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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: X21 as discussed on page 5 of the specification with regard to Fig. 4. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: X10 and X20 as found in Fig. 3. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the “details confirming the feasibility of embodiment of the invention” section, while this part of the specification sets forth a description of details of the provided Figs. 1-4, there is no identification of which figure is discussed at any given point of the discussion. An amendment to this portion of the specification to allow the reader to readily identify which Figure of the instant application is being discussed is needed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
As for claim 1, the claim does not separate each element of the claim by a line indentation as per 37 CFR 1.75(i) and MPEP 608.01(m).
Claim 1 uses both the phrases “fiber-optic” and “fibre-optic”. The examiner requests that the phrase be consistently referred to as either “fiber-optic” or “fibre-optic”, but not both, throughout the claim.
Claim 1 is objected to because it includes reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses (see the phrase “on the central rod 9 of the core” in lines 8-9 of the claim).
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 primary information processing unit” in claim 2.
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 § 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 1-4 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. In particular, claim 1 is written in such a narrative and idiomatic style that it is difficult to ascertain where specifically in the claim the structural elements of the claim are set forth, how those elements interrelate with each other, and if the claim is actually setting forth the claimed device or if it is setting forth a method of making that device.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the fiber-optic sensor" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What fiber-optic sensor is being referred to here? Line 2 of the claim recites “at least one fibre-optic sensor”. Which of the at least one fiber-optic sensors is referred to in line 3 of the claim? Is it each of the fiber-optic sensors, or only a subset thereof?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the upper part of the core" in lines 3-4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which part of the core of the fiber-optic sensor is “the upper part” of that core?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the lower end of the flexible hollow carrier rod" in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What part of the flexible hollow carrier rod is “the lower end” of that rod?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the lower part of the core" in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which part of the core of the fiber-optic sensor is “the lower part” of that core?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the central cavity of the core instillation sleeve around the outer diameter of the central core rod" in lines 6-7 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What central cavity of what core instillation sleeve around what central core rod is being referred to here? Is the core installation sleeve the mounting sleeve? Is the central cavity the central cylindrical cavity? Is the central core rod the flexible hollow carrier rod, or the core of the fiber-optic sensor, or some other core rod?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the lower end of the central rod of the core" in line 10 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which part of the central rod of the core is “the lower end” of that core?
Claim 1 appears to recite that the gravity pendulum has “the possibility of deviation from the longitudinal axis” in lines 10-11 of the claim. What is meant by the gravity pendulum having “the possibility” of deviation from the longitudinal axis? And what longitudinal axis is being referred to here? Is it the axis of the core? The axis of the pendulum? Some other axis?
Claim 1 recites, “installed to form a gap between the upper end of the gravity pendulum facing each other and the lower surface of the ferrules” in lines 12-13 of the claim. First, what part of the gravity pendulum is “the upper” part of that pendulum? Next, what is meant by the phrase “facing each other”? What aspects of the claimed device are facing each other? Finally, what part of the ferrules is “the lower surface” of those ferrules?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the ends of the lower ends of the fiber optic lines" in lines 16-17 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What lower ends of the fiber optic lines are the “lower ends” of those fiber optic lines?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the cavity of the sealed tubular casing" in lines 17-18 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which cavity of the sealed tubular casing is being referred to here?
Claim limitation “a primary information processing unit” as found in claim 2 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
As “a primary information processing unit” is considered a 35 USC 112(f) limitation for the reasons set forth above, the examiner turns to the specification to ascertain what structure is associated with the claimed primary information processing unit. However, no specific structure tied to that unit can be found. Indeed, the specification only discloses the unit using the name by which it is claimed – a primary information processing unit 5. As the specification and the claim also sets forth a computer, it is even less clear what potential structure can be associated with the primary information processing unit. Is it an additional processor? Is it some kind of circuitry? Is it some other element that can perform information processing? As the specification does not provide an answer to these questions, the specification fails to provide the corresponding structure for the unit so that it can “primary information processing”.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 3 recites that the sealed tubular casing is equipped with a cover that is sealed “on its lower free end”. Does “its lower free end” refer to the lower free end of the tubular casing or the lower free end of the cover?
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the cross-section of the core" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which cross-section of the core is being referred to here? A fiber optic core would have two orthogonal cross-sections, leading to the lack of antecedent basis here.
Claim 4 recites that the central rod of the core is made in the form of a core collar formed by thinning the cross-section of the core to provide the possibility of deflection of the gravity pendulum from the longitudinal axis of the core. However, it is unclear how the core collar is able to provide for the possibility of deflection of the gravity pendulum. How does the particular formation of the core collar provide for the possibility of deflection?
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, the claim is rejected for a lack of written description for the reasons set forth above regarding 35 USC 112(b) and indefiniteness. The rejection is made because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all structure that can perform the claimed function. Because the specification has not clearly defined structure for the claimed primary information processing unit, this indicates that applicant has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention.
Examiner Note
Given the nature of the indefiniteness rejection set forth above regarding claim 1, the examiner cannot reasonably ascertain whether the claim is drawn to a device for measuring bending of an extended vertically directed channel or a method of making that device. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 USC 103 should not be made based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. As a result, further examination of claims 1-4 is precluded at this time. However, a discussion of the closest prior art can be found below.
RU 2626301 to Baranov et al. teaches a device for measuring the curvature of a channel of a RBMK type nuclear reactor. The device includes a flexible rod element that is equipped with deformation sensors which is placed into the channel, and fiber optic sensors that are placed in the central channel of the fuel assembly are used to record the bending of the flexible rod element (see claim 1 and Figs. 1 and 2). Additionally, US 2012/0222489 to Hummel discloses a device for determining the deformation of a fuel assembly in a pressurized-water reactor. The measuring device (see Fig. 1) includes a measuring device 9 with a pendulum 10 that is suspended in a pendulum suspension device 8 so that the pendulum can swing freely (see paragraph 0040). The pendulum is aligned so that it is inclined with respect to the central axis 6 by an inclination angle α (see paragraph 0041). At the free end of the pendulum is a pendulum body 12, and arranged near a flat face 14 of the body is a distance measuring device 18 inside of a probe 4. This measuring device is an eddy-current displacement transducer (see paragraph 0044). The angle α and the spacing are measured in different axial positions to determine the curved profile of the longitudinal axis of the control-rod guide tube (see paragraph 0044).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2024/0401937 and US 2024/0401934 to Federov et al., while not eligible as prior art, are publications of related applications 18/697,125 and 18/697,124, respectively.
Additionally, US Pat. 5,301,001 to Murphy et al. teaches fiber optic displacement sensors (see Fig. 2); SE 503629 to Sahlgren et al. teaches measuring the curvature of an elongated channel such as a borehole in rock using a fiber optic sensor (see abstract); CN 101368978 to Yuan et al. teaches a twin core fiber integrated accelerometer that performs measurement via interference fringes (see abstract); RU 2371515 to Andreev et al. discloses a downhole tool for optically measuring the curvature of a well (see Fig. 1); and RU 2494344 to Rozhnov et al. teaches measuring a test pipe using a pendulum 2 and an electromagnetic sensor 1 that takes the form of a magnetic circuit with an inductive winding (see Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael A. Lyons whose telephone number is (571)272-2420. The examiner can normally be reached 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, 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.
/Michael A Lyons/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 October 17, 2025