are repeatable and therefore a dynamic pressure measurement is enabled by repeating the steps of fig. 2).
Regarding claim 27, Kempen when modified by Islam and Mahmoud discloses the system of claim 21, and Kempen further teaches the system further comprising: a tapping logic, configured to tap a portion of the sensor reflection signals, as tapped sensor reflection signals (Kempen figs 2-3 and col 10 ll. 26-31 discloses the process by which the pressure applied to mirror M2 is obtained – the signals used during the calculation of pressure are considered a “tapped portion” of the sensor reflection signals, consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim; the computer serving as the signal processing unit 18 therefore contains the claimed tapping logic, since the computer is “configured to tap a portion of the sensor reflection signals”); and a computer implemented logic for performing a computerized absolute measuring of the pressure, acceleration, strain, or temperature comprising computerized absolute measuring of the hollow cavity optical path difference, based on the tapped sensor reflection signals (Kempen col. 10 ll. 55-60 discloses that the pressure sensor system allows for absolute measurements of the position of the test mirror [absolute measuring of the hollow cavity optical path difference]; col. 5 ll. 16-25 discloses the computerized measurement of the pressure P applied to the transducer surface 20 [where measuring pressure is dependent on measuring the hollow cavity optical path difference])
Claims 4-5, 7, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kempen in view of Islam, in view of Mahmoud, and further in view of US 5,47,323 A by Jeffery P. Andrews et al. (herein after “Andrews”).
Regarding claim 4, Kempen when modified by Islam and Mahmoud discloses the method of claim 1, and Kempen further teaches the method wherein: the first reflecting surface is an interface between a surface of a cylinder base and a hollow cavity, and the second reflecting surface is an interface between the hollow cavity and a surface of a cap that is attached to the cylinder base, the first reflecting surface being spaced from the second reflecting surface by a hollow cavity optical path distance (Kempen figs 4-5 and col. 7 ll. 1-32 disclose the first reflecting surface M1 appears between one an outer surface of flange 56 [surface of cylindrical base] and hollow cavity denoted by x; the second reflecting surface M2 appears between the hollow cavity denoted by x and an outer ring seal 60b [cap]; outer ring seal 60b is shown connected to pipe 50, where the pipe 50 coupled with flange 56 is considered as the cylinder base [second reflecting surface an interface between hollow cavity and surface of cap attached to cylinder base]; M1 and M2 are separated by a distance [hollow cavity optical path distance]; fig. 5 shows that the components are cylindrical in nature, and the mirrors are concentric with one another; pipe 50 is shown as circular in fig. 5, i.e. cylindrical going into the page).
Kempen when modified by Islam and Mahmoud is silent to the method of claim 1, wherein the second optical path length differs from the first optical path length by an optical path difference that is equal to or near equal to the hollow cavity optical path difference.
However, Andrews does address this limitation. Kempen, Islam, Mahmoud, and Andrews are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are interferometric sensors measuring either temperature, pressure, or strain.
Andrews discloses the method of claim 1, “wherein the second optical path length differs from the first optical path length by an optical path difference that is equal to or near equal to the hollow cavity optical path difference” (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; Andrews fig. 5 and col 9 ll. 63 – col 10 ll. 13 discloses an interferometer 58 receiving signals from a Fabry-Perot type fiber 40 shown in fig. 4 with a gap of length S; two legs of the interferometer (Leg A and Leg B) have differing path lengths – leg A has a path length of 1 and leg B has a path length of 1 + 2S, making the difference between the legs 2S; the difference is a scalar multiple of the hollow cavity optical path difference, consistent with the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above and reads on the claim).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kempen when modified by Islam and Mahmoud to incorporate wherein the second optical path length differs from the first optical path length by an optical path difference that is equal to or near equal to the hollow cavity optical path difference as suggested by Andrews for the advantage of outputting an output signal that is linear with respect to the detected temperature, pressure, strain, etc. while having a wide dynamic range and having reduced sensitivity to temperature and vibration (Andrews col 2 ll. 44-54 and col. 11 ll. 9-32).
Regarding claim 5, Kempen when modified by Islam, Mahmoud, and Andrews discloses the method of claim 4, and Kempen further teaches the method of claim 4, wherein:
the first optical path include a first optical fiber, extending a first optical fiber length to a first optical fiber distal end (Kempen fig. 1 and col 3 ll. 58 – col 4 ll. 12 discloses the use of optical fibers to deliver light to the interferometer 14; Islam has been cited explicitly to teach routing sensor reflections to an interferometer from at least one Fabry-Perot fiber [analogous to the test mirror assembly 35 of Kempen]; while Islam does not explicitly disclose the use of an optical fiber along the first optical path, given the broad use of optical fibers the local and opposite ends [i.e. distal end] to connect the interferometer with a photodetector of Kempen, the first optical path of Islam therefore would obviously include a first optical fiber, extending a first optical fiber length to a first optical fiber distal end [i.e. the distal end of the first optical fiber would be placed at the corresponding reflector]),
the second optical path includes a second optical fiber, separate from the first optical fiber, and extending a second optical fiber path length to a second optical fiber distal end (as with the reasoning above, the second optical path of Islam would include a second optical fiber which would be separate from the first optical fiber [separated by beamsplitter BS of Islam (analogous to optical coupler 24 of Kempen)], that extends a second optical fiber path length to a second optical fiber distal end [the second optical fiber distal end terminates at the corresponding reflector]);
the first reflector is positioned at the first optical fiber distal end (the first optical path of Islam therefore would obviously include a first optical fiber, extending a first optical fiber length to a first optical fiber distal end terminating at the first reflector [i.e. the distal end of the first optical fiber would be placed at the corresponding [first] reflector]), and
the second reflector is positioned at the second optical fiber distal end (the second optical fiber extends a second optical fiber path length to the second optical fiber distal end, where the second optical fiber end terminates at the second reflector [i.e. distal end of the optical fiber would be placed at the corresponding [second] reflector]).
Regarding claim 7, Kempen when modified by Islam, Mahmoud, and Andrews discloses the method of claim 4, and Kempen further teaches the method further comprising:
tapping a portion of the sensor reflection signals, as tapped sensor reflection signals (Kempen figs 2-3 and col 10 ll. 26-31 discloses the process by which the pressure applied to mirror M2 is obtained – the signals used during the calculation of pressure are considered a “tapped portion” of the sensor reflection signals, consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim); and
performing a computerized absolute measuring of the pressure, acceleration, or strain comprising computerized absolute measuring of the hollow cavity optical path difference, based on the tapped sensor reflection signals (Kempen col. 10 ll. 55-60 discloses that the pressure sensor system allows for absolute measurements of the position of the test mirror [absolute measuring of the hollow cavity optical path difference]; col. 5 ll. 16-25 discloses the computerized measurement of the pressure P applied to the transducer surface 20 [where measuring pressure is dependent on measuring the hollow cavity optical path difference]).
Regarding claim 24, Kempen when modified by Islam and Mahmoud discloses the system of claim 21. Kempen is silent to the system of claim 21, wherein the interferometer is further configured to perform dual path propagating of the routed sensor reflection signals, the dual path propagating including: propagating a first portion of the routed sensor reflection signals to the first reflector, along a first optical propagation path having a first optical path length, propagating a second portion of the routed sensor reflection signals to the second reflector, along a second optical propagation path having a second optical path length.
However, Islam does address these limitations.
Islam discloses the system of claim 21, “wherein the interferometer is further configured to perform dual path propagating of the routed sensor reflection signals (Islam fig. 1 shows two separate optical paths from the beam splitter, one to the mirror with PZT and the other to the mirror with motorized stage [dual path propagating]), “the dual path propagating including:
propagating a first portion of the routed sensor reflection signals to the first reflector, along a first optical propagation path having a first optical path length” (Islam fig. 1; the portion of the routed sensor reflection signals to the mirror with PZT occurs along a first optical propagation path having a first optical path length), and
propagating a second portion of the routed sensor reflection signals to the second reflector, along a second optical propagation path having a second optical path length (Islam fig. 1; the other portion of the routed sensor reflection signals being routed to the mirror with the motorized stage occurs along a second optical propagation path having a second optical path length).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kempen to incorporate wherein the interferometer is further configured to perform dual path propagating of the routed sensor reflection signals, the dual path propagating including: propagating a first portion of the routed sensor reflection signals to the first reflector, along a first optical propagation path having a first optical path length, propagating a second portion of the routed sensor reflection signals to the second reflector, along a second optical propagation path having a second optical path length as suggested by Islam for the advantage of minimizing cross talk using a Fabry-Perot fiber-optic sensor with coherence multiplexing via the matching the difference of path length (via PZT and motorized stage) for the pressure sensor being used (Islam section 2.1.1., only page 7454).
Kempen when modified by Islam and Mahmoud is silent to the system of claim 21, wherein the second optical path length differs from the first optical path length by an optical path difference equal to or near equal to the hollow cavity optical path difference.
However, Andrews does address this limitation. Kempen, Islam, Mahmoud, and Andrews are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are interferometric sensors measuring either temperature, pressure, or strain.
Andrews discloses the system of claim 21, “wherein the second optical path length differs from the first optical path length by an optical path difference equal to or near equal to the hollow cavity optical path difference” (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; Andrews fig. 5 and col 9 ll. 63 – col 10 ll. 13 discloses an interferometer 58 receiving signals from a Fabry-Perot type fiber 40 shown in fig. 4 with a gap of length S; two legs of the interferometer (Leg A and Leg B) have differing path lengths – leg A has a path length of 1 and leg B has a path length of 1 + 2S, making the difference between the legs 2S; the difference is a scalar multiple of the hollow cavity optical path difference, consistent with the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above and reads on the claim).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kempen when modified by Islam and Mahmoud to incorporate wherein the second optical path length differs from the first optical path length by an optical path difference that is equal to or near equal to the hollow cavity optical path difference as suggested by Andrews for the advantage of outputting an output signal that is linear with respect to the detected temperature, pressure, strain, etc. while having a wide dynamic range and having reduced sensitivity to temperature and vibration (Andrews col 2 ll. 44-54 and col. 11 ll. 9-32).
Regarding claim 25, Kempen when modified by Islam, Mahmoud, and Andrews discloses the system of claim 24, and Kempen further teaches the system wherein:
the first optical path include a first optical fiber, extending a first optical fiber length to a first optical fiber distal end (Kempen fig. 1 and col 3 ll. 58 – col 4 ll. 12 discloses the use of optical fibers to deliver light to the interferometer 14; Islam has been cited explicitly to teach routing sensor reflections to an interferometer from at least one Fabry-Perot fiber [analogous to the test mirror assembly 35 of Kempen]; while Islam does not explicitly disclose the use of an optical fiber along the first optical path, given the broad use of optical fibers the local and opposite ends [i.e. distal end] to connect the interferometer with a photodetector of Kempen, the first optical path of Islam therefore would obviously include a first optical fiber, extending a first optical fiber length to a first optical fiber distal end [i.e. the distal end of the first optical fiber would be placed at the corresponding reflector]),
the second optical path includes a second optical fiber, separate from the first optical fiber, and extending a second optical fiber path length to a second optical fiber distal end (as with the reasoning above, the second optical path of Islam would include a second optical fiber which would be separate from the first optical fiber [separated by beamsplitter BS of Islam (analogous to optical coupler 24 of Kempen)], that extends a second optical fiber path length to a second optical fiber distal end [the second optical fiber distal end terminates at the corresponding reflector]),
the first reflector is positioned at the first optical fiber distal end (the first optical path of Islam therefore would obviously include a first optical fiber, extending a first optical fiber length to a first optical fiber distal end terminating at the first reflector [i.e. the distal end of the first optical fiber would be placed at the corresponding [first] reflector]), and
the second reflector is positioned at the second optical fiber distal end (the second optical fiber extends a second optical fiber path length to the second optical fiber distal end, where the second optical fiber end terminates at the second reflector [i.e. distal end of the optical fiber would be placed at the corresponding [second] reflector]).
Claims 8-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kempen in view of Islam, in view of Mahmoud, in view of Andrews, and further in view of US 2017/0122828 A1 by Ralf-Dieter Pechstedt et al. (herein after “Pechstedt”).
Regarding claim 8, Kempen when modified by Islam, Mahmoud, and Andrews discloses the method of claim 4, and Kempen further teaches the method wherein:
the sensor optical path includes a cavity body second reflecting surface and a cavity body third reflecting surface (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; Kempen fig. 1 includes reflective surfaces M1 and M2 along the optical path of the sensor illustrated by optical fiber 22c as indicated in claim 1; regardless of the nomenclature of the claim, the reflective surface M1 and M2 read on two cavity body reflecting surfaces), the cavity body second reflecting surface is the hollow cavity first facing surface and the cavity body third reflecting surface is an inner face of the cap and is the hollow cavity second facing surface (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; as indicated in the previous limitation, the reflective surfaces M1 and M2 of Kempen are the cavity body second reflecting surface and the cavity body third reflecting surface, where M-1 is the hollow cavity first facing surface [facing the hollow cavity denoted by x in fig. 4, and M2 is the hollow cavity second facing surface [facing the hollow cavity on the opposite side to M1), and the method further comprises:
tapping a portion of the sensor reflection signals, as tapped sensor reflection signals (Kempen figs 2-3 and col 10 ll. 26-31 discloses the process by which the pressure applied to mirror M2 is obtained – the signals used during the calculation of pressure are considered a “tapped portion” of the sensor reflection signals, consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim), and
performing an absolute measuring of a pressure, comprising an absolute measuring of at least one optical path difference within the sensor cavity body, between the cavity body second reflecting surface and the cavity body third reflecting surface (Kempen col. 10 ll. 55-60 discloses that the pressure sensor system allows for absolute measurements of the position of the test mirror, i.e. measuring the optical path difference x between M1 and M2- [absolute measuring of the hollow cavity optical path difference between the cavity body second reflecting surface and the cavity body third reflecting surface]; col. 5 ll. 16-25 discloses the computerized measurement of the pressure P applied to the transducer surface 20 [where measuring pressure is dependent on measuring the hollow cavity optical path difference]; the remaining limitations regarding measuring the optical path difference between the cavity body first reflecting surface and cavity body second reflecting surface (and between the third and fourth) are not considered here due to the “or” statement).
Kempen when modified by Islam, Mahmoud, and Andrews is silent to the method of claim 4, wherein:
the sensor optical path includes cavity body first reflecting surface and a cavity body fourth reflecting surface, the cavity body first reflecting surface being an outer surface of the cylinder base on which the injected light is first incident and the cavity body fourth reflecting surface is an outward facing surface of the cap, and
the method further comprises: performing an absolute measuring of a temperature.
However, Pechstedt does address this limitation. Kempen, Islam, Mahmoud, Andrews, and Pechstedt are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are interferometric sensors measuring either temperature, pressure, or strain.
Pechstedt discloses the method of claim 4, “wherein:
the sensor optical path includes cavity body first reflecting surface and a cavity body fourth reflecting surface” (Pechstedt [0037] and fig. 2 discloses an optical pressure sensor wherein a light source 10 delivers probe light to a sensor head 14 through optical fiber 17 [sensor optical path]; [0043] the sensor head has a Fabry-Perot cavity formed from opposing major surfaces of the cavity, where reflective surfaces of the substrate and membrane form the cavity), “the cavity body first reflecting surface being an outer surface of the cylinder base on which the injected light is first incident and the cavity body fourth reflecting surface is an outward facing surface of the cap” (Pechstedt fig 2 shows optical fiber 17 delivering light to the first/outer surface of membrane 24 [cavity body first reflecting surface], and a cavity body fourth reflecting surface of 24 at the opposite end [outwardly facing surface of the cap]), “the method further comprises: performing an absolute measuring of a temperature” (Pechstedt [0043] discloses that the cavity is temperature sensing; fig. 6 shows a measure of temperature as a function of time [for a portion of signals obtained during some time interval (i.e. tapped signals) temperature is measured).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kempen in view of Islam, Mahmoud, and Andrews to incorporate wherein the sensor optical path includes cavity body first reflecting surface and a cavity body fourth reflecting surface, the cavity body first reflecting surface being an outer surface of the cylinder base on which the injected light is first incident and the cavity body fourth reflecting surface is an outward facing surface of the cap, and performing an absolute measuring of a temperature as suggested by Pechstedt for the advantage of integrating an temperature compensation function to existing pressure sensors, having temperature detection at the optical pressure measurement site increasing the accuracy of temperature compensation (Pechstedt [0007]).
Regarding claim 9, Kempen when modified by Islam, Mahmoud, Andrews, and Pechstedt discloses the method of claim 8. Kempen when modified by Islam, Mahmoud, and Andrews is silent to the method of claim 8, wherein the absolute measuring of at least one optical path difference within the sensor cavity body comprises a Fourier optical spectrometry process.
However, Pechstedt does address this limitation.
Pechstedt discloses the method of claim 8, “wherein the absolute measuring of at least one optical path difference within the sensor cavity body comprises a Fourier optical spectrometry process” (Pechstedt [0052] discloses the use of a spectrometer to obtain an interference spectrum resulting from interaction of probe light with temperature sensing cavity; the temperature sensing cavity output 72 is obtained via discrete Fourier transform of the interference spectrum; one or more peaks in the Fourier transform corresponds to optical path length of optical cavities in the sensor [absolute measuring of at least one optical path difference comprises Fourier optical spectrometry process]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kempen in view of Islam, Mahmoud, and Andrews to incorporate wherein the absolute measuring of at least one optical path difference within the sensor cavity body comprises a Fourier optical spectrometry process as suggested by Pechstedt for the advantage of integrating an temperature compensation function to existing pressure sensors, having temperature detection at the optical pressure measurement site increasing the accuracy of temperature compensation (Pechstedt [0007]).
Regarding claim 12, Kempen when modified by Islam, Mahmoud, Andrews, and Pechstedt discloses the method of claim 8. Kempen when modified by Islam, Mahmoud, and Andrews is silent to the method of claim 8, wherein the absolute measuring of at least one optical path difference within the sensor cavity body comprises routing the tapped sensor reflection signals to an optical spectrometer and generating the absolute measure based on a Fourier spectrometry result that is output by the optical spectrometer.
However, Pechstedt does address this limitation.
Pechstedt discloses the method of claim 8, “wherein the absolute measuring of at least one optical path difference within the sensor cavity body comprises routing the tapped sensor reflection signals to an optical spectrometer and generating the absolute measure based on a Fourier spectrometry result that is output by the optical spectrometer” (Pechstedt [0052] discloses the use of a spectrometer to obtain an interference spectrum resulting from interaction of probe light with temperature sensing cavity; the temperature sensing cavity output 72 is obtained via discrete Fourier transform of the interference spectrum; one or more peaks in the Fourier transform corresponds to optical path length of optical cavities in the sensor [absolute measuring of at least one optical path difference comprises routing signals to an optical spectrometer and generating measure based on a Fourier spectrometry result output by spectrometer]; Kempen within claim 8 above has disclosed the tapping of sensor reflecting signals).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kempen in view of Islam, Mahmoud, and Andrews to incorporate wherein the absolute measuring of at least one optical path difference within the sensor cavity body comprises routing the tapped sensor reflection signals to an optical spectrometer and generating the absolute measure based on a Fourier spectrometry result that is output by the optical spectrometer as suggested by Pechstedt for the advantage of integrating an temperature compensation function to existing pressure sensors, having temperature detection at the optical pressure measurement site increasing the accuracy of temperature compensation (Pechstedt [0007]).
Claims 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kempen, in view of Islam, in view of Mahmoud, and further in view of Pachstedt.
Regarding claim 28, Kempen when modified by Islam and Mahmoud discloses the system of claim 21, and Kempen further teaches the system wherein: the sensor cavity body includes a cap bonded to an open end of a cylinder base, in a configuration sealing the hollow cavity (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; Kempen figs 4-5 and col 7 ll. 1-32 discloses an outer ring seal 60b appearing at an otherwise open end of a pipe 50 coupled with flange 56 [cylindrical base] the pipe 50 is shown in a circular cross section in fig. 5 [i.e. cylindrical into the plane of the page]; the outer ring seal 60b seals the hollow cavity, whose length is denoted by x) and the injection light optical path includes a cavity body second reflecting surface, a cavity body third reflecting surface (Kempen fig. 1 includes reflective surfaces M1 and M2 along the optical path of the sensor cavity illustrated by optical fiber 22c [injection light optical path]; regardless of the nomenclature of the claim, the reflective surface M1 and M2 read on two cavity body reflecting surfaces), the cavity body second reflecting surface is the hollow cavity first facing surface and the cavity body third reflecting surface is an inner face of the cap and is the hollow cavity second facing surface (as indicated in the previous limitation, the reflective surfaces M1 and M2 of Kempen are the cavity body second reflecting surface and the cavity body third reflecting surface, where M-1 is the hollow cavity first facing surface [facing the hollow cavity denoted by x in fig. 4, and M2 is the hollow cavity second facing surface [facing the hollow cavity on the opposite side to M1]); and the system further comprises:
a tapping logic, configured to:
tap a portion of the sensor reflection signals, as tapped sensor reflection signals prior to the dual optical path propagating by the interferometer (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; Kempen figs 2-3 and col 10 ll. 26-31 discloses the process by which the pressure applied to mirror M2 is obtained – the signals used during the calculation of pressure are considered a “tapped portion” of the sensor reflection signals, consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim; the tapped portion of the signals are obtained before routing to the interferometer of Islam disclosed in claim 21; the computer serving as the signal processing unit 18 contains the claimed tapping logic, since the computer is “configured to tap a portion of the sensor reflection signals”), and
perform an absolute measuring of at least one optical path difference within the sensor cavity body, the at least one optical path difference being from among [the] optical path difference between the cavity body first reflecting surface and the cavity body second reflecting surface, optical path difference between the cavity body second reflecting surface and the cavity body third reflecting surface, and the optical path difference between the cavity body third reflecting surface and the cavity body fourth reflecting surface (Kempen col. 10 ll. 55-60 discloses that the pressure sensor system allows for absolute measurements of the position of the test mirror, i.e. measuring the optical path difference x between M1 and M2- [absolute measuring of at least one optical path difference within the sensor cavity body, between the cavity body second reflecting surface and the cavity body third reflecting surface]; the remaining limitations regarding measuring the optical path difference between the cavity body first reflecting surface and cavity body second reflecting surface (and between the third and fourth) are not considered here due to the “at least one of from among” statement).
Kempen when modified by Islam and Mahmoud is silent to the system of claim 21, wherein: the injection light optical path includes [a] cavity body first reflecting surface and a cavity body fourth reflecting surface, the cavity body first reflecting surface being an outer surface of the cylinder base on which the injected light is first incident and the cavity body fourth reflecting surface is an outward facing surface of the cap, and the method further comprises: performing an absolute measuring of a temperature.
However, Pechstedt does address this limitation. Kempen, Islam, Mahmoud, and Pechstedt are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are interferometric sensors measuring either temperature, pressure, or strain.
Pechstedt discloses the system of claim 21, “wherein the injection light optical path includes[a] cavity body first reflecting surface and a cavity body fourth reflecting surface” (Pechstedt [0037] and fig. 2 discloses an optical pressure sensor wherein a light source 10 delivers probe light [injection light optical path] to a sensor head 14 through optical fiber 17 [sensor optical path]; [0043] the sensor head has a Fabry-Perot cavity formed from opposing major surfaces of the cavity, where reflective surfaces of the substrate and membrane form the cavity), the cavity body first reflecting surface being an outer surface of the cylinder base on which the injected light is first incident and the cavity body fourth reflecting surface is an outward facing surface of the cap” (Pechstedt fig 2 shows optical fiber 17 delivering light to the first/outer surface of membrane 24 [cavity body first reflecting surface], and a cavity body fourth reflecting surface of 24 at the opposite end [outwardly facing surface of the cap]), “and the method further comprises: performing an absolute measuring of a temperature” (Pechstedt [0043] discloses that the cavity is temperature sensing; fig. 6 shows a measure of temperature as a function of time [for a portion of signals obtained during some time interval (i.e. tapped signals) temperature is measured).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kempen in view of Islam and Mahmoud to incorporate wherein the injection light optical path includes [a] cavity body first reflecting surface and a cavity body fourth reflecting surface, the cavity body first reflecting surface being an outer surface of the cylinder base on which the injected light is first incident and the cavity body fourth reflecting surface is an outward facing surface of the cap, and performing an absolute measuring of a temperature as suggested by Pechstedt for the advantage of integrating an temperature compensation function to existing pressure sensors, having temperature detection at the optical pressure measurement site increasing the accuracy of temperature compensation (Pechstedt [0007]).
Regarding claim 29, Kempen when modified by Islam, Mahmoud, and Pechstedt discloses the system of claim 28. Kempen when modified by Islam and Mahmoud is silent to wherein the absolute measuring of at least one optical path difference within the sensor cavity body comprises performing a Fourier optical spectrometry process.
However, Pechstedt does address this limitation.
Pechstedt discloses the system of claim 28, “wherein the absolute measuring of at least one optical path difference within the sensor cavity body comprises performing a Fourier optical spectrometry process” (Pechstedt [0052] discloses the use of a spectrometer to obtain an interference spectrum resulting from interaction of probe light with temperature sensing cavity; the temperature sensing cavity output 72 is obtained via discrete Fourier transform of the interference spectrum; one or more peaks in the Fourier transform corresponds to optical path length of optical cavities in the sensor [absolute measuring of at least one optical path difference comprises Fourier optical spectrometry process]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kempen in view of Islam and Mahmoud to incorporate wherein the absolute measuring of at least one optical path difference within the sensor cavity body comprises performing a Fourier optical spectrometry process as suggested by Pechstedt for the advantage of integrating an temperature compensation function to existing pressure sensors, having temperature detection at the optical pressure measurement site increasing the accuracy of temperature compensation (Pechstedt [0007]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 11, 14, 26, and 31 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole either taken alone or in combination. In particular, a thorough search for pertinent prior art did not locate any prior art that discloses or suggests all limitations of the invention disclosed in the instant application.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “propagating the second portion of the routed sensor reflection signal through the first reflector and along an extending optical path to the second reflector; and reflecting the second portion of the routed sensor reflection signal from the second reflector, wherein the extending optical path has an optical path extension length that, summed with the segment length, corresponds to the second optical path length” is not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. The first and second reflectors within the interferometer of claim 1 are rendered obvious by the Michelson type interferometer within Islam, but the propagation path for the second portion of the routed sensor reflection signal going through the first reflector and along an extending optical path to the second reflector is not compatible with a Michelson type interferometer. There is nothing in the art that renders obvious or suggests a substitution of the Michelson interferometer with a different type of interferometer (i.e. a Fabry-Perot interferometer) where such a propagation path may be disclosed. For that reason, the limitation is considered allowable.
Regarding claim 11, the concept of “routing the tapped sensor reflection signals to a slab interferometer and detecting, by an image sensor array, outputs from the slab interferometer” is not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. Similar to claim 6, the sensor reflection signals obtained from the sensor first reflecting surface and sensor second reflecting surface are routed to a Michelson type interferometer within Islam. There is nothing in the art that renders obvious or suggests a substitution of the Michelson interferometer with a different type of interferometer, in this case a slab interferometer, and routing those signals to an image sensor array. For that reason, the limitation is considered allowable.
Regarding claim 14, at least the concept of “routing the tapped sensor reflection signals to a slab interferometer which has a slab optical path difference” is not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. The reason for allowance is analogous to that within claim 11 above. The additional claim elements serve to define additional patentable subject matter over the prior art (determining peak positions of fringes envelopes from slab interferometer outputs, identifying matchings of slab optical path differences, etc.). For these reasons, the limitation is considered allowable.
Regarding claim 26, the limitation “propagating the second portion of the routed sensor reflection signal through the first reflector and along an extending optical path to the second reflector; and reflecting the second portion of the routed sensor reflection signal from the second reflector, wherein the extending optical path has an optical path extension length that, summed with the segment length, corresponds to the second optical path length” is not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. The first and second reflectors within the interferometer of claim 21 are rendered obvious by the Michelson type interferometer within Islam, but the propagation path for the second portion of the routed sensor reflection signal going through the first reflector and along an extending optical path to the second reflector is not compatible with a Michelson type interferometer. There is nothing in the art that renders obvious or suggests a substitution of the Michelson interferometer with a different type of interferometer (i.e. a Fabry-Perot interferometer) where such a propagation path may be disclosed. For that reason, the limitation is considered allowable.
Regarding claim 31, the concept of “routing the tapped sensor reflection signals to a slab interferometer and detecting, by an image sensor array, outputs from the slab interferometer” is not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. Similar to claim 26, the sensor reflection signals obtained from the sensor first reflecting surface and sensor second reflecting surface are routed to a Michelson type interferometer within Islam. There is nothing in the art that renders obvious or suggests a substitution of the Michelson interferometer with a different type of interferometer, in this case a slab interferometer, and routing those signals to an image sensor array. For that reason, the limitation is considered allowable.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The following document(s) were considered but not relied up on for the rejection set forth in this action:
US 2019/0094082 A1 by Kengo Koizumi et al.
US 2014/0318273 A1 by Bo Dong et al.
US 2006/0038115 A1 by Steven J. Maas
US 5,721,615 A by Roy McBride et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA M CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0065. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00AM - 5:00PM.
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 R 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.
/JOSHUA M CARLSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877