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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication to Askins 2007/0201793US.
In terms of Claim 1, Askins teaches a fiber optic strain sensor (Figure 1), comprising: a fiber optic cable (Figure 1: 10) defining a central axis (Figure 1: at 20) and including an axial optical fiber (Figure 1: 20) disposed along the central axis (at 20), and three helical optical fibers (Figure 1: 30, 32 and 34) disposed helically around the central axis (Figure 1: 30,32,34), said three helical optical fibers (30,32,34) being equidistantly spaced apart ([0019-0020]); and a strain sensing unit configured to measure axial strain distribution in the axial optical fiber and in the three helical optical fibers (Figure 1: 66, 62 and 64).
As for Claim 5, Askins teaches the fiber optic strain sensor of claim 1wherein the fiber optic cable further comprises a sheath on which the three helical optical fibers are mounted (Figure 3: 120).
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.
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over unpatentable over the US Patent Application Publication to Askins 2007/0201793US in view of the US Patent Application Publication to Racosky 2017/0010412US.
In regards to Claims 2 and 6, Askins teaches the device of Claim 1, and 5.
Askins does not teach wherein the fiber sensor is coated with thermoplastic copolyester and wherein the sheath is made of elastomeric material.
Racosky teaches fiber sensor (Figure 1) wherein the fiber sensor when operation in a pressure environment may be coated with a thermoplastic material that is polyester base (Figure 3: 304 and [0018]). Polyester used by Racosky are also known to be elastomeric ([0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of coating / sheath layer to be made of elastomeric thermoplastic polyester in order to improve the sensing capabilities of the fiber sensor ([0018]).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over unpatentable over the US Patent Application Publication to Askins 2007/0201793US in view of the US Patent Application Publication to Godfrey 2017/0292862US.
In regards to Claims 3 and 4, Askins teaches the fiber optic strain sensor of claim 1, wherein the fiber optic cable (Figure 1: 10) have plurality of fiber sensors arranged in a helical pattern.
Askins does not teach wherein the fiber optic cable further comprises a plurality of wires helically wound around the axial optical fiber, and wherein the fiber optic cable further comprises a plurality of wire ropes helically wound around the plurality of wires.
Godfrey does wherein the fiber optic cable that acts as fiber sensor (Figure 4: 301; abstract teaches the fiber can sense pressure and strain) further comprises a plurality of wires (Figure 5b: 304a and 304b) helically wound around the axial optical fiber (Figure 4: 304 is helically wound around 301), and wherein the fiber optic cable (301) further comprises a plurality of wire ropes helically wound around the plurality of wires Figure 7a: teaches wherein the wires can be organize as groups shown by element 704). Figure 5b illustrates wherein the two wire strain member 304a and 304 are helically wound around each other hence if they are groups then the groups of wires being helically wound around similar to 304a and 304b will meet the limitations “wherein the fiber optic cable further comprises a plurality of wire ropes helically wound around the plurality of wires” wherein the second group will be considered “wire ropes” since the wires can interleave to form a rope configuration ([0026]), while first group will be considered “wires”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Askins to have the helically wound wires and helically wound wire ropes as described in order to improve the detection sensitivity of the device ([0033]).
Claims 7, 11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over unpatentable over the US Patent Application Publication to Askins 2007/0201793US in view of the US Patent Application Publication to Wilson 2022/0206172US.
In regards to Claims 7, 11, and method claim 13, Askins teaches the device and method of using of claim 1, and configured to calculate, from the measured axial strain distribution in the axial optical fiber ([0039]); and in the three helical optical fibers ([0039]), axial strain distribution in the fiber optic cable ([0020]), pressure distribution in the fiber optic cable, bending distribution in the fiber optic cable in a first direction ([0023]), and bending distribution in the fiber optic cable in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (Claim 6); wherein the fiber optic cable further comprises a sheath (Figure 3: 120) on which the three helical optical fibers are mounted (Figure 3: 120).
Askins does not teach using a processing server to perform the calculations and wherein the calculations can be used in seismic monitoring applications in a buried enviroment.
Wilson does teach using processing server (Figure 1: 124 and other computer components can function as a server [0012]) to perform the calculations ([0012]) and wherein the calculations can be used in seismic monitoring applications ([0007] and [0012]) in a buried environment (Figure 1a: wherein the detection system is underground and buried). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a computer to function as processing server to perform analytical calculations from a fiber sensor for seismic monitor of pressure and strain in buried enviroments. The modification will allow for deeper analytical calculations / monitoring in real time that more simple detection devices is unable to perform and distribute the data.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Askins 2007/0201793US / Wilson 2022/0206172US as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication to Racosky 2017/0010412US.
In regards to Claim 8, Askins / Wilson teaches the seismic monitoring system of Claim 7.
Askins / Wilson do not teach wherein the axial optical fiber and the three helical optical fibers are each coated with thermoplastic copolyester.
Racosky teaches fiber sensor (Figure 1) wherein the fiber sensor when operation in a pressure environment may be coated with a thermoplastic material that is polyester base (Figure 3: 304 and [0018]). Polyester used by Racosky are also known to be elastomeric ([0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of coating / sheath layer to be made of elastomeric thermoplastic polyester in order to improve the sensing capabilities of the fiber sensor ([0018]).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Askins 2007/0201793US / Wilson 2022/0206172US as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication to Godfrey 2017/0292862US.
In regards to Claim 9-10, Askins / Wilson teaches the seismic monitoring system of Claim 7.
Askins / Wilson do not teach wherein the fiber optic cable further comprises a plurality of wires helically wound around the axial optical fiber; wherein the fiber optic cable further comprises a plurality of wire ropes helically wound around the plurality of wires.
Godfrey does wherein the fiber optic cable that acts as fiber sensor (Figure 4: 301; abstract teaches the fiber can sense pressure and strain) further comprises a plurality of wires (Figure 5b: 304a and 304b) helically wound around the axial optical fiber (Figure 4: 304 is helically wound around 301), and wherein the fiber optic cable (301) further comprises a plurality of wire ropes helically wound around the plurality of wires Figure 7a: teaches wherein the wires can be organize as groups shown by element 704). Figure 5b illustrates wherein the two wire strain member 304a and 304 are helically wound around each other hence if they are groups then the groups of wires being helically wound around similar to 304a and 304b will meet the limitations “wherein the fiber optic cable further comprises a plurality of wire ropes helically wound around the plurality of wires” wherein the second group will be considered “wire ropes” since the wires can interleave to form a rope configuration ([0026]), while first group will be considered “wires”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Askins to have the helically wound wires and helically wound wire ropes as described in order to improve the detection sensitivity of the device ([0033]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Askins 2007/0201793US / Wilson 2022/0206172US as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication to Racosky 2017/0010412US.
In regards to Claim 12, Askins / Wilson teaches the system of Claim 11.
Askins / Wilson do not teach wherein the sheath is made of elastomeric material.
Racosky teaches fiber sensor (Figure 1) wherein the fiber sensor when operation in a pressure environment may be coated with a thermoplastic material that is polyester base (Figure 3: 304 and [0018]). Polyester used by Racosky are also known to be elastomeric ([0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of coating / sheath layer to be made of elastomeric thermoplastic polyester in order to improve the sensing capabilities of the fiber sensor ([0018]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Application Publication to Eriendsson 2022/0163748US teaches an optical sensor having helically wound fibers around a central axis.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOANG Q TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5049. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 5:30pm Monday - Friday.
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 5712722397. 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.
/HOANG Q TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874