DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 18 June 2026 has been entered.
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(s) 1-8 and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whittington et al. (US 9,863,859 B2) in view of Fumio (JP 2000-162057 A2).
Regarding claim 1, Whittington et al. discloses a compact waveguide (10; figs. 1 and 2), comprising: a primary bar (12); and an impedance-matched series of secondary bars (14, 16) that is impedance-matched with the primary bar (12) at a connection point (18) that joins at least one secondary bar (14) of the impedance-matched series of secondary bars (14, 16) to the primary bar (tubes 14 and 16 are impedance-matched with tube 12 at a connection joint 18; c. 4, ll. 53-55), wherein a respective turn of a plurality of turns of the compact waveguide (10) corresponds to at least one of: a turn that is perpendicular to an immediately preceding turn (at least a turn from joint 18 to tube 14 is perpendicular to a turn from tube 14 to another joint 18; fig. 2), and an increase in length of a subset of the secondary bars for the respective turn (at least a length of tube 16 is increased from a length of tube 14; fig. 2).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Whittington et al. discloses wherein the connection point (18) is a branching connection point, the at least one secondary bar (14) comprises a plurality of branch secondary bars (16) that branch from the primary bar (12) at the branching connection point (18), and a total impedance of the at least one secondary bar is a sum of impedances corresponding to the plurality of branch secondary bars at the branching connection point (although shown with two bars, tubes 14 and 16, apparatus 10 may comprise any number of additional tubes, each additional tube having decreasing thickness so that each added tube has the same characteristic impedance and each additional tube would branch from a new joint 18; c. 4, l. 59 – c. 5, l. 1); wherein the plurality of branch secondary bars (16) are first-order branch secondary bars, and at least one of the first-order branch secondary bars branches into a plurality of second-order branch secondary bars at a corresponding at least one second-order branching connection point (18) of the impedance-matched series of secondary bars, wherein a sum of impedances of the plurality of second-order branch secondary bars (16) is equivalent to a respective impedance of a respective one of the at least one of the first-order branch secondary bars at the at least one second-order branching connection point (although shown with two bars, tubes 14 and 16, apparatus 10 may comprise any number of additional tubes, each additional tube having decreasing thickness so that each added tube has the same characteristic impedance and each additional tube would branch from a new joint 18; c. 4, l. 59 – c. 5, l. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Whittington et al. discloses wherein a particular secondary bar (16) of the impedance-matched series of secondary bars (14, 16) varies impedance along its axial length (for example, an impedance at a connection joint of tube 16 is different than an impedance at distal end of tube 16; fig. 2), and has equal impedance to a secondary bar (14) or a set of secondary bars that is joined to the particular secondary bar (16) at a particular connection point (tubes 14 and 16 are impedance matched; c. 4, ll. 53-55 and c. 4, l. 65 – c. 5, l. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Whittington et al. discloses wherein a respective secondary bar (16) of the impedance-matched series of secondary bars is parallel to the primary bar (tube 16 is parallel to rod 12; fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Whittington et al. discloses at least one momentum trap (18) that tunes the compact waveguide (100) to have a desired acoustic length (at least joints 18 affect a propagated wave and thus, tune waveguide 100 to a desired acoustic length).
Regarding claim 8, Whittington et al. discloses wherein a respective one of the primary bar (12) and the impedance-matched series of secondary bars (14, 16) has a length greater than its width (rod 12 and tubes 14 and 16 have lengths greater than their widths; fig. 2).
Whittington et al. is silent on the primary bar and secondary bar being noncolinear and nonconcentric.
Fumio teaches a compact waveguide (7; fig. 1) wherein at least one secondary bar (12) is noncolinear and nonconcentric with a primary bar (optical fibers 11 and 12 are noncolinear and nonconcentric; fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Whittington et al. with the noncolinear and nonconcentric waveguide bars as taught in Fumio to provide a wave guide stress sensor that accurately detects stress even in high electromagnetic noise environments (Fumio, ¶ [0008]).
Regarding claim 6, Whittington et al. discloses the invention as set forth above with regard to claim 1, and further discloses sensors (22) that monitor a waveform that propagates in at least one bar of the primary bar and the impedance-matched series of secondary bars (sensors 22 extract load sampling and reflection monitoring from waves propagating through load monitoring apparatus 10; c. 5, ll. 27-32).
However, Whittington et al. is silent on a monitoring device.
Fumio teaches at least one device (8; fig. 1) that monitors a square waveform (from square wave modulation power supply 10) that propagates in at least one bar (correlation-measuring instrument 8 monitors a square waveform that propagates through optical fibers 12 and 13 via photodiodes 14 and 15; FIT Machine translation; ¶ [0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to further modify the apparatus of Whittington et al. with the monitoring device of Fumio to provide a wave guide stress sensor that accurately detects stress even in high electromagnetic noise environments (Fumio, ¶ [0008]).
Regarding claim 18, Whittington et al. discloses a waveguide (10; figs. 1 and 20, comprising: a primary bar (12); and a series of secondary bars (14, 16), wherein a respective turn of a plurality of turns of the series of secondary bars (14, 16) corresponds to at least one of: a turn that is perpendicular to an immediately preceding turn (at least a turn from joint 18 to tube 14 is perpendicular to a turn from tube 14 to another joint 18; fig. 2), and an increase in length of a subset of the secondary bars for the respective turn (at least a length of tube 16 is increased from a length of tube 14; fig. 2).
Regarding claim 19, Whittington et al. discloses wherein the series of secondary bars (14, 16) comprises a connection point (18) that is a branching connection point, and the at least one secondary bar (14) comprises a plurality of branch secondary bars (apparatus 10 may comprise any number of additional tubes, and at least tube 14 would have a plurality of additional tubes; c. 4, l. 59 – c. 5, l. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Whittington et al. discloses wherein the plurality of branch secondary bars (16) branch from the primary bar (12) at the branching connection point (18), and a total impedance of the plurality of branch secondary bars is a sum of impedances corresponding to the plurality of branch secondary bars connected at the branching connection point (apparatus 10 may comprise any number of additional tubes, each additional tube having decreasing thickness so that each added tube has the same characteristic impedance and each additional tube would branch from a new joint 18; c. 4, l. 59 – c. 5, l. 1).
Whittington et al. is silent on the primary bar and secondary bars being noncolinear and nonconcentric.
Fumio teaches a compact waveguide (7; fig. 1) wherein each secondary bar (12, 13) in a series of secondary bars are noncolinear and nonconcentric with a primary bar (optical fibers 12 and 13 are noncolinear and nonconcentric with optical fiber 11; fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Whittington et al. with the noncolinear and nonconcentric waveguide bars as taught in Fumio to provide a wave guide stress sensor that accurately detects stress even in high electromagnetic noise environments (Fumio, ¶ [0008]).
Regarding claim 21, Whittington et al. discloses the invention as set forth above with regard to claim 18.
Whittington et al. is silent on a secondary bar being parallel to a primary bar.
Fumio teaches a compact waveguide (7; fig. 1) wherein a respective secondary bar (12) of the series of secondary bars (12, 13) is parallel to the primary bar (optical fiber 12 is parallel to optical fiber 11; fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Whittington et al. with the noncolinear and nonconcentric waveguide bars as taught in Fumio to provide a wave guide stress sensor that accurately detects stress even in high electromagnetic noise environments (Fumio, ¶ [0008]).
Claim(s) 9-12 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karp et al. (US 8,596,135 B2) in view of Whittington et al. (US 9,863,859 B2), and further, in view of Fumio (JP 2000-162057 A2).
Regarding claim 9, Karp et al. discloses a method, comprising: monitoring, by a controller device (147; fig. 12), at least one waveform propagating in a waveguide (141) and generating, by the controller device (147), a measurement based at least in part on at least one parameter (strain) of the at least one waveform (analysis unit 147 monitors a waveform propagating in beam 141 with strain sensors 144 and 145; c. 16, ll. 42-47).
Regarding claim 10, Karp et al. discloses mapping, by the controller device (147), the at least one parameter (strain) of the at least one waveform to the measurement (strain vs. time; fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Karp et al. discloses wherein the at least one parameter (strain) comprises a timing and a magnitude of the at least one waveform over time, and wherein a data structure is referenced to map the timing and the magnitude to the measurement (a magnitude of strain vs. time is mapped and some memory component must be referenced to provide the change of strain over time; fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Karp et al. discloses configuring, by the controller (147) device, a compact stress waveguide (141) to have a selected acoustic length (beam 141 has some acoustic length that can be determined by measurements made by analysis unit 147; c. 16, ll. 42-47).
Karp et al. is silent on a waveguide structure.
Whittington et al. teaches a compact waveguide (10; figs. 1 and 2), comprising: a primary bar (12); and an impedance-matched series of secondary bars (14, 16) that is impedance-matched with the primary bar (tubes 14 and 16 are impedance-matched with tube 12; c. 4, ll. 53-55), wherein a respective turn of a plurality of turns of the compact waveguide (10) corresponds to at least one of: a turn that is perpendicular to an immediately preceding turn (at least a turn from joint 18 to tube 14 is perpendicular to a turn from tube 14 to another joint 18; fig. 2), and an increase in length of a subset of the secondary bars for the respective turn (at least a length of tube 16 is increased from a length of tube 14; fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Karp et al. with the compact waveguide of Whittington et al. to produce useful stress-strain measurements in the intermediate strain rate regime while minimizing size constraints (Whittington et al., c. 2, ll. 41-46).
Additionally, Karp et al. in view of Whittington et al. are silent on the primary bar and secondary bars being noncolinear and nonconcentric.
Fumio teaches a compact waveguide (7; fig. 1) wherein each secondary bar (12, 13) in a series of secondary bars are noncolinear and nonconcentric with a primary bar (optical fibers 12 and 13 are noncolinear and nonconcentric with optical fiber 11; fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Karp et al. in view of Whittington et al. with the noncolinear and nonconcentric waveguide bars as taught in Fumio to provide a wave guide stress sensor that accurately detects stress even in high electromagnetic noise environments (Fumio, ¶ [0008]).
Regarding claims 14-17, Karp et al. is silent on further details of the waveguide structure.
Whittington et al. teaches wherein the impedance-matched series of secondary bars (16) comprises a connection point (18) is a branching connection point, and the at least one secondary bar (16) comprises a plurality of branch secondary bars (although shown with tubes 14 and 16, apparatus 10 may comprise any number of additional tubes; c. 4, l. 59 – c. 5, l. 1); wherein a total impedance of the plurality of branch secondary bars (16) is a sum of impedances corresponding to the plurality of branch secondary bars at the branching connection point (each additional tube has a decreasing thickness so that each added tube has the same characteristic impedance and each additional tube would branch from a new joint 18; c. 4, l. 59 – c. 5, l.); wherein the plurality of branch secondary bars (16) are first-order branch secondary bars, and at least one of the first-order branch secondary bars (16) branches into a plurality of second-order branch secondary bars at a corresponding at least one second-order branching connection point (18) of the impedance-matched series of secondary bars (apparatus 10 may comprise any number of additional tubes branching from tubes 14 and 16; c. 4, l. 59 – c. 5, l. 1); wherein a sum of impedances of the plurality of second-order branch secondary bars (16) is equivalent to a respective impedance of a respective one of the at least one of the first-order branch secondary bars at the at least one second-order branching connection point (although shown with two bars, tubes 14 and 16, apparatus 10 may comprise any number of additional tubes, each additional tube having decreasing thickness so that each added tube has the same characteristic impedance and each additional tube would branch from a new joint 18; c. 4, l. 59 – c. 5, l. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to further modify the apparatus of Karp et al. with the compact waveguide of Whittington et al. to produce useful stress-strain measurements in the intermediate strain rate regime while minimizing size constraints (Whittington et al., c. 2, ll. 41-46).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim(s) 1, 9, and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erika J. Villaluna whose telephone number is (571)272-8348. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at (571) 272-3555. 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.
/ERIKA J. VILLALUNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights