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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 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].
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 (Zho 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
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