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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The current title describes the general field of endeavor and is not very informative to a skilled artisan whether the document warrants further review. MPEP 606.01 guides that a descriptive title may result in slightly longer title, but the loss in brevity of title will be more than offset by the gain in its informative value in indexing, classifying, searching, etc.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 08/19/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
signal-processing system in claims 1-9 and 11-17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, and 12-14 objected to because of the following informalities: Each element of the claim should be listed by an indented line. Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. 37 C.F.R. 1.75(i)
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-5, 8-12, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blake (U.S. Pat. No. 5,987,195; Blake '195 hereafter).
Blake '195 shows:
PNG
media_image1.png
314
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1. A fiber-optic interferometer comprising
a light source (20) (a broadband light source 12) capable of generating a source beam (100),
a differential phase modulator (16) (birefringence modulator 26 and waveform generator 28),
a fiber-optic device (400) (polarization maintaining fiber bus 30),
a detection system (18) (photodetector 46),
a signal-processing system (900) (signal processing electronics circuit 50),
the fiber-optic device (400) (polarization maintaining fiber bus 30) comprising
a detection optical fiber (73) (polarization maintaining fiber bus 30) having a Verdet constant capable of inducing a non-reciprocal magneto-optic Faraday effect (column 11, lines 24-2: "V is the Verdet constant of the fiber glass;" column 11, lines 16-18: "a result there is a non-reciprocal phase shift only in the presence of a magnetic field in the current carrying wire."), the detection optical fiber (73) being arranged in a magnetic field or forming at least one turn around an electric conductor (120) (column 5, lines 32-35: "wound an integral number of turns around current carrying wire…one to five loops of sensing fiber 32 around wire 36 has been shown to be sufficient"),
the fiber-optic interferometer being capable of detecting a phase difference of an interferometric beam (300) (column 11, lines 47-49: "calculate the phase difference between the two counter-propagating beams.") formed by interferences between two polarized light waves (111, 112) having travelled simultaneously through the detection optical fiber (73) along a closed optical path, the two polarized light waves (111, 112) being modulated by the differential phase modulator (column 5, lines 57-67: "After the light makes its double pass through sensing fiber 32, the light wave…linearly polarized along its second principle axis, and the light wave…linearly polarized along its first principle axis. The light waves then pass through birefringence modulator 26…and are brought together and interfere"), and to deduce therefrom, by dividing the phase difference by a scaling factor, a value of the magnetic field integrated along the closed optical path or a value of an electric current flowing in the electric conductor (120), the scaling factor being proportional to the Verdet constant of the optical fiber (73) (column 6, lines 51-55: "the scale factor is equal to the photodetector output divided by the current in the wire…",
wherein the signal-processing system (900) is adapted and configured to measure a variation of power contrast of part of the interferometric beam modulated by the differential phase modulator and to deduce from the contrast variation a measurement of variation of the scaling factor (column 7, lines 11-18: "In both light waves, the resultant extra D.C. light provides a clue to the magnitude of the XSS and YSS and thus the scale factor error. Knowing the D.C. and A.C. components and ratio or relative proportion of the modulation signals, the relative proportion of the D.C. and A.C. components of the detected light at the detector can be compared therewith to determine the magnitude of extra D.C. light or error that is introduced by the quarter waveplate.")
2. The fiber-optic interferometer according to claim 1, wherein the signal-processing system (900) is adapted and configured to measure a power minimum of the part of the detected modulated interferometric beam and/or a difference between a power maximum and minimum of the part of the detected modulated interferometric beam (see Fig. 6a and 6b and description thereof showing measurement of minimums).
3. The fiber-optic interferometer according to The fiber-optic interferometer according to wherein the signal-processing system (900) is adapted and configured to correct in real time the scaling factor as a function of the measurement of variation of this scaling factor (column 8, lines 17-21: "The apparatus and method for compensating for errors introduced by the imperfect quarter waveplate is to measure the error expressed as a single number, /delta and correct the scale factor to arrive at the accurate measurement").
4. The fiber-optic interferometer according to claim 1, wherein the detection optical fiber (73) is of the circular polarization-maintaining type (Abstract: "polarization maintaining optic fiber forming an optical loop"), the fiber-optic device (400) comprising an optical phase retarder (42) (40) and a reflector (26 (44), the optical phase retarder (42) being arranged at one end of the detection optical fiber (73) (32) and the reflector (26) (44) at an other end of the detection optical fiber (73), the interferometer being configured in such a way that the two polarized light waves (111, 112) travel back and forth through the detection optical fiber (73), with two orthogonal states of circular polarization (column 3, lines 11-13: "counter-rotating circularly polarized light"), which are reversed by reflection on the reflector (26) (column 5, lines 41-43: "A reflector 44, such as a mirror or mirrored surface, terminates sensing fiber 32. The light is reflected by mirror 44 and passes through sensing fiber 32 again.").
5. The fiber-optic interferometer according to claim 4, wherein the differential phase modulator (16) is an electro-optical birefringence modulator that comprises a single waveguide capable of guiding two orthogonal states of linear polarizations along two perpendicular axes (column 4, lines 35-48: "Birefringence modulator pigtail 24 is a section of polarization maintaining fiber of sufficient length to depolarize the light passing through it. Birefringence modulator pigtail 24 is connected to a birefringence modulator 26, the X and Y eigen axes of these two components being aligned. Birefringence modulator 26 may be an integrated optics waveguide formed on Ti-indiffused LiNbO.sub.3 with metallic electrodes surrounding the waveguide. Alternatively, a piezo-electric modulator may also be used. A voltage applied across the electrodes alters the birefringence of the waveguide.") , the interferometer including a polarizer (24) (18) arranged between the light source (20) and the electro-optical birefringence modulator (16), the polarizer being oriented at 45 degrees with respect to the axes of the electro-optical birefringence modulator (16) (column 4, lines 32-34: "After the light passes through polarizer 18, it is divided substantially equally into X and Y light waves by a 45 deg."), and one end of the electro-optical birefringence modulator being connected to the fiber-optic device (400) (see fig 1).
8. The fiber-optic interferometer according to claim 4, wherein the optical phase retarder (42, 32), and/or respectively the other optical phase retarder (33), each form a quarter-wave plate at the wavelength of the source beam (100) (column 5, lines 30-31: "purpose of quarter wave plate 40").
9. The fiber-optic interferometer according to claim 8, wherein the optical phase retarder (42, 32) and/or respectively the other optical phase retarder (33) is offset in such a way as to introduce a defect, and wherein the signal-processing system (900) is adapted to extract from the detected interferometric signal a measurement of variation of the scaling factor of the system (column 8, lines 19-21: "the imperfect quarter waveplate is to measure the error expressed as a single number, .delta., and correct the scale factor") and to deduce therefrom a temperature variation of the optical phase retarder (42, 32), respectively of the other optical phase retarder (33) (column 7, lines 32-35: "to compensate for a 100 degree C temperature change experienced by the quarter waveplate").
10. A method for measuring a magnetic field or an electric current based on a fiber-optic interferometer according to claim 1, the method comprising the following steps:- emission of a source beam (100) from a light source (20); - splitting of the source beam into two polarized light waves; - differential phase modulation of the two polarized light waves; - transmission of the two polarized light waves to a fiber-optic device comprising a detection optical fiber (73) so that the two polarized light waves (111, 112) travel simultaneously through the optical fiber (73) along a closed optical path, the detection optical fiber (73) having a Verdet constant capable of inducing a non-reciprocal magneto-optic Faraday effect, the detection optical fiber (73) being arranged in a magnetic field or forming at least one turn about an electric conductor (120); - recombination of two polarized light waves (111, 112) at the output of the fiber-optic device (400) to form an interferometric beam (300); - detection of the interferometric beam (300); and - processing of the detected signal to extract a measurement of a phase difference of the interferometric beam (300) and to deduce, by dividing the phase difference by a scaling factor, a value of the magnetic field integrated along the closed optical path or a value of an electric current flowing in the electric conductor (120), wherein:- the signal processing is adapted and configured to measure a variation of power contrast of part of the interferometric beam modulated by the differential phase modulator and to deduce from the contrast variation a measurement of variation of the scaling factor (see the citations given above for claim 1).
11. The fiber-optic interferometer according to claim 2, wherein the detection optical fiber (73) is of the circular polarization-maintaining type, the fiber-optic device (400) comprising an optical phase retarder (42) and a reflector (26), the optical phase retarder (42) being arranged at one end of the detection optical fiber (73) and the reflector (26) at an other end of the detection optical fiber (73), the interferometer being configured in such a way that the two polarized light waves (111, 112) travel back and forth through the detection optical fiber (73), with two orthogonal states of circular polarization, which are reversed by reflection on the reflector (26). (see the citations given above for claim 4)
12. The fiber-optic interferometer according to claim 3, wherein the detection optical fiber (73) is of the circular polarization-maintaining type, the fiber-optic device (400) comprising an optical phase retarder (42) and a reflector (26), the optical phase retarder (42) being arranged at one end of the detection optical fiber (73) and the reflector (26) at an other end of the detection optical fiber (73), the interferometer being configured in such a way that the two polarized light waves (111, 112) travel back and forth through the detection optical fiber (73), with two orthogonal states of circular polarization, which are reversed by reflection on the reflector (26). (see the citations given above for claim 4)
15. The fiber-optic interferometer according to claim 5, wherein the optical phase retarder (42, 32), and/or respectively the other optical phase retarder (33), each form a quarter-wave plate at the wavelength of the source beam (100). (see the citations given above for claim 8)
16. The fiber-optic interferometer according to claim 6, wherein the optical phase retarder (42, 32), and/or respectively the other optical phase retarder (33), each form a quarter-wave plate at the wavelength of the source beam (100). (see the citations given above for claim 8)
17. The fiber-optic interferometer according to claim 7, wherein the optical phase retarder (42, 32), and/or respectively the other optical phase retarder (33), each form a quarter-wave plate at the wavelength of the source beam (100). (see the citations given above for claim 8)
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) 6, 7, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blake '195 as applied to claims 2-4 above, and further in view of Blake (U.S. Pat. No. 5,644,397; Blake '397 hereafter).
Blake '195 does not show the Y-junction and two waveguides as recited in claim 6.
Blake '397 shows a fiber-optic interferometer in Figure 4 comprising a Y-junction separator (80) and two waveguides (polarization maintaining fiber 72 and portion of fiber 72 where quarter waveplate 88 is) arranged as recited in claim 6. Blake '397 teaches the embodiment of Figure 4 where the light is passed back in a loop rather than reflected back of the embodiment of Figure 1 is functionally the same.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious modify the reflect-back embodiment of Blake '195 to be a pass-through-and-back embodiment as taught by Blake '397 for nothing more than the expected result of measuring current.
PNG
media_image2.png
272
498
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 7, 13, and 14, Blake '197 shows all the elements as discussed above for claim 6, but does not show that the differential phase modulator comprises two waveguides arranged as recited for claim 7.
Blake '397 shows an embodiment in Figure 5 where the differential phase modulator 132 comprises two waveguides.
PNG
media_image3.png
284
510
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to modify Blake '195 with the two-waveguide differential phase modulator of Blake '397 for nothing more than the expected result of phase modulating the light.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hwa Andrew S Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5:30pm.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/Hwa Andrew Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877