DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments filed February 6, 2026, titled “Remarks” pages 7-9, with respect to claims 1-8, 10-13, and 18-20 have been fully considered but not persuasive. Namely, Applicant argues that the additions of “wherein the first resilient device has a thickness far less than a width of the first resilient device” and “wherein the second resilient device has a thickness far less than a width of the second resilient device” to claims 1, 7, and 14 are sufficient to overcome the relevant rejections under 35 USC §102 and §103 – however, the amendment necessitates a rejection under 35 USC §112(b) [see below], and is taught by the prior art cited in the rejection of December 30, 2025 [see below].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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 1-20 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.
The term “far less” in claims 1, 7, and 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “far less” 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. As written, it is impossible to ascertain the desired ratio that a thickness is smaller than a width of the first or second device. For the purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret "far less" to mean "less".
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.
4. Claims 14-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Childers (US20060139626A1; cited in prior PTO-892).
In regard to claim 14, Childers discloses a two-directional inclination sensor {optical inclination sensor 10, multiple axis described in para. [0034]-[0035]} for sensing an inclination of a structure or in-ground {described in para. [0002]}, comprising:
a main body configured to be installed for sensing the inclination [shown in Fig. 5], the main body comprising:
a first section [Group 1, including mass 40];
a second section [pair of arms 46, Group 2 in Image 1];
a first resilient device connected [sensor 44 within Group 2] between the first section and the second section and susceptible of bending along a first direction [direction 52] wherein the first resilient device has a thickness far less than a width of the first resilient device [Group 2 has a thickness (dimension along direction 54) less than a width (dimension along direction 52)];
a third section [pair of arms 46, Group 3 in Image 1]; and
a second resilient device connected [sensor 44 within Group 3] between the second section and the third section and susceptible of bending along a second direction [direction 54], wherein the second resilient device has a thickness far less than a width of the second resilient device [Group 3 has a thickness (dimension along direction 52) less than a width (dimension along direction 54)]; and
a single-piece weight [mass 40] connected to the third section {para. [0033] describes connection, shown in Fig. 5}.
PNG
media_image1.png
411
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Image 1 – Childers Fig. 5, Annotated
In regard to claim 15, Childers discloses that the first section has two first spaces [shown in Fig. 5], the second section has two first spaces [shown in Fig. 5] and two second pieces [arms form two second pieces of the housing, best shown in Fig. 6] and the third section has two second spaces [shown in Fig. 6, mass 40 has a space under the left and right side], the two-directional inclination sensor further comprising:
two first pre-tensioned FBG sensors {at least two optical strain sensors 44, described as FBG sensors in para. {0034]} placed between the first and second sections [Group 2, shown in Image 1], wherein two ends of the two first pre-tensioned FBG sensors are respectively fixed across the first spaces of the first section and the second section [shown in Image 1]; and
two second pre-tensioned FBG sensors placed between the second and third sections [Group 3 - sensors 44 are between arms of Group 3 and axis of intersection of Group 2], wherein two ends of the two second pre-tensioned FBG sensors are respectively fixed across the second spaces of the second section and the third section [shown in Image 1].
In regard to claim 17, Childers discloses a first bending curvature of the first resilient device and a second bending curvature of the second resilient device are sensed by the two first pre-tensioned FBG sensors and the two second pre-tensioned FBG sensors to obtain an inclination along the first direction and an inclination along the second direction, respectively {described in para. [0034]}; and
when there are inclinations along both the first direction and the second direction, the inclination along the first direction and the inclination along the second direction are vectorially summed to determine a resultant inclination {para. [0034] describes the inclination sensor measuring inclination in each axis}.
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.
5. Claims 1-8, 10-13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childers in view of Acernese, (ACERNESE, Fausto et al. "Mechanical monolithic tiltmeter for low frequency measurements"; cited in prior PTO-892).
In regard to claim 1, Childers teaches a method for manufacturing a two-directional inclination sensor [optical inclination sensor 10] for sensing an inclination of a structure or in-ground {described in para. [0002]} wherein the two-directional inclination sensor includes a main body configured to be installed in the structure for sensing the inclination {described in para. [0002]}, the method comprising the steps of:
a main body [optical inclination sensor 10], the main body comprising:
a first section [Group 1, including mass 40];
a second section [pair of arms 46, Group 2 in Image 1];
a first resilient device connected [sensor 44 within Group 2] between the first section and the second section and susceptible of bending along a first direction [direction 52] wherein the first resilient device has a thickness far less than a width of the first resilient device [Group 2 has a thickness (dimension along direction 54) less than a width (dimension along direction 52)];
a third section [pair of arms 46, Group 3 in Image 1]; and
a second resilient device connected [sensor 44 within Group 3] between the second section and the third section and susceptible of bending along a second direction [direction 54], wherein the second resilient device has a thickness far less than a width of the second resilient device [Group 3 has a thickness (dimension along direction 52) less than a width (dimension along direction 54)].
Childers does not teach the use of a monolithic blank or integrally forming the main body by a machining process to remove parts of the monolithic blank.
However, Acernese teaches an inclinometer [mechanical tiltmeter] and its method of manufacture, the method comprising:
providing a monolithic blank [page 4 para. 1 describes using a monolithic system for a mechanical tiltmeter]; and
integrally forming the main body by a machining process to remove parts of the monolithic blank [page 4 para. 1 describes using precision and electric discharge machining].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Acernese’s method of manufacturing an inclinometer with Childers’ optical inclinometer in order to better manufacture a compact sensor with good thermal sensitivity and sensor directivity, as taught by Acernese [page 4 para. 1].
In regard to claim 2, Childers further teaches an inclinometer wherein the first section has two first spaces [shown in Fig. 5], the second section has two first spaces [shown in Fig. 5] and two second spaces {para. [0033] describes an embodiment where there could be a multitude of upstanding arms 46 which would create additional spaces in Group 2} and the third section has two second spaces [shown in Fig. 6, mass 40 has another space under both the left and right side], the method further comprising:
placing two first pre-tensioned FBG sensors {at least two optical strain sensors 44, described as FBG sensors in para. {0034]} between the first and second sections {Group 2, shown in Image 1; second section as described in para. [0033]} and fixing two ends of the two first pre-tensioned FBG sensors respectively to the first spaces of the first section and the second section [shown in Image 1]; and
placing two second pre-tensioned FBG sensors between the second and third sections [Group 3 - sensors 44 are between arms of Group 3 and axis of intersection of Group 2] and fixing two ends of the two second pre-tensioned FBG sensors respectively to the second spaces of the second section and the third section [Group 3 - sensors 44 are between arms of Group 3 and axis of intersection of Group 2].
In regard to claim 3, Childers further teaches an inclinometer wherein the third section is integrally extending a single-piece weight [mass 40].
In regard to claim 4, Childers further teaches an inclinometer wherein the main body further comprises a single-piece weight connected to the third section {para. [0033] describes connection, shown in Fig. 5}.
In regard to claim 5, Childers further teaches an inclinometer wherein the first resilient device comprises two first spring leaves on a first plane [housing arms 46 within Group 2 along axis 52], and the second resilient device comprises two second spring leaves on a second plane [housing arms 46 within Group 3 along axis 54].
In regard to claim 6, Childers further teaches an inclinometer wherein the first plane and the second plane are perpendicular to each other [shown in Fig. 5, axes 52 and 54 are perpendicular to each other].
In regard to claim 7, Childers teaches a two-directional inclination sensor [optical inclination sensor 10] for sensing an inclination of a structure or in-ground {described in para. [0002]}, comprising:
a main body [optical inclination sensor 10], the main body comprising:
a first section [Group 1, including mass 40];
a second section [pair of arms 46, Group 2 in Image 1];
a first resilient device connected [sensor 44 within Group 2] between the first section and the second section and susceptible of bending along a first direction [direction 52] wherein the first resilient device has a thickness far less than a width of the first resilient device [Group 2 has a thickness (dimension along direction 54) less than a width (dimension along direction 52)];
a third section [pair of arms 46, Group 3 in Image 1]; and
a second resilient device connected [sensor 44 within Group 3] between the second section and the third section and susceptible of bending along a second direction [direction 54], wherein the second resilient device has a thickness far less than a width of the second resilient device [Group 3 has a thickness (dimension along direction 52) less than a width (dimension along direction 54)].
Childers does not teach the use of a monolithic piece for the main body.
However, Acernese teaches an inclination sensor [mechanical tiltmeter] with a main body of a monolithic piece configured to be installed for sensing the inclination [page 4 para. 1 describes using a monolithic system for a mechanical tiltmeter].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Acernese’s monolithic tiltmeter with Childers’ optical inclinometer in order to better manufacture a compact sensor with good thermal sensitivity and sensor directivity, as taught by Acernese [page 4 para. 1].
In regard to claim 8, Childers further teaches an inclinometer wherein the first section has two first spaces [shown in Fig. 5], the second section has two first spaces [shown in Fig. 5] and two second spaces {para. [0033] describes an embodiment where there could be a multitude of upstanding arms 46 which would create additional spaces in Group 2} and the third section has two second spaces [shown in Fig. 6, mass 40 has another space under both the left and right side], the method further comprising:
placing two first pre-tensioned FBG sensors {at least two optical strain sensors 44, described as FBG sensors in para. {0034]} between the first and second sections {Group 2, shown in Image 1; second section as described in para. [0033]} and fixing two ends of the two first pre-tensioned FBG sensors respectively to the first spaces of the first section and the second section [shown in Image 1]; and
placing two second pre-tensioned FBG sensors between the second and third sections [Group 3 - sensors 44 are between arms of Group 3 and axis of intersection of Group 2] and fixing two ends of the two second pre-tensioned FBG sensors respectively to the second spaces of the second section and the third section [Group 3 - sensors 44 are between arms of Group 3 and axis of intersection of Group 2].
In regard to claim 10, Childers further teaches an inclinometer wherein a first bending curvature of the first resilient device and a second bending curvature of the second resilient device are sensed by the two first pre-tensioned FBG sensors and the two second pre-tensioned FBG sensors to obtain an inclination along the first direction and an inclination along the second direction, respectively {described in para. [0035]-[0036]}; and
when there are inclinations along both the first direction and the second direction, the inclination along the first direction and the inclination along the second direction are vectorially summed to determine a resultant inclination {described in para. [0034]}.
In regard to claim 11, Childers further teaches an inclinometer wherein the first resilient device comprises two first spring leaves on a first plane [housing arms 46 within Group 2 along axis 52], and the second resilient device comprises two second spring leaves on a second plane [housing arms 46 within Group 3 along axis 54].
In regard to claim 12, Childers further teaches an inclinometer wherein the first plane and the second plane are perpendicular to each other [shown in Fig. 5, 52 and 54 are perpendicular to each other].
In regard to claim 13, Childers further teaches an inclinometer wherein a first bending curvature of the two first spring leaves and a second bending curvature of the two second spring leaves are sensed by the two first pre-tensioned FBG sensors and the two second pre-tensioned FBG sensors to obtain an inclination along an x-x direction and an inclination along a y-y direction, respectively {described in para. [0035]-[0036]; where the x-x direction is axis 54 and the y-y direction is axis 52}; and
when there are inclinations along both the x-x direction and the y-y direction, the inclination along the x-x direction and the inclination along the y-y direction are vectorially summed to determine a resultant inclination {described in para. [0034]}.
In regard to claim 18, Childers further teaches an inclinometer wherein the first resilient device comprises two first spring leaves on a first plane [housing arms 46 within Group 2 along axis 52], and the second resilient device comprises two second spring leaves on a second plane [housing arms 46 within Group 3 along axis 54].
Childers does not teach that the main body is of a monolithic piece.
However, However, Acernese teaches an inclination sensor [mechanical tiltmeter] with a main body of a monolithic piece [page 4 para. 1 describes using a monolithic system for a mechanical tiltmeter].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Acernese’s monolithic tiltmeter with Childers’ optical inclinometer in order to better manufacture a compact sensor with good thermal sensitivity and sensor directivity, as taught by Acernese [page 4 para. 1].
In regard to claim 19, Childers further teaches an inclinometer wherein the first plane and the second plane are perpendicular to each other [shown in Fig. 5, 52 and 54 are perpendicular to each other].
In regard to claim 20, Childers further teaches an inclinometer wherein a first bending curvature of the two first spring leaves and a second bending curvature of the two second spring leaves are sensed by the two first pre-tensioned FBG sensors and the two second pre-tensioned FBG sensors to obtain an inclination along an x-x direction and an inclination along a y-y direction, respectively {described in para. [0035]-[0036]; where the x-x direction is axis 54 and the y-y direction is axis 52}; and
when there are inclinations along both the x-x direction and the y-y direction, the inclination along the x-x direction and the inclination along the y-y direction are vectorially summed to determine a resultant inclination {described in para. [0034]}.
6. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childers in view of Acernese as applied to claims 1-8, 10-13, and 18-20 above, and further in view of Matthijssen (US10551255B2; cited in prior PTO-892).
In regard to claim 9, Childers in view of Acernese teaches fixedly attaching the optical fibers and sensors to the first section, second section, and third section through a variety of methods {para. [0024] and [0034]}.
Childers in view of Acernese does not teach the use of set screws as the means of attaching the pre-tensioned FBG sensors to the first and second section or the second section and third section.
However, Matthijssen teaches the use of set screws [element 20 – screws] to attach optical fibers [optical fibers 12] that comprise FBG sensors [FBG 13] from the housing [reference body 3 via the second connecting part 16] to the measurement object.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Matthijssen’s method of using set screws – a well-known engineering practice – to attach a FBG sensor to Childers in view of Acernese’s inclination sensor in order to better attach the optical fiber to the housing as taught by Matthijssen [col. 9 lines 1-7].
7. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childers in view of Matthijssen.
In regard to claim 16, Childers teaches fixedly attaching the optical fibers and sensors to the first section, second section, and third section through a variety of methods {para. [0024] and [0034]}.
Childers does not teach the use of set screws as the means of attaching the pre-tensioned FBG sensors to the first and second section or the second section and third section.
However, Matthijssen teaches the use of set screws [element 20 – screws] to attach optical fibers [optical fibers 12] that comprise FBG sensors [FBG 13] from the housing [reference body 3 via the second connecting part 16] to the measurement object.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Matthijssen’s method of using set screws – a well-known engineering practice – to attach a FBG sensor to Childers’ inclination sensor in order to better attach the optical fiber to the housing as taught by Matthijssen [col. 9 lines 1-7].
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jones teaches structure of a FBG sensor that is relevant to structure disclosed in the present application.
9. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL QUINN whose telephone number is (571)272-2690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30 PST.
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.
/DANIEL M QUINN/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights