DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 15-18, 20-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CA 2307468 A1 by Danisch.
Regarding claim 1, Danisch teaches a fiber optic sensor (Fig. 11) comprising: a first optical fiber (12); a second optical fiber (14) that extends along the first optical fiber and that is spaced from the first optical fiber; and a medium (lenticular layer 22 applied to a length of the fibers 12, 14) at least partially interposed between the first optical fiber and the second optical fiber, the medium being configured to transmit light from the first optical fiber to the second optical fiber (indicated by arrows showing paths followed by light rays), wherein on a cross-section intersecting a longitudinal direction of the first optical fiber at a position at which the light is transmitted from the first optical fiber to the second optical fiber through the medium, an outer periphery of the first optical fiber includes a first section (in which the lenticular layer 22 surrounds both the fibers 12, 14), and the first optical fiber is optically connected to the second optical fiber through the medium (again as indicated by arrows).
Regarding claim 3, Danisch further teaches a suppression material (cladding 24) configured to suppress travel of light in a direction (longitudinal direction of the fibers 12, 14) different from a direction in which the light is transmitted from the first optical fiber to the second optical fiber through the medium on the outer periphery of the first optical fiber.
Regarding claim 4, Danisch further teaches the suppression material is made from a synthetic resin material (as stated in Claim 12 of the Danisch document).
Regarding claim 6, Danisch further teaches the first optical fiber and the second optical fiber are configured to transmit an inspection light at an inspection wavelength in a multimode (Figs. 1, 2 describing higher modes of light lost along the fiber).
Regarding claim 7, Danisch further teaches a tubular cover surrounding the first optical fiber and the second optical fiber (a reflective layer 116 may be used).
Regarding claim 15, Danisch further teaches the first optical fiber and the second optical fiber are constituted of a single optical fiber, and are connected through a turning portion (Fig. 23).
Regarding claim 16, Danisch further teaches the turning portion is positioned to be deviated in a longitudinal direction of the sensing cable with respect to the medium (disposed at the end of the medium).
Regarding claim 17, Danisch further teaches the first optical fiber and the second optical fiber are arranged in a separated manner from each other (Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 18, Danisch further teaches a plurality of sensing sets, as sensing sets each of which includes the first optical fiber and the second optical fiber positioned in a manner in which the medium is at least partially sandwiched between the first optical fiber and the second optical fiber (Fig. 25). 19. The sensing cable according to claim 18, wherein the sensing sets include a plurality of sensing sets that share the medium. (Fig. 25)
Regarding claim 20, Danisch further teaches in the sensing sets that share the medium, directions in which the first optical fiber and the second optical fiber are aligned intersect with each other (in a turnaround loop 60).
Regarding claim 21, Danisch further teaches a light source (16); and a measurement device (18) configured to measure at least one of an external force acting on the sensing cable and a state change of the sensing cable based on inspection light, the inspection light being input to the first optical fiber from the light source and being output from the second optical fiber through the medium (see at least Fig. 23 and description).
Regarding claim 22, Danisch further teaches a wavelength of the inspection light is equal to or longer than 400 nm and equal to or shorter than 550 nm (the claimed range or >=400 nm or <=550nm essentially includes all wavelength ranges).
Regarding claim 23, Danisch further teaches the inspection light is an optical pulse (chirped laser with reference to Fig. 34).
Regarding claim 24, Danisch teaches a fiber optic sensor (Fig. 11) comprising: a first optical fiber (12); a second optical fiber (14) that extends along the first optical fiber and that is spaced from the first optical fiber; and a medium (lenticular layer 22 applied to a length of the fibers 12, 14) at least partially interposed between the first optical fiber and the second optical fiber, the medium being configured to transmit light from the first optical fiber to the second optical fiber (indicated by arrows showing paths followed by light rays); and a suppression material (cladding 24) configured to suppress travel of light in a direction (longitudinal direction of the fibers 12, 14) different from a direction in which the light is transmitted from the first optical fiber to the second optical fiber through the medium on the outer periphery of the first optical fiber.
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.
Claim(s) 5, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danisch.
Regarding claim 5, Danisch teaches the fiber optic sensor coupling the first optical fiber (12) with the light source (16) but does not specify the transmission loss of the first optical fiber. The transmission loss of an inspection light of the first optical fiber at an inspection wavelength is a result-effective variable that directly affects the optical power of the inspection light and thus the efficiency of the fiber optic sensor, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform routine experimentation and determine an appropriate range for the transmission loss as it relates to the sensor’s effectiveness or sensitivity. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 1955.
Regarding claims 12-14, while Danisch does not specify the materials as claimed, manufacturing of optical fibers generally uses either quartz glass or polymer to form the core, cladding or both, and Official notice is taken that such modifications would have been well within the skill of an ordinary artisan, e.g., in order to simplify the manufacturing process using known materials and reduce the overall cost.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,072,527. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because “a medium at least partially interposed between the first optical fiber and the second optical fiber” as claimed is fully disclosed by “a transmitting material … present between the first optical fiber and the second optical fiber”, and “the first optical fiber is optically connected to the second optical fiber through the medium” as claimed is merely restating “the medium being configured to transmit light from the first optical fiber to the second optical fiber”.
Dependent claims 4-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3-22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,072,527. These dependent claims are essentially repeated verbatim other than switching from “transmitting material” to “medium”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Since Danisch teach a design in which the medium effectively surround both the first and second optical fibers, relevant prior art fails to further teach or suggest that, on the cross-section disclosed in claim 1, the outer periphery of the first optical fiber includes a second section, and the first optical fiber is not optically connected to the second optical fiber through the second section and the medium, when considered in view of the rest of the limitations of the claimed invention.
Claims 8-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the double patenting rejection set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Since Danisch teach a design in which the medium completely surround both the first and second optical fibers, relevant prior art fails to further teach or suggest that, a space in which a gas is put is arranged between the first optical fiber the second optical fiber, and the medium, and the tubular cover recited in claim 7, when considered in view of the rest of the limitations of the claimed invention.
Claims 9-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Relevant prior art fails to further teach or suggest a refractive index of the medium is equal to or higher than a refractive index of a core of the first optical fiber and is equal to or lower than a refractive index of the second optical fiber, OR a refractive index of the medium is higher than a refractive index of a core of the first optical fiber and is lower than a refractive index of the second optical fiber, OR a refractive index of the medium is substantially same as a refractive index of a core of the first optical fiber and a refractive index of the second optical fiber, when considered in view of the rest of the limitations of the claimed invention, since Danisch teaches using a medium of low refractive index that couples light minimally.
It is further noted that multicore fibers and/or fused fiber couplers, e.g., USP4277272, USPub20040052444, are not considered relevant to the invention as claimed and do not meet the required limitation of “a second optical fiber that extends along the first optical fiber and that is spaced from the first optical fiber”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. as discussed above in Allowable Subject Matter section.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLIE PENG whose telephone number is (571)272-2177. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 6PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Hollweg can be reached at (571)270-1739. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHARLIE Y PENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights