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 .
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, seepage 1 of Remarks, filed 09/25/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3 under 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made below.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3 are objected to because of the following informalities: As claims 2-3 are also independent claims OFDR should be labeled in the same manner as in claim 1 (i.e. Optical Frequency Domain Reflectometry (OFDR)). Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the current measurement" in line 9, “the immediately preceding measurement” in lines 9-10 and “the time” in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the current measurement" in line 6, “the immediately preceding measurement” in lines 6-7, and “the time” in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the backscattered light” in line 4, "the current measurement" in line 6, “the immediately preceding measurement” in lines 6-7, and “the time” in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019235232 A1 (Okamoto2) (English machine translation provided previously) in light of US 20210231526 A1 (Seeley).
As to claims 1 and 2, Okamoto teaches a sensing system and method that includes a measuring device and an analyzing device, wherein the measuring device is configured to input a probe light whose frequency is swept once into an optical fiber ([0014] teaches probe light is swept and input into a sensing fiber, Fig. 1 shows frequency sweep light source 1, sensing fiber 6 with Lprobe traveling to it), and
repeatedly performing measurement using Optical Frequency Domain Reflectometry (OFDR) for acquiring a spectrum of a backscattered light ([0052] teaches repeated measurements of the OFDR of backscattered light, Fig. 6 shows distribution waveform of backscattered light [0044]) and
the analyzing device (analysis unit 11, Fig. 1) is configured to:
calculate an individual spectral shift that is an amount of change in the spectrum obtained in the current measurement ([0017] teaches calculating spectral shift at the measurement time, Fig. 6).
Okamoto2 is silent to: using the spectrum obtained in the immediately preceding measurement as a reference spectrum, and
integrate the individual spectral shift for each measurement up to the current measurement to give the spectral shift at the time of the current measurement.
However, Seeley, in the same field of endeavor of OFDR (abstract), generally teaches using the spectrum obtained in the preceding measurement as a reference spectrum [0063-0072], and
integrating the individual spectral shift for each measurement up to the current measurement to give the spectral shift at the time of the current measurement [0064].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art of Okamoto2 to include the teaching of Seeley, by trying to use the immediately preceding measurement as a reference spectrum and integrating the individual spectral shift for each measurement, in order to yield the predictable result of inferring a relative shift and absolute shift of the spectral shift [0064].
As to claim 3, Okamoto2 teaches an analyzing device (analysis unit 11, Fig. 1)
for analyzing spectrum obtained in measurement [0017] which a measuring device inputs a probe light whose frequency is swept once into an optical fiber ([0014] teaches frequency swept probe light is input into sensing fiber), and repeatedly performs measurement using OFDR for acquiring the spectrum of the backscattered light ([0052] teaches repeated measurements of the OFDR of backscattered light),
the analyzing device (11) configured to:
calculate an individual spectral shift ([0017] teaches calculating spectral shift at the measurement time) that is an amount of change in the spectrum obtained in the current measurement.
Okamoto2 is silent to: using the spectrum obtained in the immediately preceding measurement as a reference spectrum, and
integrate the individual spectral shift for each measurement up to the current measurement to give the spectral shift at the time of the current measurement.
However, Seeley, in the same field of endeavor of OFDR (abstract), generally teaches using the spectrum obtained in the preceding measurement as a reference spectrum [0063-0072], and
integrating the individual spectral shift for each measurement up to the current measurement to give the spectral shift at the time of the current measurement [0064].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art of Okamoto2 to include the teaching of Seeley, by trying to use the immediately preceding measurement as a reference spectrum and integrating the individual spectral shift for each measurement, in order to yield the predictable result of inferring a relative shift and absolute shift of the spectral shift [0064].
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art of record is Sweeney et al. (US 2021/0348971).
Sweeney teaches that it was known to calculate an individual spectral shift that is an amount of change in the spectrum obtained in the current measurement, using the spectrum obtained in the immediately preceding measurement as a reference spectrum, and integrate the individual spectral shift for each measurement up to the current measurement to give the spectral shift at the time of the current measurement (fig. 2 and ⁋ 6), and that it allows OFDR to resolve long strains beyond the capabilities of the static reference method.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARA E GEISEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2416. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm.
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, Allana Bidder can be reached at 571-272-5560. 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.
/KARA E. GEISEL/
Art Unit 2877