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 .
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, 5-8, 10-19, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shurgalin et al. (US Pub 2003/0030786 A1)(hereinafter, “Shurgalin”) in view of Galle et al. (US Pub 2010/0296102A1) (hereinafter, “Galle”).
Regarding claim 1, Shurgalin teaches a method of assessing an optical system comprising a hollow core optical fibre (discloses assessing quality, defects, and transmission loss of hollow core photonic crystal fibers, [0043]), comprising
providing an optical time domain reflectometry system ([0009]) comprising:
an optical source configured to generate optical pulses with wavelength A(discloses a pulsed laser source system generating wavelength-defined test light, [0047-0048]);
an optical detector configured to detect light at wavelength A(discloses a wavelength-selective detector receiving backscattered signals, [0052-0053]); and
an input/output fibre comprising a solid core optical fibre optically coupled at a proximal end to receive optical pulses from the optical source and deliver light to the optical detector (discloses “light launching assembly 40 serve to efficiently couple light into and out of photonic crystal fiber 30”, [0047] and [0050]), and having at its distal end an end facet (discloses end 52 of hollow fiber 50, [0049-0051]) at an interface of glass forming the core of the solid core optical fibre and air at the end facet(discloses glass-air interfaces in hollow core system, [0049] and [0057]);
aligning the distal end of the input/output fibre with a proximal end of a hollow core optical fibre having gas present in the hollow core (discloses gas-filled hollow core fiber, [0057] ), for optical transmission between the input/output fibre and the hollow core optical fibre(discloses alignment and coupling into hollow core PCF during fabrication, [0049-0051]);
operating the optical source to generate optical pulses for propagation along the input/output fibre and into the hollow core fibre (discloses light sources 110…pulsed laser diode sources, [0047-0048]);
receiving backscattered light produced by Rayleigh scattering of the optical pulses from the gas in the hollow core of the hollow core fibre (discloses Rayleigh backscatter OTDR principle, [0046] and [0068]) and detecting the backscattered light with the optical detector to generate a detected signal (“backscattered light … directed …to a photodetector 140, [0052-0053]); and
processing the detected signal to create an optical time domain reflectometry profile comprising a distribution of backscattered optical power along a length of the hollow core optical fibre(discloses produces a distance resolved backscatter profile, figure 6, [0007] and [0046]).
Shurgalin fails to disclose an applied treatment configured to suppress back-reflection of light at wavelength A.
Galle teaches an applied treatment (discloses angle polished connector, [0089]) configured to suppress back-reflection of light at wavelength A (“an angle polished connector (25) that is operable to minimize reflection at the end facet of the launch fiber (15)”, [0089], “in order to eliminate the reflection from this facet”, [0157]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate the applied end-facet treatment of Galle to Shurgalin to improve signal quality and measurement accuracy.
Regarding claim 2, Shurgalin teaches wherein the applied treatment at the end facet comprises at the end facet(uses fiber end as interaction interface, [0007] and [0010]), of the input/output fibre that directs back-reflected light (discloses backscatter/reflection measurement, [0007] and [0016]) at the wavelength A away from a propagating optical mode of the input/output fibre(discloses mode suppression, mode selection and redistribution of optical energy among modes, [0049] and [0066]).
Shurgalin fails to disclose an angled cleave and an angle to a longitudinal axis.
Galle teaches an angled cleave and an angle to a longitudinal axis (discloses angle polished connector, inherently implies a facet that is not perpendicular to the fiber axis, [0089])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate the applied end-facet treatment of Galle to Shurgalin to improve signal quality and measurement accuracy.
Regarding claim 5, Shurgalin teaches wherein the applied treatment at the end facet is additionally configured to reduce optical transmission loss between the input/output fibre (discloses transmission loss mechanisms and coupling efficiency, [0047] and [0067]) and the hollow core fibre from an amount of optical transmission loss that would occur in the absence of the additional configuration of the applied treatment (discloses reducing loss via optical assembly design, “mode coupler device… enhance efficiency of coupling light into and out of the end of the fiber”, “focusing optic… serve to efficiently couple light into and out of photonic crystal fiber”, [0047-0049]).
Regarding claim 6, Shurgalin teaches wherein the applied treatment at the end facet is configured to reduce optical transmission loss by providing a mode field adapter (discloses mode conversion, “mode coupler device… serves as a mode converter”, [0049]) at the distal end of the input/output fibre that provides the end facet of the input/output fibre (discloses “light launching assembly 40 serve to efficiently couple light into and out of photonic crystal fiber 30”, [0047] and [0050]), the mode field adapter configured to adapt a mode field diameter of propagating light between a mode field diameter of the input/output fibre and a mode field diameter of the hollow core fibre(discloses mode conversion and coupling efficiency, [0047-0049]).
Regarding claim 7, Shurgalin teaches wherein the optical pulses have a duration in the range of 30 ns to 1000 ns(“test light can include a test pulse at a first wavelength or at multiple wavelengths”, discloses light used to probe the fiber can be extremely short or extremely long pulses, [0012], [0080]) .
Regarding claim 8, Shurgalin teaches wherein the optical detector comprises a photon counting detector (140, [0052-0053]).
Regarding claim 10, Shurgalin teaches wherein the hollow core optical fibre comprises an anti-resonant hollow core optical fibre configured to guide light at the wavelength 'A by an anti-resonant effect (discloses PBG and Bragg fibers, “hollow core surrounded by the multilayer dielectric structure… photonic bandgap confinement”, [0066]).
Regarding claim 11, Shurgalin teaches wherein the hollow core optical fibre ([0057]) comprises a photonic bandgap hollow core optical fibre ([0043], [0058-0063]) configured to guide light at the wavelength 'A by a photonic bandgap effect ( “hollow core surrounded by the multilayer dielectric structure… photonic bandgap confinement”, [0066]).
Regarding claim 12, Shurgalin teaches further comprising determining an attenuation of the hollow core optical fibre from values of backscattered optical power ([0044-0046]) at different length values in the optical time domain reflectometry profile(discloses transmission loss from backscattered signal, [0043-0045]).
Regarding claim 13, Shurgalin teaches further comprising finding any peaks of backscattered optical power (discloses measuring backscattered signal intensity, [0044], [0046], and [0074]) in the optical time domain reflectometry profile, and identifying length values at which peaks are located as locations of defects (discloses determine defect location from backscatter, [0046] and [0074]) or damage in the hollow core optical fibre.
Regarding claim 14, Shurgalin teaches wherein the hollow core optical fibre is being installed (“while the photonic crystal fiber is cabled”, [0017] ,[0026], and [0077]) or is previously installed within a telecommunications network for the transmission of optical data.
Regarding claim 15, Shurgalin teaches further comprising extracting information regarding a core size (discloses increased, decreased core radius and core-radius defects, [0070], [0073], and [0075]) of the hollow core optical fibre from values of backscattered optical power (discloses measuring backscattered signal intensity, [0044], [0046], and [0074]) in the optical time domain reflectometry profile.
Regarding claim 16, Shurgalin teaches wherein the method is performed during fabrication ([0017] , [0025], and [0047]) of the hollow core optical fibre, the fabrication being adjusted in response to the optical time domain reflectometry profile ([0054]) and/or a quality assessment ([0043]) of the hollow core optical fibre being made in response to the optical time domain reflectometry profile([0046]).
Regarding claim 17, Shurgalin teaches wherein the hollow core optical fibre is configured as a gas cell optical sensor (“core 220 may be air, some other gas…”, [0057]) and the method further comprises determining or monitoring a parameter of interest from the optical time domain reflectometry profile ([0074]).
Regarding claim 18, Shurgalin teaches an optical time domain reflectometry system ([0009]) comprising:
an optical source configured to generate optical pulses with wavelength A (discloses a pulsed laser source system generating wavelength-defined test light, [0047-0048]);
an optical detector configured to detect light at wavelength A (discloses a wavelength-selective detector receiving backscattered signals, [0052-0053]);
an input/output fibre comprising a solid core optical fibre optically coupled at a proximal end to receive optical pulses from the optical source and deliver light to the optical detector (discloses “light launching assembly 40 serve to efficiently couple light into and out of photonic crystal fiber 30”, [0047] and [0050]), and having at its distal end an end facet (discloses end 52 of hollow fiber 50, [0049-0051]) with an applied treatment configured to suppress back-reflection of light at wavelength A caused at an interface of glass forming the core of the solid core optical fibre and air at the end facet (discloses glass-air interfaces in hollow core system, [0049] and [0057]);
an alignment apparatus(40) for aligning the distal end of the input/output fibre with a proximal end of a hollow core optical fibre having gas present in the hollow core (discloses gas-filled hollow core fiber, [0057] ), for optical transmission between the input/output fibre and the hollow core optical fibre (discloses alignment and coupling into hollow core PCF during fabrication, [0049-0051]); and
a processor (150) to receive a detected signal generated by the optical detector from received backscattered light produced by Rayleigh scattering of optical pulses from the optical source in the gas in the hollow core of the hollow core optical fibre (discloses Rayleigh backscatter OTDR principle, [0046] and [0068]), and process the detected signal to create an optical time domain reflectometry profile comprising a distribution of backscattered optical power along a length of the hollow core optical fibre (discloses produces a distance resolved backscatter profile, figure 6, [0007] and [0046]).
Regarding claim 19, Shurgalin teaches wherein the applied treatment at the end facet comprises the end facet (uses fiber end as interaction interface, [0007] and [0010]), of the input/output fibre that directs back-reflected light (discloses backscatter/reflection measurement, [0007] and [0016]) at the wavelength 'A away from a propagating optical mode of the input/output fibre (discloses mode suppression, mode selection and redistribution of optical energy among modes, [0049] and [0066]).
Shurgalin fails to disclose an angled cleave and an angle to a longitudinal axis.
Galle teaches an angled cleave and an angle to a longitudinal axis (discloses angle polished connector, inherently implies a facet that is not perpendicular to the fiber axis, [0089])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate the applied end-facet treatment of Galle to Shurgalin to improve signal quality and measurement accuracy.
Regarding claim 22, Shurgalin teaches wherein the applied treatment at the end facet is additionally configured to reduce optical transmission loss between the input/output fibre discloses transmission loss mechanisms and coupling efficiency, [0047] and [0067]) and the hollow core fibre from an amount of optical transmission loss that would occur in the absence of the additional configuration of the applied treatment (discloses reducing loss via optical assembly design, “mode coupler device… enhance efficiency of coupling light into and out of the end of the fiber”, “focusing optic… serve to efficiently couple light into and out of photonic crystal fiber”, [0047-0049]).
Regarding claim 23, Shurgalin teaches wherein the applied treatment at the end facet is configured to reduce optical transmission loss by providing a mode field adapter (discloses mode conversion, “mode coupler device… serves as a mode converter”, [0049]) at the proximal end of the input/output fibre that provides the end facet of the input/output fibre (discloses “light launching assembly 40 serve to efficiently couple light into and out of photonic crystal fiber 30”, [0047] and [0050]), the mode field adapter configured to adapt a mode field diameter of propagating light between a mode field diameter of the input/output fibre and a mode field diameter of the hollow core fibre (discloses mode conversion and coupling efficiency, [0047-0049]).
Claims 3 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shurgalin et al. (US Pub 2003/0030786 A1)(hereinafter, “Shurgalin”) in view of Galle et al. (US Pub 2010/0296102 A1) (hereinafter, “Galle”), further in view of Brasseur et al. (US Pub 2004/0075886 A1) (hereinafter, “Brasseur”).
Regarding claim 3, Shurgalin fails to disclose the applied treatment at the end facet comprises an antireflection coating on the end facet which is configured to reduce reflection of light at the wavelength 'A incident on the end facet.
Galle teaches an applied treatment (discloses angle polished connector, [0089]) configured to reduce reflection of light at the wavelength 'A incident on the end facet(“an angle polished connector (25) that is operable to minimize reflection at the end facet of the launch fiber (15)”, [0089], “in order to eliminate the reflection from this facet”, [0157]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate the applied end-facet treatment of Galle to Shurgalin to improve signal quality and measurement accuracy.
Shurgalin in view of Galle fail to disclose an antireflection coating.
Brasseur discloses an antireflection coating (discloses anti-reflection coating, [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate an antireflection coating of Brasseur to Shurgalin in view of Galle to improve backscatter measurement accuracy.
Regarding claim 20, Shurgalin fails to disclose the applied treatment at the end facet comprises an antireflection coating on the end facet which is configured to reduce reflection of light at the wavelength 'A incident on the end facet.
Galle teaches an applied treatment (discloses angle polished connector, [0089]) configured to reduce reflection of light at the wavelength 'A incident on the end facet(“an angle polished connector (25) that is operable to minimize reflection at the end facet of the launch fiber (15)”, [0089], “in order to eliminate the reflection from this facet”, [0157]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate the applied end-facet treatment of Galle to Shurgalin to improve signal quality and measurement accuracy.
Shurgalin in view of Galle fail to disclose an antireflection coating.
Brasseur discloses an antireflection coating (discloses anti-reflection coating, [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate an antireflection coating of Brasseur to Shurgalin in view of Galle to improve backscatter measurement accuracy.
Claims 4 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shurgalin et al. (US Pub 2003/0030786 A1)(hereinafter, “Shurgalin”) in view of Galle et al. (US Pub 2010/0296102 A1) (hereinafter, “Galle”), further in view of Kowalczyk et al. (“Optical Microstructures Fabricated with Direct Laser Writing Technique”, 2014) (hereinafter, “Kowalczyk”).
Regarding claim 4, Shurgalin fails to disclose wherein the applied treatment at the end facet comprises an antireflective microstructured surface formed on the end facet which is configured to reduce reflection of light at the wavelength 'A incident on the end facet.
Galle teaches an applied treatment (discloses angle polished connector, [0089]) configured to reduce reflection of light at the wavelength 'A incident on the end facet(“an angle polished connector (25) that is operable to minimize reflection at the end facet of the launch fiber (15)”, [0089], “in order to eliminate the reflection from this facet”, [0157]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate the applied end-facet treatment of Galle to Shurgalin to improve signal quality and measurement accuracy.
Shurgalin in view of Galle fail to disclose an antireflective microstructured surface.
Kowalczyk teaches an antireflective microstructured surface (nanostructured gradient-index AR coatings, page 10, section, “results”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate anti-reflective microstructured surface of Kowalczyk to Shurgalin in view of Galle to reduce Fresnel reflections at the fiber interface.
Regarding claim 21, Shurgalin fails to disclose wherein the applied treatment at the end facet comprises an antireflective microstructured surface formed on the end facet which is configured to reduce reflection of light at the wavelength 'A incident on the end facet.
Galle teaches an applied treatment (discloses angle polished connector, [0089]) configured to reduce reflection of light at the wavelength 'A incident on the end facet(“an angle polished connector (25) that is operable to minimize reflection at the end facet of the launch fiber (15)”, [0089], “in order to eliminate the reflection from this facet”, [0157]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate the applied end-facet treatment of Galle to Shurgalin to improve signal quality and measurement accuracy.
Shurgalin in view of Galle fail to disclose an antireflective microstructured surface.
Kowalczyk teaches an antireflective microstructured surface (nanostructured gradient-index AR coatings, page 10, section, “results”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate anti-reflective microstructured surface of Kowalczyk to Shurgalin in view of Galle to reduce Fresnel reflections at the fiber interface.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shurgalin et al. (US Pub 2003/0030786 A1)(hereinafter, “Shurgalin”) in view of Galle et al. (US Pub 2010/0296102 A1) (hereinafter, “Galle”), further in view of Yalin et al. (US Pub 2006/0037572A1) (hereinafter, “Yalin”).
Regarding claim 9, Shurgalin teaches wherein aligning the distal end of the input/output fibre with the proximal end of the hollow core optical fibre (discloses efficient coupling inherently requires alignment, [0047]), and using the alignment stages to adjust the relative positions (teaches relative positioning is adjusted, [0051]) of the distal end and the proximal end to achieve optical transmission between the input/output fibre and the hollow core optical fibre (discloses efficiently couple light into and out of photonic crystal fiber, [0047]).
Shurgalin in view of Galle fail to disclose supporting each of the distal end and the proximal end on an alignment stage, the alignment stages together having five axes of alignment.
Yalin teaches supporting each of the distal end and the proximal end on an alignment stage, the alignment stages together having five axes of alignment (discloses five axes of control are needed to correctly align the fiber, [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to incorporate five axes of alignment of Yalin to Shurgalin in view of Galle to improve optical coupling efficiency and measurement accuracy.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Crickmore et al. (US Pub 2013/0291642 A1) discloses a distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) system in which pulsed light is launched into a continuous sensing fibre and the returned signal is derived from Rayleigh scattering within the fibre material. The backscattered signal is processed to obtain spatially resolved measurements along the fibre for detecting vibration and strain, and it appears to render obvious at least the independent claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA XING whose telephone number is (571)270-7743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9AM - 5 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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/C.X./ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights