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 .
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) 1-5, 11, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL1 (“Femtosecond point-by-point inscription of Bragg gratings by drawing a coated fiber through ferrule”, A.V. Dostovalov et al., Optics Express, 2016) in view of Chen (US 20070201794 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
A method of manufacturing an optical fiber sensing device (Abstract, “a ferrule based method of direct fs FBG inscription…” teaches a method of manufacturing. Introduction, paragraph 1, teaches that FBGs are “widely used in sensing systems”), comprising:
moving an optical fiber having a core linearly along a first direction (Figure 1, shown below, shows how the linear translation stage [“linear stage”] draws the fiber into the inscription apparatus. The fiber is depicted as having a core, shown in the zoom-in panel on the right, and a fiber having a core is common practice in the art);
PNG
media_image1.png
238
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
during the moving, directly writing a number of nanograting (Section 3.2, a grating period of 0.535 microns is disclosed, making it a ‘nanograting’) structures into the core using a laser beam generated by an ultrafast laser system (Figure 1, the system utilizes a femtosecond [fs] laser pulse, reading on ‘ultrafast’), wherein the number of nanograting structures form a number of scattering points (this is simply how gratings work – the modification of refractive indices creates that grating structures that lead to the scattering of light); and
NPL1 does not teach an energy transducing element on the outer surface of the fiber.
Chen et al. teaches an optical fiber (Title), wherein the fiber comprises:
forming an energy transducing element on an outer surface of the optical fiber (Figure 2A, light absorbing thermal coating 60 is an energy transducing element on fiber 30), wherein a number of scattering points (optical tap regions 65) is/are structured and configured to scatter light out of fiber core and into the transducing element (paragraphs 52 and 53, light will leak from optical fiber 30 into the thermal coating 60 via in-fiber optic components 55, which may be Fiber Bragg Gratings) to provide local power for the optical fiber sensing device (Abstract, “The optical transducing element converts the absorbed power light into a second energy form, such as heat, which is used to tune the in-fiber optic component”, teaching that the light may be used to convert the energy into some other form for local powering purposes).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the invention of NPL1 under the teachings of Chen et al. to include an energy transducing element to provide local actuation/sensing functions at select scattering points. This may be accomplished applying the thermal coatings on a fiber as taught in Chen et al., and would predictably result in a device which carries the benefit of not requiring electrical connections at sensing points, greatly reducing the cost and complexity of manufacturing an optical fiber that needs to be used in sensing applications. This represents combining known elements to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2:
NPL1 in view of Chen teaches the method according to claim 1.
While NPL1 does not explicitly teach that the forming the energy transducing element is performed during the moving, it teaches a moving process and is combined with Chen’s fiber and fiber coating. As such, we have a moving process, we have the energy transducing element coated onto the fiber, and all that is not explicitly stated is that the coating process is an element of the moving process. This would be an obvious intermediate step to include, as performing the coating in a separate process would be less efficient and require more steps than simply integrating it into the moving/translation after lasing.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 1 above under the teachings of Chen and NPL1 to include the forming of the energy transducing element as part of the moving process. This may be accomplished using coating methods known to the art and materials known to the art (as taught in Chen), and would predictably be a more efficient means of forming an energy transducing element on the taught fiber than performing a coating process in a completely separate moving stage, reducing the number of steps in production and cost due to time that would be lost.
Regarding claim 3:
NPL1 in view of Chen teaches the method according to claim 1.
NPL1 does not teach that the number of nanograting structures form an intrinsic Fabry-Perot Interferometer.
Chen teaches that that nanograting structures may form an intrinsic Fabry-Perot Interferometer (Paragraph 12, “the in-fiber optic component includes the first and second partially reflective plates and the cavity, which together may act as a Fabry-Perot filter”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 1 above under the teachings of Chen to form an intrinsic Fabry-Perot Interferometer using the grating structures. This may be accomplished using methods and material known to the art, and would predictably result in a device which scatter light from the fiber to a sensing or transducing element, enabling the sensing and powering functionality of the device.
Regarding claim 4:
NPL1 in view of Chen teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the number of nanograting structures form a fiber Bragg grating array (NPL1 is explicitly directed towards FBG inscription, Abstract).
Regarding claim 5:
NPL1 in view of Chen teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the ultrafast laser system is a femtosecond ultrafast laser system (Abstract, “…direct fs FBG inscription…”).
Regarding claim 11:
NPL1 in view of Chen teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the optical fiber includes at least one of a cladding layer and a protective coating layer (Figure 1, the fiber has a polyamide coating layer), and wherein the directly writing of the number of nanograting structures is performed through the at least one of the cladding layer and the protective coating layer (Figure 1 shows that the laser inscription occurs through the external layers of the fiber).
Regarding claim 20:
NPL1 in view of Chen teaches the method according to claim 1.
NPL1 does not explicitly disclose that during the directly writing, an average power of the laser beam is 33mW-40mW.
In this instance, given that the invention is taught by the prior art, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to utilize the cited range in laser power through routine optimization. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 6 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL1 (“Femtosecond point-by-point inscription of Bragg gratings by drawing a coated fiber through ferrule”, A.V. Dostovalov et al., Optics Express, 2016) in view of Chen (US 20070201794 A1), and further in view of Corning (US 8322166 B2).
Regarding claim 6:
NPL1 in view of Chen teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the moving the optical fiber means translating linearly along the first direction (Figure 1, the optical fiber is drawn continuously along a first direction).
NPL1 does not explicitly state that a reel-to-reel setup is used, but a reel-to-reel setup is well known in the art for fiber drawing and translation, and is generally a common practice in steady translation of wound fibrous/ribbon like components across many industries (record tapes/cassettes, textiles [yarn fibers and the like], catheter/tubing extrusion, etc.).
Corning teaches a method of manufacturing a drawn optical fiber (Title), wherein during a coating process for the fiber, a reel-to-reel process is used (“a portion of the preform is drawn into a first fiber at a set tension and wound onto one reel, and then another portion of the preform is drawn into a second fiber at a different tension and wound onto another reel”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 1 above under the teachings of Corning to be performed using a reel-to-reel setup. This process would be a natural fit for performing the ultrafast laser inscription of gratings as well as the coating of the aforementioned energy transducing coating, and could be integrated using methods and materials known in the art. Predictably, it would result in a method of manufacturing that is practical for processing continuous fiber lengths while maintaining consistent tension and speed during the laser inscription and coating processes, permitting large volume production for the manufacturer with a high degree of reliability and consistency.
Regarding claim 12:
NPL1 teaches a system for manufacturing an optical fiber sensing device (Abstract, “a ferrule based method of direct fs FBG inscription…” teaches a system for manufacturing; Introduction, paragraph 1, teaches that FBGs are “widely used in sensing systems”), comprising:
a fiber translation device structured and configured for moving an optical fiber having a core linearly along a first direction (Figure 1, the linear translation stage [“linear stage”] draws the fiber into the inscription apparatus. The fiber is depicted as having a core, shown in the zoom-in panel on the right, and a fiber having a core is common practice in the art);
an ultrafast laser system structured and configured to generate and output a laser beam (Figure 1, the system utilizes a femtosecond [fs] laser pulse, reading on ‘ultrafast’);
a beam focusing system coupled to the ultrafast laser system, the beam focusing system being structured and configured to focus the laser beam into the core while the optical fiber is being moved linearly by the fiber translation device to enable direct writing of a number of nanograting structures (Section 3.2, a grating period of 0.535 microns is disclosed, making it a ‘nanograting’) into the core using the laser beam (Figure 1, the 100X/0.7 beam focusing system is shown on the right panel, and is used to at least write nanostructures like the FBG into the fiber), wherein the number of nanograting structures form a number of scattering points (this is simply how gratings work – the modification of refractive indices creates that grating structures that lead to the scattering of light).
NPL1 does not teach a coating device configured to form an energy transducing element on the outer surface of the fiber.
Corning teaches a coating device (Figure 1, coater 30) used to coat a drawn fiber (“Conventional manufacturing processes for producing optical fibers typically include drawing optical fiber from a heated glass preform in a draw furnace, cooling the drawn fiber, and coating the fiber after it has sufficiently cooled.”)
Corning does not teach the specific application of an energy transducing element.
Chen et al. teaches an optical fiber (Title), wherein the fiber comprises:
forming an energy transducing element on an outer surface of the optical fiber (Figure 2A, light absorbing thermal coating 60 is an energy transducing element on fiber 30), wherein a number of scattering points (optical tap regions 65) is/are structured and configured to scatter light out of fiber core and into the transducing element (paragraphs 52 and 53, light will leak from optical fiber 30 into the thermal coating 60 via in-fiber optic components 55, which may be Fiber Bragg Gratings) to provide local power for the optical fiber sensing device (Abstract, “The optical transducing element converts the absorbed power light into a second energy form, such as heat, which is used to tune the in-fiber optic component”, teaching that the light may be used to convert the energy into some other form for local powering purposes).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the invention of NPL1 under the teachings of Chen and Corning to include a coating device which is then configured to form the energy transducing elements about scattering points in the fiber. This may be accomplished using machines, methods, and routine design oversight known to a skilled artisan and would predictably result in a system which can produce a fiber with the scattering points and energy transducing elements necessary to power the fiber in the absence of external electrical connections while maintaining sensing functionality.
Regarding claim 13:
NPL1 in view of Chen and further in view of Corning teaches the method according to claim 12.
While NPL1 does not explicitly teach that the coating device is structured and configured to form the energy transducing element while the optical fiber is being moved linearly by the fiber translation device, it teaches a moving process and is combined with Chen’s fiber and fiber coating. As such, we have a moving process (both in NPL1 and Corning), we have the energy transducing element coated onto the fiber, and all that is not explicitly stated is that the coating process is an element of the moving process. This would be an obvious configuration for the coating device, as the device exists and needs to operate at some instant after the laser inscription process, but prior to the formation of end product.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 12 above under the teachings of Chen and Corning to configure the coating device to form the energy transducing element while the optical fiber is moving. This may be accomplished using coating methods known to the art and materials known to the art (as taught in Chen and Corning), and would predictably be a more efficient means of forming an energy transducing element on the taught fiber than performing a coating process in a completely separate moving stage, reducing the number of steps in production and cost due to time that would be lost.
Regarding claim 14:
NPL1 in view of Chen and further in view of Corning teaches the method according to claim 12, wherein the ultrafast laser system is a femtosecond ultrafast laser system (Abstract, “…direct fs FBG inscription…”).
Regarding claim 15:
NPL1 in view of Chen, and further in view of Corning teaches the method according to claim 12, wherein the moving the optical fiber means translating linearly along the first direction (Figure 1, the optical fiber is drawn continuously along a first direction).
NPL1 does not explicitly state that a reel-to-reel setup is used, but a reel-to-reel setup is well known in the art for fiber drawing and translation, and is generally a common practice in steady translation of wound fibrous/ribbon like components across many industries (record tapes/cassettes, textiles [yarn fibers and the like], catheter/tubing extrusion, etc.).
Corning teaches a method of manufacturing a drawn optical fiber (Title), wherein during the translation process for the fiber, a reel-to-reel setup is used (“a portion of the preform is drawn into a first fiber at a set tension and wound onto one reel, and then another portion of the preform is drawn into a second fiber at a different tension and wound onto another reel”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 1 above under the teachings of Corning to be performed using a reel-to-reel setup. This process would be a natural fit for performing the ultrafast laser inscription of gratings as well as the coating of the aforementioned energy transducing coating, and could be integrated using methods and materials known in the art. Predictably, it would result in a method of manufacturing that is practical for processing continuous fiber lengths while maintaining consistent tension and speed during the laser inscription and coating processes, permitting large volume production for the manufacturer with a high degree of reliability and consistency.
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL1 (“Femtosecond point-by-point inscription of Bragg gratings by drawing a coated fiber through ferrule”, A.V. Dostovalov et al., Optics Express, 2016) in view of Chen (US 20070201794 A1), and further in view of Askins (US 5400422 A).
Regarding claim 7:
NPL1 in view of Chen teaches the method according to claim 1.
NPL1 does not explicitly teach the monitoring of optical characteristics during the moving and during or after the writing.
Askins et al teaches the preparation of in-line fiber Bragg gratings during drawing (Title), further comprising, during the moving and during or after the writing, monitoring one or more optical characteristics of the optical fiber (“Consequently, the grating-writing process must be continuously monitored as it is carried out. This is typically done by probing the grating with light guided in the fiber core as the grating is written, and monitoring the reflected signal from the probe beam”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 1 above under the teachings of Askins to include monitoring of the optical characteristics of the fiber during drawing and/or inscription. This may be accomplished using methods known in the art and would predictably ensure that grating inscription could be verified during manufacture, enabling quality control during manufacturing instead of after.
Regarding claim 8:
NPL1 in view of Chen and further in view of Askins teaches the method according to claim 7.
NPL1 does not teach wherein the monitoring is performed using an optical backscattering reflectometer [OBR] system.
Askins et al teaches monitoring of the optical fiber characteristics using an optical backscattering reflectometer system (“and monitoring the reflected signal from the probe beam”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 1 above under the teachings of Askins to include monitoring of the optical characteristics of the fiber using an OBR system. This may be accomplished using methods known in the art and would predictably ensure that grating inscription could be verified during manufacture, enabling quality control during manufacturing instead of after.
Regarding claim 9:
NPL1 in view of Chen, and further in view of Askins teaches the method according to claim 7, wherein the one or more optical characteristics include a Rayleigh backscattering profile modification (Femtosecond point-by-point inscription creates localized refractive index modifications that necessarily alter Rayleigh backscattering profile, which would be the only reasonable measured optical characteristic as a result).
Regarding claim 10:
NPL1 in view of Chen and further in view of Askins teaches the method according to claim 7.
NPL1 does not teach wherein the one or more optical characteristics include a return signal increase and/or a propagation loss.
Askins teaches the monitoring of the optical fiber characteristics (“and monitoring the reflected signal from the probe beam”), wherein the one or more optical characteristics include a return signal increase and/or a propagation loss.
While not explicitly stated, FBGs function by increasing signal return and/or propagation loss. A skilled artisan would find this to be both an obvious parameter to monitor in order to ensure that the FBG is properly formed.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 7 above under the teachings of Askins to monitor the return signal increase and/or propagation loss as a means of evaluating the effectiveness of FBG transcription. This may be accomplished using methods and routine design oversight known to a skilled artisan, and would predictably impart a reliable means for assessing the quality of the inscribed FBG during manufacture.
Claim(s) 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL1 (“Femtosecond point-by-point inscription of Bragg gratings by drawing a coated fiber through ferrule”, A.V. Dostovalov et al., Optics Express, 2016) in view of Chen (US 20070201794 A1), and further in view of Corning (US 8322166 B2) and Askins (US 5400422 A).
Regarding claim 16:
NPL1 in view of Chen and further in view of Corning teaches the system according to claim 12.
NPL1 does not explicitly teach the monitoring of optical characteristics during the moving and during or after the writing.
Askins et al teaches the preparation of in-line fiber Bragg gratings during drawing (Title), further comprising, while the fiber is being moved linearly by the fiber translation device, monitoring one or more optical characteristics of the optical fiber (“Consequently, the grating-writing process must be continuously monitored as it is carried out. This is typically done by probing the grating with light guided in the fiber core as the grating is written, and monitoring the reflected signal from the probe beam”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 12 above under the teachings of Askins to include monitoring of the optical characteristics of the fiber during drawing and/or inscription. This may be accomplished using methods known in the art and would predictably ensure that grating inscription could be verified during manufacture, enabling quality control during manufacturing instead of after.
Regarding claim 17:
NPL1 in view of Chen, Corning, and Askins teaches the system according to claim 16.
NPL1 does not teach wherein the monitoring is performed using an optical backscattering reflectometer [OBR] system.
Askins et al teaches monitoring of the optical fiber characteristics using an optical backscattering reflectometer system (“and monitoring the reflected signal from the probe beam,” this is a verbose way of describing optical backscattering reflectometry).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 16 above under the teachings of Askins to include monitoring of the optical characteristics of the fiber using an OBR system. This may be accomplished using methods known in the art and would predictably ensure that grating inscription could be verified during manufacture, enabling quality control during manufacturing instead of after.
Regarding claim 18:
NPL1 in view of Chen, and further in view of Corning and Askins teaches the system according to claim 16, wherein the one or more optical characteristics include a Rayleigh backscattering profile modification (Femtosecond point-by-point inscription creates localized refractive index modifications that necessarily alter Rayleigh backscattering profile, which would be the only reasonable measured optical characteristic as a result).
Regarding claim 19:
NPL1 in view of Chen, Corning, and Askins teaches the system according to claim 16.
NPL1 does not teach wherein the one or more optical characteristics include a return signal increase and/or a propagation loss.
Askins teaches the monitoring of the optical fiber characteristics (“and monitoring the reflected signal from the probe beam”), wherein the one or more optical characteristics include a return signal increase and/or a propagation loss.
While not explicitly stated, FBGs function by increasing signal return and/or propagation loss. A skilled artisan would find this to be both an obvious parameter to monitor in order to ensure that the FBG is properly formed.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 16 above under the teachings of Askins to monitor the return signal increase and/or propagation loss as a means of evaluating the effectiveness of FBG transcription. This may be accomplished using methods and routine design oversight known to a skilled artisan, and would predictably impart a reliable means for assessing the quality of the inscribed FBG during manufacture.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PREET B PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2579. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu: 8:30 am - 6:30 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, THOMAS A HOLLWEG can be reached at 571-270-1739. 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.
/PREET B PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874