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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/28/2024 was considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: reference number 101 in Fig. 5. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds the accepted length. 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).
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 should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Further, the abstract contains the same grammatical errors that are objected to in claim 1 below. The examiner suggests re-phrasing the abstract to conform with U.S. practice.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The word “faraday”, throughout the specification, should read “Faraday” as it is a proper noun.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “a first optical coupler configured to split laser light from a laser light source into two beams of laser light, and one of which is as irradiation light and an other is local light”. The grammatical phasing of the last limitation sounds unnatural as “an other” is typically written as “another”. The examiner suggests re-phrasing the limitation to conform with U.S. practice. For example, it may be amended to “a first optical coupler configured to split laser light from a laser light source into a first beam and second beam, wherein the first beam is irradiation light and the second beam is local light”.
Further, the claim recites “a sensor head configured to receive the irradiation light come from the first optical coupler”. The examiner suggests changing “come from” to “output from” to fix the grammatical error.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “splitting laser light into two beams of laser light, and generating one beam of the laser light as irradiation light and an other beam of the laser light as local light”. It suggested to amend this limitation to conform with U.S. practice as described with relation to claim 1 above. For example, it may be amended to “splitting laser light into a first beam and second beam, wherein the first beam is irradiation light and the second beam is local light”.
Regarding claims 1 and 3, the claims recite “faraday rotator” which should read “Faraday rotator” because “Faraday” is a proper noun.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the claims recite, for example in claim 2, “an optical multiplexer/demultiplexer configured to output from a second input/output port the irradiation light having being input to a first input/output port and generated by the first optical coupler and cause the irradiation light to propagate through the first optical path, and output from a third input/output port the measurement light having being input to the second input/output port and having propagated through the first optical path”. The examiner suggests rephasing the claim to remove the words “having being” as they make the claim difficult to read. In general, the examiner suggests writing all claims in the active voice.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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 limitation(s) is/are: “electrical processing system” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “electrical processing system” which uses the generic placeholder “system” 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. Accordingly, the limitation on “electrical processing system” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to a computer or equivalent ([0057]).
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.
Claim 3 and 4 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.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites, in the second paragraph, “the second input/output port”, “the first input/output port”, and “the third input/output port” of the second optical multiplexer/demultiplexer, however, these terms lack antecedent basis. The claim as written does not differentiate between the input/output ports of the first optical multiplexer/demultiplexer and second optical multiplexer/demultiplexer, however, for the purposes of examination the first, second, and third input/output ports of the first optical multiplexer/demultiplexer are considered to be different than the first, second, and third input/output ports of the second optical multiplexer/demultiplexer. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is rejected based on its dependency.
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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1,2, and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2022067148A by Kimura (cited in the IDS; translation provided) in view of JP2022148173A by Komatsuzaki et al. (hereinafter "Komatsuzaki"; translation provided).
Regarding claim 1, Kimura teaches a laser Doppler vibrometer ([035]) comprising (at least Fig. 4):
a first optical coupler (optical coupler 3002) configured to split laser light from a laser light source (laser light source 3001) into two beams of laser light, and one of which is as irradiation light and an other is local light ([0038] optical coupler 3002 splits light from laser light source 3001, sends irradiation light to circulator 3003 and local light to frequency shifter 3005);
a sensor head (sensor head 3004) configured to receive the irradiation light come from the first optical coupler through a first optical path, irradiate a measurement target with the irradiation light through a second optical path, receive, through the second optical path, measurement light obtained when the irradiation light is reflected by the measurement target, and cause the measurement light to propagate through the first optical path ([039]-[040] sensor head 3004 receives light from circulator 3003 and returns scattered measurement light in same optical path; [038] object 200 is measurement target, see Fig. 4 for first and second optical paths)
a second optical coupler (optical coupler 3006 ) configured to generate interference light by causing the measurement light having propagated through the first optical path and the local light to interfere with each other ([042] optical coupler 3006 combines local and measurement light; [044] interference between "scattered light Ein obtained in a randomly polarized state" and "locally emitted ELO obtained by linear polarization"); and
an electrical processing system (signal processing circuit 3011) configured to calculate a vibration state of the measurement target from the interference light ([048] signal processing circuit 3011 is a circuit that outputs the calculation result of the ADC 3010 to the interface (not shown) of the apparatus as the result of the desired vibration measurement").
Kimura is silent as to wherein the sensor head includes a faraday rotator that rotates a polarization 45°.
However, Komatsuzaki does address this limitation. Komatsuzaki and Kimura are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of optical measurement.
Komatsuzaki teaches wherein the sensor head includes a faraday rotator that rotates a polarization 45° ([0025] optical head section 130 has a Faraday element 131; [0026] Faraday element 131 rotates the polarization direction of the input light by 45 degrees and passes the light).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a faraday rotator in the sensor head to change the polarization of the light. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Kimura to include wherein the sensor head includes a faraday rotator that rotates a polarization 45° as suggested by Komatsuzaki in order to maintain the polarization directions of the measurement light and the reference light and reduce the difference in optical path length between the measurement light and the reference light to almost zero ([0035]), thus suppressing a decrease in measurement accuracy ([0005]).
Regarding claim 2, Kimura modified by Komatsuzaki teaches The laser Doppler vibrometer according to claim 1, and Kimura further teaches comprising: an optical multiplexer/demultiplexer (circulator 3003) configured to output from a second input/output port the irradiation light having being input to a first input/output port and generated by the first optical coupler and cause the irradiation light to propagate through the first optical path, and output from a third input/output port the measurement light having being input to the second input/output port and having propagated through the first optical path ([0051]-[0052] circulator 3003, first port receives light from coupler 3002, second port sends and receives light to sensor head, third port sends like to second coupler 3006; see Fig. 4).
Kimura is silent as to a polarization rotator configured to rotate 90° a polarization of the measurement light output from the third input/output port of the optical multiplexer/demultiplexer, and send the measurement light to the second optical coupler.
However, Komatsuzaki does address this limitation.
Komatsuzaki teaches in Fig. 1 an example in which a half-wave plate 151 (a polarization rotator, see applicant’s specification [0052]) is provided in the optical path through which the reference light passes so as to rotate the polarization direction of the reference light by 90 degrees so that the polarization direction of the reflected light and the polarization direction of the reference light are substantially the same ([0044]-[0045]). Further, the rotated reference light is sent to an optical coupler ([0045]). Although, Komatsuzaki does not teach that the polarization rotator is configured to rotate 90° a polarization of the measurement light output from the third input/output port of the optical multiplexer/demultiplexer, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See MPEP 2144.04 Sec. V. C. The polarization rotator would still perform the same function of making the polarization direction of the reference and reflected light the same if it where rearranged to rotate the polarization of the reflected light instead of the reference light.
Thus, it would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a polarization rotator to rotate a polarization by 90°. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Kimura to include, between the optical multiplexer/demultiplexer and second optical coupler, a polarization rotator configured to rotate 90° a polarization of the measurement light output from the third input/output port of the optical multiplexer/demultiplexer, and send the measurement light to the second optical coupler as suggested by Komatsuzaki in order to ensure the polarization directions of the measurement light and local light are the same in order to effectively perform interference ([0045]).
Regarding claim 5, Kimura modified by Komatsuzaki teaches The laser Doppler vibrometer according to claim 2, and Kimura further teaches wherein the optical multiplexer/demultiplexer is an optical circulator ([0051]-[0052] circulator 3003).
Regarding claim 6, Kimura modified by Komatsuzaki teaches The laser Doppler vibrometer according to claim 2, and although Kimura does not teach wherein the optical multiplexer/demultiplexer is a polarization beam splitter in this embodiment, Kimura does teach this limitation in a separate embodiment.
Kimura teaches wherein the optical multiplexer/demultiplexer is a polarization beam splitter (Fig. 1; polarization beam splitter 1003; [010]).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a polarization beam splitter to separate measurement light into different directions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the first embodiment of Kimura to include wherein the optical multiplexer/demultiplexer is a polarization beam splitter in order to perform the same function as the circulator and filter light with unwanted polarization ([010]).
Regarding claim 7, Kimura teaches a vibration measurement method comprising ([035]; Fig.4):
splitting laser light into two beams of laser light, and generating one beam of the laser light as irradiation light and an other beam of the laser light as local light ([0038] optical coupler 3002 splits light from laser light source 3001, sends irradiation light to circulator 3003 and local light to frequency shifter 3005);
receiving the irradiation light through a first optical path and then irradiating a measurement target with the irradiation light through a second optical path ([039]-[040] [038] object 200 is measurement target, see Fig. 4 optical paths);
receiving, through the second optical path, measurement light obtained when the irradiation light is reflected by the measurement target and causing the measurement light to propagate through the first optical path ([039]-[040] sensor head 3004 receives light from circulator 3003 and returns scattered measurement light in same optical path; see Fig, 4);
generating interference light by causing the measurement light having propagated through the first optical path and the local light to interfere with each other ([042] optical coupler 3006 combines local and measurement light; [044] interference between "scattered light Ein obtained in a randomly polarized state" and "locally emitted ELO obtained by linear polarization"); and
acquiring information of vibration of the measurement target from the interference light ([048] signal processing circuit 3011 is a circuit that outputs the calculation result of the ADC 3010 to the interface (not shown) of the apparatus as the result of the desired vibration measurement").
Kimura is silent as to receiving the irradiation light through a first optical path, rotating a polarization 45°, and then irradiating a measurement target with the irradiation light through a second optical path; receiving, through the second optical path, measurement light obtained when the irradiation light is reflected by the measurement target, then rotating a polarization 45°, and causing the measurement light to propagate through the first optical path, wherein the polarization is rotated 45° twice non-reciprocally.
However, Komatsuzaki does address this limitation. Komatsuzaki and Kimura are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of optical measurement.
Komatsuzaki teaches receiving the irradiation light through a first optical path, rotating a polarization 45°, and then irradiating a measurement target with the irradiation light through a second optical path; receiving, through the second optical path, measurement light obtained when the irradiation light is reflected by the measurement target, then rotating a polarization 45°, and causing the measurement light to propagate through the first optical path, wherein the polarization is rotated 45° twice non-reciprocally ([0010] The optical head unit further has a Faraday element that rotates the polarization direction of the input light by 45 degrees and passes the light, and the Faraday element rotates the polarization direction of the frequency-modulated laser light by 45 degrees, Light may be passed through, and the polarization directions of the reflected light and the reference light returning from the passed light may be rotated by 45 degrees, faraday rotator perform non-reciprocal rotation).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a faraday rotator to change the polarization of the light. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Kimura to receiving the irradiation light through a first optical path, rotating a polarization 45°, and then irradiating a measurement target with the irradiation light through a second optical path; receiving, through the second optical path, measurement light obtained when the irradiation light is reflected by the measurement target, then rotating a polarization 45°, and causing the measurement light to propagate through the first optical path, wherein the polarization is rotated 45° twice non-reciprocally as suggested by Komatsuzaki in order to maintain the polarization directions of the measurement light and the reference light and reduce the difference in optical path length between the measurement light and the reference light to almost zero ([0035]), thus suppressing a decrease in measurement accuracy ([0005]).
Regarding claim 8, Kimura modified by Komatsuzaki teaches the vibration measurement method according to claim 7, but Kimura is silent as to further comprising rotating 90° the polarization of the measurement light having propagated through the first optical path before generating the interference light.
However, Komatsuzaki does address this limitation.
Komatsuzaki teaches in Fig. 1 an example in which a half-wave plate 151 (a polarization rotator, see application specification [0052]) is provided in the optical path through which the reference light passes so as to rotate the polarization direction of the reference light by 90 degrees so that the polarization direction of the reflected light and the polarization direction of the reference light are substantially the same ([0044]-[0045]). Further, the rotated reference light is sent to an optical coupler where interference light is generated ([0045]) Although, Komatsuzaki does not teach rotating 90° the polarization of the measurement light having propagated through the first optical path before generating the interference light, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See MPEP 2144.04 Sec. V. C. The polarization rotator would still perform the same function of making the polarization direction of the reference and reflected light the same if it where rearranged to rotate the polarization of the reflected light instead of the reference light.
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rotate a polarization by 90° before generating the interference light. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Kimura to include further comprising rotating 90° the polarization of the measurement light having propagated through the first optical path before generating the interference light as suggested by Komatsuzaki in order to ensure the polarization directions of the measurement light and local light are the same in order to effectively perform interference ([0045]).
Claims 3-4 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura in view of Komatsuzaki as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of CN113176581B by Cai et al. (hereinafter "Cai"; translation provided)
Regarding claim 3, Kimura modified by Komatsuzaki teaches The laser Doppler vibrometer according to claim 1, and Kimura teaches a first optical multiplexer/demultiplexer (circulator 3003) configured to output from a second input/output port the irradiation light having being input to a first input/output port and generated by the first optical coupler and cause the irradiation light to propagate through the first optical path, and output from a third input/output port the measurement light having being input to the second input/output port and having propagated through the first optical path and send the measurement light to the second optical coupler ([0051]-[0052] circulator 3003, first port receives light from coupler 3002, second port sends and receives light to sensor head, third port sends like to second coupler 3006; see Fig. 4 for optical paths).
Kimura is silent as to a second optical multiplexer/demultiplexer configured to output from the second input/output port the local light having being input to the first input/output port and generated by the first optical coupler and cause the local light to propagate through a third optical path, and output from the third input/output port the local light having being input to the second input/output port and having propagated through the third optical path and send the local light to the second optical coupler; and a faraday rotator mirror provided on an opposite side of the third optical path to the second optical multiplexer/demultiplexer.
However, Cai does address this limitation. Cai and Kimura are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of laser doppler measurement.
Cai teaches the use of faraday rotator mirrors used to rotate the polarization state of a second optical signal to obtain a reference signal ([0024]). The reference optical path includes a frequency shifter, a number of third optical splitters, a number of second adjustable optical attenuators, and a number of Faraday reflectors; One end is connected to the first optical splitter, the other end of the frequency shifter is connected to the third optical splitter, and the third optical splitter is connected to the Faraday reflector ([020]). The optical signal undergoes polarization state rotation and outputs a reference signal after being reflected ([0061]). Thus Cai teaches second optical multiplexer/demultiplexer (optical splitter) which receives local light, send the local light to a faraday rotator mirror, and sends the local light back as a reference signal for measurement.
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a faraday reflector to obtain a reference signal. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Kimura to include a second optical multiplexer/demultiplexer configured to output from the second input/output port the local light having being input to the first input/output port and generated by the first optical coupler and cause the local light to propagate through a third optical path, and output from the third input/output port the local light having being input to the second input/output port and having propagated through the third optical path and send the local light to the second optical coupler; and a faraday rotator mirror provided on an opposite side of the third optical path to the second optical multiplexer/demultiplexer as suggested by Cai in order to obtain a reference signal that shares the same path as the measurement light which reduces measurement error ([0064]; [0056] measurement light passes through faraday rotator 5).
Regarding claim 4, Kimura modified by Komatsuzaki and Cai teaches The laser Doppler vibrometer according to claim 3, but Kimura is silent as to wherein an optical path length of the third optical path is equal to a sum of optical path lengths of the first optical path and the second optical path.
However, Cai does address this limitation.
Cai teaches that the signal light (measurement light) and reference light (local light) share the same path in order to cancel the birefringence ([0064]). Additionally, as the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller 105 USPQ 233 (1955). See MPEP 2144.05 Sec. II A. The path lengths would be selected in order to reduce error.
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the optical path length of the reference and measurement light are the same. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Kimura to include wherein an optical path length of the third optical path is equal to a sum of optical path lengths of the first optical path and the second optical path as suggested by Cai in order to cancel the birefringence thus reducing measurement error (Cai [0064]).
Regarding claim 9, Kimura modified by Komatsuzaki teaches the vibration measurement method according to claim 7, but Kimura is silent as to further comprising: causing the local light to propagate through a third optical path before generating the interference light; rotating 90° a polarization of the local light having propagated through the third optical path; and causing the local light whose polarization has been rotated 90° to propagate through the third optical path again.
However, Cai does address this limitation. Cai and Kimura are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of laser doppler measurement.
Cai teaches causing the local light to propagate through a third optical path before generating the interference light; rotating 90° a polarization of the local light having propagated through the third optical path; and causing the local light whose polarization has been rotated 90° to propagate through the third optical path again ([0064] The polarization state is rotated by 45°. After being reflected by the mirror 12-2, it passes through the Faraday rotator 12-1 again. The deflection state is rotated by 45° again, and is re-converged back to the fiber by the lens. At this time, the polarization state is rotated by a total of 90°; [0072] interference).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rotate the polarization of the local signal to obtain a reference signal. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Kimura to include causing the local light to propagate through a third optical path before generating the interference light; rotating 90° a polarization of the local light having propagated through the third optical path; and causing the local light whose polarization has been rotated 90° to propagate through the third optical path again as suggested by Cai in order to obtain a reference signal that shares the same path as the measurement light which reduces measurement error ([0064]; [0056] measurement light passes through faraday rotator 5).
Regarding claim 10, Kimura modified by Komatsuzaki and Cai teaches the vibration measurement method according to claim 9, but Kimura is silent as to wherein rotating the polarization of the local light 90° includes rotating 45° the polarization of the local light having propagated through the third optical path, and then totally reflecting the polarization, and rotating 45° the polarization of the totally reflected local light, and then causing the local light to propagate through the third optical path again, and the polarization of the local light is rotated 45° twice non-reciprocally.
However, Cai does address this limitation.
Cai teaches rotating 45° the polarization of the local light having propagated through the third optical path, and then totally reflecting the polarization, and rotating 45° the polarization of the totally reflected local light, and then causing the local light to propagate through the third optical path again, and the polarization of the local light is rotated 45° twice non-reciprocally ([0064] The polarization state is rotated by 45°. After being reflected by the mirror 12-2, it passes through the Faraday rotator 12-1 again. The deflection state is rotated by 45° again, and is re-converged back to the fiber by the lens. At this time, the polarization state is rotated by a total of 90°; faraday rotator perform non-reciprocal rotation).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pass light through a faraday rotator twice to rotate the polarization by 90°. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Kimura to include wherein rotating the polarization of the local light 90° includes rotating 45° the polarization of the local light having propagated through the third optical path, and then totally reflecting the polarization, and rotating 45° the polarization of the totally reflected local light, and then causing the local light to propagate through the third optical path again, and the polarization of the local light is rotated 45° twice non-reciprocally as suggested by Cai in order to obtain a reference signal that shares the same path as the measurement light which reduces measurement error ([0064]; [0056] measurement light passes through faraday rotator 5).
Regarding claim 11, Kimura modified by Komatsuzaki and Cai teaches the vibration measurement method according to claim 9, but Kimura is silent as to wherein an optical path length of the third optical path is equal to a sum of optical path lengths of the first optical path and the second optical path.
However, Cai does address this limitation.
Cai teaches that the signal light (measurement light) and reference light (local light) share the same path in order to cancel the birefringence ([0064]). Additionally, as the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller 105 USPQ 233 (1955). See MPEP 2144.05 Sec. II A. The path lengths would be selected in order to reduce error.
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the optical path length of the reference and measurement light are the same. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Kimura to include wherein an optical path length of the third optical path is equal to a sum of optical path lengths of the first optical path and the second optical path as suggested by Cai in order to cancel the birefringence thus reducing measurement error ([0064]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITLYN E KIDWELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at 571-272-2287. 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.
/KAITLYN E KIDWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights