DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/04/2023 and 05/01/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, 5, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guo et al. (CN 109540015 A - all citations are to the attached English translation).Regarding claim 1:Guo teaches (FIG. 1) a system for detecting strain, the system comprising:
an optical fiber (the two black horizontal lines and the middle stretchy portion connected to and between them), the optical fiber comprising: a first end configured to receive light emitted by a light source (left or right side of optical fiber); a second end (other of left or right side of optical fiber) configured to transmit light to a detector; a first fiber section (either the left or right horizontal black lines) having a first propagation loss parameter; a second fiber section (the middle stretchy portion - also see [0032]) having an ultimate elongation of at least 10% and a variable propagation loss parameter, the variable propagation loss parameter increasing as the second fiber section is deformed; wherein the ultimate elongation of the second fiber section is greater than an ultimate elongation of the first fiber section; and wherein the first fiber section is coupled to the second fiber section, the optical fiber being configured such that, when (contingent limitation but also met by Guo) the first end is coupled to the light source and the second end is coupled, directly or indirectly, to the detector, light travels from the light source, through the first fiber section and the second fiber section, and to the detector(FIG. 1; [0023], [0035], [0046]; i.e., the claim limitations are met by the specific materials disclosed by Guo)
Regarding claim 5:Guo teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Guo also teaches (FIG. 1):
wherein: the first fiber section has a first core; the second fiber section has a second core; and the first core is bonded to the second core([0016], [0021], [0023], [0035], [0046])
Regarding claim 14:Guo teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Guo also teaches:
wherein: when the second fiber section is in an unstretched state in which no external load is applied, the variable propagation loss parameter is greater than the first propagation loss parameter(the examiner notes that this is a contingent limitation; also see Guo - [0023], [0035], [0038]-[0041], [0043]-[0046])
Regarding claim 17:Guo teaches (FIG. 1) a method for producing a strain detection system, the method comprising:
forming an optical fiber (the two black horizontal lines and the middle stretchy portion connected to and between them) comprising a first fiber section (either the left or right horizontal black lines) and a second fiber section (the middle stretchy portion - also see [0032]), the first fiber section having a first propagation loss parameter, and the second fiber section having an ultimate elongation of at least 10% ([0023]) and a variable propagation loss parameter, the variable propagation loss parameter increasing as the second fiber section is deformed; wherein the ultimate elongation of the second fiber section is greater than an ultimate elongation of the first fiber section; and wherein the optical fiber comprising the first fiber section and the second fiber section is configured such that, when (contingent limitation but also met by Guo) a first end of the optical fiber is coupled to a light source and a second end of the optical fiber is coupled to a detector, light travels from the light source, through the first fiber section and the second fiber section, and to the detector(FIG. 1; [0023], [0035], [0046]; i.e., the claim limitations are met by the specific materials disclosed by Guo; also see [0038]-[0041], [0043]-[0046])
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (CN 109540015 A - all citations are to the attached English translation) in view of Chilaguine et al. (US 20040067003 A1).
Regarding claim 2:Guo teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Guo strongly suggests but fails to explicitly teach:
the light source, the light source being arranged to transmit light through the first end of the optical fiber; and the detector configured to receive light from the second end of the optical fiber; wherein, when the light source emits light, the light travels through the first fiber section and the second fiber section to the detectorChilaguine teaches (FIG 1a):
the light source (31), the light source being arranged to transmit light through the first end of the optical fiber (end of optical fiber coupled to 31); and the detector (32) configured to receive light from the second end of the optical fiber (end of optical fiber coupled to 32); wherein, when the light source emits light, the light travels through the first fiber section (equivalent to the section of the optical fiber coupled to 31 prior to the 20s) and the second fiber section (equivalent to the 20s of Chilaguine) to the detector (32)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the light source and transmit it through the fiber sections to the detector, as taught by Chilaguine, in the device of Guo to yield strain detection. The limitations of claim 2 are strongly suggested by Guo as a light source and detector are needed to utilize the strain sensor of Guo.
Regarding claim 4:Guo teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Guo fails to explicitly teach:
the light source arranged to transmit light through the first end of the optical fiber, wherein a peak wavelength of the light source is between 400 nanometers and 1 millimeterChilaguine teaches:
the light source (FIG. 1a - 31) arranged to transmit light through the first end of the optical fiber, wherein a peak wavelength of the light source is between 400 nanometers and 1 millimeter (FIG. 3b; [0049])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the light source and wavelength of Chilaguine in the device of Guo due to Guo’s silence as to what wavelength of light to use. The examiner also notes the extreme breadth of the claimed range.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (CN 109540015 A - all citations are to the attached English translation) in view of Shepherd et al. (US 20190056248 A1).Regarding claim 6:Guo teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Guo also teaches (FIG. 1):
the first fiber section has a first core; the second fiber section has a second core ([0016], [0021], [0023], [0035], [0046]);Guo fails to teach:
each of the first core and the second core comprise respective thermoplastic or thermoset materials(although Guo does teach the coupling fibers, e.g. “first section”, being plastic - [0035])Shepherd teaches:
PMMA (a thermoplastic) is a common material for plastic fiber optics (that is not as stretchable) and acrylic (also a thermoplastic) is a common material for a stretchable fiber optic ([0176])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use thermoplastics (e.g., PMMA and acrylic) for the first and second cores, as taught by Shepherd, in the device of Guo, for ease of production and reduced cost. Additionally / alternatively, they are art-recognized suitable materials for the purposes of optical fibers and strain sensors.
Regarding claim 13:Guo teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Guo strongly suggests but fails to explicitly teach:
a processor, the system being configured to determine whether a strain is applied to the system by measuring light transmitted through the optical fiber, the measurement varying when the second fiber section is stretchedShepherd teaches:
a processor, the system being configured to determine whether a strain is applied to the system by measuring light transmitted through the optical fiber, the measurement varying when the second fiber section is stretched(e.g., [0228], [0275]-[0276], abstract, [0043])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the processor of Shepherd in the device of Guo to allow for strain sensing. It is strongly suggested or possibly inherent that a processor is needed in Guo to process the detected optical signal to determine strain.
Claims 9-10 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (CN 109540015 A - all citations are to the attached English translation) in view of White et al. (US 20140233886 A1).Regarding claim 9:Guo teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Guo fails to teach:
wherein the system is formed by a process comprising: placing at least a portion of the first fiber section in a first end of a collar; placing at least a portion of the second fiber section in a second end of the collar; applying energy to the collar, the collar transmitting the energy to the first fiber section and the second fiber section; and wherein applying energy to the collar causes the first fiber section to bond to the second fiber sectionWhite teaches:
wherein the system is formed by a process comprising: placing at least a portion of the first fiber section in a first end of a collar; placing at least a portion of the second fiber section in a second end of the collar; applying energy to the collar, the collar transmitting the energy to the first fiber section and the second fiber section; and wherein applying energy to the collar causes the first fiber section to bond to the second fiber section(FIG. 3a -> FIG.3b; FIGS. 4a-4c; [0039]-[0042])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the connection process of White in the device of Guo as it is a quick, cheap, and easy way of joining two optical fibers.
Regarding claim 10:Guo and White teach all the limitations of claim 9, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 9 rejection above, White teaches:
wherein the collar comprises a refractory ceramic material (e.g., silica - [0009])
Regarding claim 25:Guo teaches all the limitations of claim 17, as mentioned above.Guo fails to teach:
placing at least a portion of the first fiber section in a first end of a collar; placing at least a portion of the second fiber section in a second end of the collar; applying energy to the collar, the collar transmitting the energy to the first fiber section and the second fiber section; and wherein applying energy to the collar causes the first fiber section to bond to the second fiber sectionWhite teaches:
placing at least a portion of the first fiber section in a first end of a collar; placing at least a portion of the second fiber section in a second end of the collar; applying energy to the collar, the collar transmitting the energy to the first fiber section and the second fiber section; and wherein applying energy to the collar causes the first fiber section to bond to the second fiber section (FIG. 3a -> FIG.3b; FIGS. 4a-4c; [0039]-[0042])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the connection process of White in the method of Guo as it is a quick, cheap, and easy way of joining two optical fibers.
Claims 15 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (CN 109540015 A - all citations are to the attached English translation) in view of Vaziri et al. ("Optical-fiber strain sensors with asymmetric etched structures").Regarding claim 15:Guo teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Guo fails to teach:
wherein: when the first fiber section and the second fiber section comprise a common core, the common core having a uniform composition in both the first fiber section and the second fiber sectionVaziri teaches:
wherein: when the first fiber section and the second fiber section comprise a common core, the common core having a uniform composition in both the first fiber section and the second fiber section(FIG. 1 and associated discussion)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a common core but etch away part of the fiber/cladding to make a more “stretchy” section for sensing, as taught by Vaziri, in the device of Guo as it is an art-recognized equivalent way for creating a fiber optic strain sensor.
In the spirit of compact prosecution, the examiner notes that Claims 1 and 15 are additionally rejected over Chilaguine in view of Vaziri. Vaziri teaches the elongation, variable propagation loss, and limitations of claim 15, whereas Chilaguine teaches the rest. The motivation for combination is the art-recognized equivalent means of sensing strain between the gratings of Chilaguine and the etched portions of Vaziri.
Regarding claim 32:Guo teaches all the limitations of claim 17, as mentioned above.Guo fails to teach:
wherein the first fiber section and the second fiber section comprise a common core, the method further comprising: providing a common cladding over the common core; and selectively removing the common cladding from the second fiber section, without removing the common cladding from the first fiber sectionVaziri teaches:
wherein the first fiber section and the second fiber section comprise a common core, the method further comprising: providing a common cladding over the common core; and selectively removing the common cladding from the second fiber section, without removing the common cladding from the first fiber section(FIG. 1 and associated discussion)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a common core but etch away part of the fiber/cladding to make a more “stretchy” section for sensing, as taught by Vaziri, in the method of Guo as it is an art-recognized equivalent way for creating a fiber optic strain sensor.
In the spirit of compact prosecution, the examiner notes that claims 17 and 32 are additionally rejected over Chilaguine in view of Vaziri. Vaziri teaches the elongation, variable propagation loss, and limitations of claim 32, whereas Chilaguine teaches the rest. The motivation for combination is the art-recognized equivalent means of sensing strain between the gratings of Chilaguine and the etched portions of Vaziri.
Claims 33, 35-36, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chilaguine et al. (US 20040067003 A1) in view of Guo et al. (CN 109540015 A - all citations are to the attached English translation).Regarding claim 33:Chilaguine teaches (FIG. 1a) a method for detecting strain, the method comprising:
emitting light (via 31), the light traveling from a light source (31), through a first fiber section of an optical fiber (the section of the optical fiber coupled to 31 prior to the 20s), through a second fiber section (the section of the optical fiber containing 20s) of the optical fiber, and to a detector (32); receiving, at the detector, the light that has traveled through the first fiber section and the second fiber section; generating a measurement, using the detector, of the light that is received at the detector; determining, using one or more processors, whether a strain is applied to the optical fiber based the measurement of the light that is received at the detector ([0017], [0033], [0042], [0051]); and the measurement of the light received at the detector varies when the second fiber section is stretched (e.g., [0051])Chilaguine appears to but fails to explicitly teach:
wherein: the first fiber section has a first propagation loss parameter; the second fiber section having an ultimate elongation of at least 10% and a variable propagation loss parameter, the variable propagation loss parameter increasing as the second fiber section is stretchedGuo teaches:
wherein: the first fiber section has a first propagation loss parameter; the second fiber section having an ultimate elongation of at least 10% and a variable propagation loss parameter, the variable propagation loss parameter increasing as the second fiber section is stretched(FIG. 1; [0016], [0023], [0035], [0046]; i.e., the claim limitations are met by the specific materials disclosed by Guo; also see [0038]-[0041], [0043]-[0046])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use strain sensing element of FIG. 1 of Guo instead of the Bragg gratins of Chilaguin as they are art-recognized equivalent structures for the sensing of strain using an optical fiber. Additionally / alternatively, one would be motivated to use the structure of Guo to allow for more localized measurements by having a “regular” optical fiber for transmitting the signals and a “stretchy” section of optical fiber at the specific location where strain is to be sensed.
Regarding claim 35:Chilaguin and Guo teach all the limitations of claim 33, as mentioned above.Chilaguin also teaches:
wherein a peak wavelength of the light source is between 400 nanometers and 1 millimeter (FIG. 3b; [0049])
Regarding claim 36:Chilaguin and Guo teach all the limitations of claim 33, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 33 rejection above, Guo teaches (FIG. 1):
wherein: the first fiber section has a first core; the second fiber section has a second core; and the first core is bonded to the second core([0016], [0021], [0023], [0035], [0046])
Regarding claim 44:Chilaguin and Guo teach all the limitations of claim 33, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 33 rejection above, Guo teaches (FIG. 1):
wherein: when the second fiber section is in an unstretched state in which no external load is applied, the variable propagation loss parameter is greater than the first propagation loss parameter(the examiner notes that this is a contingent limitation; also see Guo - [0023], [0035], [0038]-[0041], [0043]-[0046])
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chilaguine et al. (US 20040067003 A1) in view of Guo et al. (CN 109540015 A - all citations are to the attached English translation) and further in view of Shepherd et al. (US 20190056248 A1).Regarding claim 37:Chilaguin and Guo teach all the limitations of claim 33, as mentioned above.Chilaguin fails to teach:
wherein: the first fiber section has a first core; the second fiber section has a second core; and each of the first core and the second core comprise respective thermoplastic or thermoset materials(although Guo does teach the coupling fibers, e.g. “first section”, being plastic - [0035])Shepherd teaches:
PMMA (a thermoplastic) is a common material for plastic fiber optics (that is not as stretchable) and acrylic (also a thermoplastic) is a common material for a stretchable fiber optic ([0176])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use thermoplastics (e.g., PMMA and acrylic) for the first and second cores, as taught by Shepherd, in the method of Chilaguin and Guo, for ease of production and reduced cost. Additionally / alternatively, they are art-recognized suitable materials for the purposes of optical fibers and strain sensors.
Claims 40-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chilaguine et al. (US 20040067003 A1) in view of Guo et al. (CN 109540015 A - all citations are to the attached English translation) and further in view of White et al. (US 20140233886 A1).Regarding claim 40:Chilaguin and Guo teach all the limitations of claim 33, as mentioned above.Chilaguin and Guo fail to teach:
wherein the optical fiber is formed by a process comprising: placing at least a portion of the first fiber section in a first end of a collar; placing at least a portion of the second fiber section in a second end of the collar; applying energy to the collar, the collar transmitting the energy to the first fiber section and the second fiber section; and wherein applying energy to the collar causes the first fiber section to bond to the second fiber sectionWhite teaches:
wherein the optical fiber is formed by a process comprising: placing at least a portion of the first fiber section in a first end of a collar; placing at least a portion of the second fiber section in a second end of the collar; applying energy to the collar, the collar transmitting the energy to the first fiber section and the second fiber section; and wherein applying energy to the collar causes the first fiber section to bond to the second fiber section(FIG. 3a -> FIG.3b; FIGS. 4a-4c; [0039]-[0042])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the connection process of White in the method of Chilaguin and Guo as it is a quick, cheap, and easy way of joining two optical fibers.
Regarding claim 41:Chilaguin, Guo, and White teach all the limitations of claim 40, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 40 rejection above, White teaches:
wherein the collar comprises a refractory ceramic material (e.g., silica - [0009])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Herbert Keith Roberts whose telephone number is (571)270-0428. The examiner can normally be reached 10a - 6p MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at (571) 272-2375. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HERBERT K ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855