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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 14 April 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the identified species are directed to a common inventive concept and that the identified species are mere variations in implementation of a shared structure as opposed to distin. This is not found persuasive for the following reasons:
According to sections 806.04(b) of the MPEP, species may be independent or related inventions. The presence of a generic claim does not render different embodiments (or species) as patentably indistinct. In the instant application, each species is related as part of an optical interferometer, however, each species also claims a completely different structure and number of components. These different structures change the paths and outputs of light, which in turn affects the phases of light detected by the interferometer, not only requiring different components, but also requiring different processes of disturbance detection. Claims 1-3, 7-13, and 15-20 are being considered while claims 4-6 and 14 have been withdrawn.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 16 August 2024 and 27 December 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11: claim 11 is composed of two separate sentences, the period (.) after “the second path” in line 13 should be a semicolon (;).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 2, 11-15, and 19 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 2, “acoustic disturbances” in line 3 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 1, on which claim 2 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same acoustic disturbances mentioned previously or different acoustic disturbances? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same acoustic disturbances mentioned previously.
Regarding claim 11, “first light signals” in lines 7-8 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in the same claim. Is this limitation referring to the same first light signals mentioned previously or different first light signals? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same first light signals mentioned previously.
Claims 12-15 are rejected for their dependency on claim 11.
Regarding claim 15, “the system” in line 3 is unclear as both a distributed acoustic sensing system and a signal acquisition and processing system have been mentioned previously in claim 11, on which claim 15 is dependent. To which system is this limitation referring? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the distributed acoustic sensing system mentioned previously. Additionally, “a signal acquisition and processing system” in lines 3-4 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 11, on which claim 15 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same signal acquisition and processing system mentioned previously or a different signal acquisition and processing system? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same signal acquisition and processing system previously set forth. Additionally, “acoustic disturbances” in line 6 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 11, on which claim 15 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same acoustic disturbances mentioned previously or different acoustic disturbances? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same acoustic disturbances mentioned previously. Lastly, “characteristics” in line 7 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 11, on which claim 15 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same characteristics previously set forth or different characteristics? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same characteristics previously set forth.
Regarding claim 19, “acoustic disturbances” in line 4 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 18, on which claim 19 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same acoustic disturbances mentioned previously or different acoustic disturbances? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same acoustic disturbances mentioned previously. Additionally, “characteristics” in line 7 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 18, on which claim 19 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same characteristics previously set forth or different characteristics? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same characteristics previously set forth.
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, 7, 11-13, 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (USPGPub 20200033186 A1) in view of Kazarinov et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6289151 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches an optical interferometer comprising: an optical coupler (44) configured to combine first light signals traversing a first path (45) and second light signals traversing a second path (46) to form combined light signals (see figure 2, optical coupler 44; and ¶29, the two counterpropagating beams are combined at optical coupler 44), wherein the first light signals correspond to optical light signals that are indicative of acoustic disturbances across a distributed acoustic sensing system (¶39, disturbance detection system 40 is comprised of SRI.sub.A and SRI.sub.B that both share the same sensing arm 45, which includes the optical path length 61 equal to L.sub.1 where a disturbance occurs, and wherein SRI.sub.A and SRI.sub.B have total path lengths L.sub.A and L.sub.B respectively. Inventively, and as will be described in more detail immediately below, disturbance detection system 40 provides a solution for the position of a disturbance along the shared sensing arm 45; and ¶¶39-49 for further details), and an optical fiber delay coil (58) arranged along the second path (46) and configured to introduce a controlled time delay in the second light signals traversing the second path (46) (see figure 2, coil 58 arranged along non-sensing arm 46 (i.e. second path); ¶27, SRI.sub.A and SRI.sub.B can also share the optical path of non-sensing arm 46 which is also isolated from disturbances wherein the path length can also include a coil 58; and see ¶48 for further details), wherein a signal acquisition and processing system determines characteristics of the acoustic disturbances based at least in part on output light signals (¶12, the system includes a processor with logic to determine a parameter of the physical disturbance from the first phase shift and the second phase shift where the parameter can be the position of the physical disturbance and a magnitude of the physical disturbance and a frequency of the physical disturbance; and ¶47, Detectors 56, 57 can also include electronic instrumentation, processors and memory storage (including non-volatile memory) to process the converted optical signals). However, Yang fails to explicitly teach wherein the optical coupler is further configured to separate the combined light signals into at least the second path and a third path, and wherein the second path is a feedback loop.
However, Kazarinov teaches wherein the optical coupler (143) is further configured to separate the combined light signals into at least the second path and a third path, and wherein the second path is a feedback loop (see figure 4A, splitter combiner 143 (i.e. optical coupler) combining signals from path 120 and feedback path 145 and splitting signals to feedback path 145 and path 150 (i.e. third path)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yang to incorporate the teachings of Kazarinov to provide the path structure specified above in order to create a feedback loop/path, [f]eedback paths with different path lengths are desirable because they potentially increase the free spectral range (FSR) of the all-pass optical filter (Kazarinov, col. 3, lines 41-43).
Regarding claim 2, Yang as modified by Kazarinov teaches the optical interferometer of Claim 1, wherein the optical coupler (Yang 44 | Kazarinov 143) receives the first light signals from a sensing optical fiber positioned proximate to a structure such that the first light signals are modulated by acoustic disturbances corresponding to at least one of structural defects or environmental changes in the structure (Yang, ¶27, Sensing arm 45 has an optical path sensing length L.sub.S that is positioned between optical couplers 44, 47 and is exposed to the environment to be sensed; and ¶50, A disturbance will produce frequency content that will modulate the phase of the signals that is detectable by the electrical instrumentation).
Regarding claim 7, Yang as modified by Kazarinov teaches the optical interferometer of Claim 1, wherein the optical coupler (Yang 44 | Kazarinov 143) is a 1x2, 2x2, or 3x3 coupler (Yang, ¶26, Optical couplers 44, 47 can comprise single mode 2×2 optical couplers such as those available from the Newport Corporation adapted to couple light into and out of the various fibers of disturbance detection system 40).
Regarding claim 11, Yang teaches a distributed acoustic sensing system, comprising: a sensing optical fiber configured to transmit first light signals along a first path (45) (see figure 2, sensing arm 45 (i.e. first path)), the sensing optical fiber positioned proximate to a structure such that the first light signals are modulated by acoustic disturbances corresponding to at least one of structural defects or environmental changes in the structure (¶27, Sensing arm 45 has an optical path sensing length L.sub.S that is positioned between optical couplers 44, 47 and is exposed to the environment to be sensed; and ¶50, A disturbance will produce frequency content that will modulate the phase of the signals that is detectable by the electrical instrumentation); and an optical interferometer, comprising: an optical coupler (44) configured to receive the first light signals and combine first light signals traversing the first path (45) and second light signals traversing a second path (46) to form combined light signals (see figure 2, optical coupler 44; and ¶29, the two counterpropagating beams are combined at optical coupler 44), and an optical fiber delay coil (58) arranged along the second path (46) and configured to introduce a controlled time delay in the second light signals traversing the second path (46) (see figure 2, coil 58 arranged along non-sensing arm 46 (i.e. second path); ¶27, SRI.sub.A and SRI.sub.B can also share the optical path of non-sensing arm 46 which is also isolated from disturbances wherein the path length can also include a coil 58; and see ¶48 for further details). wherein a signal acquisition and processing system determines characteristics of the acoustic disturbances based at least in part on output light signals (¶12, the system includes a processor with logic to determine a parameter of the physical disturbance from the first phase shift and the second phase shift where the parameter can be the position of the physical disturbance and a magnitude of the physical disturbance and a frequency of the physical disturbance; and ¶47, Detectors 56, 57 can also include electronic instrumentation, processors and memory storage (including non-volatile memory) to process the converted optical signals). However, Yang fails to explicitly teach wherein the optical coupler is further configured to separate the combined light signals into at least the second path and a third path, and wherein the second path is a feedback loop.
However, Kazarinov teaches However, Kazarinov teaches wherein the optical coupler (143) is further configured to separate the combined light signals into at least the second path and a third path, and wherein the second path is a feedback loop (see figure 4A, splitter combiner 143 (i.e. optical coupler) combining signals from path 120 and feedback path 145 and splitting signals to feedback path 145 and path 150 (i.e. third path)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yang to incorporate the teachings of Kazarinov to provide the path structure specified above in order to create a feedback loop/path, [f]eedback paths with different path lengths are desirable because they potentially increase the free spectral range (FSR) of the all-pass optical filter (Kazarinov, col. 3, lines 41-43).
Regarding claim 12, Yang as modified by Kazarinov teaches the distributed acoustic sensing system of Claim 11, further comprising the signal acquisition and processing system (Yang, ¶12, the system includes a processor with logic to determine a parameter of the physical disturbance from the first phase shift and the second phase shift where the parameter can be the position of the physical disturbance and a magnitude of the physical disturbance and a frequency of the physical disturbance; and ¶47, Detectors 56, 57 can also include electronic instrumentation, processors and memory storage (including non-volatile memory) to process the converted optical signals).
Regarding claim 13, Yang as modified by Kazarinov teaches the distributed acoustic sensing system of Claim 11, wherein the optical coupler is a 1x2, 2x2, or 3x3 coupler (Yang, ¶26, Optical couplers 44, 47 can comprise single mode 2×2 optical couplers such as those available from the Newport Corporation adapted to couple light into and out of the various fibers of disturbance detection system 40).
Regarding claim 16, Yang as modified by Kazarinov teaches the distributed acoustic sensing system of Claim 13, wherein the characteristics of the acoustic disturbances comprise at least a location of the acoustic disturbances, wherein the location comprises an indication of an approximate position along a length of the sensing optical fiber where the acoustic disturbances are detected (Yang, ¶12, the system includes a processor with logic to determine a parameter of the physical disturbance from the first phase shift and the second phase shift where the parameter can be the position of the physical disturbance and a magnitude of the physical disturbance and a frequency of the physical disturbance).
Regarding claim 18, Yang teaches a method for detecting acoustic disturbances using an optical interferometer, comprising: splitting first light signals indicative of acoustic disturbances into a first path (45) and a second path using (46) an optical coupler (44) (see figure 2, optical coupler 44; and ¶29, the low coherence light emitted from light source 41 is split into a first beam B.sub.1 and a second beam B.sub.2 at coupler 44 and the first beam B.sub.1 follows sensing arm 45 in the clockwise direction 60 and the second beam B.sub.2 follows non-sensing arm 46 in the counter-clockwise direction 59), introducing a controlled time delay in second light signals traversing the second path (46) using an optical fiber delay coil (58) arranged along the second path (46) (see figure 2, coil 58 arranged along non-sensing arm 46 (i.e. second path); ¶27, SRI.sub.A and SRI.sub.B can also share the optical path of non-sensing arm 46 which is also isolated from disturbances wherein the path length can also include a coil 58; and see ¶48 for further details); combining the first light signals and the time-delayed second light signals to form combined light signals using the optical coupler (44) (see figure 2, optical coupler 44; and ¶29, the two counterpropagating beams are combined at optical coupler 44); and wherein a signal acquisition and processing system determines characteristics of the acoustic disturbances based at least in part on the output light signals (¶12, the system includes a processor with logic to determine a parameter of the physical disturbance from the first phase shift and the second phase shift where the parameter can be the position of the physical disturbance and a magnitude of the physical disturbance and a frequency of the physical disturbance; and ¶47, Detectors 56, 57 can also include electronic instrumentation, processors and memory storage (including non-volatile memory) to process the converted optical signals). However, Yang fails to explicitly teach wherein the first light signals traverse the first path and the second path; and separating the combined light signals into at least the second path and a third path using the optical coupler, wherein the second path forms a feedback loop for subsequent signals and the third path provides output signals.
However, Kazarinov teaches wherein the first light signals traverse the first path and the second path; and separating the combined light signals into at least the second path and a third path using the optical coupler, wherein the second path forms a feedback loop for subsequent signals and the third path provides output signals (see figure 4A, splitter combiner 143 (i.e. optical coupler) combining signals from path 120 and feedback path 145 and splitting signals to feedback path 145 and path 150 (i.e. third path)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yang to incorporate the teachings of Kazarinov to provide the path structure specified above in order to create a feedback loop/path, [f]eedback paths with different path lengths are desirable because they potentially increase the free spectral range (FSR) of the all-pass optical filter (Kazarinov, col. 3, lines 41-43).
Regarding claim 20, Yang as modified by Kazarinov teaches the method of Claim 18, wherein the characteristics of the acoustic disturbances comprise at least a location of the acoustic disturbances, wherein the location comprises an indication of an approximate position along a length of a sensing optical fiber where the acoustic disturbances are detected (Yang, ¶12, the system includes a processor with logic to determine a parameter of the physical disturbance from the first phase shift and the second phase shift where the parameter can be the position of the physical disturbance and a magnitude of the physical disturbance and a frequency of the physical disturbance).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (USPGPub 20200033186 A1) in view of Kazarinov et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6289151 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lewin et al. (USPGPub 20180003552 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Yang as modified by Kazarinov teaches the optical fiber delay coil (Yang 58) (Yang, see figure 2, coil 58 arranged along non-sensing arm 46 (i.e. second path)). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the optical fiber delay coil has a length less than 50 meters.
However, Lewin teaches the wherein the optical fiber delay coil has a length less than 50 meters (¶39, It will be appreciated that other delay coil 13 lengths will also provide utility, such as a length chosen from the range 5 m to 300 m).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yang and Kazarinov to incorporate the teachings of Lewin to have a coil length of less than 50m because a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions (MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (USPGPub 20200033186 A1) in view of Kazarinov et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6289151 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Akkaya et al. (USPGPub 20110268384 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Yang as modified by Kazarinov teaches the distributed acoustic sensing system (Yang, ¶3, Optical sensing devices have been used in the art for physical intrusion detection systems (PIDS), pipeline detection, seismic detection, acoustic detection and the like). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach a plurality of optical interferometers arranged in parallel.
However, Akkaya teaches a plurality of optical interferometers arranged in parallel (¶116, two or more sensors 101, 102 that are responsive to different acoustic signal levels can be used in parallel with one another to improve the dynamic range of the sensor system 100. In certain such embodiments, the plurality of parallel sensors 101, 102 are placed close to each other, so that they are exposed to approximately the same acoustic signal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yang and Kazarinov to incorporate the teachings of Akkaya to use a plurality of parallel sensors in order to improve the dynamic range of the sensor system (Akkaya, ¶116).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (USPGPub 20200033186 A1) in view of Kazarinov et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6289151 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Akkaya et al. (USPGPub 20130292555 A1) (hereinafter Akkaya2).
Regarding claim 10, Yang as modified by Kazarinov teaches introducing a controlled time delay in second light signals traversing the second path (Yang 46) using an optical fiber delay coil (Yang 58) arranged along the second path (Yang 46) (Yang, see figure 2, coil 58 arranged along non-sensing arm 46 (i.e. second path); ¶27, SRI.sub.A and SRI.sub.B can also share the optical path of non-sensing arm 46 which is also isolated from disturbances wherein the path length can also include a coil 58; and see ¶48 for further details). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the controlled time delay is about 2 µs.
However, Akkaya2 teaches wherein the controlled time delay is about 2 µs (¶83, Optical delay lines (e.g., fiber coils of length 100 meters) can be positioned between each rung to avoid temporal overlap between returning pulses with a delay between adjacent returning pulses of 480 ns).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yang and Kazarinov to incorporate the teachings of Akkaya2 have a time delay of about 2 µs because a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions (MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Claims 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (USPGPub 20200033186 A1) in view of Kazarinov et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6289151 B1) as applied to claims 11 and 18 above, and further in view of Kapit et al. (USPGPub 20170030830 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Yang as modified by Kazarinov teaches introducing a controlled time delay in second light signals traversing the second path (Yang 46) using an optical fiber delay coil (Yang 58) arranged along the second path (Yang 46) (Yang, see figure 2, coil 58 arranged along non-sensing arm 46 (i.e. second path); ¶27, SRI.sub.A and SRI.sub.B can also share the optical path of non-sensing arm 46 which is also isolated from disturbances wherein the path length can also include a coil 58; and see ¶48 for further details). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the controlled time delay introduced by the optical fiber delay coil creates interference patterns characterized by alternating light and dark bands, wherein the system further comprises a signal acquisition and processing system configured to: receive and digitize the interference patterns; analyze phase shifts in the interference patterns to detect acoustic disturbances; and determine characteristics of the acoustic disturbances based on the interference patterns.
However, Kapit teaches wherein the controlled time delay introduced by the optical fiber delay coil creates interference patterns characterized by alternating light and dark bands (¶5, interference is detected using a spectrometer that separates wavelengths of light to produce a fringe pattern. Fringes are conventionally described as the light and dark bands produced by the interference of light. The regions of higher intensity (brighter bands) are generally caused by constructive superposition of the beams and the lower intensity (darker bands) regions are generally caused by destructive superposition), wherein the system further comprises a signal acquisition and processing system configured to: receive and digitize the interference patterns (¶31, Such a measurement based on monitoring the intensity changes of the non-quadrature-spaced samples may be limited only by the resolution of the analog to digital converter (ADC) used in analyzing the fringe spectrum); analyze phase shifts in the interference patterns to detect acoustic disturbances; and determine characteristics of the acoustic disturbances based on the interference patterns (see figure 2A; and ¶4, The difference in the path lengths traveled by each beam before reaching the detector creates a phase difference between beams, which can produce an interference pattern from the recombined beams. In general, any environmental condition encountered in the path of either or both beam(s) that alters the phase of the beam(s) (e.g., a change in the index of refraction of the path) prior to reaching the detector can produce an interference pattern and may impact the details thereof. Therefore, specific properties of the interference pattern can be assessed as indicators of any changes occurring along the path(s)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yang and Kazarinov to incorporate the teachings of Kapit to utilize interference patterns having alternating dark and light patterns because specific properties of the interference pattern can be assessed as indicators of any changes occurring along the path(s) (Kapit, ¶4).
Regarding claim 19, Yang as modified by Kazarinov teaches introducing a controlled time delay in second light signals traversing the second path (Yang 46) using an optical fiber delay coil (Yang 58) arranged along the second path (Yang 46) (Yang, see figure 2, coil 58 arranged along non-sensing arm 46 (i.e. second path); ¶27, SRI.sub.A and SRI.sub.B can also share the optical path of non-sensing arm 46 which is also isolated from disturbances wherein the path length can also include a coil 58; and see ¶48 for further details). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the controlled time delay introduced by the optical fiber delay coil creates interference patterns characterized by alternating light and dark bands further comprising: analyzing phase shifts in the interference patterns to detect acoustic disturbances; and determining characteristics of the acoustic disturbances based on the interference patterns.
However, Kapit teaches wherein the controlled time delay introduced by the optical fiber delay coil creates interference patterns characterized by alternating light and dark bands (¶5, interference is detected using a spectrometer that separates wavelengths of light to produce a fringe pattern. Fringes are conventionally described as the light and dark bands produced by the interference of light. The regions of higher intensity (brighter bands) are generally caused by constructive superposition of the beams and the lower intensity (darker bands) regions are generally caused by destructive superposition) further comprising: analyzing phase shifts in the interference patterns to detect acoustic disturbances; and determining characteristics of the acoustic disturbances based on the interference patterns (see figure 2A; and ¶4, The difference in the path lengths traveled by each beam before reaching the detector creates a phase difference between beams, which can produce an interference pattern from the recombined beams. In general, any environmental condition encountered in the path of either or both beam(s) that alters the phase of the beam(s) (e.g., a change in the index of refraction of the path) prior to reaching the detector can produce an interference pattern and may impact the details thereof. Therefore, specific properties of the interference pattern can be assessed as indicators of any changes occurring along the path(s)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yang and Kazarinov to incorporate the teachings of Kapit to utilize interference patterns having alternating dark and light patterns because specific properties of the interference pattern can be assessed as indicators of any changes occurring along the path(s) (Kapit, ¶4).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (USPGPub 20200033186 A1) in view of Kazarinov et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6289151 B1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Dailing (USPGPub 20220057536 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Yang as modified by Kazarinov teaches the distributed acoustic sensing system (Yang, ¶3, Optical sensing devices have been used in the art for physical intrusion detection systems (PIDS), pipeline detection, seismic detection, acoustic detection and the like). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach a hybrid phase detection device, wherein the hybrid phase detection device is configured to: split the third light signals into two or more paths; mix the split light signals with a reference signal to produce in-phase (I) and quadrature (Q) components; generate phase-shifted output signals based on the I and Q components; compare the phase-shifted output signals to determine phase differences; and provide phase difference data to the signal acquisition and processing system for further analysis of the acoustic disturbances.
However, Dailing teaches a hybrid phase detection device, wherein the hybrid phase detection device is configured to: split the third light signals into two or more paths (see figure 3, measurement signal 313 is split into two paths 315 and 317; and see ¶37 for further details); mix the split light signals with a reference signal to produce in-phase (I) and quadrature (Q) components; generate phase-shifted output signals based on the I and Q components (see figure 3, quadrature recombiner 318; ¶38, Quadrature recombiner 318 outputs a measurement signal as a quadrature term or pair 319 generally referred to as an in-phase component “I” and a quadrature component “Q”; and NOTE: creating an I and Q pair requires phase shifting); compare the phase-shifted output signals to determine phase differences (¶25, processes may be implemented to cross compare this “redundant” data to greatly improve the certainty of error detection); and provide phase difference data to the signal acquisition and processing system for further analysis of the acoustic disturbances (¶39, Information handling system 380 may analyze the phase data or information to determine, for example, a vertical seismic profile for a given formation, for example, formation 112 of FIG. 1 or FIG. 2, production and fracture monitoring, and micro-seismic monitoring).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yang and Kazarinov to incorporate the teachings of Dailing to further provide quadrature phase shift data in order to increase the data resolution by, for example, distinguishing between positive and negative phase movement.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 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.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach the optical interferometer of Claim 1 as claimed, wherein the optical coupler is a first optical coupler, more specifically in combination with the optical interferometer further comprising a second optical coupler arranged along the second path, wherein the second optical coupler is configured to receive a second path signal from the first optical coupler, and separate the second path signal into a path to the signal acquisition and processing system and a path to the optical fiber delay coil.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN R GARBER whose telephone number is (571)272-4663. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1730.
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, Georgia Y Epps can be reached at (571)272-2328. 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.
/ERIN R GARBER/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights