DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the election filed on July 17, 2026. Claims 1-20 remain pending (claims 15-19 are “Withdrawn” from consideration as being related to a non-elected Group).
Claims 1-14 and 20 are examined herein in a 1st office action on the merits, with claims 1 and 20 in independent claim form.
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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14 and 20, in the reply filed on July 17, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 15-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by Applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on December 13, 2023, have been considered and made of record (note attached copy of forms PTO-1449).
Drawings
The original drawings (nine (9) pages) were received on December 13, 2023. These drawings are acknowledged.
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.
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.
Claims 1-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segi Engineering KR 10 – 2005 – 0061704 (cited in the IDS dated December 13, 2023), and further in view of Udd US 2014/0321799 A1.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 20, KR 10 – 2005 – 0061704 teaches (ABS; Figs. 1, 2, 6, 7; corresponding text; Claims) a strain measuring device (ABS; Figs. 6-7) comprising: a first sensing optical fiber 2a disposed near a surface of a measurement target, a second sensing optical fiber 2b spaced apart from the first sensing optical fiber and arranged parallel to the first sensing optical fiber (see Figs. 6-7, the second fiber 2b is above and spaced apart from the first fiber 2a), the second sensing optical fiber is spaced apart from the surface of the measurement target (as in Figs. 6-7); an optical fiber guide 6 / 34 having an inner cavity 24 (see negative space in sub-portion 34 to house the second fiber 2b; Fig. 7), the optical fiber guide is bonded to the surface of the measurement target to be positioned on the surface of the measurement target (functionally connected and “bonded” to feature 4 via sub element 24), wherein the second sensing optical fiber is disposed in the inner cavity (2b in cavity 24 as in Fig. 7); and a controller receiving measured values from the first sensing optical fiber and the second sensing optical fiber (control feature found in Fig. 1); wherein the first sensing optical fiber and the second sensing optical fiber include optical fibers for measuring strain (the fibers 2a and 2b are both capable of sensing strain (“strain measurement”, see ABS).
Regarding independent claims 1 and 20, the prior art of KR ‘704 does not expressly and exactly teach that the first sensing first is disposed (directly) on a surface of the measurement target. See Fig. 7 of KR ‘704, there is a material layer between the fiber 2a and a sensing target 4.
Regarding independent claim 20, the further feature of an overall “protective case” to surround and cover a periphery of the first sensing fiber and the optical fiber guide is not directly taught within KR ‘704 itself; while the exact “calculations” by comparing the 1st and 2nd optical fiber strains (due to temperatures), and BOCDA type sensing fibers are not discussed.
For these reasons, KR ‘704 cannot serve for literal anticipation under the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 102. However, independent claims 1 and 20 are obvious for the following reason.
Regarding the first missing limitation, the prior art of Udd US 2014/0321799 A1 teaches at least two optical fiber sensors which are placed on a surface to be measured. See Udd ‘799 Figs. 12, 13, 14, 17, etc. which show that the fiber sensors can sense/measure directly on the surface. Further of note, the sensing fibers 1312A / 1344 of Udd are found within a grooved placement element, which is similar to the placement of the primary reference of KR ‘704.
Regarding the second missing limitation(s) (within claim 20 only), one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the current application would have recognized that using more durable / robust “protective” cases or housing around the fiber sensor element would have been an obvious design choice and only required common skill in the fiber sensor art. Applicant has not disclosed that using such features (“protective case”) provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected KR ‘704 and Udd ‘799 to perform equally well with such features as the protective case because using a housing around the brittle or delicate optical fiber would decrease breakage and sources of optical error that might interrupt specific sensing parameters and particulars. These claim terms would have been easily integrated and would have also been recognized by one with common skill in the art to improve strain / temperature sensing and the resultant computer-controlled calculations. It would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at those features with the fiber sensors such as in KR ‘704 and/or Udd ‘799. Additionally, the calculations occurring would be predictable and easily derived (calculating strain of the surface excluding strain from temperature of the measurement target based on differences of the 1st and 2nd sensors, because such parameters could merely be input into algorithms to determine such calculations (as in the last section of claim 20), and using known types of fibers (BOCDA) is merely a design option. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to modify (and/or update) the features of KR ‘704 and Udd ‘799 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 20. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Since KR ‘704 and Udd ‘799 are both from the same field of endeavor, the purpose disclosed by Udd ‘799 would have been recognized in the pertinent art of KR ‘704.
A person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the current application would have recognized the teaching of Udd ‘799, to have a 1st sensing fiber be placed directly on a sensing surface to be measured, into the base design of the fiber sensor of KR ‘704 (notably Figs. 6-7), to allow for improved sensing and control of calculations, and strain + temperature calculation with more robust protective case, in the combination of prior art references cited herein. Further, it would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at such feature of having the first fiber sensor directly on the measurement surface, or to have the protective case or calculations of control as in claims 1 and/or 20. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). For these reasons, independent claims 1 and 20 are found obvious over KR ‘704 and further in view of Udd ‘799 (henceforth “COMBO”).
Regarding dependent claims 2-14, and based on the hypothetical “strain measuring device” found in COMBO, all such features are either expressly recited within one of the KR ‘704 and/or Udd ‘799 reference, or would have been obvious design choice requiring nominal skill to present, based on the hypothetical combination of a device in claim 1. Applicant has not disclosed that using such features (as in dependent claims 2-13) provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected COMBO to perform equally well with such features as the measurement target properties, using an adhesive / epoxy, types of strain analysis, the protective case (see claim 20 above), and other measurements and distances of the strain measurements of the base structure in claim 1, because these claim terms would have been easily integrated and would have also been recognized by one with common skill in the art to improve strain and temperature sensing in a device such as COMBO’s claim 1. It would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at those features with a strain measuring device such as in COMBO. Further, the base structure of the sole independent claim 1 is found obvious over COMBO as discussed previously in this same section. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to modify (and/or update) COMBO to obtain the invention as specified in claims 2-14. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
The following structure / functional operation is obvious based on COMBO: Claim 2: wherein the first sensing optical fiber measures strain of the measurement target and strain due to temperature; and the second sensing optical fiber measures the strain due to temperature and does not measure the strain of the measurement target.
Claim 3: wherein the controller calculates a strain of the surface excluding the strain due to the temperature of the measurement target based on a difference between the measured values of the first sensing optical fiber and the measured values of the second sensing optical fiber.
Claim 4: wherein the first sensing optical fiber is integrated with the surface of the measurement target.
Claim 5: wherein a portion of a side surface of the first sensing optical fiber is in direct contact with the surface of the measurement target; and the first sensing optical fiber is integrated with the surface of the measurement target by an adhesive.
Claim 6: wherein the adhesive includes epoxy.
Claim 7: wherein the first sensing optical fiber and the second sensing optical fiber are of a Brillouin optical correlation domain analysis (BOCDA) type.
Claim 8: wherein the strain measuring device includes a protective case, wherein the protective case covers a periphery of the first sensing optical fiber and the optical fiber guide, the protective case is bonded to the surface of the measurement target.
Claim 9: wherein the first sensing optical fiber and the second sensing optical fiber measure the strain of the measurement target at equal intervals.
Claim 10: wherein the equal intervals are in a range of about 1 cm to about 5 cm.
Claim 11: wherein a cross-section of the inner cavity has a rectangular or circular shape based on a cut plane perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the first sensing optical fiber or the second sensing optical fiber.
Claim 12: wherein: the second sensing optical fiber is spaced apart from the surface of the measurement target; and the first sensing optical fiber is positioned between the second sensing optical fiber and the surface of the measurement target in a vertical direction.
Claim 13: wherein two parallel sidewalls of the optical fiber guide extend to surround side surfaces of the first sensing optical fiber, wherein the two parallel sidewalls are bonded to the surface of the measurement target.
Claim 14: wherein a distance between the second sensing optical fiber and the surface of the measurement target is greater than a distance between the first sensing optical fiber and the surface of the measurement target.
Applicant has not outlined any key and particular inventive feature in the dependent claims 2-14 that would serve to create any patentable distinction over COMBO’s direct teachings for the independent claim 1’s hypothetical device. KSR.
Inventorship
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: PTO-892 form references B, C, and N, which pertain to the current state of the art of optical fiber sensing for strain / temperature, which determine calculations on sensing targets to be measured.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Petkovsek whose telephone number is (571) 272-4174. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 6 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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (571) 272-2397. 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 PETKOVSEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 August 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights