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
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds the word limit. 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).
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 1-8 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.
Claim 1 recites “a stainless steel capillary tube is proved outside each sensing temperature-measurement optical fiber”. It is believed that this was meant to say the tube is provided around the fiber. The claim recites “back-and-forth zigzag form” when “zigzag structural form” is the basis for this limitations, so structural is missing. This claim recites “one by one by means of the stainless steel capillary tubes” and the “means” language makes the claim unclear because it is impossible to tell if this is supposed to invoke mean plus function language. It is unclear as to what “meets the requirement that part of the stainless steel capillary tube can be embedded” could mean. It seems like this portion is trying to say the size of the groove is large enough to accept the tube.
Claim 2 recites “the connecting optical fibers”, there is no antecedent basis for this limitation. It is unclear as to what “accumulative error elimination treatment” is since this variable is undefined in the claims.
Claim 3 also recites “the accumulative error”, which is undefined and thus indefinite – the scope cannot be ascertained.
Claim 4 recites “the length L3”, but there is no basis for this limitations, it is first recited in claim 2, but claim 4 does not depend from claim 2. This claim further recites “a single-point temperature heater is adopted”- it is unclear how a heater is adopted, the scope of this cannot be ascertained. Further, “an AD sampling peak value” is unclear since this variable has not been defined. Claim 5, section 3 is problematic in many ways, “at the moment” is indefinite. What is the heating point position? What does midpoints refer to? What is “the actual pipeline” verses an imaginary pipeline? The “deviation value” is not defined. The claim recites “by analogy” – what could this possible mean and how can accuracy “be ensured” – these are all relative terms whose scope is impossible to ascertain.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected for including the indefinite language of claim 1.
Claim 7 recites adjusting the number of frames using a number of variables (pipelines, row-to-row spacing, etc) without how these variable actually adjust the number. This claim further recites “selecting proper shaping modules” – it is unclear as to what constitutes proper.
Claim 8 recites “after being successfully shaped” – it is unclear as to the scope of what constitutes successfully shaped. Same with “accurately” mounted. The scope of accurately is indefinite. Another instance of “successfully” is used, which is indefinite. It is unclear as to what “taking down the pressing plates” refers to or as to what “taking down the high-temperature-resistant shaping plate” refers to. The phrase “can be overlapped” is unclear – is there overlap, otherwise, what couldn’t be overlapped besides parallel lines? And the continuation, “can be overlapped” “but are connected with one another” – what is overlapped but are connected?
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 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.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
These claims could be allowable over the prior art of record because the latter, either alone or in combination, does not disclose nor render obvious a distributed optical fiber temperature measurement system for a high-temperature pipeline group with the claimed computer, data transmission line, laser emitter, WDM device, detector, acquisition card, sensing temperature-measurement optical fibers, stainless steel capillary tube around each fiber and shaping frames with the shape, size, number and grooves claimed,
in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references teach fiber temperature measuring systems and/or zig-zag shaped fiber sensor devices: US 5594819, US 6079875, US 2004/0011950, US 2005/0026209, US 6997256, US 7856157, US 9476699, US 9651474, US 9655526, US 9921113, US 9944445, US 2020/0400511, US 11655737, US 2024/0401217.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN A LEPISTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1946. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached at 571-270-1739. 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.
/RYAN A LEPISTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights