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 because Fig. 4 appears to be missing an element related to the right side of the gap portrayed in the drawing (this appears to be X21 as found in related applications 18/697,122 and 18/697,124). 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 and X11 and α as found in Fig. 4. 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 a description of details of the provided Figs. 1-4, there is no identification of which figure is discussed at any given point in 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 method step of the claim by a line indentation as per 37 CFR 1.75(i) and MPEP 608.01(m).
Additionally, in line 2 of the claim, the examiner recommends changing the word “including” to “comprising” to conform with typical United States practice (see MPEP 2111.03 for examples of typical transitional phrases in patent claims).
In lines 3 and 11 of the claim, the phrase “the sensor” should be amended to read “the fibre-optic sensor” for consistency throughout the claim.
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.
Claim 1 is 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 claim is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. It appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and is replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the end of a flexible hollow carrier rod" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which end of the flexible hollow carrier rod is being referred to here? A hollow carrier rod has two ends, making “the end” as claimed here, without antecedent basis support, indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the parameters of the light signal" in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What parameters of the light signal are being referred to here? As a light signal has multiple parameters, claiming “the parameters” of that light signal, without antecedent basis support, is indefinite.
Claim 1 recites “characterized in” in line 6 of the claim. In combination with the idiomatic English rejection set forth above, it is unclear what the phrase means in this context. Does this phrase set forth further limitations of the already recited method steps? Or does it refer to something else?
Claim 1 recites “equipping a fibre-optic sensor” in line 6 of the claim. However, line 2 of the claim already sets forth “at least one fibre-optic sensor”. As a result, it is unclear if “a fibre-optic sensor” in line 6 is one of the at least one fibre-optic sensors from line 2 of the claim, or if this is an additional fibre-optic sensor. Additionally, if there are more than one fibre-optic sensors in the claimed method as is possible via the language “at least one fibre-optic sensor”, it is unclear which of the “at least one fibre-optic sensor” is being equipped in the phrase “equipping a fibre-optic sensor”.
Claim 1 recites “a flexible hollow carrier rod with the fibre-optic sensor” in line 8 of the claim. However, line 2 of the claim already recites “a flexible hollow carrier rod”. As a result, it is unclear if the flexible hollow carrier rod in line 8 of the claim is the same carrier rod as the carrier rod set forth in line 2 of the claim or if these are different flexible hollow carrier rods.
Claim 1 recites “using a photoreceiver and a computer” in line 9 of the claim. However, line 4 of the claim already recites “a photoreceiver”, and line 6 of the claim already recites “a computer”. As a result, it is unclear if the photoreceiver and computer in line 9 of the claim are the same elements as the photoreceiver and computer set forth earlier in the claim or if these are an additional photoreceiver and computer.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the axis of the bowed extended vertically directed channel" in line 13 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. First, which axis of the vertically directed channel is being referred to here? Is it the vertical axis or the horizontal axis or another axis? Next, what “bowed” extended vertically directed channel is being referred to here? There is antecedent basis for the extended vertically directed channel, but not for the channel being bowed. The examiner understands that the method is measuring bending of the channel, but there is no requirement for the channel to be bent; the bending of a straight channel can be practically measured by this method.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the vertical axis" in line 17 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What vertical axis is being referred to here? Is it the vertical axis of the channel, or is it the vertical axis of the fibre-optic lines, or is it the vertical axis of the fibre-optic sensor itself? Clarification is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/697124 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the method of measuring bending of a nuclear reactor fuel channel discloses all of the salient limitations of the instantly claimed method of measuring bending of an extended vertically directed channel as set forth below.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of the ‘124 application discloses a method of measuring bending of an extended vertically directed channel (see line 1 of the ‘124 claim; the bending of a nuclear reactor fuel channel is the equivalent of the bending of an extended vertically directed channel), including placing at least one fiber-optic sensor fixed at the end of a flexible hollow carrier rod inside the channel (see lines 1-3 of the ‘124 claim; the central tube of a fuel assembly is the equivalent of the channel), supplying a light signal via fiber-optic lines connected to the sensor (see lines 3-4 of the ‘124 claim), recording reflected light signals using a photoreceiver connected to the fiber-optic lines (see line 4 of the ‘124 claim), and determining bending of the channel on the basis of analyzing the parameters of the light signal using a computer connected to the photoreceiver (see lines 5-6 of the ‘124 claim), characterized in equipping a fiber-optic sensor with a gravity pendulum that is suspended for angular motion at the lower end of the fiber-optic sensor (see lines 6-8 of the ‘124 claim); passing a flexible hollow carrier rod with the fiber-optic sensor along the channel and using a photoreceiver and a computer to register the shift of an interference pattern of a reflected light signal in a gas gap between the upper end face of the gravity pendulum and the lower end face of fiber-optic lines connected to the photoreceiver and fastened to the sensor (see lines 8-12 of the ‘124 claim), said gas gap varying during the passage of the fiber-optic sensor as a result of the angular motion of the gravity pendulum away from the axis of the bowed extended vertically directed channel (see lines 12-14 of the ‘124 claim); recording, on the basis of the registered shifts of the interference pattern of the reflected light signal, profilograms of the variations of the gas gap for each fiber-optic line (see lines 14-16 of the ‘124 claim); and calculating, on the basis of the obtained gas gap profilograms, the magnitude and direction of bending of the extended vertically directed channel from the vertical axis (see lines 16-18 of the ‘124 claim).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The examiner notes that this indication of allowability requires the double patenting rejection set forth above to be properly overcome as well.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 1, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious, in the best understanding of the examiner, a method of measuring bending of an extended vertically directed channel, the method comprising, among other essential steps, equipping a fibre-optic sensor with a gravity pendulum that is suspended for angular motion at the lower end of the fibre-optic sensor; passing a flexible hollow carrier rod with the fibre-optic sensor along the channel and using the photoreceiver and the computer to register the shift of an interference pattern of a reflected light signal in a gas gap between the upper end face of the gravity pendulum and the lower end face of fibre-optic lines connected to the photoreceiver and fastened to the sensor, said gas gap varying during the passage of the fibre-optic sensor as a result of the angular motion of the gravity pendulum away from a vertical axis of the bowed extended vertically directed channel; recording, on the basis of the registered shifts of the interference pattern of the reflected light signal, profilograms of the variations of the gas gap for each fibre-optic line of each fibre-optic sensor, and calculating, on the basis of the obtained gas gap profilograms, the magnitude and direction of bending of the extended vertically directed channel from the vertical axis, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
With further regard to the above claim, RU 2626301 to Baranov et al. teaches a method for measuring the curvature of a channel of a RBMK type nuclear reactor. The method involves placing a flexible rod element that is equipped with deformation sensors into the channel, and recording the bending of the flexible rod element using fiber optic sensors that are placed in the central channel of the fuel assembly (see claim 1 and Figs. 1 and 2). Additionally, US 2012/0222489 to Hummel discloses a method for determining the deformation of a fuel assembly in a pressurized-water reactor. The method involves inserting a control rod guide tube into an interior of a control rod guide tube that has a reference axis (see abstract). 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).
However, this prior art, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious the limitations of the instant invention as set forth above regarding claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2024/0401937 and US 2025/0035429 to Federov et al., while not eligible as prior art, are publications of related applications 18/697,125 and 18/697,122, 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 September 18, 2025