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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the length” in line 8 should read “a length” and “the axial” in line 9 should read “an axial”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the distance” in line 1 should read “a distance”, “the cable” in line 2 should read “a cable”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the distance” in line 1 should read “a distance”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the stiffness” in line 1 should read “a stiffness”, “the distance” in line 2 should read “a distance”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the relative” in line 2 should read “a relative”, “the stiffness” should read “a stiffness”, “the distance” in line 3 should read “a distance”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the operating” should read “an operating”. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is invited to correct any other grammatical issues.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a helical path as claimed.
The closest relevant prior art of record, Yokokawa et al. (U.S. Patent # 6,757,465 B1), fails to teach or suggest a helical path as claimed.
Thus, with no teaching from the prior art, and without the benefit of applicant's teachings, there is no motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine/modify the prior art of record in a manner so as to create the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1 – 8, 10 – 15, and 17 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yokokawa et al. (U.S. Patent # 6,757,465 B1).
In Re claim 1, ‘465 teaches a fibre optic cable structure comprising: a cable core (13) comprising at least a first optical fibre (6); and a longitudinal strength member (8); wherein the cable core is fixedly coupled with respect to the longitudinal strength member at periodic fixed coupling points (14), such that at the fixed coupling points the cable core has a substantially fixed position with respect to the longitudinal strength member and between the fixed coupling points the cable core is free to move with respect to the strength member (col. 5, lines 56 – 59, and since the material of the cable is plyable to some degree the cable is capable of moving through an applied force radially, toward 12); and wherein, for an operating range of tensile load and pressure, the length of the cable core between any two adjacent fixed coupling points is greater than the axial distance along the fibre optic cable structure between the fixed anchoring points (col. 5, lines 56 – 59, col. 6, lines 39 – 43, figs. 2A, 2B).
In Re claim 2, ‘465 teaches wherein the longitudinal strength member comprises at least one elongate member (8).
In Re claim 3, ‘465 teaches wherein the longitudinal strength member comprises at least one multi-stranded cable (col. 5, lines 43 – 44).
In Re claim 4, ‘465 teaches where the distance between adjacent fixed coupling points is at least five times the cable core diameter (col. 6, lines 21 – 24, 37 – 39).
In Re claim 5, ‘465 teaches where the distance between adjacent fixed coupling points is no greater than 5 metres (500mm, col. 6lines 37 – 39).
In Re claims 6, 7, 10, 15 and 17, the patentability of an apparatus depends only on the claimed structural limitations. ‘465 teaches a structure that is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention, therefore the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The burden is on the applicant to show that the ‘465 device does not possess these functional characteristics. See MPEP 2112.01.
In Re claim 8, ‘465 teaches wherein the relative location of the first optical fibre with respect to longitudinal strength member is configured to vary along the length of the fibre optic cable structure (fig. 2A).
In Re claim 11, ‘465 teaches wherein the cable core comprises at least one layer of a buffer material (7 or 10).
In Re claim 12, ‘465 teaches wherein the cable core further comprises a deformable strain transformer (7) configured to convert a radial force acting on the fibre optic cable structure into a longitudinal force on the first optical fibre (col. 5, lines 5 – 11, 32 – 38).
In Re claim 13, ‘465 teaches wherein the strain transformer comprises at least one of a helical, coiled or braided element running along the length of the cable core (col. 5, lines 32 – 37).
In Re claim 14, ‘465 teaches wherein the longitudinal strength member is coupled (indirectly via 14) to the strain transformer at said fixed coupling points (7 is along entire cable).
In Re claim 18, ‘465 teaches a fibre optic cable structure comprising: a cable core (13) comprising at least a first optical fibre (6); and a longitudinal strength member (8); wherein the cable core is fixedly coupled with respect to the longitudinal strength member at periodic fixed coupling points (14), such that a tensile load applied to the fibre optic cable structure results in a tensile load in the longitudinal strength member without a tensile load being applied to the cable core (col. 5, lines 55 – 60).
In Re claim 19, ‘465 teaches a fibre optic cable structure comprising: a cable core (13) comprising at least a first optical fibre (6); and a longitudinal strength member (8); wherein the cable core is fixedly coupled with respect to the longitudinal strength member at periodic fixed coupling points (14), and wherein for an operating range of temperature and pressure the length of the cable core between any two adjacent fixed coupling points is greater than the axial distance along the fibre optic cable structure between the fixed anchoring points (col. 5, lines 52 – 56).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokokawa et al. (U.S. Patent # 6,757,465 B1) in view of Godfrey (U.S. PG Pub. # 2017/0292862 A1).
‘465 teaches the structure of claim 1, but is silent to a fibre optic sensing interrogator unit as claimed.
‘862 teaches a fibre optic sensing interrogator unit (106) to detect strain along the optical fiber (300) (par. 0007).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure of ‘465 to use a interrogator unit as taught by ‘862 so as to measure erroneous strain along the fiber thus ensuring the integrity of the cable as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1294. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at 1-571-272-2397. 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.
/CHAD H SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights