CTNF 18/774,436 CTNF 91697 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-7 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coonrod et al. (Pat. No. US 10,605,728) (hereafter Coonrod) in view of Nivelle et al.(Pub. No. US 2023/0194361) (hereafter Nivelle) . Regarding claim 1 , Coonrod teaches a measurement system for measuring a dynamic deformation of an object, the measurement system comprising an optical fiber (i.e., optical fiber waveguide 112) (see Fig. 2), the optical fiber extending at least partially into a tube (i.e., flexible thin walled tube 90) (see Fig. 2) that is configured to be secured to the object (i.e., process system including piping) (see Column 7, line 49, to Column 8, line 2), the optical fiber having a measurement sector that is able to move inside the tube (i.e., sensors 101-104 can move inside the chambers of the tube 90) (see Fig. 2), the measurement sector comprising at least one Bragg grating (i.e., optical sensors 101-104 comprising blazed or chirped fiber Bragg gratings) (see Fig. 2), wherein the measurement system comprises a fluid filling at least one chamber delimited by the tube (i.e., incompressible fluid 136 and acoustic or thermal coupling medium 126, such as liquid, gel, or elastomer. Since different probe chambers could be provided to monitor different measurands, each probe chamber could in effect be treated as a separate sensor. It should be understood that any number, combination or order of different probe chambers may be provided for achieving different couplings between an internal optical sensor and the environment outside of the probe, and for monitoring different measurands) (see Column 9, lines 1-40), the measurement sector extending into the at least one chamber (see Fig. 2), the fluid being in contact with the tube and the measurement sector (see Fig. 2), the measurement system comprising at least one ring secured to the measurement sector and arranged in the fluid (i.e., sealing members 114) (see Fig. 2); but does not explicitly teach the non-Newtonian fluid. Regarding the non-Newtonian fluid, Nivelle teaches that the measurement system comprises a non-Newtonian fluid filling (i.e., medium 14 may be a liquid such as silicon oil or tetraethylene glycol. This allows it to be easily injected into the capillary 12. The optical fiber 16 may be surrounded by the liquid medium, e.g. float in the medium 14. The medium 14 may have a viscosity such as to decouple the optical fiber 16 from strain in the capillary 12 (and in case of a horizontal orientation counteract effects of gravity on the optical fiber 16), while being low enough to allow for injection of the medium 14 into the capillary 12. A combination of density, surface tension, and contact angle with the material of the capillary 12 may determine the maximum viscosity that still allows for injection of the medium 14 into the capillary 12) (see paragraph sections [0053]-[0062]) at least one chamber delimited by the tube (i.e., capillary 12) (see Fig. 1a). In view of the teaching of Nivelle, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a non-newtonian fluid, such as silicon oil, in order to properly monitor different measurands and to achieve different couplings between the optical sensor and the outside environment. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07). Regarding claim 2 , Coonrod teaches that the at least one chamber is closed by at least one plug arranged in the tube and impermeable to the non-Newtonian fluid (i.e., sealing element 8 prevents the flow of fluid through the aperture and may, for example, be a rubber washer, an o-ring, a c-ring or a gasket) (see Fig. 1). Regarding claim 3, Coonrod teaches that the at least one ring is arranged in the chamber (i.e., sealing members 14) (see Fig. 2). Regarding claim 4 , Coonrod teaches the at least one chamber comprises two chambers filled with the fluid and arranged to either side of the Bragg grating, the measurement sector extending into these two chambers (i.e., probe chambers 110, 120, 130, 140) (see Fig. 2); but does not explicitly teach the non-Newtonian fluid. However, Nivelle teaches the non-Newtonian fluid (i.e., medium 14 may be a liquid such as silicon oil or tetraethylene glycol. This allows it to be easily injected into the capillary 12. The optical fiber 16 may be surrounded by the liquid medium, e.g. float in the medium 14. The medium 14 may have a viscosity such as to decouple the optical fiber 16 from strain in the capillary 12 (and in case of a horizontal orientation counteract effects of gravity on the optical fiber 16), while being low enough to allow for injection of the medium 14 into the capillary 12. A combination of density, surface tension, and contact angle with the material of the capillary 12 may determine the maximum viscosity that still allows for injection of the medium 14 into the capillary 12) (see paragraph sections [0053]-[0062]). In view of the teaching of Nivelle, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a non-newtonian fluid, such as silicon oil, in order to properly monitor different measurands and to achieve different couplings between the optical sensor and the outside environment. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07). Regarding claim 5 , Coonrod teaches the measurement system comprises a single chamber, the Bragg grating being positioned between an anchoring point of the optical fiber and the single chamber (i.e., any one of the chambers 110, 120, 130, 140) (see Fig. 2). Regarding claim 6 , Coonrod teaches that the Bragg grating is arranged in the at least one chamber (i.e., sensors 101-104 in respective chambers 110, 120, 130, 140) (see Fig. 2). Regarding claim 7 , Coonrod teaches that the measurement system comprises an interrogator optically coupled to the optical fiber, the interrogator being configured to illuminate the optical fiber and to capture light reflected by the Bragg grating and deduce from this a dynamic deformation of the object (i.e., the sensors are then interrogated using known techniques in order to monitor a plurality of measurands from the sensors 24) (see Column 11, lines 34-65). Regarding claim 10 , Coonrod as modified by Nivelle as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the non-Newtonian fluid is a shear-thickening fluid or a viscoelastic fluid. However, Nivelle teaches that the non-Newtonian fluid is a shear-thickening fluid or a viscoelastic fluid (i.e., medium 14 may be a liquid such as silicon oil or tetraethylene glycol. This allows it to be easily injected into the capillary 12. The optical fiber 16 may be surrounded by the liquid medium, e.g. float in the medium 14. The medium 14 may have a viscosity such as to decouple the optical fiber 16 from strain in the capillary 12 (and in case of a horizontal orientation counteract effects of gravity on the optical fiber 16), while being low enough to allow for injection of the medium 14 into the capillary 12. A combination of density, surface tension, and contact angle with the material of the capillary 12 may determine the maximum viscosity that still allows for injection of the medium 14 into the capillary 12) (see paragraph sections [0053]-[0062]). In view of the teaching of Nivelle, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a non-newtonian fluid, such as silicon oil, in order to properly monitor different measurands and to achieve different couplings between the optical sensor and the outside environment. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07). Regarding claim 11 , Coonrod teaches an aircraft (Please note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitation) (see MPEP 2114 II) provided with an object, wherein the aircraft comprises the measurement system according to claim 1, the tube being fastened to the object or embedded in the object (i.e., probe may be used with any form of process systems) (see Column 2, lines 18-67). Regarding claim 12 , Coonrod teaches a method for measuring a dynamic deformation of an object with the measurement system comprising an optical fiber (i.e., optical fiber waveguide 112) (see Fig. 2) extending into a tube (i.e., flexible thin walled tube 90) (see Fig. 2) that is configured to be secured to the object (i.e., process system including piping) (see Column 7, line 49, to Column 8, line 2), the optical fiber having a measurement sector that is able to move inside the tube (i.e., sensors 101-104 can move inside the chambers of the tube 90) (see Fig. 2), the measurement sector comprising at least one Bragg grating (i.e., optical sensors 101-104 comprising blazed or chirped fiber Bragg gratings) (see Fig. 2), the fluid rendering the measurement sector automatically movable in relation to the tube when static deformation occurs, the fluid rigidly attaching the measurement sector to the tube when dynamic deformation occurs (i.e., incompressible fluid 136 and acoustic or thermal coupling medium 126, such as liquid, gel, or elastomer. Since different probe chambers could be provided to monitor different measurands, each probe chamber could in effect be treated as a separate sensor. It should be understood that any number, combination or order of different probe chambers may be provided for achieving different couplings between an internal optical sensor and the environment outside of the probe, and for monitoring different measurands) (see Column 9, lines 1-40), the measurement method comprising, when dynamic deformation occurs, emitting light into the optical fiber, and receiving light reflected by the Bragg grating, and determining the dynamic deformation as a function of a measurement law and the reflected light (i.e., the sensors are then interrogated using known techniques in order to monitor a plurality of measurands from the sensors 24) (see Column 11, lines 34-65); but does not explicitly teach the non-Newtonian fluid. Regarding the non-Newtonian fluid, Nivelle teaches that the non-newtonian fluid rendering the measurement sector automatically movable in relation to the tube when static deformation occurs, the fluid rigidly attaching the measurement sector to the tube when dynamic deformation occurs (i.e., medium 14 may be a liquid such as silicon oil or tetraethylene glycol. This allows it to be easily injected into the capillary 12. The optical fiber 16 may be surrounded by the liquid medium, e.g. float in the medium 14. The medium 14 may have a viscosity such as to decouple the optical fiber 16 from strain in the capillary 12 (and in case of a horizontal orientation counteract effects of gravity on the optical fiber 16), while being low enough to allow for injection of the medium 14 into the capillary 12. A combination of density, surface tension, and contact angle with the material of the capillary 12 may determine the maximum viscosity that still allows for injection of the medium 14 into the capillary 12) (see paragraph sections [0053]-[0062]). In view of the teaching of Nivelle, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a non-newtonian fluid, such as silicon oil, in order to properly monitor different measurands and to achieve different couplings between the optical sensor and the outside environment. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coonrod et al. (Pat. No. US 10,605,728) (hereafter Coonrod) in view of Nivelle et al.(Pub. No. US 2023/0194361) (hereafter Nivelle) and in further view of Fernald et al. (Pat. No. US 6,668,656) (hereafter Fernald) Regarding claims 8-9 , Coonrod as modified by Nivelle as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the measurement sector comprises several Bragg gratings having different pitches (claim 8); or wherein the optical fiber comprises a core provided with the at least one Bragg grating, the optical fiber comprising a cladding surrounding the core, the optical fiber comprising a coating surrounding the cladding, the coating having an alloy made from iron and nickel (claim 9). Regarding the optical sensor, Fernald teaches that the measurement sector comprises several Bragg gratings having different pitches (i.e., grating 12 having λ 1 and grating 80 having λ 2 , and grating 12 in each sensor may have a different reflection wavelength) (see Fig. 6 and 21) (claim 8); and wherein the optical fiber comprises a core provided with the at least one Bragg grating, the optical fiber comprising a cladding surrounding the core, the optical fiber comprising a coating surrounding the cladding, the coating having an alloy made from iron and nickel (i.e., here the fiber 10 exits the tube 20, the fiber 10 may have an external protective buffer layer 21 to protect the outer surface of the fiber 10 from damage. The buffer 21 may be made of polyimide, silicone, Teflon.RTM. (polytetrafluoroethylene), carbon, gold, and/or nickel, and has a thickness of about 25 microns. Other thicknesses and buffer materials for the buffer layer 21 may be used) (see Column 6, line 1, to Column 7, line 43) (claim 9). In view of the teaching of Fernald, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed sensors having different Bragg gratings in order to monitor different parameters or measurands. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : see PTO-892 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAN M. TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0307. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11:30am - 7:00pm. 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, Laura Martin can be reached on (571)-272-2160. 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. /Tran M. Tran/Examiner, Art Unit 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/774,436 Page 2 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/774,436 Page 3 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/774,436 Page 4 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/774,436 Page 5 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/774,436 Page 6 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/774,436 Page 7 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/774,436 Page 8 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/774,436 Page 9 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/774,436 Page 10 Art Unit: 2855
Prosecution Insights