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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, 12, 17, 18, 21, 23, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 20190317130 A1) in view of Gerdt (US 5494798 A), and further in view of Hu (US 20160089031 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Sun discloses a sensing system (Optical Sensor 10, Figures 1 and 3), comprising:
a functionalized optical fiber based sensor including an engineered sensing layer
Figure 1, coreless fiber 12, spliced between multimode fibers 14, carries Au/SiO2 nanocomposite thin film 18 on its lateral surface; Figures 7-8 shows that the intensity of transmitted light near the ~525 nm Au LSPR peak changes with temperature, thus performing the sensing function and meeting the definition of a sensor as an “engineered sensing layer”,
a light source structured to generate light and couple the light into an input of the functionalized optical fiber based sensor
Figure 3, LED 240 and lens 242 are connected to the fiber, Figure 40, input optical assembly 300 in which LED 340 and plano-convex lenses 343 couple light into fiber 210 through adapter plates 352, 354,
and an interrogator including a photodetector coupled to the functionalized optical fiber based sensor to receive transmitted or reflected light
Figure 3, photodiode 244 at the fiber output receives the transmitted light, Figure 40, photodiodes 344 in the output assembly. The examiner interprets the photodiode 244, multimeter 246, and computer 126 together to be the ‘interrogator’ as claimed.
Sun does not teach a transimpedance amplifier circuit, transmitter, or parameter signal as claimed.
Gerdt teaches a transimpedance amplifier circuit (TIA) coupled to an output of the photodetector
Figure 1, the output of the first photodiode detector 21 is connected to first transimpedance amplifier 23, and the output of second photodiode detector 22 to second transimpedance amplifier 24.
Gerdt does not teach the controller or transmitter as claimed.
Hu teaches:
a controller coupled to an output of the TIA circuit,
Figure 6, processor 606 receives the signal of photodetector 610 after amplifier 612 and analog-to-digital converter 614. In the combination, Gerdt’s TIA serves as the amplifier stage feeding processor 606.
a transmitter coupled to the controller for transmitting a parameter signal based on and in response to an output of the TIA circuit, the parameter signal being indicative of parameter being monitored by the functionalized optical fiber based sensor.
Transmitter 620 transmits the raw or processed digital signal from processor 606 to remote system 650 via Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or another RF signal format. The parameter signal is indicative of a parameter being monitored by the functionalized optical fiber based sensor. The transmitted signal is derived from Sun’s detected output, which tracks temperature and H2 concentration (Sun, Figures 41-42).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the sensing system of Sun under the teachings of Gerdt and Gu to include a transimpedance amplifier receiving the photodiode output, as taught by Gerdt, and a controller that digitizes the TIA output and drives a transmitter sending the resulting signal to a remote system, as taught by Hu. This may be accomplished by using methods known in the art, connecting the photodiode output to the inverting input of a TIA as shown in Gerdt’s Figure 3, and routing the TIA output through a converter to a microcontroller driving an RF transmitter as arranged in Hu. Predictably, this would result in an output voltage proportional to the photocurrent over a wide dynamic range, enabling remote connections without need for wiring infrastructure.
Regarding claim 2:
Sun in view of Gerdt and further in view of Hu teaches the system of claim 1, wherein:
The photodetector is a diode (Figure 3, junction photodiode 244 at the sensor output receives the light transmitted through optical sensor 10).
Regarding claim 3:
Sun in view of Gerdt and further in view of Hu teaches the system of claim 1, wherein:
the light source comprises an LED coupled to a lens system (Figure 3, LED 240 coupled to lens 242).
Regarding claim 5:
Sun in view of Gerdt and further in view of Hu teaches the system of claim 1, wherein:
The engineered sensing layer is comprised of a nanocomposite material (Figure 1, Au/SiO2 nanocomposite thin film 18 and Pd/SiO2 nanocomposite thin film 16 on coreless fiber 12, Figures 4-5 show SEM imagery of this material).
Regarding claim 6:
Sun in view of Gerdt and further in view of Hu teaches the system of claim 5, wherein:
The nanocomposite material comprises a matrix with nanoparticles dispersed throughout (i.e. paragraph [108] states that the Figures 4-6 are SEM imagery demonstrating nanoparticles “embedded within the SiO2 matrix”).
Regarding claim 7:
Sun in view of Gerdt and further in view of Hu teaches the system of claim 6, wherein:
The matrix is an oxide matrix (i.e. paragraph [108] states that the Figures 4-6 are SEM imagery demonstrating nanoparticles “embedded within the SiO2 matrix”).
Regarding claim 8:
Sun in view of Gerdt and further in view of Hu teaches the system of claim 7, wherein:
The nanoparticles are plasmonically active nanoparticles (paragraph 8, the particles are a plasmonic nanocomposite).
Regarding claim 9:
Sun in view of Gerdt and further in view of Hu teaches the system of claim 7, wherein:
The nanoparticles are Au nanoparticles (Figure 1, Au/SiO2 nanocomposite thin film 18 has Au particles in the SiO2 matrix).
Regarding claim 12:
Sun in view of Gerdt and further in view of Hu teaches the system of claim 1.
Sun does not teach the wireless transmitter as claimed.
Hu teaches that the transmitter is a wireless transmitter (Figure 6, transmitter 620 transmits the digital signal from processor 606 to remote system 650 via Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or other RF signals).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 1 above under the teachings of Hu to make the transmitter a wireless transmitter. This may be accomplished using components and placement techniques known in the art, and would predictably result in a device which is not constrained by physical transmission.
Regarding claim 17:
Sun in view of Gerdt and further in view of Hu teaches the system of claim 1.
Sun does not teach the TIA circuit as claimed.
Gerdt further teaches wherein the TIA circuit includes a plurality of operational amplifiers for providing improved SNR performance (Figure 3, the detector currents are converted to voltages in a preamplifier stage and fed to inverter amplifiers that form sum and difference signals, separating drift variables from sensor variables; Summary).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 1 above under the teachings of Gerdt to include a plurality of operational amplifiers in the TIA circuit. Gerdt teaches that the sum and difference processing separates drift variables from sensor variables. This could be accomplished using methods known in the art to cascade preamplifier and inverter op-amp stages after the photodiode. Predictably, this would result in a sensor output less sensitive to source drift and noise, improving SNR.
Regarding claim 18:
Sun in view of Gerdt and further in view of Hu teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising an energy harvesting circuit for powering the light source and the interrogator.
The entire setup, including LED 240, photodiode, and analysis, could be battery or solar-cell operated for field deployment (Figure 3, Description).
Regarding claim 21:
Sun in view of Gerdt and further in view of Hu teaches the system of claim 1, wherein:
The functionalized optical fiber based sensor includes a second engineered sensing layer (Pd/SiO2 nanocomposite film 16 cascaded with Au/SiO2 nanocomposite film 18 on coreless fiber 12, which is spliced between multimode fibers 14, Figure 1), wherein the engineered sensing layer and the second engineering sensing layer have different wavelength positions of their respective LSPR peaks.
Film 18 exhibits and LSPR absorption peak at about 525 nm (Figures 7, 8). Sun attributes the temperature response to size dependent LSPR of its 5-30 nm Pd nanoparticles, with the response centered near 450 nm (Figures 23, 25).
Regarding claim 23:
Sun teaches a fiber optic based sensing methods (Figures 1, 3), comprising:
Generating incident light and coupling the incident light into an input of a functionalized optical fiber based sensor, the sensor including an engineered sensing layer. LED 240 and lens 242 couple light into sensor 10, in which coreless fiber 12 carries Au/SiO2 nanocomposite film 18 (Figures 1, 3).
Receiving transmitted light or reflected light in a photodetector coupled to the sensor. Photodiode 244 receives the light transmitted through sensor 10 (Figure 3).
Sun does not teach receiving an output of the photodetector in a TIA circuit, or generating and transmitting a parameter signal based on and in response to an output of the TIA circuit.
Gerdt teaches receiving an output of the photodetector in a TIA circuit. The output of photodiode detector 21 is connected to transimpedance amplifier 23, and the output of detector 22 to transimpedance amplifier 24 (Figure 1).
Hu teaches generating and transmitting a parameter signal based on and in response to an output of the amplifier circuit. Processor 606 generates a digital signal from the output of photodetector 610 after amplifier 612 and analog-to-digital converter 614, and transmitter 620 transmits the signal to remote system 650 (Figure 6).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the invention of Sun under the teachings of Gerdt and Hu, to include:
Receiving the photodiode output in a transimpedance amplifier, as taught by Gerdt;
Generating a parameter signal from the TIA output and transmitting it to a remote system, as taught by Hu.
Sun converts photocurrent with only a lead resistance. Gerdt places a TIA behind each detector. Hu digitizes the amplified fiber sensor signal in processor 606 and through transmitter 620 and further downstream. This may be accomplished using methods known in the art to connect the photodiode to an op-amp transimpedance stage (Figure 3, Gerdt), feeding an ADC-equipped microcontroller that drives an RF transmitter (Hu, Figure 6). Predictably, this would result in a voltage representation of the monitored parameter with large dynamic range, reported remotely from a field-deployed sensor.
Regarding claim 24:
Sun in view of Gerdt and further in view of Hu teaches the system of claim 23, wherein:
Sun does not teach the wireless transmission as claimed.
Hu teaches wirelessly transmitted a parameter signal. Transmitter 620 send the digital signal from processor 606 to remote system 650 via Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or other RF signals (Figure 6).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 23 above under the teachings of Hu to transmit the parameter signal wirelessly. This may be accomplished using RF transmitters coupled to a controller output, as is known in the art and taught in Hu. Predictably, this would result in remote, untethered reported of the monitored parameter.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 20190317130 A1) in view of Gerdt (US 5494798 A), and further in view of Hu (US 20160089031 A1) and Hily (US 4687285 A).
Regarding claim 4:
Sun in view of Gerdt and further in view of Hu teaches the system of claim 3.
Sun does not explicitly teach a ball lens.
Hily teaches a lens system comprising a ball lens (Figure 1, Ball lens B).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 3 above under the teachings of Hily to include a Ball lens secured to LED 340 ahead of plano-convex lenses 342. Sun recognizes that the low power output of an LED into small-diameter fiber calls for optimized coupling (Figure 40). Hily criticizes prior LED-to-fiber coupling for lacking means of easy alignment and sealing the LED (Hily, Background). It teaches that pairing the ball lens with a plano-convex transfer system brings insertion losses down, relaxes mounting tolerances, makes alignment easy, and reduces aberration (Hily, Summary: Advantages). This may be accomplished using methods known to the art, by securing a ball lens to the external surface of LED 340. Predictably, this would result in a more efficient and easily aligned coupling of LED light into the sensing fiber.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 20190317130 A1) in view of Gerdt (US 5494798 A), and further in view of Hu (US 20160089031 A1) and Mendoza (US 20070280601 A1).
Regarding claim 10:
Sun in view of Gerdt and further in view of Hu teaches the system of claim 1.
Sun does not explicitly specify that the photodetector, the TIA, the controller, and the transmitter are provided on a single printed circuit board.
Hu (in the combination) teaches that the photodetector 610, amplifier 612, analog-to-digital converter 614, processor 606, and transmitter 620 are part of a single opto-electric unit. These functional blocks need not be separate structural elements (“One skilled in the art will appreciate that many different structurally components and architecture may be used to achieve such functionality… the various blocks of the system need not be separate structural elements.”) Such an arrangement being put onto a single board would be an obvious and easy modification for a skilled artisan, as it reduces the number of parts required.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 1 above under the teachings of Hu to modify the arrangement of the aforementioned components to be on a single printed circuit board. This may be accomplished using components (PCB, the photodetector, amplifier, converter, processor, and transmitter) known to the art and placement techniques known in the art. Predictably, this would result in a compact interrogator suited to field deployment.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 20190317130 A1) in view of Gerdt (US 5494798 A), and further in view of Hu (US 20160089031 A1) and Ryu (US 10718674 B1).
Regarding claim 11:
Sun in view of Gerdt and further in view of Hu teaches the system of claim 1.
Sun does not teach the remainder of the claim limitations.
Ryu teaches a voltage output from a TIA circuit which is connected to an analog input pin of the controller (Figure 4, “Circuit for data acquisition”). Ryu discloses a fiber-optic sensor read-out in which a first op-amp is configured as a transimpedance amplifier converting the photodiode signal from current to voltage. The output feeds a second, tunable-gain amplifier. The voltage output of this reader module is supplied to a microcontroller, whole analog input channels are tied to an analog-to-digital converter. The gain is set so the maximum photodiode output corresponds to 5 volts.
Thus, Ryu teaches a voltage output from the TIA circuit is connected to an analog input pin of the controller, where an output pin of the controller is structured and configured to provide digital amplified voltage signals based on the voltage output to the wireless transmitter, wherein the wireless transmitter is structured and configured to wirelessly transmit the digital amplified voltage signals.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 1 above under the teachings of Ryu so that the voltage output of the TIA circuit is connected directly to an analog input pin of the controller. Ryu teaches that a fiber-optic photodiode TIA output can be digitized by the analog input channels and built-in analog-to-digital converter of a commodity microcontroller, with the TIA gain scaled to the microcontroller’s input range (Ryu, Figure 4 description). Substituting the microcontroller’s integrated analog input and converter for Hu’s separately drawn converter 614 is the simple substitution of one known digitizing element for another. This could be accomplished using methods known to the art, namely wiring the TIA output to an ADC-capable analog input pin and sampling it in firmware, as taught in Ryu. Predictably, this would result in the same digitized representation of the amplified photodiode signal, with one fewer discrete component in the signal chain.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 20190317130 A1) in view of Gerdt (US 5494798 A), and further in view of Hu (US 20160089031 A1) and Ameloot (Ameloot et al., “A Compact Low-Power LoRa IoT Sensor Node with Extended Dynamic Range for Channel Measurements,” Sensors, 2018).
Regarding claim 13:
Sun in view of Gerdt and further in view of Hu teaches the system of claim 12.
Sun does not explicitly teach that the wireless transmitter is an nRF24L01 + RF transmitter or an LoRa RF transmitter.
Ameloot teaches a compact, low power LoRa IoT RF transmitter (Section 2.2, Figure 1, discloses a LoRa technology Radio). The module provide LoRa chirp-spread-spectrum modulation in the 434 MHz and 868 MHz ISM bands.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 12 above under the teachings of Ameloot to configure the wireless transmitter to be a LoRa RF transmitter. Sun already teaches monitoring of temperature and dissolved gases in electrical assets such as power transformers (Sun, Field of Invention). Ameloot identified sub-GHz LoRa as suited to long-range, low-data-rate wireless sensor networks for applications including smart grids, predictive maintenance, and monitoring (Ameloot, Section 1). It explains that LoRa’s chirp-spread-spectrum modulation allows packets to be received at extremely low SNR. Thus, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to replace the Wi-Fi/Bluetooth link of Hu in the combined invention with the LoRa link of Ameloot. This is a simple substitution of a known RF transmitter for another, and would predictably result in a long-range, low-power wireless reporting system of monitored parameters from remotely located electrical assets.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 20190317130 A1) in view of Gerdt (US 5494798 A), and further in view of Hu (US 20160089031 A1) and Blair (US 5623565 A).
Regarding claim 14:
Sun in view of Gerdt and further in view of Hu teaches the system of claim 1.
Sun does not teach the reflection sensing geometry or the circulator as claimed.
Blair teaches reflection sensing geometry (Figures 9A-9B, light is selected by BFG1 and reflected back through the branch to head-end station 1) and a circulator (broadband source 3 launches light onto the network through first circulator 4. The reflected components return through first circulator 4 and second circulator 6 to wavelength demultiplexer 7 and its associated photodetectors.
This teaches that a system that is configured in a reflection sensing geometry and wherein the functionalized optical fiber based sensor includes a circulator.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 1 above under the teachings of Blair to include reflection sensing geometry and a circulator in the optical fiber. This could be accomplished using methods known to the art, namely terminating Sun’s coated fiber with a reflector and connecting a circulator between the LED, fiber, and photodiode. Predictably, this would result in a single-ended sensor whose returned light passes the sensing layer twice, with low insertion loss at the routing element.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 20190317130 A1) in view of Gerdt (US 5494798 A), and further in view of Hu (US 20160089031 A1) and Mullins (US 5592124 A).
Regarding claim 15:
Sun in view of Gerdt and further in view of Hu teaches the system of claim 1.
Sun does not teach the TIA circuit and TIA gain as claimed.
Mullins teaches a photodiode transimpedance amplifier (TIA) 2 whose photocurrent flows through feedback network 9 to produce output voltage V_out (Figure 1). Its gain is therefore the ratio of output-voltage change to input-photocurrent change. Feedback network 9 includes feedback resistor R_f and feedback capacitor C_f, and C_f sets the closed-loop bandwidth and noise gain (Figures 2 and 4A).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 1 above under the teachings of Mullins to include a feedback resistor and compensation capacitor in the TIA circuit. Mullins teaches that this feedback network provides low-noise, fast-settling operation (Abstract). This could be accomplished using methods known in the art to connect the R_f and C_f between the inverting input and output of the TIA. Predictably, this would result in a stable, low-noise current-to-voltage conversation with tunable gain from R_f.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 20190317130 A1) in view of Gerdt (US 5494798 A), and further in view of Hu (US 20160089031 A1) and Tinsley (US 8487272 B2).
Regarding claim 16:
Sun in view of Gerdt and further in view of Hu teaches the system of claim 1.
Sun does not teach the TIA circuit having high and low gain amplifiers for controlling a DC offset as claimed.
Tinsley teaches a photodiode amplifiers (Figure 1 and 2) with a low-gain transimpedance first stage 106 and a higher-gain second stage 107. The second stage includes a level-shifting offset circuit (R11, signal 303) that eliminates the DC offset of the first-stage output. Capacitors C11, C12 in the feedback of amplifier U2, together with feedback resistors R12, R17-R20, reduce the high-frequency gain of the second stage, forming a low-pass filter (Figure 3A).
This therefore amounts to a TIA circuit including a high gain amplified and a low gain amplifier for controlling a DC offset of the TIA circuit, and a low-pass filter with a cut-off frequency defined by a resistor for capturing a low-frequency optical response from the functionalized optical fiber based sensor.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 1 above under the teachings of Tinsley to include a log-gain TIA stage followed by a high-gain stage with offset control and a resistor defined low pass filter. Tinsley teaches that this two stage arrangement shorten the response time, that the offset circuit extends the dynamic range, and that the filter attenuates unwanted frequency bands without limits the photodiode bandwidth (Figure 3A, closing description). This could be accomplished using methods known in the art to cascade two op-amp stages with a level-shift network and a feedback capacitor. Predictably, this would result in the sensor signal being mapped into the converters input range with high-frequency noise removed.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 20190317130 A1) in view of Gerdt (US 5494798 A), and further in view of Hu (US 20160089031 A1), Townsend (US 9197143 B1), and Taylor (US 7139157 B2).
Regarding claim 19:
Sun in view of Gerdt and further in view of Hu teaches the system of claim 18.
Sun does not teach the energy harvesting circuit or switching circuit as claimed.
Townsend teaches an energy harvesting wireless sensor node whose energy harvesting circuit includes:
A plurality of series-connected photovoltaic cells (Figure 3, 4), solar panels configured with different numbers in series, harvested through circuit 60 or 62;
Integration with a number of batteries, namely external battery 72b and energy storage device 36 (Figures 1, 5);
And a battery charging integrated circuit, namely the LTC3588/LTC3108 energy harvesting power-manager ICs that charge storage devices 72a, 72b (Figures 3-5, EH-Link description).
Townsend further teaches a switching circuit structured and configured to allow the harvester to power the load when its voltage reaches a certain value. Voltage dependent switch 66 turns on when about 2V is applied to gate 68, completing the circuit to load 46. Load 46 includes a sensor and a signal conditioning circuit (Figure 5). In Figure 7, transducer 86 directly powers load 92 through diode 94, and storage capacitor 98 powers load 92 through diode 100 when the harvester’s output is insufficient.
Townsend does not teach the switching circuit as claimed.
Taylor teaches a switching circuit including a Zener diode and a PMOS transistor. P-channel FET 40 has drain 55 connected to voltage source 35 and source 50 connected to load 30, with gate 45 grounded through resistor 60 and Zener diode 80 connected between gate 45 and source 50. FET 40 turns on to conduct source 35 to load 30 once the input voltage reaches a gate threshold, and Zener diode 80 holds V_GS nearly constant (Figures 1 and 4).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 18 above under the teachings of Townsend and Taylor, to include:
Series connected PV cells, a battery and charging IC, with a switching circuit that powers the TIA circuit from the PV cells once they reach a threshold voltage (Townsend)
And implemented the switching circuit as a PMOS transistor with a Zener diode (Taylor)
Townsend teaches that this arrangement gets the load to begin operating from harvested energy before the storage element is fully charged, while stored energy sustains the load when the source is intermittent (Figure 7 description, Background). Taylor teaches that a PMOS switch conduct with far less voltage drop than a diode, and that the Zener diode keeps the FET fully enhanced without exceeding its gate breakdown voltage. The result is more efficient power transfer from source to load (Figure 4 description). This could be accomplished using methods known in the art to connect the PV cells and charger IC of Townsend to the TIA supply of Taylor. Predictably, this would result in a self-powered interrogator that runs directly from the PC cells above threshold and from the battery otherwise, with minimal switching loss.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 20190317130 A1) in view of Gerdt (US 5494798 A), and further in view of Hu (US 20160089031 A1), Townsend (US 9197143 B1), and Banting (US 8594956 B2).
Regarding claim 20:
Sun in view of Gerdt and further in view of Hu teaches the system of claim 18.
Sun does not teach the CT as claimed.
Banting teaches a power line monitoring device 600 whose energy harvesting circuit comprises a CT 610, which has a split magnetic core 805, 815, and winding 905, and is clamped around conductor 660. It captures magnetic flux from the current in conductor 660 (Figures 6-8, 12-16). Circuitry 700 uses bridge rectifier 705, regulates the energy with pre-regulator 710, switching regulator 715, and powers sensor 102 and communications facility 110 while float-charging battery BT1 (Figures 1, 11). Battery BT1 supplies the load when the conductor provides insufficient energy, giving redundant power. Banting’s sensor 102 may monitor dissolved gas content or pressure of a monitored transformer (Figure 1, description).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 18 above under the teachings of Banting to include a CT set clamped to a conductor of the electric asset monitored by Sun’s sensor, to harvest power for the light source and interrogator. Banting teaches that batteries have limited power and that solar cells are unreliable in a power line environment due to contamination (Background). This could be accomplished by using methods known in the art to clamp the split core CT 610 around a conductor of the monitored transformer and route its output through circuitry 700 to the interrogator supply rail. Predictably, this would result in a self-powered sensing system that draws its operating power from the asset it monitors, with battery backup.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 20190317130 A1) in view of Gerdt (US 5494798 A), and further in view of Hu (US 20160089031 A1) and Rivero (Rivero et al., “Localized Surface Plasmon Resonance for Optical Fiber Sensing Applications”, Chapter 17, Intech).
Regarding claim 22:
Sun in view of Gerdt and further in view of Hu teaches the system of claim 1.
Sun does not teach the engineered sensing layer being structured and configured to have a plurality of different LSPR peaks corresponding to different wavelength positions.
Rivero teaches an optical fiber LSPR sensor (Section 3.3, Figure 5) in which a layer of gold nanorods immobilized on the fiber core exhibits two distinct absorption bands. The transversal plasmon resonance is at 530 nm and the longitudinal plasmon resonance is at about 720 nm (Section 3.3).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 1 above, under the teaching of Rivero to form the engineered sensing layer with plasmonic nanoparticles exhibiting a plurality of LSPR peaks at different wavelength positions. Sun seeks to discriminate multiple parameters by their distinct wavelength dependences. Rivero teaches that the two bands respond differently: the transverse band changes in absorbance without shifting, while the longitudinal band both increases and redshifts (Section 4.1.1). Rivero also identifies optical self-referencing as an advantage of LSPR sensing layers (Abstract). This could be accomplished using methods known in the art to incorporate nanorods into the oxide matrix by sol-gel processing and dip-coating the fiber (as in Section 3.1). Predictably, this would result in two independently readable intensity features from one sensing layer, one of which can serve as a reference.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PREET B PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2579. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu: 8:30 am - 6:30 pm.
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 A 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.
/PREET B PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights