DETAILED ACTION
Examiner has received and accepted the amended claims and remarks filed on 10 April 2026. These amended claims and remarks are the claims and remarks being referred to in the instant Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 16, Applicant argues the specification enables the claim according to the disclosure of [0030]. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The cited paragraph does not provide guidance nor working example pertaining to how “the reference unit determin[es] the tensile, force or strain based on a comparison of the light intensity signal from the light detection circuit and the light intensity signal of the reference light detection circuit” (Claim 11) when “the reference fiber is free from fiber Bragg grating etching” (Claim 16). Applicant discloses an embodiment which relies on both the fiber and reference fiber being functionally the same, except for the reference fiber is not subject to force or strain [0030]. As such, the difference between the two outputs is only due to force, tensile or strain [0031, 0032] therefore clearly allowing for detection of these variables. In the embodiment of Claim 16, the reference fiber is replaced with one that has no gratings while still not being subject to force or strain. The difference between the fibers is now not only due to force, tensile or strain. Therefore, the difference between the two outputs is also not only due to force, tensile or strain. The specification does not disclose nor provide guidance nor provide working examples as to how force, tensile or strain is determined from such an output. As such, the rejection of Claim 16 is maintained.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant argues the combination of Park and Brock would render Park unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Park discloses the use of an the LED to have a broad wavelength bandwidth [46], but does not specifically disclose the type of LED. Brock teaches an LED which is a resonant cavity LED (Page 14, lines 29 – 31). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Park so that the LED is a resonant cavity LED for the benefit of utilizing a source known broad wavelength bandwidth that is also low cost, as taught by Brock (Page 14, lines 29 – 31). It is unclear why a different broad wavelength source will render Park unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Park illustrates the reflected light from the Bragg grating in Figure 2. So long as an alternate light source has those wavelengths present, Park would function as intended. An RC LED is a known broad wavelength bandwidth source and would therefore not render Park unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. As such, the rejection of Claim 1 is maintained.
Regarding Claim 10, Applicant argues that Zhu does not disclose a reference fiber. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner does not match the claimed reference fiber with Zhu’s reference grating but instead with Zhu’s “fiber having reference grating” (from rejection of Claim 10 below) where Claim 10 does not recite any limitations which prevent such an interpretation. As such, the rejection of Claim 10 is maintained.
Note Examiner’s teachings rely on Zhu’s teaching of the background of the technology [0004] not Zhu’s invention.
Furthermore, [t]o adequately traverse a finding based on official notice, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. A mere request by the applicant that the examiner provide documentary evidence in support of an officially-noticed fact is not a proper traversal. See MPEP 2144.03.C If applicant does not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or applicant’s traverse is not adequate, the examiner should clearly indicate in the next Office action that the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate. See Ahlert, 424 F.2d at 1091, 165 USPQ at 420. If the traverse was inadequate, the examiner should include an explanation as to why it was inadequate. See MPEP 2144.03.C.
As there is no explanation as to why noticed facts in the previous Office Action are not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art, the noticed facts are taken to be admitted prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 20 is 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.
Regarding Claim 20, the claim recites “a monotonic change in total intensity of light”. It is unclear as to what a “monotonic change” in intensity of light is, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding Claim 16, the claim pertains to the embodiment where the reference unit determines tensile, force or strain via comparison between the light intensity signals from the two light detection circuits, where the reference fiber is free from a fiber Bragg grating etching. The specification does not disclose how the comparison results in a determination of tensile, force or strain specifically with a reference fiber with no gratings. Turning to the Wands factors, no working examples are provided nor are any located in the art. Furthermore, no guidance is provided by the applicant. As such, the claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (WO 2007/043716), in view of Brock et al. (GB 2532031).
Regarding Claim 1, Park discloses a fiber Bragg grating sensor arrangement, in at least Figure 4, comprising: light emitting diode (41) for outputting light [46, 53]; a fiber (17) having a first end disposed to receive light output from the light emitting diode (left side) (Figure 4), the fiber including fiber Bragg grating etching [34]; a bonding agent coupling the fiber to a subject of measurement [29]; and a light detection circuit (including 43) disposed at a second end of the fiber for receiving light traveling through the fiber (Figure 4), the light detection circuit for sensing intensity of the received light that corresponds to strain or force applied to the subject of measurement [50 – 53, 76 - 78].
Park fails to expressly disclose the LED is a resonant cavity LED but does require the LED to have a broad wavelength bandwidth [46].
Brock teaches an LED which is a resonant cavity LED (Page 14, lines 29 – 31).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Park so that the LED is a resonant cavity LED for the benefit of utilizing a source known broad wavelength bandwidth that is also low cost, as taught by Brock (Page 14, lines 29 – 31).
Regarding Claim 2, Park discloses the light detection circuit includes a photodetector (43).
Park fails to expressly disclose the circuit includes a power source and an operational amplifier.
Examiner takes Official Notice it is common knowledge in the art to utilize a power source and operational amplifier with a photodetector as photodetectors often output a weak current and the power source and amplifier allow for conversion to a usable signal.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the combination to include a power source and an operational amplifier for the benefit of outputting a strong signal for further use.
Regarding Claim 3, Park discloses the fiber Bragg grating sensor arrangement is free from an optical circulator (Figure 4).
Regarding Claims 4 and 5, the combination fails to expressly disclose whether the fiber is a single-mode fiber and a multimode fiber.
Examiner takes Official Notice it is common knowledge in the art single mode fibers are better for longer distances while multimode fibers are better for shorter distances.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the combination to utilize either a single mode fiber or a multimode fiber for the benefit of selecting a fiber whose characteristics best match the measuring situation e.g. distances between light source, grating, and light detector, as well as based on cost.
Regarding Claim 6, Park discloses the fiber is mounted to a pylon (11, 13) for sensing strain thereon (Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 7, Park discloses the fiber is mounted to a bridge support (11, 13) for sensing strain thereon [29] (Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 8, Park discloses the bonding agent is an adhesive securing a length of the fiber to the subject [29].
Regarding Claim 9, Park discloses the bonding agent is a cement (epoxy; Merriam-Webster defines cement as “binding element or agency: such as a substance to make objects adhere to each other”) bonding the fiber to the subject formed by the cement [29].
Regarding Claim 20, as best understood, Park discloses application of a strain or force to the fiber Bragg grating causes a Bragg wavelength shift in the light reflected by the fiber Bragg grating etching (Figure 2), and wherein the light detection circuit is configured to sense a monotonic change in total intensity of light due to the wavelength shift [53].
Claim(s) 10 – 15 and 17 - 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (WO 2007/043716), in view of Brock et al. (GB 2532031), in further view of Zhu et al. (CN 106441658). Citations pertaining to Zhu refer to the attached English translation.
Regarding Claim 10, Park discloses a fiber Bragg grating sensor arrangement, in at least Figure 4, comprising: light emitting diode (41) for outputting light [46, 53]; a fiber (17) having a first end disposed to receive light output from the light emitting diode (left side) (Figure 4), the fiber including fiber Bragg grating etching [34]; a bonding agent coupling the fiber to a subject of measurement [29]; and a light detection circuit (including 43) disposed at a second end of the fiber for receiving light traveling through the fiber (Figure 4), the light detection circuit for sensing intensity of the received light that corresponds to strain or force applied to the subject of measurement [50 – 53, 76 - 78].
Park fails to expressly disclose the LED is a resonant cavity LED but does require the LED to have a broad wavelength bandwidth [46].
Brock teaches an LED which is a resonant cavity LED (Page 14, lines 29 – 31).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Park so that the LED is a resonant cavity LED for the benefit of utilizing a source known broad wavelength bandwidth that is also low cost, as taught by Brock (Page 14, lines 29 – 31).
Nevertheless, the combination fails to expressly disclose a reference fiber having a first end disposed to receive light output from the resonant cavity light emitting diode; and a reference light detection circuit disposed at a second end of the reference fiber for receiving light traveling through the reference fiber, the reference light detection circuit for sensing intensity of the received light that corresponds to no strain or force applied to the reference fiber.
Zhu teaches a reference fiber (fiber having reference grating) for sensing intensity of the received light that corresponds to no strain or force applied to the reference fiber (as it is suspended) [0004].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the combination to include a reference fiber and duplicate the light emitter and detector i.e. include a reference fiber having a first end disposed to receive light output from the resonant cavity light emitting diode; and a reference light detection circuit disposed at a second end of the reference fiber for receiving light traveling through the reference fiber, the reference light detection circuit for sensing intensity of the received light that corresponds to no strain or force applied to the reference fiber for the benefit of compensating for error caused by temperature changes, as taught by Zhu [0004].
Regarding Claim 11, the combination renders obvious a reference unit for receiving a light intensity signal from the light detection circuit (Park’s circuit) and a light intensity signal from the reference light detection circuit (as rendered obvious in the rejection of Claim 10 above), the reference unit determining the tensile, force or strain based on a comparison of the light intensity signal from the light detection circuit and the light intensity signal of the reference light detection circuit (Zhu teaches strain and temperature affect a single Bragg grating, utilizing the reference grating to eliminate effects due to temperature) [0004].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a reference unit to perform the steps as rendered obvious for the benefit of automating the data collection and output to the user.
Regarding Claim 12, Park discloses the light detection circuit includes a photodetector (43).
Park fails to expressly disclose the circuit includes a power source and an amplifier.
Examiner takes Official Notice it is common knowledge in the art to utilize a power source and amplifier with a photodetector as photodetectors often output a weak current and the power source and amplifier allow for conversion to a usable signal.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the combination to include a power source and an amplifier for the benefit of outputting a strong signal for further use.
Regarding Claim 13, Park discloses the fiber Bragg grating sensor arrangement is free from an optical circulator (Figure 4).
Regarding Claims 14, 15, and 19, Zhu disclose the reference fiber includes fiber Bragg grating etching [0004].
Nevertheless, the combination fails to expressly disclose whether the fibers are single-mode fibers or multimode fibers.
Examiner takes Official Notice it is common knowledge in the art single mode fibers are better for longer distances while multimode fibers are better for shorter distances.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the combination to utilize either a single mode fibers or a multimode fibers, including both being single mode fibers for the benefit of selecting a fiber whose characteristics best match the measuring situation e.g. distances between light source, grating, and light detector, as well as based on cost.
Regarding Claim 17, Park discloses the bonding agent is an adhesive securing a length of the fiber to the subject [29].
Regarding Claim 18, Park discloses the bonding agent is a cement (epoxy; Merriam-Webster defines cement as “binding element or agency: such as a substance to make objects adhere to each other”) bonding the fiber to the subject formed by the cement [29].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALEXANDER MERCADO whose telephone number is (571)270-7094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am - 4pm EST.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
ALEXANDER A. MERCADO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/ALEXANDER A MERCADO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights