DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/15/2024 and 08/28/2025 being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 3-18 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3 (and claims 4-18 by dependency): “the second optical path length” lacks antecedent basis. Further, claim 3 recites “the second optical path length L2(T, P) between the first and second parallel faces”. Claim 2, on which claim 3 depends, recites “the first optical path length…between the first and second parallel faces”. Still further, claim 1 (on which each of claims 2-3 depend) recites that L2(T0, P0) is the distance between the mirrored face of the diaphragm and the second face of the optical plate. As such, claim 3 is indefinite. For the purposes of examination and in light of the specification, claim 3 is interpreted as reciting “wherein: a second fundamental resonant frequency f2=c/(2L2(T, P)) is determined by the second optical path length L2(T, P) between the second face of the optical plate and the mirrored face of the diaphragm”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dong et al. (US 20180058949 A1).Regarding claim 1:Dong teaches a system for measuring pressure of an external environment (abstract), the system comprising:
an optical plate (e.g., FIGS. 14-15, 205; [0044], [0062], [0067], claims 51-52) with nominal thickness L1(T0) measured along an axis perpendicular to first and second parallel faces that are partially reflective to light normally incident thereon from within the optical plate, thereby forming a first Fabry-Perot interferometer between the first and second parallel faces (Plate 205 having R3 and R4 constitutes OPDb, which is primarily temperature sensitive and considered a first Fabry-Perot interferometer. OPDp is between R2 and R3 which is primarily sensitive to pressure and considered a second Fabry-Perot interferometer.);
a diaphragm (e.g., FIGS. 14-15, 202; [0038]) having a mirrored face substantially parallel to and separated from the second face of the optical plate, the diaphragm deforming in response to changes in the pressure of the external environment thereby moving the mirrored face;
an optical cavity (FIG. 14 - cavity between R2 and R3; also see FIG. 2A, 206 and [0038]) formed between the mirrored face of the diaphragm and the second face of the optical plate and spaced by a separating member (this is met in two separate ways: firstly, FIGS. 2B-2C and [0039] specify that there may be a machined cavity or a spacer; secondly, the separating member may be interpreted as the part of 202 in FIG. 14 that is below the line generally indicated by R2), the separating member separating the mirrored face of the diaphragm and the second face of the optical plate by a nominal separation distance L2(T0, P0) forming a second Fabry-Perot interferometer within the optical cavity between the second face of the optical plate and the mirrored face of the diaphragm(Plate 205 having R3 and R4 constitutes OPDb, which is primarily temperature sensitive and considered a first Fabry-Perot interferometer. OPDp is between R2 and R3 which is primarily sensitive to pressure and considered a second Fabry-Perot interferometer.); and
a graded-index (GRIN) lens that is axially aligned with and adjacent to the first Fabry-Perot interferometer, the GRIN lens configured to receive, at a first face of the GRIN lens, a diverging optical beam projected from an end face of an optical fiber and to collimate the diverging optical beam so as to transmit a collimated optical beam from a second face of the GRIN lens to the first and second Fabry-Perot interferometers(claims 57-59; [0048]-[0049])
Regarding claim 19:Dong teaches a method for measuring pressure of an external environment (abstract), the method comprising:
forming a first Fabry-Perot interferometer between first and second parallel faces of an optical plate (e.g., FIGS. 14-15, 205; [0044], [0062], [0067], claims 51-52) with nominal thickness L1(T0) measured along an axis perpendicular to first and second parallel faces, which are partially reflective to light normally incident thereon from within the optical plate(Plate 205 having R3 and R4 constitutes OPDb, which is primarily temperature sensitive and considered a first Fabry-Perot interferometer. OPDp is between R2 and R3 which is primarily sensitive to pressure and considered a second Fabry-Perot interferometer.);
deflecting, in response to changes in the pressure of the external environment, a diaphragm (e.g., FIGS. 14-15, 202; [0038]) having a mirrored face substantially parallel to and separated from the second face of the optical plate, thereby moving the mirrored face;
forming a second Fabry-Perot interferometer within an optical cavity (FIG. 14 - cavity between R2 and R3; also see FIG. 2A, 206 and [0038]) formed between a mirrored face of a diaphragm and the second face of the optical plate; separating the mirrored face of a diaphragm and the second face of the optical plate by a nominal separation distance L2(T0) using a separating member (this is met in two separate ways: firstly, FIGS. 2B-2C and [0039] specify that there may be a machined cavity or a spacer; secondly, the separating member may be interpreted as the part of 202 in FIG. 14 that is below the line generally indicated by R2); and (Plate 205 having R3 and R4 constitutes OPDb, which is primarily temperature sensitive and considered a first Fabry-Perot interferometer. OPDp is between R2 and R3 which is primarily sensitive to pressure and considered a second Fabry-Perot interferometer.)
collimating a diverging optical beam projected from an end face of an optical fiber (fiber generally designated as 300 in FIG. 14; however, also see citations below regarding the GRIN) using a graded-index (GRIN) lens that is axially aligned with and adjacent to the first Fabry-Perot interferometer(claims 57-59; [0048]-[0049])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 of this title, 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 2-6, 8, 14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Dong et al. (US 20180058949 A1).Regarding claim 2:Dong teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Dong also teaches:
wherein: the optical plate is comprised of a material of index n(T) and having a non-zero coefficient of linear thermal expansion α (e.g., FIGS. 14-15, 205; [0044], [0062], [0067]. The examiner notes that it inherently has a material index dependent on temperature and, further, the way it is used for temperature sensing necessitates a non-zero coefficient of linear thermal expansion. Further, the materials recited by Dong have a non-zero coefficient of linear thermal expansion.); and a first fundamental resonant frequency (e.g., [0062]-[0064], claim 51, claim 61)
Regarding the limitation of “a first fundamental resonant frequency f1=c/(2n(T)L1(T0)(1+α (T-T0)) is determined by the first optical path length n(T)L1(T0)(1+α(T-T0)) between the first and second parallel faces”. The examiner initially notes that, “when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent”. See MPEP 2112.01 I. Further, the second equation of claim 2 is merely the length the light travels between the first and second faces of the optical plate. This is inherently represented by the recited formula. [0062] of Dong teaches “[t]he OPD of an FP cavity may be given by the product of the cavity geometric distance and the index of refraction of the material in the cavity”. Essentially, the thickness of the “optical plate” changes with temperature. This change in thickness results in a change in the distance the light travels. The equation for optical path length = n(T)L1(T0)(1+α(T-T0)) is merely the inherent formula for the path length at a given temperature T. The first equation of claim 2 is merely the speed of the light c divided by twice the path length, e.g., c/2d, where d is the distance the light travels between the first face and the second face. Light travels a distance d (between the first face and second face), is reflected back, and travels the distance d again (between the second face and the first face). Thus, f1 being c/2d is a fundamental property of physics and a fundamental property of Fabry-Perot interferometers.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood (see 112b rejection above):Dong teaches or renders obvious all the limitations of claim 2, as mentioned above.Dong also teaches or renders obvious:
wherein: a second fundamental resonant frequency f2=c/(2L2(T, P)) is determined by the second optical path length L2(T, P) between the second face of the optical plate and the mirrored face of the diaphragm
This claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood (see 112b rejection above):Dong teaches or renders obvious all the limitations of claim 3, as mentioned above.Dong also teaches:
an optical interrogator that generates and transmits an optical beam to the optical fiber and receives a reflected portion of the optical beam reflected by the first and second Fabry-Perot interferometers, the optical interrogator further configured to determine the pressure of the external environment based on the reflected portion received(abstract, [0035], [0062]-[0064], [0067]-[0068], claim 61)
Regarding claim 5, as best understood (see 112b rejection above):Dong teaches or renders obvious all the limitations of claim 4, as mentioned above.Dong also teaches:
wherein the first and second optical path lengths are different from one another (e.g., claim 51, claim 61, [0062])
Regarding claim 6, as best understood (see 112b rejection above):Dong teaches or renders obvious all the limitations of claim 5, as mentioned above.Dong also teaches:
wherein the first and second optical path lengths are not integer multiples of one another throughout the specified ranges of temperatures and pressures of the external environment (e.g., claim 51, claim 61, [0062])
Regarding claim 8, as best understood (see 112b rejection above):Dong teaches or renders obvious all the limitations of claim 6, as mentioned above.Dong also teaches:
wherein the first and second resonant frequencies are not integer multiples of one another (e.g., claim 51, claim 61, [0062])
Regarding claim 14, as best understood (see 112b rejection above):Dong teaches or renders obvious all the limitations of claim 4, as mentioned above.Dong also teaches:
wherein: neither the first parallel face of the optical plate (FIG. 14 - 205) nor the second parallel face of the optical plate is exposed to the pressure of the external environment
Regarding claim 16, as best understood (see 112b rejection above):Dong teaches or renders obvious all the limitations of claim 4, as mentioned above.Dong also teaches:
wherein the first face of the GRIN lens is fused to the optical fiber([0050])
Regarding claim 17, as best understood (see 112b rejection above):Dong teaches or renders obvious all the limitations of claim 4, as mentioned above.Dong also teaches:
wherein the separation member (this is met in two separate ways: firstly, FIGS. 2B-2C and [0039] specify that there may be a machined cavity or a spacer; secondly, the separating member may be interpreted as the part of 202 in FIG. 14 that is below the line generally indicated by R2) circumscribes the cavity
Regarding claim 18, as best understood (see 112b rejection above):Dong teaches or renders obvious all the limitations of claim 4, as mentioned above.Dong also teaches:
wherein the optical plate comprises material selected from the group consisting of: MgAl2O4 spinel ceramic, aluminum oxynitride Al23N27O5 ceramic, Nd doped YAG, LaGd doped hafnium or zirconium oxide, polycrystalline Al2O3, or single crystal Al2O3(sapphire which is single crystal Al2O3; e.g., [0003], claim 51)
Regarding claim 20:Dong teaches all the limitations of claim 19, as mentioned above.Dong also teaches:
wherein: the optical plate is comprised of a material of index n and having a non-zero coefficient of linear thermal expansion α (e.g., FIGS. 14-15, 205; [0044], [0062], [0067]. The examiner notes that it inherently has a material index dependent on temperature and, further, the way it is used for temperature sensing necessitates a non-zero coefficient of linear thermal expansion. Further, the materials recited by Dong have a non-zero coefficient of linear thermal expansion.); and a first fundamental resonant frequency (e.g., [0062]-[0064], claim 51, claim 61)
Regarding the limitation of “a first fundamental resonant frequency f1=c/(2n(T)L1(T0)(1+α(T-T0)) is determined by the first optical path length n(T)L1(T0)(1+α(T-T0)) between the first and second parallel faces”: The examiner initially notes that, “when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent”. See MPEP 2112.01 I. Further, the second equation of claim 2 is merely the length the light travels between the first and second faces of the optical plate. This is inherently represented by the recited formula. [0062] of Dong teaches “[t]he OPD of an FP cavity may be given by the product of the cavity geometric distance and the index of refraction of the material in the cavity”. Essentially, the thickness of the “optical plate” changes with temperature. This change in thickness results in a change in the distance the light travels. The equation for optical path length = n(T)L1(T0)(1+α(T-T0)) is merely the inherent formula for the path length at a given temperature T. The first equation of claim 2 is merely the speed of the light c divided by twice the path length, e.g., c/2d, where d is the distance the light travels between the first face and the second face. Light travels a distance d (between the first face and second face), is reflected back, and travels the distance d again (between the second face and the first face). Thus, f1 being c/2d is a fundamental property of physics and a fundamental property of Fabry-Perot interferometers.
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong et al. (US 20180058949 A1) in view of Pechstedt et al. (US 20150020599 A1).Regarding claim 9, as best understood (see 112b rejection above):Dong teaches or renders obvious all the limitations of claim 4, as mentioned above.Dong also teaches:
the optical interrogator uses a tunable laser to scan wavelengths/frequencies ([0064]-[0066])Dong fail to teach
wherein the optical interrogator is further configured to scan frequencies of the optical beam generated to sweep through the first and second fundamental resonant frequencies of the first and second Fabry-Perot interferometers, respectivelyPechstedt teaches:
wherein the optical interrogator is further configured to scan frequencies of the optical beam generated to sweep through the first and second fundamental resonant frequencies of the first and second Fabry-Perot interferometers, respectively ([0039]-[0041])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the tunable laser interrogation system of Dong to scan frequencies to sweep through, because Dong’s tunable laser necessarily scans through the spectral range encompassing both FPIs in order to obtain the interference spectrum needed for FFT demodulation of the multiple OPDs ([0064]). Pechstedt confirms that scanning wavelength laser sources are a known interrogation approach for dual-FP pressure/temperature sensors operating on the same principle.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood (see 112b rejection above):Dong and Pechstedt teach or render obvious all the limitations of claim 9, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 9 rejection above, Dong and Pechstedt teach:
wherein the optical interrogator is further configured to determine the first and second fundamental resonant frequencies of the first and second Fabry-Perot interferometers, respectively, based on the reflected portion received
Don’t teaches that the interrogator determines the OPDs (and hence the resonant frequencies) of the FPIs from the reflected optical spectrum ([0064]). Pechstedt further teaches that the interrogator determines the optical path lengths of the pressure sensing and temperature sensing cavities from the reflected probe light ([0015], [0054]).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood (see 112b rejection above):Dong and Pechstedt teach or render obvious all the limitations of claim 10, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 9 rejection above, Dong and Pechstedt teach:
wherein the optical interrogator determines pressure based on the first and second fundamental resonant frequencies of the first and second Fabry-Perot interferometers, respectively(Dong - [0062]-[0072]; Pechstedt - [0015], [0039]-[0041], [0054])
Regarding claim 12, as best understood (see 112b rejection above):Dong and Pechstedt teach or render obvious all the limitations of claim 11, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 9 rejection above, Dong and Pechstedt teach:
wherein the optical interrogator determines temperature based on the first fundamental resonant frequency of the first Fabry-Perot interferometer(Dong - [0062]-[0072]; Pechstedt - [0015], [0039]-[0041], [0054])
Regarding claim 13, as best understood (see 112b rejection above):Dong and Pechstedt teach or render obvious all the limitations of claim 12, as mentioned above.Dong fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the optical interrogator determines pressure based on the temperature determined and further based on the second fundamental resonant frequency of the second Fabry-Perot interferometerPechstedt teaches:
wherein the optical interrogator determines pressure based on the temperature determined ([0066]-[0074])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to compensate the pressure measurement using the temperature measurement to yield increased pressure measurement accuracy. It is noted that the remaining limitations are met by the citations provided in claims 9-12, on which this claim depends.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong et al. (US 20180058949 A1) in view of Gibler et al. (US 8432552 B2).Regarding claim 15, as best understood (see 112b rejection above):Dong teaches or renders obvious all the limitations of claim 14, as mentioned above.Dong appears, but fails to explicitly, teach:
a hermetically sealed housing that isolates the first and second parallel faces of the optical plate from pressures of the external environment(e.g., [0034], [0044])Gibler teaches:
a hermetically sealed housing (FIG. 9 - 910) that isolates pressures of the external environment
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the probe of Dong in the flexible probe housing of Gibler to further protect the device and allow for a flexible sensor design which may be placed in difficult location (Gibler - Col. 5, Line 52 through Col. 6, Line 5). It is noted that Dong appears to teach a housing in [0034] and [0044].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong et al. (US 20180058949 A1) in view of Hsieh et al. (US 20050270544 A1).Regarding claim 7, as best understood (see 112b rejection above):Dong teaches or renders obvious all the limitations of claim 6, as mentioned above.Dong fails to explicitly teach:
wherein a ratio of the first and second optical path lengths is between 1.3 and 1.7 or between 2.3 and 2.7Hsieh teaches:
wherein a ratio of the first and second optical path lengths is between 1.3 and 1.7 or between 2.3 and 2.7(e.g., claim 5, claim 12, Table 1)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an optical path length ratio of 1.5, as taught by Hsieh, in the device of Dong because Dong requires that the OPD harmonics of the two interferometers not coincide, and a 1.5x ratio (a non-integer ratio), as evidenced by Hsieh, is a well-known design choice to ensure spectral separation.
The examiner notes that, although Hsieh is not directed to pressure sensing, Hsieh is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, Dong, and Hsieh, which is selecting an optimal ratio between paired Fabry-Perot/etalon cavity lengths to avoid spectral overlap between their interference patterns. Both Dong and Hsieh address the same underlying optical design problem of managing harmonic overlap between paired cavities by selecting appropriate path length ratios.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Herbert Keith Roberts whose telephone number is (571)270-0428. The examiner can normally be reached 10a - 6p MT.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at (571) 272-2375. 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.
/HERBERT K ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855