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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Europe on 7/28/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the EP23188443.8 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 7, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Duncan et al. (US PGPub 2011/0110621 A1).
As to claim 1, Duncan et al. teaches a sensor system (figure 2), comprising:
an optical fiber (4) defining a proximal end and a distal end spaced apart from the proximal end (figure 2);
wherein the optical fiber (4) includes a first sensing reflector (5) and a second sensing reflector (6) spaced apart from the first sensing reflector (figure 2);
wherein the optical fiber (4) includes a reference reflector (7, 8) disposed between the proximal end and the distal end (figure 2) and spaced apart at least 1 millimeter from the distal end of the optical fiber (figures 2 and 4);
a modulable light source (11) disposed at the proximal end of the optical fiber (figure 2 and paragraph [0027]);
a photodetector (12); and
a measuring segment (the separation between 7, 8 and 5 or 6) disposed between the distal end and the proximal end of the optical fiber (4) and between the first sensing reflector (7) and the second sensing reflector (8; paragraph [0033]).
As to claim 2, Duncan et al. teaches wherein the second sensing reflector (6) is disposed closer to the distal end than the first sensing reflector (5), and the reference reflector (7) is disposed between the proximal end and the second sensing reflector (6; figure 2).
As to claim 7, Duncan et al. teaches wherein the modulable light source (11) is configured to emit light with a coherence length longer than the maximum distance between the reference reflector and the closest of the first sensing reflector and the second sensing reflector (paragraphs [0027]-[0028]).
As to claim 12, Duncan et al. teaches further comprising an evaluation unit (9 and 20) configured and disposed to track the relative phase of resonances in time upon modulation of the light of the light source (paragraphs [0027]-[0029]).
As to claim 17, Duncan et al. teaches wherein the first sensing reflector (5) is disposed closer to the proximal end than the second sensing reflector (6; figure 2), and the reference reflector (7) is disposed between the proximal end and the first sensing reflector (5; figure 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duncan et al. (US PGPub 2011/0110621 A1) in view of Childers et al. (US PGPub 2014/0150548 A1).
As to claim 3, Duncan et al. teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention, as noted above for claim 1, except wherein the reference reflector is a fiber Bragg grating.
Childers et al. teaches a reference reflector is a fiber Bragg grating (paragraph [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Duncan et al. to have wherein the reference reflector is a fiber Bragg grating as taught by Childers et al. because it is a well known configuration of the reference reflector in downhole sensing (paragraph [0020]) with predictable results.
As to claim 18, Duncan et al. as modified teaches wherein each of the first sensing reflector and the second sensing reflector is a Fiber Bragg grating (paragraph [0026] of Duncan et al.).
Claims 4-6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duncan et al. (US PGPub 2011/0110621 A1) in view of Omichi et al. (US PGPub 2013/0333476 A1).
As to claim 4, Duncan et al. teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention, as noted above for claim 1, except explicitly further comprising an attenuator disposed at the distal end of the optical fiber.
Omichi et al. teaches further comprising an attenuator disposed at the distal end of the optical fiber (paragraph [0046] where the antireflection end is considered to be an attenuator).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Duncan et al. to have further comprising an attenuator disposed at the distal end of the optical fiber as taught by Omichi et al. because it allows the prevention of a reflection simplifying the data gathered (paragraph [0046]) with predictable results.
As to claim 5, Duncan et al. as modified teaches wherein each of the attenuator and the measuring segment is disposed in a sensing region (figure 2 of Duncan et al. and figure 1 of Omichi et al. where the cavity is the measuring segment); and
wherein the measuring segment has physical properties that are configured to change in accordance with at least one of the following physical properties existent within the sensing region (paragraph [0025] of Duncan et al.).
As to claim 6, Duncan et al. as modified teaches wherein the attenuator is configured to attenuate incident light by at least -0.1 dB/mm (paragraph [0046] of Omichi et al.).
As to claim 20, Duncan et al. as modified teaches wherein the attenuator has a length of no more than 20 mm (paragraph [0046] of Omichi et al.).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duncan et al. (US PGPub 2011/0110621 A1) and Childers et al. (US PGPub 2014/0150548 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Barry et al. (US PGPub 2016/0223710 A1) and Morimoto et al. (US PGPub 2017/0219390 A1).
As to claim 8, Duncan et al. as modified teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention, as noted above for claim 3, except wherein the bandwidth of each of the first sensing reflector and the second sensing reflector is at least 1 nm at about 1550 nm wavelength; and wherein the modulable light source is configured to emit light having a linewidth less than 2 MHz.
Barry et al. teaches wherein a bandwidth of each of the first sensing reflector and the second sensing reflector is at least 1 nm at about 1550 nm wavelength (paragraph [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Duncan et al. as modified to have wherein the bandwidth of each of the first sensing reflector and the second sensing reflector is at least 1 nm at about 1550 nm wavelength as taught by Barry et al. because it is a well known configuration allowing the sensing of downhole conditions (paragraph [0019]) with predictable results.
Duncan et al. as modified does not teach wherein the modulable light source is configured to emit light having a linewidth less than 2 MHz.
Morimoto et al. teaches wherein the modulable light source is configured to emit light having a linewidth less than 2 MHz (paragraph [0074]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Duncan et al. as modified to further include wherein the modulable light source is configured to emit light having a linewidth less than 2 MHz as taught by Morimoto et al. because it allows a maximum coherence length to be long (paragraph [0074]) with predictable results.
Claims 9-10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duncan et al. (US PGPub 2011/0110621 A1) in view of Omichi et al. (US PGPub 2013/0333476 A1).
As to claim 9, Duncan et al. teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention, as noted above for claim 1, except explicitly wherein the reflectivity of the reference reflector is at least twice the reflectivity of the first sensing reflector.
While Duncan et al. does not explicitly teach the relative reflectivity of the reference reflector and the first sensing reflector, it is considered that one skilled in the art would have found it obvious design choice to try several combinations of reflectivities, including wherein the reflectivity of the reference reflector is at least one-fifth of the reflectivity of the first sensing reflector, such that the reflectors provided the desired signal levels for the installed system in a well known manner and with predictable results.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Duncan et al. to have wherein the reflectivity of the reference reflector is at least twice the reflectivity of the first sensing reflector because it is obvious to adjust the system reflectivities to provide the desired signal levels in different installation systems in a well known manner and with predictable results.
As to claim 10, Duncan et al. teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention, as noted above for claim 1, except wherein the reflectivity of the reference reflector is no more than one half of the reflectivity of the first sensing reflector.
While Duncan et al. does not explicitly teach the relative reflectivity of the reference reflector and the first sensing reflector, it is considered that one skilled in the art would have found it obvious design choice to try several combinations of reflectivities, including wherein the reflectivity of the reference reflector is at least one-fifth of the reflectivity of the first sensing reflector, such that the reflectors provided the desired signal levels for the installed system in a well known manner and with predictable results.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Duncan et al. to have wherein the reflectivity of the reference reflector is no more than one half of the reflectivity of the first sensing reflector because it is obvious to adjust the system reflectivities to provide the desired signal levels in different installation systems in a well known manner and with predictable results.
As to claim 21, Duncan et al. teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as noted above for claim 1, except wherein the reflectivity of the reference reflector is at least one-fifth of the reflectivity of the first sensing reflector.
While Duncan et al. does not explicitly teach the relative reflectivity of the reference reflector and the first sensing reflector, it is considered that one skilled in the art would have found it obvious design choice to try several combinations of reflectivities, including wherein the reflectivity of the reference reflector is at least one-fifth of the reflectivity of the first sensing reflector, such that the reflectors provided the desired signal levels for the installed system in a well known manner and with predictable results.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Duncan et al. to have wherein the reflectivity of the reference reflector is at least one-fifth of the reflectivity of the first sensing reflector because it is obvious to adjust the system reflectivities to provide the desired signal levels in different installation systems in a well known manner and with predictable results.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duncan et al. (US PGPub 2011/0110621 A1) in view of Taverner et al. (WO 2015195330 A1) and Dong et al. (US PGPub 2014/0152995 A1).
As to claim 11, Duncan et al. teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention, as noted above for claim 1, except wherein the modulation rate of the light source is at least 200 kHz;
wherein the light source is a Distributed Feedback diode; and
wherein the photodetector has exactly one single photosensitive element.
Taverner et al. teaches wherein the modulation rate of a light source is at least 200 kHz (paragraph [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Duncan et al. to have wherein the modulation rate of the light source is at least 200 kHz as taught by Taverner because it allows the sweep distance of 500m (paragraph [0039]) in a well known manner and with predictable results.
Duncan et al. as modified does not teach wherein the light source is a Distributed Feedback diode; and wherein the photodetector has exactly one single photosensitive element.
Dong et al. teaches wherein the light source is a Distributed Feedback diode (paragraph [0041]); and wherein the photodetector has exactly one single photosensitive element (figure 1 and paragraph [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Duncan et al. as modified to further have wherein the light source is a Distributed Feedback diode; and wherein the photodetector has exactly one single photosensitive element as taught by Dong et al. because it is a well known low-cost configuration allowing the scanning of wavelength (paragraph [0037]) and detection of the signal with predictable results.
Claims 13-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duncan et al. (US PGPub 2011/0110621 A1) in view of Parkin et al. (WO 2016/034457 A1).
As to claim 13, Duncan et al. teaches an optical sensing method (paragraphs [0026]-[0036]) employing an optical fiber (4), a modulable light source (11), and a photodetector (12), wherein the optical fiber (4) defines a proximal end and a distal end spaced apart from the proximal end (figure 2), wherein the optical fiber (4) includes a first sensing reflector (5) and a second sensing reflector (6) spaced apart by a distance from the first sensing reflector to form a measuring segment of the optical fiber (figure 2), wherein the first sensing reflector and the second sensing reflector are disposed between the proximal end and the distal end (figure 2), wherein the optical fiber includes a reference reflector (7, 8) disposed between the proximal end and the distal end and spaced apart at least 1 millimeter from the distal end of the optical fiber (figures 2 and 4), the method comprising the steps of:
emitting from the light source into the proximal end of the fiber, light having a wavelength that is modulated over a bandwidth of the light as a function of time (paragraphs [0027]-[0028]);
forming a first modulated light signal resulting from interference between light reflected by the first sensing reflector with light reflected from the reference reflector (paragraphs [0027]-[0028]; considered to be the effect of emitting the light into the structure of the device);
forming a second modulated light signal resulting from interference between light reflected by the second sensing reflector with light reflected from the reference reflector (paragraphs [0027]-[0028]; considered to be the effect of emitting the light into the structure of the device); and
wherein the bandwidth of the light that is being modulated and emitted into the proximal end of the optical fiber is narrower than the bandwidth of the reflectivity of each of the reference reflector and the first and second sensing reflectors (paragraphs [0027]-[0028], where the bandwidth emitted in each part of the sweep is narrower than the bandwidth of the reflectivity as the sweep is needed to cover the total bandwidth).
Duncan et al. does not explicitly teach comparing the first modulated light signal and the second modulated light signal to determine the distance between the first sensing reflector and the second sensing reflector.
Parkin et al. suggests comparing the first modulated light signal and the second modulated light signal to determine the distance between the first sensing reflector and the second sensing reflector (page 10, lines 20-24) and it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to measure the distance between the first sensing reflector and second reflecting sensor to ensure there are no breaks in the system in a well known manner and with predictable results.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Duncan et al. to have comparing the first modulated light signal and the second modulated light signal to determine the distance between the first sensing reflector and the second sensing reflector as suggested by Parkin et al. because it allows the system to ensure there are no breaks in the system in a well known manner and with predictable results.
As to claim 14, Duncan et al. as modified (citations to Duncan et al. unless otherwise indicated) further comprising the steps of:
using an evaluation unit (9 and 20) to track the relative phase of each of the first modulated light signal and the second modulated light signal (paragraphs [0027]-[0029]); and
identifying from the first modulated light signal and the second modulated light signal, a time-resolved interferogram containing characteristic resonant peaks in amplitude that correspond to the length between the first sensing reflector and the second sensing reflector (paragraphs [0027]-[0029]).
As to claim 16, Duncan et al. as modified teaches (citations to Duncan et al. unless otherwise indicated), wherein the reference reflector (7) is disposed between the proximal end and the second sensing reflector (6; figure 2), which is disposed closest to the distal end of the optical fiber (figure 2), and wherein the reference reflector (7) is disposed least 1 mm spaced apart from the distal end of the optical fiber (see figure 2 where 5, 6, and 8 are all between the reference reflector 7 and the distal end of the optical fiber);
or wherein the reference reflector (7) is disposed between the proximal end of the optical fiber (4) and the first sensing reflector (5; figure 2), which is disposed closest to the proximal end of the optical fiber (figure 2), and wherein the reference reflector (7) is disposed least 1 mm spaced apart from the distal end of the optical fiber (see figure 2 where 5, 6, and 8 are all between the reference reflector 7 and the distal end of the optical fiber).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duncan et al. (US PGPub 2011/0110621 A1) and Parkin et al. (WO 2016/034457 A1) in view of Dong et al. (US PGPub 2014/0152995 A1).
As to claim 15, Duncan et al. as modified teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention, as noted above for claim 13, wherein the photodetector has exactly one single photosensitive element.
Dong et al. teaches wherein the photodetector has exactly one single photosensitive element (figure 1 and paragraph [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Duncan et al. as modified to further have wherein the photodetector has exactly one single photosensitive element as taught by Dong et al. because it is a well known low-cost configuration allowing the scanning of wavelength (paragraph [0037]) and detection of the signal with predictable results.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duncan et al. (US PGPub 2011/0110621 A1) in view of Dimmick et al. (US PGPub 2008/0085080 A1)
As to claim 19, Duncan et al. teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as noted above for claim 1, except wherein the photodetector is disposed at the distal end of the optical fiber.
Dimmick et al. teaches wherein the photodetector (410) is disposed at the distal end of the optical fiber (100; figure 7 and paragraph [0060]; as an alternative arrangement to that shown in figure 8 and paragraph [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Duncan et al. to have wherein the photodetector is disposed at the distal end of the optical fiber as taught by Dimmick et al. because it is a well known alternative arrangement of a optical fiber measurement system (figures 7-8 and paragraph [0060]-[0062]) with predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Froggatt (US 6566648 B1), Childers (US 2007/0051882 A1), and Eiselt et al. (US PGPub 2020/0309621 A1) teach systems with similarities to the disclosed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER E S BAHLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-3:30 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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JENNIFER BAHLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights