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 .
Amendment
1- The amendment filed on 03/11/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-16, 19-20 remain pending in the application, where the independent claims have been amended. New claims 21-22 have been added.
Response to Arguments
2- Moreover, Applicant’s amendments and their corresponding arguments, with respect to the rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC 102 and 103, as set forth in the non-final office action mailed on 12/12/2025, have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made over the prior art used in the previous office action in view of Donlagic et al. (PGPUB 2008/0159687).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3- 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
4- Claims 1-6, 9-11, 15, 20-22 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taichi (JP 2005055415) in view of Donlagic et al. (PGPUB 2008/0159687)
As to claims 1-6 and 15, Taichi teaches a Fabry-Perot sensor assembly, and its method of making (Abstract and Figs. 1-5), comprising: an optical element defining a Fabry-Perot optical cavity therein (cavity between mirrors 16/17); and a sensor ferrule (ferrules 12/22 and/or 13/23, and equivalents) affixed to the optical element (Figs. 1-3), wherein the sensor ferrule is configured to physically connect to an optical fiber; (Claim 6) further comprising the optical fiber affixed within the sensor ferrule optically aligned with the optical cavity along the axis (Figs. 1-3; optical fibers 10 or 11 a/b), optically aligning and spacing the optical fiber with the optical cavity (Figs. 1-3), wherein the sensor ferrule defines a bore for receiving the optical fiber, wherein the bore extends along a longitudinal axis that extends to the optical element (Figs. 1-3; the bores in the ferrules are where the optical fibers are inserted), and wherein the optical cavity is a second optical member defined between a first optical member (16 or 26) and a third optical member (17 or 27) spaced apart from the first optical member along the longitudinal axis, and at least one of the first optical member and the third optical member includes a radiused surface bounding the optical cavity and spanning across the optical cavity laterally relative to the longitudinal axis; (Claim 2) wherein the radiused surface is defined on the first optical member; (Claim 3) wherein the radiused surface is defined on the third optical member; (Claim 4) wherein the first optical member also includes a radiused surface bounding the optical cavity and spanning across the optical cavity laterally relative to the longitudinal axis; (Claim 5) wherein the third optical member includes a contoured outer surface spanning the third optical member laterally relative to the longitudinal axis (the cavity, i.e. second optical member, is defined between curved reflective surfaces 16/17 or 26/27, i.e. first and second optical member, formed by the dielectric layers 14/15 or 24/25 on the formed curved surfaces).
Taichi does not teach expressly wherein the first and third optical members engage one another to enclose and longitudinally bound the second optical member into which the third optical member deflects under external pressure changes; (claim 20) wherein the third optical member is a diaphragm configured to deflect more than the first optical member under external pressure changes; (claim 21-22) wherein the first optical member includes a rim that engages the third optical member and peripherally encircles the optical cavity; wherein the third optical member includes a rim that engages the first optical member and peripherally encircles the optical cavity.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Donlagic discloses a FP optical sensor and methods of use thereof (Abstract, Figs. 1-12), wherein a FP optical cavity (FP in Fig. 1 for ex.) is formed between two optical members (24/40/32 and 36/37. Which engage each other and bound to the gap in between; ¶ 32-42), and which comprises a diaphragm 34 (¶ 35-41 for ex.), i.e. third member, connected to an optical fiber end (Figs. 1-2, 5-9), or similarly to Taichi in the middle of an optical fiber (Fig. 2E). Moreover, and as to claims 21-22, Donlagic teaches the circular spacer 26 which engages both ends of the cavity, i.e. first/third optical members and encircles their peripheries (Figs. 1-2, 5-7 for ex.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of Taichi in view of Donlagic’s suggestions so that the first and third optical members engage one another to enclose and longitudinally bound the second optical member into which the third optical member deflects under external pressure changes; wherein the third optical member is a diaphragm configured to deflect more than the first optical member under external pressure changes; wherein the first optical member includes a rim that engages the third optical member and peripherally encircles the optical cavity; wherein the third optical member includes a rim that engages the first optical member and peripherally encircles the optical cavity, with the advantage taught by Donlagic of effectively sensing pressure or the like (Abstract).
Moreover, Taichi teaches:
(claim 9) wherein an optical path passes from the bore, through the first optical member, through the optical cavity, reflects off of the third optical member and passes back through the optical cavity and through the first optical member into the bore and back into the fiber (¶10-12; laser light passes from the bore of one optical fiber to the cavity, reflects off the dielectric layers of the two opposite mirrors, passing through the cavity and response is measured by transmission through optical fiber).
(claim 10) wherein the third optical member is an endplate (34/35) with an at least partially mirrored surface for increasing signal reflections in the optical cavity and back into the optical fiber (Fig. 3).
(claim 11) wherein the first optical member is a main sensor body, wherein the ferrule is affixed to the main sensor body (Figs. 1-3).
5- Claims 7-8, 13, 19 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taichi and Donlagic in view of Zhang et al. (CN 108680276, cited by Applicants)
As to claims 7-8, 13, 19, the combination of Taichi and Donlagic teaches the assembly as recited in claim 6 and the method as recited in claim 15, further comprising an interrogator optically connected to the optical fiber, wherein the interrogator is configured to illuminate the cavity through the optical fiber, to receive reflected spectrum from the cavity ( Taichi; ¶10-12; laser is used to illuminate the cavity and response is measured by reflection/transmission); the assembly is configured to measure temperature and/or pressure of the cavity based on the reflected spectrum .
The combination Taichi does not teach expressly (claims 8, 13, 19) wherein the at least one of the optical elements includes MgAl204 spinel ceramic or single crystal, aluminum oxynitride A123N2705 ceramic or single crystal, La0.8Gd1.2Hf207 ceramic, LaGdZr207 ceramic, or Nd doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Nd:YAG) ceramic or single crystal.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Zhang discloses Nd:YAG based optical fiber temperature sensor (Abstract, Figs. 1-8) teaches using similar optical cavities to measure temperature (¶ 7-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of Taichi/Donlagic in view of Zhang’s suggestions so that the assembly is configured to measure temperature and/or pressure of the cavity based on the reflected spectrum; wherein the optical element includes Nd doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Nd:YAG) ceramic or single crystal, with the advantage of effectively using the Fabry-Perot cavity for the temperature/pressure measurements.
6- Claims 12, 16 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taichi and Donlagic in view of Zhang, and further in view of Nordahl (US PGPUB 20170031057)
As to claims 12, 16, the combination of Taichi, Donlagic and Zhang teaches the assembly as recited in claim 6 and the method as recited in claim 15.
The combination does not teach expressly wherein at least one of the first and third optical members is MgAl204 spinel ceramic or single crystal; (claim 16) wherein at least one of the first and second optical members includes MgAl204 spinel ceramic or single crystal.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Zhang discloses Nd:YAG based optical fiber temperature sensor (Abstract, Figs. 1-8) teaches using similar optical cavities (¶ 7-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of Taichi/Donlagic in view of Zhang’s suggestions so that the optical element includes Nd doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Nd:YAG) ceramic or single crystal, with the advantage of effectively using the Fabry-Perot cavity for the temperature/pressure measurements.
The combination still does not teach expressly wherein at least one of the first and third optical members is MgAl204 spinel ceramic or single crystal; (claim 16) wherein at least one of the first and second optical members includes MgAl204 spinel ceramic or single crystal.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Nordahl discloses optical windows (Abstract, Figs. 1-10), wherein the windows/optical members are made of Spinel or Nd:YAG (¶ 8, 40), which are construed as suitable optical alternatives (See MPEP § 2144.07 for ex.), and would be a suitable alternative to the Nd:YAG used by Zhang.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of Taichi, Donlagic and Zhang in view of Nordahl’s suggestions so that wherein at least one of the first and third optical members is MgAl204 spinel ceramic or single crystal, with the advantage of optimizing the optical properties of Spinel in the optical measurements.
7- Claim 14 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taichi and Donlagic in view of Wang et al. (CN 120176745)
As to claim 14, the combination of Taichi and Donlagic teaches the assembly as recited in claim 6.
The combination does not teach expressly further comprising anti-reflective coating on at least one surface of the optical element.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Wang discloses a fiber FP based detector and method of making thereof (Abstract, Figs. 1-8) wherein the assembly further comprising anti-reflective coating on at least one surface of the optical element (¶ 114-115).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of Taichi and Donlagic in view of Jiang’s suggestions so that the assembly further comprising anti-reflective coating on at least one surface of the optical element, with the advantage taught by Wang of effectively optimizing the light transmission through the optical elements (¶ 115).
Conclusion
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).
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED AMARA whose telephone number is (571)272-7847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 9:00-17:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohamed K AMARA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877