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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 01/26/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented below.
Claim(s) 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a first optical detection unit”, “a second optical detection unit”, “a calculation module” in claims 1 and 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2005/0046860 to Waagaard et al., in view of US Publication 2017/0205256 to Kim et al.
In regards to claims 1, 10 and 19, Waagaard discloses and shows in Figures 1 and 4, an optical fiber sensor system comprising:
a light source (104, 402) to generate an input light (par. 30-32, 70, 77);
an optical fiber sensor array (102) which utilizes a plurality of Bragg reflectors (108, 110) to generated one or more Fabry- Perot sensors (par. 31) (applicant’s optical fiber sensor) installed in a measurement target, and the optical fiber sensor to receive the input light from the light source and to output a signal light corresponding to a physical quantity change by a measurement target (par. 30-32, 70); and
an optical wavelength measuring device (107, 404) to detect the signal light outputted from the optical fiber sensor and to calculate a physical quantity applied to the optical fiber sensor (par. 30, 39, 70, 80; wherein a receiver or polarization diversity receiver is utilized to measure a plurality of interference signals in the time, frequency or wavelength domains; the signals being indicative of “physical parameters” such as temperature and pressure),
wherein the optical wavelength measuring device includes:
a first optical splitter (406) to split the signal light provided from the optical fiber sensor into a first split light and a second split light (par. 70) (Figure 4),
a first optical detection unit (4181, 4182) to detect the first split light outputted from the first optical splitter (par. 70) (Figure 4),
a polarization controller (414, 416) installed on an optical path of the second split light outputted from the first optical splitter, and the polarization controller to control a polarization state of the second split light (par. 70, 77) (Figure 4),
a second optical detection unit (4183, 4184) to detect the second split light which is polarization-controlled by the polarization controller (par. 70) (Figure 4), and
a calculation module (124) to calculate an optical wavelength of the signal light according to a physical quantity applied to the optical fiber sensor based on information detected by the first optical detection unit and the second optical detection unit (par. 30-33, 70, 80; wherein a computing unit is utilized to measure a plurality of interference signals in the time, frequency or wavelength domains; the signals being indicative of “physical parameters” such as temperature and pressure).
Waagaard differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the apparatus and method further comprising:
wherein the physical quantity is calculated by measuring a shift of a center wavelength of the signal light due to environmental changes applied to the optical fiber sensor.
However, Kim teaches and shows in Figures 1-4b, a fiber optic sensor system for measuring a physical force applied to a Fiber Bragg (FBG) sensor array (par. 3-4), wherein a sensing unit utilizes a “widely used” measurement technique of analyzing “a shift of an optical wavelength generated in the FBG to measure the physical amount” (par. 6-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Waagaard to include the measurement technique discussed above for the advantage of “improving performance and efficiency of a sensor system” (par. 17), with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claims 2-5, 11-14 and 20-23, Waagaard discloses and shows in Figure 4, the optical fiber sensor system:
wherein the first optical detection unit includes
a second optical splitter (408) splitting the first split light output from the first optical splitter into a first reference light and a first analysis light,
a first optical detector (4181) detecting the first reference light output from the second optical splitter, and
a second optical detector (4182) detecting the first analysis light;
[claims 5, 14, 23] wherein the first optical detector and the second optical detector detect optical intensities of the first reference light and the first analysis light, respectively (par. 31, 70, 80; wherein a receiver or polarization diversity receiver is utilized to measure a plurality of interference signals, comprised of a reference and interrogation beam, in the time, frequency or wavelength domains; the signals being indicative of “physical parameters” such as temperature and pressure).
Waagaard differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the system further comprising:
[claims 2, 11, 20] a first optical fiber filter installed on an optical path of the first analysis light output from the second optical splitter;
[claims 3, 12, 21] wherein the first optical fiber filter has optical absorption characteristics in a predetermined optical wavelength area;
[claims 4, 13, 22] wherein an optical absorption rate of the first optical fiber filter is linearly changed according to the optical wavelength.
However, Kim teaches and shows in Figures 1-4b and 15-16, an optical fiber sensor system for interrogating a sensing fiber in a measurement environment (par. 3, 6, 19-20), wherein the system may utilize a plurality of measuring devices (30-1, 30-2, 30-3) (par. 142) to separately measure a physical characteristic at the sensing fiber, and wherein each measurement device comprises:
[claims 2, 11, 20] a second optical splitter (31) splitting the first split light output from the first optical splitter into a first reference light and a first analysis light (par. 53-61, 64-65, 142),
a first optical detector (33) detecting the first reference light output from the second optical splitter (par. 53-61, 64-65, 142),
a first optical fiber filter (32) installed on an optical path of the first analysis light output from the second optical splitter (par. 25, 54-56, 66), and
a second optical detector (34) detecting the first analysis light passing through the first optical fiber filter (par. 53-61, 64-65, 142);
wherein the light absorption slope of the filter is easily controlled in order to remove “frequently varied external environment conditions such as vibration” and improve system stability (par. 26);
[claims 3, 12, 21] wherein the first optical fiber filter has optical absorption characteristics in a predetermined optical wavelength area (par. 25, 55, 66);
[claims 4, 13, 22] wherein an optical absorption rate of the first optical fiber filter is linearly changed according to the optical wavelength (par. 25, 55, 66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Waagaard to include the fiber filter discussed above for the advantage of removing “frequently varied external environment conditions such as vibration” and improving system stability (par. 26), with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claims 6-9, 15-18 and 24-27, Waagaard discloses and shows in Figure 4, the optical fiber sensor system:
wherein the second optical detection unit includes
a third optical splitter (410, 412) to split the second split light polarization-controlled by the polarization controller into second reference light and second analysis light,
a third optical detector (4183, 4185) detecting the second reference light output from the third optical splitter, and
a fourth optical detector (4184, 4186) to detect the second analysis light passing through the second optical fiber filter;
[claims 9, 18, 27] wherein the third and fourth optical detectors detect optical intensities of the second reference light and the second analysis light, respectively (par. 31, 70, 80; wherein a receiver or polarization diversity receiver is utilized to measure a plurality of interference signals, comprised of a reference and interrogation beam, in the time, frequency or wavelength domains; the signals being indicative of “physical parameters” such as temperature and pressure).
Waagaard differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the system further comprising:
[claims 6, 15, 24] a second optical fiber filter installed on an optical path of the second analysis light output from the third optical splitter;
[claims 7, 16, 25] wherein the second optical fiber filter has optical absorption characteristics in a predetermined optical wavelength area;
[claims 8, 17, 26] wherein an optical absorption rate of the second optical fiber filter is linearly changed according to the optical wavelength.
However, Kim teaches and shows in Figures 1-4b and 15-16, an optical fiber sensor system for interrogating a sensing fiber in a measurement environment (par. 3, 6, 19-20), wherein the system may utilize a plurality of measuring devices (30-1, 30-2, 30-3) (par. 142) to separately measure a physical characteristic at the sensing fiber, and wherein each measurement device comprises:
[claims 6, 15, 24] a third optical splitter (31) splitting the first split light output from the first optical splitter into a first reference light and a first analysis light (par. 53-61, 64-65, 142),
a third optical detector (33) detecting the second reference light output from the third optical splitter (par. 53-61, 64-65, 142),
a second optical fiber filter (32) installed on an optical path of the first analysis light output from the second optical splitter (par. 25, 54-56, 66), and
a fourth optical detector (34) detecting the first analysis light passing through the first optical fiber filter (par. 53-61, 64-65, 142);
wherein the light absorption slope of the filter is easily controlled in order to remove “frequently varied external environment conditions such as vibration” and improve system stability (par. 26);
[claims 7, 16, 25] wherein the second optical fiber filter has optical absorption characteristics in a predetermined optical wavelength area (par. 25, 55, 66);
[claims 8, 17, 26] wherein an optical absorption rate of the second optical fiber filter is linearly changed according to the optical wavelength (par. 25, 55, 66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Waagaard to include the fiber filter discussed above for the advantage of removing “frequently varied external environment conditions such as vibration” and improving system stability (par. 26), with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JONATHAN M HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8am to 4pm.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. 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.
JONATHAN M. HANSEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2877
/JONATHAN M HANSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877