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 .
Summary
This action is responsive to the application filed on 06/12/2024. Applicant has submitted Claims 1-31 for examination.
Examiner finds the following: 1) Claims 1-31 are rejected; 2) no claims objected to; and 3) no claims allowable.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority to US PRO 63/517020, filed 08/01/2023.
Claim Interpretation
Generally: 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-4 and 19-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller (WO2014006121A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Mueller discloses:
An apparatus, comprising:
a control circuit (Mueller, P11, L26, “The actual temperature compensation is then done in the signal processor.” Examiner notes that the processor is not shown in Mueller, but inherently is connected to the various components for it operate in the disclosed manner), comprising:
a light source configured to generate an input light beam (Mueller, FIG. 1, P7, L3-4, “Depolarized light from a preferably broadband light source, such as a super luminescent diode”); and
a bias signal generator configured to generate an optical bias signal (Mueller, FIG. 1, P7, L21-22, “a 22.5° Faraday rotator is placed in the sensing fiber to introduce an optical bias”);
a sensor head (Mueller, FIG. 1, P7, L20, photodetector PD1), comprising:
an optical-to-electrical signal converter configured to convert the optical bias signal into an electrical bias signal (Mueller, FIG. 1, P7, L 17-20, “The light is reflected at the end of the sensing fiber and the rotation is subsequently converted into a change in the light intensities at the two ports of the polarizing beam splitter that are measured by means of the photodetectors PD 1 and PD2.” Examiner notes that photodetectors PD1 and PD2 inherently convert received optical signals into electrical signals for the processor to monitor);
a phase polarization modulator configured to phase modulate a linear polarization (Mueller, FIG. 3, P10, L14-20, “A non-perfect half-wave retarder is inserted after the PM fiber section. (In this context "non-perfect" means that the retardation deviates by an intentional amount from perfect half wave retardation). This birefringent half-wave retarder is fabricated from a PM fiber section whose length roughly corresponds to half a beat length Lb (or integer multiples of Lb/2), i.e. to a retardation of p = 180° (or integer multiples of 180°), and whose axes are oriented with an orientation of 45° to the axis of the PM fiber”) of at least one second light beam based on the electrical bias signal, wherein the at least one second light beam is based on the input light beam (Examiner notes that Applicant has not defined “at least one second light beam” as it relates to the light source, bias signal generator, or the polarization module. As such, Examiner interprets “at least one second light beam” as: Mueller, FIG. 1, showing light split by the beam splitter and directed towards PD2. Examiner notes that such light would “based on the input light beam” as it is split off from the input light beam on the return path and would be directly affected by any changes in the input light beam); and …
… an optical fiber coil optically coupled to the phase polarization modulator (Mueller, FIG. 1, P7, L3-5, “Depolarized light from a preferably broadband light source, such as a super luminescent diode, propagates through a single-mode fiber to the sensing fiber coil”; and …
Mueller discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… at least one optical fiber configured to route the input light beam and the optical bias signal from the control circuit to the sensor head.
However, Mueller discloses throughout (See FIGS. 1, 3, and 7, for example) that the signal is carried to the photodetectors via fiber cables. Mueller fails to explicitly disclose “from the control circuit to the sensor head” because Mueller fails to explicitly disclose how its signal processor connects into the apparatus. However, Examiner notes that while the processor is not shown in Mueller, it is obviously connected to the various components for it operate in the disclosed manner. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include into Mueller at least one optical fiber configured to route the input light beam and the optical bias signal from the control circuit to the sensor head in order to connect the processor to the rest of the device and allow it to operate in the manner described by Mueller.
Regarding Claim 2, Mueller discloses Claim 1, and Mueller further discloses:
… wherein the optical-to-electrical signal converter comprises:
a photodiode configured to generate a current based on the optical bias signal (Mueller, FIG. 1, P7, L3-4, “Depolarized light from a preferably broadband light source, such as a super luminescent diode”); and
a resistor configured to generate the electrical bias signal based on the current (Mueller, FIG. 1, P7, L 17-20, “The light is reflected at the end of the sensing fiber and the rotation is subsequently converted into a change in the light intensities at the two ports of the polarizing beam splitter that are measured by means of the photodetectors PD 1 and PD2.” Examiner notes that photodetectors PD1 and PD2 inherently convert received optical signals into electrical signals for the processor to monitor).
Regarding Claim 3, Mueller discloses Claim 1, and Mueller further discloses:
… wherein the optical-to-electrical signal converter comprises:
a set of photodiodes configured to generate a set of currents based on the optical bias signal (Mueller, FIG. 1, P7, L3-4, “Depolarized light from a preferably broadband light source, such as a super luminescent diode”); and
a set of resistors configured to generate a set of voltages based on the set of currents, respectively, wherein the electrical bias signal is based on the set of voltages (Mueller, FIG. 1, P7, L 17-20, “The light is reflected at the end of the sensing fiber and the rotation is subsequently converted into a change in the light intensities at the two ports of the polarizing beam splitter that are measured by means of the photodetectors PD 1 and PD2.” Examiner notes that photodetectors PD1 and PD2 inherently convert received optical signals into electrical signals for the processor to monitor).
Regarding Claim 4, Mueller discloses Claim 1, and Mueller further discloses:
… wherein the at least one optical fiber comprises at least one single-mode optical fiber (Mueller, FIG. 1, P7, L4-5, “propagates through a single-mode fiber to the sensing fiber coil”).
Regarding Claim 19, Mueller discloses Claim 1, and Mueller further discloses:
… wherein the sensor head further includes a polarizer configured to linearly polarize the input light beam to generate the at least one second light beam (Mueller, P17, L2-4, “may be replaced by a polarization-maintaining fiber coupler and a fiber polarizer at each of the two detector ports”).
Regarding Claim 20, Mueller discloses Claim 19, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the sensor head further comprises a 45-degree optical splice configured to generate the at least one second light beam including linearly cross-polarized light beams based on the input light beam.
However, as noted in Claim 19, Mueller discloses a fiber polarizer at the detector ports (Mueller, P17, L2-4). Additionally, throughout Mueller discusses a 45° polarization (Mueller, P3, L27-29 and FIG. 8, P5, L24-26).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mueller with “wherein the sensor head further comprises a 45-degree optical splice configured to generate the at least one second light beam including linearly cross-polarized light beams based on the input light beam”. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of various angle polarizations and specifically a 45° as disclosed by Mueller and how to use them to modify Mueller. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically properly accounting for the polarization angle and the effects therein.
Regarding Claim 21, Mueller discloses Claim 19, and Mueller further discloses:
… wherein the sensor head further comprises a quarter wave (QW) retarder configured to generate a phase-modulated circularly polarized light beam based on the at least one second light beam (Mueller, FIG. 8, P5, L24-26, “where the principal axes of the fiber coil are oriented at 45° to the axes of the retarder and where the quarter-wave-retarder is perfect (~p = 0) and no bend-induced birefringence (8 = 0) exists,” and P7, L30-32, “The rotator rotates the plane of polarization by 22.5° during a single pass (or alternatively by 22.5° + M x 45°, where mis an integer number)”).
Regarding Claim 22, Mueller discloses Claim 21, and Mueller further discloses:
… wherein the optical fiber coil includes a first end configured to receive the phase-modulated circularly polarized light beam (Mueller, FIG. 1, sensing fiber), and a second end terminating at a mirror (Mueller, FIG. 1, rotator mirror).
Regarding Claim 23, Mueller discloses Claim 22, and Mueller further discloses:
… wherein phases of the phase-modulated circularly polarized light beam and a reflected phase-modulated circularly polarized light beam off the mirror are modulated by current flowing through an electrical conductor extending coaxially through the optical fiber coil (Mueller, FIG. 1, P7, L11-12, “The fiber coil made of low-birefringent fiber is looped at least once around a conductor carrying the current I to be measured”).
Regarding Claim 24, Mueller discloses Claim 23, and Mueller further discloses:
… wherein the QW retarder is further configured to generate a current-modulated linearly polarized light beam based on the current-modulated circularly polarized light beam received from the optical fiber coil (Mueller, P7, L30-32, “The rotator rotates the plane of polarization by 22.5° during a single pass (or alternatively by 22.5° + M x 45°, where mis an integer number)”).
Regarding Claim 25, Mueller discloses Claim 1, and Mueller further discloses:
… wherein the sensor head is configured to generate an output light beam based on circularly polarized light beams propagating in opposite directions in the optical fiber coil whose phases are modulated by a current flowing through an electrical conductor extending coaxially through the optical fiber coil (Mueller, FIG. 1, P7, L11-12, “The fiber coil made of low-birefringent fiber is looped at least once around a conductor carrying the current I to be measured”).
Regarding Claim 26, Mueller discloses Claim 25, and Mueller further discloses:
… wherein the control circuit further comprises a first photoreceiver configured to generate an optoelectrical signal based on the output light beam received from the sensor head via the at least one optical fiber (Mueller, FIG. 1, P7, L20, photodetector PD1).
Regarding Claim 27, Mueller discloses Claim 26, and Mueller further discloses:
… wherein the control circuit further comprises a processor configured to process the optoelectrical signal to generate information regarding the current flowing through the electrical conductor (Mueller, P11, L26, “The actual temperature compensation is then done in the signal processor.” Examiner notes that the processor is not shown in Mueller, but inherently is connected to the various components for it operate in the disclosed manner).
Regarding Claim 28, Mueller discloses Claim 27, and Mueller further discloses:
… wherein:
the processor is further configured to generate a second electrical bias signal (Mueller, P11, L26, “The actual temperature compensation is then done in the signal processor”); and
the bias signal generator is configured to generate the optical bias signal based on the second electrical bias signal (Mueller, P18, L1-3, “a method to extract the sensing fiber coil temperature from the optical signals and to compensate effects of temperature in the signal processor is provided”).
Claims 5-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller (WO2014006121A1) in view of Kemmler (US5485274A).
Regarding Claim 5, Mueller discloses Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the phase polarization modulator comprises a multi-functional integrated optical chip (MIOC).
However, Kemmler, in a similar field of endeavor (Fiber optic interferometer with wavelength-stabilized light source), discloses:
… wherein the phase polarization modulator comprises a multi-functional integrated optical chip (MIOC) (Kemmler, C5, L11-19, “It is well known (cf. Lefevre et al. in "Guided Optical Structure in Military Environment" (AGARD-CP-383) Istanbul, 23-27 Sep. 1985 p 9A/(1-13) that in measuring non-reciprocal phase shifts in a fiber optic Sagnac interferometer, the functions of the polarizer P (cf. FIG. 1) of the second beam splitter ST2 and the phase modulator PM can be combined on an integrated optics chip, based, for example, on lithium niobate. Such a multi-function integrated optics chip is designated hereinbelow "MIOC"”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mueller with the MIOC of Kemmler. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of MIOC as disclosed by Kemmler and how to use them to modify Mueller. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically using a known optical component.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Mueller and Kemmler discloses Claim 5, and Mueller further discloses:
… wherein the MIOC is configured to:
split the input light beam into two light beams (Mueller, FIG. 1, polarizing beam splitter. For the purposes of the combination, Examiner understands the beam splitter would be part of the MIOC); and
linearly polarize and phase modulate the linear polarization of the two light beams based on the electrical bias signal (Mueller, P17, L2-4, “may be replaced by a polarization-maintaining fiber coupler and a fiber polarizer at each of the two detector ports”).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Mueller and Kemmler discloses Claim 6, and Mueller further discloses:
… wherein the sensor head further comprises a pair of quarter wave (QW) retarders configured to generate two phase-modulated circularly polarized light beams based on the phase-modulated linearly polarized light beams, respectively (Mueller, FIG. 8, P5, L24-26, “where the principal axes of the fiber coil are oriented at 45° to the axes of the retarder and where the quarter-wave-retarder is perfect (~p = 0) and no bend-induced birefringence (8 = 0) exists,” and P7, L30-32, “The rotator rotates the plane of polarization by 22.5° during a single pass (or alternatively by 22.5° + M x 45°, where mis an integer number)”).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Mueller and Kemmler discloses Claim 7, and Mueller further discloses:
… wherein the sensor head further comprises a pair of polarization maintaining (PM) or elliptical optical fibers (Mueller, FIG. 8, P5, L24-26, “where the principal axes of the fiber coil are oriented at 45° to the axes of the retarder and where the quarter-wave-retarder is perfect (~p = 0) and no bend-induced birefringence (8 = 0) exists,” and P7, L30-32, “The rotator rotates the plane of polarization by 22.5° during a single pass (or alternatively by 22.5° + M x 45°, where mis an integer number)”) coupled between the MIOC and the pair of QW retarders, respectively (Examiner notes that the MIOC would obviously be coupled with the retarders and other components).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Mueller and Kemmler discloses Claim 7, but does not explicitly disclose:
… where the optical fiber coil includes two ports configured to receive the two phase-modulated circularly polarized light beams, respectively.
However, Muller discloses a port to receive the light beam.
From MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B), Duplication of Parts:
[T]he court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Examiner, based on information and belief, understands that if a second port or a second coil running in parallel with the first would not have any patentable significance and would be obvious to PHOSITA. PHOSITA would have the knowledge and skills to split an incoming signal into two ports and the combine them back as needed or wanted by the user.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Mueller and Kemmler discloses Claim 9, and Mueller further discloses:
… wherein phases of the two phase-modulated circularly polarized light beams is modulated by current flowing through an electrical conductor extending coaxially through the optical fiber coil (Mueller, FIG. 1, P7, L11-12, “The fiber coil made of low-birefringent fiber is looped at least once around a conductor carrying the current I to be measured”).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Mueller and Kemmler discloses Claim 10, and Mueller further discloses:
… wherein the pair of QW retarders are further configured to generate two current-modulated linearly polarized light beams based on the two current-modulated circularly polarized light beams received from the optical fiber coil, respectively (Mueller, FIG. 3, P10, L14-20, “A non-perfect half-wave retarder is inserted after the PM fiber section. (In this context "non-perfect" means that the retardation deviates by an intentional amount from perfect half wave retardation). This birefringent half-wave retarder is fabricated from a PM fiber section whose length roughly corresponds to half a beat length Lb (or integer multiples of Lb/2), i.e. to a retardation of p = 180° (or integer multiples of 180°), and whose axes are oriented with an orientation of 45° to the axis of the PM fiber”).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Mueller and Kemmler discloses Claim 11, and Mueller further discloses:
… wherein the MIOC is further configured to combine the two current-modulated linearly polarized light beams to undergo interference and generate an output light beam (Mueller, FIG. 7, P7, L25-28, “The orthogonal polarization states are brought to interference at the PBS. The two resulting anti-phase interference signals are detected by the two photo-detectors PD 1 and PD2 and are equivalent to the corresponding signals of sensor configuration A”).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Mueller and Kemmler discloses Claim 6, and Mueller further discloses:
… wherein the sensor head further comprises:
an optical splice configured to change the linear polarization of one of the phase-modulated linearly polarized light beams (Mueller, FIG. 1, beam splitter);
an optical coupler configured to combine the two phase-modulated linearly polarized light beams (Mueller, FIG. 7, P7, L25-28, “The orthogonal polarization states are brought to interference at the PBS. The two resulting anti-phase interference signals are detected by the two photo-detectors PD 1 and PD2 and are equivalent to the corresponding signals of sensor configuration A”); and
a quarter wave (QW) retarder configured to generate phase-modulated opposite circularly polarized light beams based on the two phase-modulated linearly polarized light beams (Mueller, FIG. 8, P5, L24-26, “where the principal axes of the fiber coil are oriented at 45° to the axes of the retarder and where the quarter-wave-retarder is perfect (~p = 0) and no bend-induced birefringence (8 = 0) exists,” and P7, L30-32, “The rotator rotates the plane of polarization by 22.5° during a single pass (or alternatively by 22.5° + M x 45°, where mis an integer number)”).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Mueller and Kemmler discloses Claim 13, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the optical splice comprises a 90-degree optical splice coupled between the MIOC and the optical coupler.
However, throughout Mueller discusses a 90° polarization (Mueller, P1, L20-25, “In order to get a linear variation of the light intensity as a function of current, it is necessary to introduce a 45° bias to the polarization angle, if the polarization rotation is detected, or a 90° phase bias, if the phase shift is measured. Frosio et al. [1] have applied the method of nonreciprocal phase modulation known from fiber gyroscopes [2] to dynamically generate a 90° phase bias by means of a phase modulator in interferometric sensors”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mueller with “wherein the optical splice comprises a 90-degree optical splice coupled between the MIOC and the optical coupler”. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of various angle polarizations and specifically a 90° as disclosed by Mueller and how to use them to modify Mueller. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically properly accounting for the polarization angle and the effects therein.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Mueller and Kemmler discloses Claim 13, and Mueller further discloses:
… wherein the optical fiber coil includes a first end configured to receive the two phase-modulated opposite circularly polarized light beams (Mueller, FIG. 1, sensing fiber), and a second end terminating at a mirror (Mueller, FIG. 1, rotator mirror).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Mueller and Kemmler discloses Claim 15,
… wherein phases of the phase-modulated circularly polarized light beam and a reflected phase-modulated circularly polarized light beam off the mirror are modulated by current flowing through an electrical conductor extending coaxially through the optical fiber coil (Mueller, FIG. 1, P7, L11-12, “The fiber coil made of low-birefringent fiber is looped at least once around a conductor carrying the current I to be measured”).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Mueller and Kemmler discloses Claim 16,
… wherein the QW retarder is further configured to generate a current-modulated linearly polarized light beam based on the current-modulated circularly polarized light beam received from the optical fiber coil (Mueller, FIG. 8, P5, L24-26, “where the principal axes of the fiber coil are oriented at 45° to the axes of the retarder and where the quarter-wave-retarder is perfect (~p = 0) and no bend-induced birefringence (8 = 0) exists,” and P7, L30-32, “The rotator rotates the plane of polarization by 22.5° during a single pass (or alternatively by 22.5° + M x 45°, where mis an integer number)”).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Mueller and Kemmler discloses Claim 17, and Mueller further discloses:
… wherein:
the optical coupler is configured to split the current-modulated linearly polarized light beam into two current-modulated linearly polarized light beams (Mueller, P17, L2-4, “may be replaced by a polarization-maintaining fiber coupler and a fiber polarizer at each of the two detector ports”); and
the MIOC is further configured to combine the two current-modulated linearly polarized light beams to undergo interference and generate an output light beam (Mueller, FIG. 7, P7, L25-28, “The orthogonal polarization states are brought to interference at the PBS. The two resulting anti-phase interference signals are detected by the two photo-detectors PD 1 and PD2 and are equivalent to the corresponding signals of sensor configuration A”).
Claims 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller (WO2014006121A1) in view of Mostafavi (US 20210123964 A1).
Regarding Claim 29, Mueller discloses Claim 27, and Mueller further disclose:
… wherein: …
… the control circuit further comprises a second photoreceiver configured to generate an electrical signal based on the optical signal received from the sensor head via the at least one optical fiber (Mueller, FIG. 1, P7, L20, photodetector PD2); and
the processor (Mueller, P11, L26, “The actual temperature compensation is then done in the signal processor”) is configured to process the electrical signal to temperature compensate the optoelectrical signal in generating the information regarding the current flowing through the electrical conductor (Mueller, P18, L1-3, “a method to extract the sensing fiber coil temperature from the optical signals and to compensate effects of temperature in the signal processor is provided”).
Mueller discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… the sensor head further comprises a fiber Bragg grating (FBG) temperature sensor configured to generate an optical signal related to a temperature at the sensor head; …
However, Mostafavi, in a similar field of endeavor (OPTICAL MONITORING TO DETECT CONTAMINATION OF POWER GRID COMPONENTS), discloses:
… the sensor head further comprises a fiber Bragg grating (FBG) temperature sensor configured to generate an optical signal related to a temperature at the sensor head (Mostafavi, [0021], “sensors using fiber Bragg gratings (FBGs)”); …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mueller with the FBG of Mostafavi. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of FBG as disclosed by Mostafavi and how to use them to modify Mueller. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically using a known optical component.
Claims 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller (WO2014006121A1) in view of Xiao (Xiao, Yigai, Deng, Hongwei, Xie, Zhimou, He, Wei, Application of Nanoporous Super Thermal Insulation Material in the Prevention and Control of Thermal Hazards in Deep Mining of Metal Mines, Journal of Nanomaterials, 2022, 2390616, 10 pages, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/2390616).
Regarding Claim 30, Mueller discloses Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the sensor head further comprises a housing to enclose the optical fiber coil, wherein the housing further includes thermal insulating or isolating material proximate the optical fiber coil.
However, Xiao, in a similar field of endeavor (Application of Nanoporous Super Thermal Insulation Material in the Prevention and Control of Thermal Hazards in Deep Mining of Metal Mines), discloses:
… wherein the sensor head further comprises a housing to enclose the optical fiber coil, wherein the housing further includes thermal insulating or isolating material proximate the optical fiber coil (Xiao, P4, Section 2.3.2(1)).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mueller with the insulating of Xiao. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of insulating materials as disclosed by Xiao and how to use them to modify Mueller. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically using a known insulator for cables.
Regarding Claim 31, the combination of Mueller and Xiao discloses Claim 30, and Xiao further discloses:
… wherein the thermal insulating or isolating material comprises a silicon dioxide (SiO2) aerogel (Xiao, Table 1).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Mueller and Xiao with the insulating of Xiao. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of insulating materials as disclosed by Xiao and how to use them to modify the combination of Mueller and Xiao. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically using a known insulator for cables.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD A REVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0079. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5 EST.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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 ANDREW REVERMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877