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 of Group I (claims 1 and 2) in the reply filed on 07/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 3 and 4 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/10/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1149 filed 07/11/2024. This IDS has been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 2 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 1, the lines 4-5 term “or similar rigid material” is indefinite because it is not clear what Applicant intends to cover by the recitation of “similar rigid material”. See MPEP §2173.05(b)(III)(C).
Regarding claim 1, the line 5 limitation “the damping and protection material” lacks antecedent basis. For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner reads --surrounded by a damping and protection material--.
Regarding claim 1, the line 5 limitation “the deformation profile” lacks antecedent basis. For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner reads --on a deformation profile--.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “damping and protection material” is lacking an article thereby rendering it indefinite. Is this the same “damping and protection materials recited in line 5? Or a different one?
Regarding claim 1, the line 7 limitation “or another type of cushioning material” is indefinite because it is not clear what Applicant intends to cover by the recitation of “another type of cushioning material”. See MPEP §2173.05(b)(III)(C).
Regarding claim 1, the line 8 limitation “protection cover” lacks antecedent basis. For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner reads --a protection cover--.
Regarding claim 1, the lines 10-11 limitation “optical sensor” lacks antecedent basis. For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner reads --an optical sensor--.
Regarding claim 1, the line 11 limitation “or similar type” is indefinite because it is not clear what Applicant intends to cover by the recitation of “similar type”. See MPEP §2173.05(b)(III)(C).
Regarding claim 1, the line 13 limitation “single-mode, multimode, photosensitive, bend insensitive, polarization maintaining, gradual-profile, microstructure” lacks antecedent basis. Furthermore, it is unclear from the claim language if the optical fiber must meet all of these adjectives or if they are being recited in the alternative. For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner is interpreting this list of adjectives as describing the optical fiber in the alternative only.
Regarding claim 1, the line 13 limitation “or similar optical fiber” is indefinite because it is not clear what Applicant intends to cover by the recitation of “similar optical fiber”. See MPEP §2173.05(b)(III)(C).
Regarding claim 1, the line 16 limitation “or similar glue” is indefinite because it is not clear what Applicant intends to cover by the recitation of “similar glue”. See MPEP §2173.05(b)(III)(C).
Regarding claim 2, the lines 4-5 limitation “the frequency-to-amplitude transduction equipment” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 2, the lines 4-5 limitation “frequency-to-amplitude transduction equipment” is unclear. The term implies that frequency is being transduced to amplitude, however the plain and ordinary meaning of transduce is “a device that is actuated by power from one system and supplies power usually in another form to a second system” (Merriam-Webster dictionary) such as an ultrasonic transducer. However, neither frequency nor amplitude represent power actuation or supply. A cursory review of the prior art does not elucidate this term as an understood technique and the specification in particular does not describe this transduction in any way besides nominally reciting the claim limitation. For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner is interpreting this phrase as one having ordinary skill in the weighing arts would understand fiber optic signal processing as frequency and amplitude being transformed to speed and weight signals.
Regarding claim 2, the line 6 limitation “the optical interrogator” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 2, the line 8 limitation “or similar type” is indefinite because it is not clear what Applicant intends to cover by the recitation of “similar type”. See MPEP §2173.05(b)(III)(C).
Regarding claim 2, the line limitation “or similar” is indefinite because it is not clear what Applicant intends to cover by the recitation of “similar”. See MPEP §2173.05(b)(III)(C).
Regarding claim 2, the lines 11-12 limitation “the information processing and presentation equipment” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 2, the line 13 limitation “or similar” is indefinite because it is not clear what Applicant intends to cover by the recitation of “similar”. See MPEP §2173.05(b)(III)(C).
Regarding claim 2, the line 16 limitation “the record printing equipment” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calderra et al. (USPN 5,461,924; “Calderra”) in view of Park et al. (KR 20090128827; “Park”, see attached machine translation), Cunningham et al. (USPN 12,259,228; “Cunningham”) and Hanson et al. (US 2021/0116268; “Hanson”).
Regarding claim 1, Calderra discloses in figure 3 an in-motion weighing system for motor vehicles (col. 1, lines 5-8), characterized by a weight sensor (1) consisting of roughing material (13) made of metal, plastic, composite or similar rigid material (col. 2, lines 29-45) and surrounded by the damping and protection material (8, 9) (col. 2, lines 18-23), on the deformation profile (2, 3) and on the upper part of the weight sensor (3) (col. 1, lines 61-64), damping and protection material (8, 9) made of polyurethane rubber, silicone, acrylic or another type of cushioning material, surrounding the deformation profile (2, 3) and the roughing material (13) (col. 2, lines 18-53), deformation profile (2, 3) in an "I" shape with a circle in the center and made of metal, plastic or composite material (col. 1, line 61 through col. 2, line 12, see figure 3).
Calderra discloses the sensing element is a piezoelectric rather than a fiber optic.
In the same field of endeavor, Park teaches in at least figure 8 an in-motion weighing system for motor vehicles based on rigid and fiber optic sensors (page 2, first paragraph) comprising an optical sensor (301) of the Fiber Bragg Grating (FBG), Long Period Grating (LPG) or similar type, located in the optical fiber (FO) segment and distributed along the length of the optical fiber (FO) and consequently along the deformation profile (202), the deformation profile (202) in an "I" shape with a circle in the center single-mode (see figure 8), multimode, photosensitive, bend-insensitive, polarization-maintaining, gradual-profile, microstructured, or similar optical fiber (FO) (see paragraphs spanning pages 6 and 7, note an FBG is a microstructured fiber optic).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to substitute a fiber optic optical sensor as taught by Park in Calderra’s weighing system for the purpose of increasing the reliability of the measurement value since it is not as affected by the external environment (Park, page 6, first paragraph).
While Park does not explicitly teach material of the fiber optic, one having ordinary skill in the art would presume it is glass or plastic and attached to the deformation using an adhesive.
Nevertheless, in the same field of endeavor, Cunningham generally teaches the use of in-ground fiber optic sensors comprising FBGs made of glass or plastic (col. 8, line 59 through col. 9, line 11). Cunningham further teaches that it is known to fix fiber optic sensors to structures or circuitry using epoxy (col. 11, line 67 through col. 12, line 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to use glass or plastic fiber optics as is known the art as taught by Cunningham as the sensors in Calderra’s modified weighing system and to use epoxy to adhere them to the deformation profile as also taught by Cunningham for the purpose of producing reliable measurement signals since the behavior of these materials are well-known and well-understood in the art. Furthermore it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.07.
Lastly, Calderra and Park are silent to a protection cover.
In the same field of endeavor, Hanson teaches in figure 1 an in-ground weighing system (101) for vehicles (¶¶ [0001]-[0003]) using transmission lines embodied as cables (¶ [0008]) comprising a protection cover (112) positioned on the sides of the weight sensor (102) (¶ [0079]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to include protection covers as taught by Hanson in Calderra’s system as modified by Park for the purpose of preventing dirt, environmental debris, and/or moisture from damaging the cable (¶ [0079]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calderra in view of Park, Cunningham, and Hanson as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Goncalves (US 2019/0206240)
Regarding claim 2, Calderra as modified by Park, Cunningham and Hanson disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Park does not explicitly describe the data collection and analysis equipment used by the fiber optic sensor.
In the same field of endeavor, Goncalves teaches in at least figures 1 and 2 an in-ground vehicle weighing system (¶ [0001]) based on rigid and fiber optic sensors (1-A) wherein the weight sensors (1-A) are connected to the optical interrogator (¶¶ [0058]-[0061]) via optical cables (1-B) of the multivia or monovia, monomode, multimode, photosensitive, bend-insensitive, polarization-maintaining, gradual-profile, microstructured, or similar type (¶ [0085]) and the optical interrogator of the type of edge filter, fabry-perot filter, tunable laser, diffraction grating, or similar (¶ [0085]), connected unidirectionally to the information processing (SA) and presentation equipment (2-B); frequency-to-amplitude transduction equipment, of the Hartley oscillator type or similar (¶ [0059]), connected unidirectionally to the information processing and presentation equipment (SA) and to the weight sensor (1-A) (¶¶[0085]-[0090]) information processing and presentation equipment (SA) of the computer or embedded processor type containing a computer program, connected unidirectionally to the record printing equipment (2-C), frequency-to-amplitude transduction equipment and to the optical interrogator and record printing equipment (2-C) of the type of reel, jet or ink tank printer, laser or information printing on an electronic display or program screen and connected unidirectionally to the information processing and presentation equipment (¶¶ [0085]-[0090]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to use Goncalves fiber optic data collection and processing system in Calderra’s system as modified by Park for the purpose of taking the optical signals and converting them to speed and weight for monitoring traffic variables (¶ [0001]).
While Goncalves does not explicitly disclose the location of the optical cables in relation to the sensor, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention to locate them below the circle of the deformation profile since above and at the circle the area that experiences the greatest force whereas below the force has already been transferred to the sensor. Therefore one would be motivated to locate the cable below the circle for the benefit of keeping the cables away from forces imparted on the sensor.
Goncalves further teaches that it is well known in the art to include
inductive loops of rectangular, square or circular shape into the vehicular weighing system (¶¶ [0004], [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to include inductive loops in Calderra’s modified system as taught by Goncalves and connect them to the rest of the data analysis equipment for the purpose of sensing the presence of traffic so that the equipment is not continuously taking data thereby reducing processing energy.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
USPN 5,260,520 discloses a fiber-optic based traffic monitoring system.
WO 2017/196168 discloses a fiber-optic based traffic monitoring system.
GB 2 250 813 discloses a fiber-optic based traffic monitoring system.
US 2007/0031084 discloses a fiber-optic based traffic monitoring system.
US 2023/0039117 discloses a fiber-optic based traffic monitoring system (but is not available as prior art under 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2)).
US 2004/0080432 discloses a fiber-optic based traffic monitoring system.
USPN 6,692,567 discloses a fiber-optic based traffic monitoring system.
USPN 4,560,016 discloses a fiber-optic based traffic monitoring system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATALIE HULS whose telephone number is (571)270-5914. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, John Breene can be reached at (571) 272-4107. 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.
/NATALIE HULS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights