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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-21, in the reply filed on 06/01/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 22-43 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions of Groups II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/01/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
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: “control unit” in at least claim 1.
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
A control unit – the specification and the claims do not appear to disclose any structural features of the control unit, only that the functions control unit (see at least paragraph sections [0078]-[0086] of the Pub No. 2025/0180426).
An optical characteristic detection unit - the specification and the claims do not appear to disclose any structural features of the control unit, only that the functions control unit (see at least paragraph sections [0064]-[0083] of the Pub No. 2025/0180426)
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation of “an optical characteristic detection unit” appears to lack any corresponding structures for performing the corresponding functions of detecting an optical characteristic of the optical fiber; and the recitation of “a control unit” appears to lack any corresponding structures for performing the corresponding functions of storing normal optical characteristics range and determining that hydrogen is leaking. The claim is incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements (see MPEP § 2172.01). The omitted elements are: the structure(s) for performing the corresponding functions of detecting an optical characteristic of the optical fiber, and the structure(s) for performing the corresponding function of storing normal optical characteristics range and determining that hydrogen is leaking.
Furthermore, the claim recites “an optical characteristic detection unit capable of detecting an optical characteristic value […] detected by the optical characteristic detection unit” without clarifying whether the optical characteristic detection unit is configured to detect the optical characteristic value as part of the hydrogen detection unit (1); or that the optical characteristic detection is only capable of performing the detection but is not explicitly being configured to perform the claimed function (2). For examination purposes, this limitation will be interpreted according to (1).
The phrase “hydrogen is not detected from the at least one optical fiber” does not specify whether the “hydrogen” not being detected is (3) the hydrogen leakage not being detected or (4) the presence of the hydrogen in the transport pipeline not being detected. For examination purposes, this limitation will be interpreted according to (3).
The claim recites “an optical characteristic of the optical fiber” and “an optical characteristic value of the at least one optical fiber” without explaining whether these “optical characteristic” and “optical characteristic value” refer to the same or different measurements.
The phrase “an optical characteristic value of the at least one optical fiber detected by the optical characteristic detection unit is determined to exceed the normal optical characteristic range” does not specify the device for determining that the optical characteristic value exceeds the normal range. The claim discloses that the optical characteristic of the optical fiber and the optical characteristic value of the at least one optical fiber is detected by the optical characteristic detection unit. The claim does not disclose whether the determination that the optical characteristic value exceeding the normal range is made by the control unit, the optical characteristic detection unit, or something else. The claim incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements (see MPEP § 2172.01). The omitted elements are: the structural element for determining that the optical characteristic value exceeds the normal range.
Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 9, the term “loosely” in the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “loosely” is not defined by claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, the term “loosely” would be considered as the optical fiber having unattached segments. Further clarification is respectfully requested
Regarding claim 10, the term “tightly” in the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “tightly” is not defined by claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, the term “tightly” would be considered as the optical fiber having attached segments. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claims 2-8 and 11-21 are rejected as being dependent on the rejected base claim.
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.
(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 1-2, 9-13, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Brower (Pub. No. US 2010/0229662) (hereafter Brower).
Regarding claim 1, Brower teaches a hydrogen leak detection system for a hydrogen transport pipeline including
a pipe-shaped transport inner pipe (i.e., internal pipe 20) (see Fig. 5) for transporting a hydrogen fluid (i.e., uses could include transfer lines for floating liquid natural gas production, storage, and offloading vessels, liquid hydrogen and oxygen fueling lines for aerospace or other applications, and all applications that need to transport cryogenic products through pipelines) (see paragraph section [0033]) and
an outer protection layer surrounding an outer circumference of the transport inner pipe (i.e., external casing pipe 24) (see Fig. 5), the hydrogen leak detection system comprising:
a hydrogen detection unit including at least one optical fiber unit disposed in a longitudinal direction of the hydrogen transport pipeline (i.e., fiber optic sensor system 44) (see Fig. 5) and including at least one optical fiber (i.e., a combination of optical sensing distributed methods plus an array of fiber Bragg gratings (FBG's) and Fabry Perot (FP)) (see paragraph section [0112]) for detecting hydrogen leaking from the transport inner pipe (i.e., a system to monitor the pressures and temperatures within the cryogenic carrier pipe and in the annular space to monitor the efficiency of the thermal insulation and to monitor and detect for internal leaks or for external internal interference from a security point of view) (see paragraph section [0075]) and
an optical fiber protection layer surrounding the at least one optical fiber (i.e., nanoporous insulation material 22 fills the space between the external casing pipe 24 and the internal pipe 20) (see Fig. 5),
an optical signal generator for providing an optical signal to the at least one optical fiber (i.e., laser or LED light source 50) (see Fig. 6), and an optical characteristic detection unit capable of detecting an optical characteristic of the optical fiber (i.e., detector 52) (see Fig. 6); and
a control unit (i.e., computer and fiber optic based interrogator) (see paragraph sections [0093]-[0124]) for
storing a normal optical characteristic range of the at least one optical fiber for a normal state in which hydrogen is not detected from the at least one optical fiber (i.e., to measure response the fiber is exposed to an interference pattern of coherent light. A permanent grating is set up with the interference pattern and each grating is designed to reflect certain wavelengths) (see paragraph sections [0093]-[0124]), and
determining that hydrogen is leaking from the hydrogen transport pipeline (i.e., interrogator allows for continuous temperature, pressure, strain and leak detection monitoring over any specified time period) (see paragraph sections [0093]-[0124]) when an optical characteristic value of the at least one optical fiber detected by the optical characteristic detection unit is determined to exceed the normal optical characteristic range (i.e., monitoring of temperature and strain is continuous over the duration of the pipeline life. During startup and shutdown operations the monitoring system measures and displays the temperature profile along the entire length of the pipeline and differential temperatures within the cross section of pipe. The system measures strain, temperature and pressure over very long distances (currently 100 km) in real-time. In the event of a leak, an alarm will report within a few seconds (.about.2 sec) that a leak is present. Within approximately two minutes the leak location can be identified within several meters) (see paragraph sections [0093]-[0124]).
Regarding claim 2, Brower teaches that the transport inner pipe includes a hydrogen blocking layer (i.e., internal cryogenic product pipe for LNG vapor or LPG service is a rigid pipe such as, by way of example the ASTM 333 Grade 8, 9% nickel steel pipe 20) (see paragraph section [0067]).
Regarding claim 9, Brower teaches that the at least one optical fiber unit is a loose tube-type optical fiber unit in which the at least one optical fiber is loosely accommodated in the optical fiber protection layer having a tube shape (i.e., fiber optic sensor system 44 In the annulus between the inner pipe 22 and the outer casing 24, preferably installed on the external wall of internal pipe 20) (see paragraph section [0068]).
Regarding claim 10, Brower teaches that the at least one optical fiber unit is a tight buffer-type optical fiber unit including the optical fiber protection layer that tightly surrounds an outer circumference of the at least one optical fiber (i.e., fiber optic sensor system 44 In the annulus between the inner pipe 22 and the outer casing 24, preferably installed on the external wall of internal pipe 20) (see paragraph section [0068]).
Regarding claim 11, Brower teaches that the at least one optical fiber unit is disposed between the transport inner pipe and the outer protection layer (i.e., fiber optic sensor system 44 In the annulus between the inner pipe 22 and the outer casing 24, preferably installed on the external wall of internal pipe 20) (see paragraph section [0068]).
Regarding claim 12, Brower teaches that the at least one optical fiber unit is spirally wound in a spiral shape around the outer circumference of the transport inner pipe (i.e., fiber optic sensor system 44 In the annulus between the inner pipe 22 and the outer casing 24, preferably installed on the external wall of internal pipe 20) (see paragraph section [0068] and Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 13, Brower teaches that the outer protection layer includes a structure reinforcement layer surrounding the outer circumference of the transport inner pipe, and an outermost layer surrounding an outer circumference of the structure reinforcement layer (i.e., circumferential clamps 110) (see Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 18, Brower teaches that the control unit determines a degree of a hydrogen leak from the hydrogen transport pipeline according to a degree by which the optical characteristic value of the at least one optical fiber deviates from the normal optical characteristic range (i.e., data is analyzed and displayed with real-time computer/software algorithms to determine temperature, pressure, leaks, thermal and mechanical strain, intrusion, service-life and can identify potential problems as they occur) (see paragraph section [0021]).
Regarding claim 19, Brower teaches that the control unit determines that the hydrogen is not leaking when the optical characteristic value of the at least one optical fiber for the hydrogen, which is detected by the optical characteristic detection unit, exceeds the normal optical characteristic range and remains within the normal optical characteristic range for a predetermined time or more (i.e., data is analyzed and displayed with real-time computer/software algorithms to determine temperature, pressure, leaks, thermal and mechanical strain, intrusion, service-life and can identify potential problems as they occur) (see paragraph section [0021]).
Regarding claim 20, Brower teaches that the control unit calculates a hydrogen leak location of the hydrogen transport pipeline based on the optical characteristic value detected by the optical characteristic detection unit (i.e., data is analyzed and displayed with real-time computer/software algorithms to determine temperature, pressure, leaks, thermal and mechanical strain, intrusion, service-life and can identify potential problems as they occur) (see paragraph section [0021]).
Regarding claim 21, Bower teaches a communication unit for transmitting data to an external device, wherein the control unit controls the communication unit to transmit information on the hydrogen transport pipeline, which includes the calculated hydrogen leak location of the hydrogen transport pipeline and cut-off of hydrogen supply to the hydrogen transport pipeline, to a preset external device (i.e., the sensor system 44 provides a means for monitoring heat-flux, temperature, pressure and strain on the internal pipe. A coupler 46 is attached to the outer pipe or casing 24 for receiving the inputs from the fiber optic sensors 44 and transmitting them to a monitoring station) (see paragraph section [0075]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3, 6-8, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brower (Pub. No. US 2010/0229662) (hereafter Brower)
Regarding claim 3, Brower as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that a hydrogen permeability coefficient of the hydrogen blocking layer at 25° C. and 1.5 bar is less than or equal to 1 cm3 cm/(m2 24 h atm). However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a suitable material as the hydrogen blocking layer. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07) and that discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)).
Regarding claim 6, Brower as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that a hydrogen permeability coefficient of the optical fiber protection layer at 25° C. and 1.5 bar is greater than or equal to 10 times a hydrogen permeability coefficient of the hydrogen blocking layer at 25° C. and 1.5 bar. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a suitable material as the protection layer. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07) and that discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)).
Regarding claim 7, Brower as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that a hydrogen permeability coefficient of the optical fiber protection layer at 25° C. and 1.5 bar is greater than or equal to 10 cm3 cm/(m2 24 h atm). However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a suitable material as the protection layer. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07) and that discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)).
Regarding claim 8, Brower teaches that the optical fiber protection layer (i.e., highly efficient insulation 22 in an ambient environment, wherein the nanoporous insulation is hydro-phobic, in that the pore spaces are smaller than water molecules) (see paragraph section [0068]); but does not explicitly teach that the layer includes at least one of polyvinyl chloride (PVC), nylon, low-smoke zero-halogen (LSZH), polyethylene (PE), and polypropylene (PP). However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a suitable material for the protection layer that would not interference with the leak detection. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 17, Brower teaches that the control unit determines that the hydrogen is leaking when a detected optical loss of the optical signal exceeds the normal optical loss range (i.e., data is analyzed and displayed with real-time computer/software algorithms to determine temperature, pressure, leaks, thermal and mechanical strain, intrusion, service-life and can identify potential problems as they occur) (see paragraph section [0021]); but does not explicitly teach that the normal optical characteristic range of the at least one optical fiber is a normal optical loss range in a wavelength band of 1240 nm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the suitable wavelength band as threshold. Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II-B)).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brower (Pub. No. US 2010/0229662) (hereafter Brower) in view of Quigley et al. (Pat. No. US 6,361,299) (hereafter Quigley).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Brower as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the transport inner pipe includes a transport inner layer, a hydrogen blocking layer surrounding the transport inner layer, and a transport outer layer surrounding the hydrogen blocking layer (claim 4);
wherein the transport inner layer and the hydrogen blocking layer, and the hydrogen blocking layer and the transport outer layer adhere to each other by an adhesive layer (claim 5).
Regarding the inner and outer layers, Quigley teaches that the transport inner pipe includes a transport inner layer (i.e., inner protective layer 80) (see Fig. 10), a hydrogen blocking layer surrounding the transport inner layer (i.e., inner pressure barrier layer 12) (see Fig. 10), and a transport outer layer surrounding the hydrogen blocking layer (i.e., composite layer 14) (see Fig. 10) (claim 4);
wherein the transport inner layer and the hydrogen blocking layer, and the hydrogen blocking layer and the transport outer layer adhere to each other by an adhesive layer (i.e., grooves can further increase the bonding strength between the pressure barrier layer 12 and the composite layer 14 if the grooves are filled with a matrix. The matrix acts as a glue, causing the composite layer to be securely adhered to the underlying pressure barrier layer 12) (see Column 12, lines 55-67) (claim 5). In view of the teaching of Quigley, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the additional layers in order to further reinforce and protect the conduit from corrosion and to ensure smooth transport of the fluid.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brower (Pub. No. US 2010/0229662) (hereafter Brower) further in view of Stoesz et al. (Pat. No US 8,326,103) (hereafter Stoesz)
Regarding claim 14, Brower as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the at least one optical fiber unit is spirally wound in a spiral shape around the outer circumference of the structure reinforcement layer. However, Stoesz teaches that the at least one optical fiber unit is spirally wound in a spiral shape around the outer circumference of the structure reinforcement layer (i.e., conduit 20 is caused to have a curvature prior to installation of the fiber 22, which curvature may be a simple or complex curve providing that it continues in a general direction such that a clearly definable shortest path can be observed therein. In one embodiment, the curvature is a helix. This creates a condition between the conduit 20 and the fiber 22 that ensures that the fiber 22 is in a consistent position within the conduit 20 along the length of the cable 10) (see Fig. 2 and 3). In view of the teaching of Stoesz, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have spirally wound the fiber optic unit around the structure reinforcement layer in order to reduce stress on the fiber and to improve measurement reliability. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C))
Regarding claim 15, Brower as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the at least one optical fiber unit is spirally wound in a spiral shape around an outer circumference of the outermost layer. However, Stoesz teaches that the at least one optical fiber unit is spirally wound in a spiral shape around an outer circumference of the outermost layer (i.e., conduit 20 is caused to have a curvature prior to installation of the fiber 22, which curvature may be a simple or complex curve providing that it continues in a general direction such that a clearly definable shortest path can be observed therein. In one embodiment, the curvature is a helix. This creates a condition between the conduit 20 and the fiber 22 that ensures that the fiber 22 is in a consistent position within the conduit 20 along the length of the cable 10) (see Fig. 2 and 3). In view of the teaching of Stoesz, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have spirally wound the fiber optic unit around the outermost layer in order to reduce stress on the fiber and to improve measurement reliability. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C))
Regarding claim 16, Brower as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the structure reinforcement layer is formed of fiber-reinforced plastic (FRP). However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a suitable material for the reinforcement layer. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAN M. TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0307. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11:30am - 7:00pm.
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 on (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.
/Tran M. Tran/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights