Optical Measurement System
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/30/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/30/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) 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) 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 limitations are:
“launch stage” in at least claims 1, 7-10, 12-13, 15, 17 and 21-22.
“local oscillator stage” in at least claims 1-2, 12-13, 15, 21-22.
“first detector stage” in at least claims 1, 4, 11-13, 15 and 20-22.
“second detector stage in at least claims 11, 13, 20 and 22.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 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.
Claims 13-14 and 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolognini (IT P120090108; “Bolognini”).
Regarding claim 13, Bolognini discloses, in figures 1-2, an optical measurement system (1) comprising: a coherent light source (10) configured to generate a light signal; a launch stage (11, 12) configured to receive the light signal from the light source (10) and generate a pulsed test signal (see Bolognini’s translation, p. 5, ¶ 3 “send pulses of limited time duration in optical fiber, by direct modulation of the current, for example by means of the current pulse generator 10b, or by means of an external optical modulator, such as for example the modulator 11”) and launch the test signal (see Bolognini’s translation, p. 5, ¶ 3, “pulses are sent into the optical fibre 27”) along an optical path (27); a local oscillator stage (23) configured generate a local oscillator signal (p. 5, ¶ 4, “electromagnetic radiation coming from an optical local oscillator (OLO) 23”); a first detector stage (22, 24) and a second detector stage (14, 18); and a wavelength splitter (12, 15, 19) configured to receive a scattered signal (see Bolognini’s translation, p. 5, ¶ 4, “backscattering of optical radiation”) from the optical path (27), and split the scattered signal (see Bolognini’s translation, p. 5, ¶ 4, examiner notes Bolognini’s optical filter separates Raman Stokes and Anti-Stokes components from backscattered radiation, and the separator optical filter separates the Rayleigh line from the Brillouin spectral component) into a first scattering component (see previous comment, also see fig. 1, (EM4) the Brillouin spectral component is construed to be the first scattering component) which is transmitted to the first detector stage (22, 24) and a Raman scattering component (see previous comment (EM2)) which is transmitted to the second detector stage (14, 18); wherein the first detector stage (22, 24) is configured to interfere the local oscillator signal (OLO) with the scattered signal (EM4) to produce an output signal having a frequency corresponding to a frequency difference (see Bolognini’s translation, p. 6, ¶ 1, the beat produced is a “frequency equal to the difference in optical frequency between the local optical oscillator 23”) between the local oscillator signal (OLO) and the first scattering component (EM4); wherein the second detector stage (14, 18) is configured to split the Raman scattering component into a Stokes component and an Anti-Stokes component (see Bolognini’s translation, p. 5, ¶ 4, Raman Stokes and Anti-Stokes components of the back scattered radiation is processed by the first adapter), and to detect an amplitude of each of the Stokes component and the Anti-Stokes component (see Bolognini’s translation, p. 5, ¶ 4, examiner construes Bolognini’s first receiver’s conversion of power into current to mean the amplitude of the Raman spectral lines is measured, further an ordinary skilled artisan would infer the receiver is a photodetector).
Bolognini fails to explicitly disclose detecting the amplitude of the Stokes and Anti-Stokes components of the Raman scattering components.
The Examiner takes official notice that converting an optical signal to an electrical signal through the use of a photodetector to determine the amplitude of the signal is well-known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a well-known technique of determining amplitude when converting an optical signal to an electrical signal to convert Bolognini’s Raman spectra Stokes and Anti-Stokes components from optical signals to electrical signals. Doing so provides a reliable process for signal conversion and representation.
Regarding claim 14, Bolognini discloses, in figures 1-2, the first scattering component is a Rayleigh scattering component or a Brillouin scattering component (see Bolognini’s translation, p. 5, ¶ 4, examiner notes Bolognini’s separator optical filter separates the Rayleigh line from the Brillouin spectral component, also see fig. 1, (EM4) the Brillouin spectral component is construed to be the first scattering component).
Regarding claim 22, Bolognini discloses, in figures 1-2, a method (see Bolognini’s translation, p. 3, ¶ 8, “measurement method”) for operating an optical measurement system (1), the method comprising: generating, using a coherent light source (10), a light signal (see Bolognini’s translation, p. 5, ¶ 3, “laser”), and conveying the light signal (see fig. 1) to a launch stage (11, 12); generating, at the launch stage (11, 12), a pulsed test signal (see Bolognini’s translation, p. 5, ¶ 3 “send pulses of limited time duration in optical fiber, by direct modulation of the current, for example by means of the current pulse generator 10b, or by means of an external optical modulator, such as for example the modulator 11”) and launching the test signal (see Bolognini’s translation, p. 5, ¶ 3, “pulses are sent into the optical fibre 27”) along an optical path (27); generating, at a local oscillator stage (23), a local oscillator signal (p. 5, ¶ 4, “electromagnetic radiation coming from an optical local oscillator (OLO) 23”); receiving (see Bolognini’s translation, p. 5, ¶ 4, examiner notes Bolognini’s optical filter separates Raman Stokes and Anti-Stokes components from backscattered radiation, and the separator optical filter separates the Rayleigh line from the Brillouin spectral component), at a wavelength splitter (12, 15, 19), a scattered signal (EM1) from the optical path (27), and splitting the scattered signal into a first scattering component (see previous comment, also see fig. 1, (EM4) the Brillouin spectral component is construed to be the first scattering component) which is transmitted to a first detector stage (22, 24) and a Raman scattering component (see previous comment (EM2)) which is transmitted to a second detector stage (14, 18); interfering, at the first detector stage (22, 24), the local oscillator signal (OLO) with the scattered signal (EM4) to produce an output signal (EM5) having a frequency corresponding to a frequency difference (see Bolognini’s translation, p. 6, ¶ 1, the beat produced is a “frequency equal to the difference in optical frequency between the local optical oscillator 23”) between the local oscillator signal (OLO) and the first scattering component (EM4); and splitting, at the second detector stage (14, 18), the Raman scattering component into a Stokes component and an Anti-Stokes component (see Bolognini’s translation, p. 5, ¶ 4, Raman Stokes and Anti-Stokes components of the back scattered radiation is processed by the first adapter), and detecting an amplitude of each of the Stokes component and the Anti-Stokes component (see Bolognini’s translation, p. 5, ¶ 4, examiner construes Bolognini’s first receiver’s conversion of power into current to mean the amplitude of the Raman spectral lines is measured, further an ordinary skilled artisan would infer the receiver is a photodetector).
Bolognini fails to explicitly disclose detecting the amplitude of the Stokes and Anti-Stokes components of the Raman scattering components.
The Examiner takes official notice that converting an optical signal to an electrical signal through the use of a photodetector to determine the amplitude of the signal is well-known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a well-known technique of determining amplitude when converting an optical signal to an electrical signal to convert Bolognini’s Raman spectra Stokes and Anti-Stokes components from optical signals to electrical signals. Doing so provides a reliable process for signal conversion and representation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12, 15, 17-18 and 20-21 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, examiner notes a search has revealed prior art Cao (CN 110470327). Although Cao discloses a light time domain analyzer including a 1550nm laser source, a 1455nM Raman fiber laser, a first bridge combiner, acousto-optic modulator and wave division multiplexer, the 1550 laser configured to generate a 1550 nm split signal used as a local oscillator and as an input to a sensing fiber and the 1455nm fiber laser signal input to the sensing fiber, Rayleigh scattering and Brillouin scattering signals are generated, the Brillouin signal is beat with two orthogonal local oscillator light signals and the resulting signal is received by a second bridge combiner coupled to a spectrometer and processor; Cao does not disclose an output with first and second components, the first component being the difference between the local oscillator and Rayleigh scattering component and the second component being the difference between a second local oscillator and the Brillouin scattering component. Furthermore, no other prior art can be found to motivate or teach applicant’s system including producing an output signal having a first component at a first frequency corresponding to a frequency difference between the first local oscillator component and the Rayleigh scattering component, and a second component at a second frequency corresponding to a frequency difference between the second local oscillator component and the Brillouin scattering component, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Dependent claims 2-11 are allowed for at least the same reasons as above.
Regarding claim 12, examiner notes a search has revealed prior art Cao (CN 110470327). Although Cao discloses a light time domain analyzer including a 1550nm laser source, a 1455nM Raman fiber laser, a first bridge combiner, acousto-optic modulator and wave division multiplexer, the 1550 laser configured to generate a 1550 nm split signal used as a local oscillator and as an input to a sensing fiber and the 1455nm fiber laser signal input to the sensing fiber, Rayleigh scattering and Brillouin scattering signals are generated, the Brillouin signal is beat with two orthogonal local oscillator light signals and the resulting signal is received by a second bridge combiner coupled to a spectrometer and processor; Cao does not disclose a Rayleigh scattering component resulting from a first test signal component and a Brillouin scattering component resulting from a second test signal component that is frequency shifted relative to the first test signal component. Furthermore, no other prior art can be found to motivate or teach applicant’s system including receiving a first test signal component and a second test signal component which is frequency-shifted relative to the first test signal component and receiving a scattered signal comprises a Rayleigh scattering component resulting from scattering of the first test signal component and a Brillouin scattering component resulting from scattering of the second test signal component, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 15, examiner notes a search has revealed prior art Cao (CN 110470327). Although Cao discloses a light time domain analyzing method including producing light from a 1550nm laser source and a 1455nM Raman fiber laser, generating a 1550 nm split signal used as a local oscillator and as an input to a sensing fiber and a 1455nm fiber laser signal input to the sensing fiber with a first bridge combiner, acousto-optic modulator and wave division multiplexer, generating Rayleigh scattering and Brillouin scattering signals, where the Brillouin signal is beat with two orthogonal local oscillator light signals and the resulting signal is received by a second bridge combiner coupled to a spectrometer and processor; Cao does not disclose outputting a signal with first and second components, the first component being the difference between the local oscillator and Rayleigh scattering component and the second component being the difference between a second local oscillator and the Brillouin scattering component. Furthermore, no other prior art can be found to motivate or teach applicant’s method including producing an output signal having a first component at a first frequency corresponding to a frequency difference between the first local oscillator component and the Rayleigh scattering component, and a second component at a second frequency corresponding to a frequency difference between the second local oscillator component and the Brillouin scattering component, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Dependent claims 17-18 and 20 are allowed for at least the same reasons as above.
Regarding claim 21, examiner notes a search has revealed prior art Cao (CN 110470327). Although Cao discloses a light time domain analyzing method including producing light from a 1550nm laser source and a 1455nM Raman fiber laser, generating a 1550 nm split signal used as a local oscillator and as an input to a sensing fiber and a 1455nm fiber laser signal input to the sensing fiber with a first bridge combiner, acousto-optic modulator and wave division multiplexer, generating Rayleigh scattering and Brillouin scattering signals, where the Brillouin signal is beat with two orthogonal local oscillator light signals and the resulting signal is received by a second bridge combiner coupled to a spectrometer and processor; Cao does not disclose a Rayleigh scattering component resulting from a first test signal component and a Brillouin scattering component resulting from a second test signal component that is frequency shifted relative to the first test signal component. Furthermore, no other prior art can be found to motivate or teach applicant’s method including generating a first test signal component and a second test signal component which is frequency-shifted relative to first test signal component and generating a Rayleigh scattering component resulting from scattering of the first test signal component and a Brillouin scattering component resulting from scattering of the second test signal component, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cui (CN 112285983) discloses an optical signal processing device and method based on optical fiber Brillouin scattering.
Peng (Photonic Sensor, "A hybrid Φ/B-OTDR for simultaneous vibration and strain measurement", 2016) discloses a distributed optical sensor that detects Rayleigh and Brillouin spectrum components.
Muanenda ("Application of Raman and Brillouin Scattering…", 2019) discloses a distributed optical sensor that detects Raman and Brillouin spectrum components.
Watley (US 20070171402) discloses a distributed optical sensor that directly measures Brillouin frequency.
Coscetta (Optics Express, "Hybrid Brillouin/Rayleigh sensor… in optical fibers", 2021) discloses a hybrid Brillouin/Rayleigh sensor for sensing optical fibers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY P GRAVES whose telephone number is (469)295-9072. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/TIMOTHY P GRAVES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights