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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds the maximum allowable length of 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraphs 0021, 0042, and 0087 of the specification, the word “guarantying” should be amended to read “guaranteeing”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 34, 36, 39, 46, 47, and 49-52 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As for claims 34 and 47, in line 7 of each claim, the word “guarantying” should be amended to read “guaranteeing”.
As for claims 36, 49, and 50, the capitalization of terms in the claimed sensing techniques and reflectometers should be consistent between the two claims, as the capitalization of certain terms appears random.
As for claim 39, in line 4 of the claim, the phrase “by injecting a laser beam” should be amended to read “by injecting the laser beam”, as claim 38, the claim on which claim 39 depends, on ready recites “by injecting a laser beam” into the fiber.
As for claims 46, 51, and 52, in line 1 of each claim, the phrase “wherein it comprises” should be amended to read “further comprising”.
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.
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 32-35 and 53 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.
As for claim 32, the claim recites, “wherein, before and/or during the calibration, a measurement or setting of the known state of temperature and/or of the known state of strain”. However, this limitation is unclear, because it is not clear if “a measurement or setting of the known state of temperature and/or the known state of strain” is actively being performed before and/or during the calibration, or if the claim intends to recite additional limitations to enable performance of the claimed “a measurement or setting”. Should this claim be amended to read “wherein, before and/or during the calibration, performing a measurement or setting of the known state of temperature and/or of the known state of strain”? Such an amendment would remove any ambiguity from the claim.
Claims 33-35 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 32, thereby containing all the limitations of the claim on which they depend. While the examiner notes that claim 34 adds limitations as to how the measurement or setting of the known states is done, this does not rectify the fact that claim 32 does not appear to actively ensure that the measurement or setting of the known state takes place as needed.
As for claim 53, the claim recites that the compensation means comprise “means for refreshing the calibration of the optical fiber by measuring once again the signal . . .”. However, it is unclear whether the means for refreshing the calibration is the same as the means for calibrating the optical fiber” as found in claim 43, the claim on which claim 53 depends, or if the means for refreshing the calibration of the optical fiber in claim 53 is different means than the means for calibrating the optical fiber. Clarification is required.
The examiner notes that if the means for refreshing the calibration in claim 53 is different than the means for calibrating from claim 43, then it appears that the specification fails to provide structural support for this 35 USC 112(f) limitation, and a new 35 USC 112(b) rejection for the specification failing to provide the corresponding structure for the 35 USC 112(f) limitation and a corresponding 35 USC 112(a) rejection for lack of written description would be required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 29-56 are allowed in view of the prior art.
The examiner notes that the full allowability of claims 34, 36, 39, 46, 47, and 49-52 requires overcoming the objections set forth above, while the full allowability of claims 32-35 and 53 requires overcoming the 35 USC 112(b) rejections set forth above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 29, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method for measuring a temperature and/or a strain in an optical fiber, the method comprising, among other essential steps, calibrating the optical fiber by measuring a signal sensitive to an intensity and a phase of a Rayleigh backscattering signal of the optical fiber at a known state of temperature and a known state of strain, for various conditions of frequencies or wavelengths or wavenumbers of the backscattered signal and/or of known states of temperature and/or known states of strain, and for at least one longitudinal position inside the fiber, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
As to claim 43, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a device for measuring a temperature and/or a strain in an optical fiber, the device comprising, among other essential features, means for calibrating the optical fiber comprising means for measuring a signal sensitive to an intensity and a phase of a Rayleigh backscattering signal of the optical fiber at a known state of temperature and a known state of strain, for various conditions of frequencies or wavelengths or wavenumbers of the backscattered signal and/or of known states of temperature and/or known states of strain, and for at least one longitudinal position inside the fiber, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
With further regard to the above claims, measuring the temperature or strain of an optical fiber using a Rayleigh backscattering signal with a calibrated device and method is generally known in the art as disclosed by, for example, US 2017/0075029 to Cuny et al., which features using backscattered light from the optical fiber including phase and intensity information while a localized calibration event is applied, and this calibration information generates a reference point that is applied to data acquired from the fiber during borehole surveying (see the abstract). Specific details of the calibration source 122 (see Fig. 1) is provided in paragraph 0042, which states that a calibration source having a known signature is used in order to reduce the impact of ambient sources of vibration and temperature on DVS/DAS measurements. However, a calibration source having a known signature would not disclose or render obvious the specifics of the calibration of the fiber in the instant invention, which requires measuring a signal sensitive to an intensity and a phase of a Rayleigh backscattering signal of the optical fiber at a known state of temperature and a known state of strain, for various conditions of frequencies or wavelengths or wavenumbers of the backscattered signal and/or of known states of temperature and/or known states of strain.
Additionally, “Distributed Temperature and Strain Discrimination with Stimulated Brillouin Scattering and Rayleigh Backscatter in an Optical Fiber” by Zhou et al. teaches a distributed optical fiber sensor to simultaneously measure temperature and strain (see abstract) using the spectrum shift of the Rayleigh backscatter that is measured using optical frequency domain reflectometry (see abstract). The system is calibrated to obtain temperature and strain coefficients of both a distributed Brillouin frequency shift and distributed Rayleigh backscatter spectral shift to measure ambient temperature change and applied strain (see page 1840). While Zhou uses a tunable laser source in the OFDR system (see page 1839), Zhou also fails to disclose or render obvious the specifics of the calibration of the fiber of the instant invention, which requires measuring a signal sensitive to an intensity and a phase of a Rayleigh backscattering signal of the optical fiber at a known state of temperature and a known state of strain, for various conditions of frequencies or wavelengths or wavenumbers of the backscattered signal and/or of known states of temperature and/or known states of strain.
Finally, US 2018/0073959 to Lecoeuche discloses a temperature or strain distribution sensor that uses sensor 100 (see Fig. 1) to calibrate the Rayleigh frequency shift by determining a new Rayleigh reference trace that is absolutely known (see paragraph 0055) in the case where a reference signal is not available. This may eliminate the need to determine Rayleigh trace information for the fiber under known and controlled conditions of strain and temperature, and would therefore not disclose or render obvious the specifics of the calibration of the fiber of the instant invention as discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2007/0171402 to Watley et al. teaches direct measurement of Brillouin frequency in distributed optical sensing systems where the system is calibrated using a reference fiber section of known temperature and strain (see paragraph 0067 or 0106); US 2017/0299463 to Lecoeuche which teaches a Brillouin and Rayleigh distributed sensor for 100 using a sensing fiber 110 (see Fig. 1); and CN 208653669 to Zie et al. teaches a two-channel distributed optical fiber temperature and strain sensing system where one fiber is used for calibration and another fiber is used to obtain a relatively stable temperature and strain standard.
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 January 23, 2026