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 Interpretation
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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: data collection device in claim 1.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 4-8 and 10 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitations "the polarization direction of the first polarizer" and “the polarization direction of the second polarizer” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 5-8 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from claim 4.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the widths of bright stripes and dark stripes” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “near (of ‘near the focal plane of the first optical assembly’)” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. ‘Near’ renders the location of the birefringent element relative to the focal plane of the first optical assembly indefinite.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the focal plane of the first optical assembly” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the number of wavelengths” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. Claims 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Reich (6,173,091).
As for claim 1, Reich in a fiber optic Fabry Perot sensor measuring absolute strain discloses/suggests the following: a demodulation system for optical fiber Fabry-Perot sensor (FIG. 2 noting that the modulation takes place in 100; see FIG. 1A with col. 4, lines 16-35 and col. 5, lines 13-28) comprising: a light source (FIG. 2: 106); a Fabry-Perot sensor configured such that light undergoes multi-beam interference in the Fabry-Perot sensor to form interference light (FIG. 2: 100 and col. 5, lines 13-28 with FIG. 1A: 24 and 26 and col. 4, lines 16-35); a coupler configured to receive light emitted from the light source and transmit the light to the Fabry-Perot sensor and transmit the interference light formed by the Fabry-Perot sensor (FIG. 2: 124); a first optical assembly configured to shape the interference light into a linear first interference fringe pattern (FIG. 2: 128 with 130/132 and first lens of 132 and 134 that is just downstream from 130 and 132); a second optical assembly configured to form a second interference fringe pattern on the basis of the linear first interference fringe pattern (FIG. 2: treating the second optical assembly as the polarizer (analyzer: the two parallel lines, ║) and second lens of 134 and 136 downstream from the analyzers, ║, of 134 and 136); a first detector provided in a light path downstream of the second optical assembly and configured to receive a first light signal to form a first light signal curve (FIG. 2: 142 (also note 142 and 146 are in a dashed rectangular box); a second detector provided in the light path downstream of the second optical assembly and configured to receive a second light signal to form a second light signal curve (FIG. 2: 144 144 (also note 144 and 148 are in a dashed rectangular box)); a data collection device configured to receive the first light signal curve from the first detector to generate a first light intensity curve and receive the second light signal curve from the second detector to generate a second light intensity curve (FIG. 2: noting that 150 or 152 can be interpreted as a ‘data collection device’; col. 6, lines 10-20; col. 2, lines 35-43; with FIGS. 5A-5B: col. 6, lines 51-col. 7, line 8 and col. 7, lines 24-30); and a processor configured to receive the first light intensity curve and the second light intensity curve from the data collection device, and calculate a cavity length variation of the Fabry-Perot sensor on the basis of the first light intensity curve and the second light intensity curve (FIG. 2: again, noting that 150 or 152 can be interpreted as a ‘processor’ and noting that 152 converts voltage to displayed strain: signals from 150 are converted to display strain demonstrating a first light intensity curve, a first voltage signal, and a second light intensity curve, a second voltage signal; col. 6, lines 10-20; col. 2, lines 35-43; with FIGS. 5A-5B: col. 6, lines 51-col. 7, line 9 and col. 7, lines 24-30 ), wherein the first light signal and the second light signal have a phase difference of 90 degrees (col. 7, lines 5-8; col. 2; lines 53-55; col. 3, lines 4-7; col. 5, lines 20-24)
As for claim 2, Reich discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Reich discloses/suggests a first optical fiber jumper provided between the second optical assembly and the first detector and configured to transmit the first light signal (FIG. 2: treating 138 as a first optical fiber jumper extending from at least adjacent the second lens of 134 to the entrance of 142 (142 and 146 appear to be housed by virtue of having a dashed rectangular box)) ; and a second optical fiber jumper provided between the second optical assembly and the second detector and configured to transmit the second light signal (FIG. 2: treating 140 as a second optical fiber jumper extending from at least adjacent the second lens of 136 to the entrance of 144 (144 and 148 appear to be housed by virtue of having a dashed rectangular box)).
As for claim 4, Reich discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Reich discloses/suggests wherein the second optical assembly comprises a first polarizer and a second polarizer (FIG. 2: both 134 and 136 comprise a polarizer/analyzer, ║ )and wherein a polarization direction of the first polarizer and a polarization direction of the second polarizer are perpendicular or parallel to each other (FIG. 2: the ║ of 134 appears parallel to ║ of 136; however, they appear to be perpendicular to each other by virtue of being orthogonal to one another: col. 5, line 65-col. 6, line 9).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reich (6,173,091) in view of Qiao et al. (WO 2021/212271 A1)-using machine translation.
As for claims 9 and 11, Reich discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). As for ‘wherein the processor is configured to perform a division operation on the first light intensity curve and the second light intensity curve to generate a third light intensity curve, and calculate the cavity length variation of the Fabry-Perot sensor on the basis of the third light intensity curve (claim 9)’ and ‘wherein the third light intensity curve is a tangent curve (claim 11),’ Reich is silent.
Nevertheless, Qiao in a Fabry-Perot sensor cavity length demodulation system and Fabry-Perot sensor cavity length demodulation method teaches a cavity length demodulation system of a Fabry Perot sensor where two light beams of interference light having a phase difference of 90 degrees are detected (FIG. 3: 3 with L1 and 41 and L2 and 42; page 4: second to the last paragraph beginning with ‘FIG. 3 is a schematic diagram…’ to page 5: line 6) and states that the interference and superposition of linearly polarized light avoids incoherent superposition between non-polarized light, which is beneficial to improve the contrast of interference fringes, thereby improving the sensitivity of the optical fiber F-P modulation system (page 4: third paragraph beginning with ‘The light source in this application…); wherein, a first curve and a second curve of light intensity are formed (page 5: lines 6-9 with Figures 4a and 4b). And Qiao teaches that these two curves are input to a processor which performs a division operation to obtain a third curve proportional to a tangent curve (page 5: lines 9-10); wherein ‘the processor divides the third curve into an entire wavelength part and a non-integer wavelength part (page 5: line 15);’ wherein ‘the processor calculates the number of integer wavelengths contained in the entire wavelength part (page 5: lines 16-17),’ and ‘then the first cavity length change is calculated (page 5: line 17);’ wherein, ‘for the non-integer wavelength part,’ ‘the processor calculates the second cavity length change based on the function of the light intensity and the cavity length (page 5: lines 18-19).’ Noting that the total cavity length change is calculated by adding the first cavity length change and the second cavity length change (page 5: lines 19-20).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the processor be ‘configured to perform a division operation on the first light intensity curve and the second light intensity curve to generate a third light intensity curve, and calculate the cavity length variation of the Fabry-Perot sensor on the basis of the third light intensity curve (claim 9)’ and ‘wherein the third light intensity curve is a tangent curve (claim 11)’ in order to have the processor divide the third curve into an entire wavelength part and a non-integer wavelength part; wherein, the processor calculates the number of integer wavelengths contained in the entire wavelength part to then calculate the first cavity length change and wherein, for the non-integer wavelength part, the processor calculates the second cavity length change based on the function of the light intensity and the cavity length so that the total cavity length change is calculated by adding the first cavity length change and the second cavity length change; thereby, improving the sensitivity of the optical fiber F-P modulation system through improving the contrast of interference fringes by using the interference and superposition of linearly polarized light.
As for claim 10, Reich in view of Qiao discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 9). In addition, Reich in view of Qiao discloses/suggests wherein the cavity length variation is obtained on the basis of a sum of a first cavity length variation related to an integer wavelength part and a second cavity length variation related to a non-integer wavelength part, and wherein the processor is configured to calculate the first cavity length variation on the basis of a number of wavelengths included in the integer wavelength part and calculate the second cavity length variation using a light intensity-cavity length function (see claims 9 and 11 above: ‘in order to have the processor divide the third curve into an entire wavelength part and a non-integer wavelength part; wherein, the processor calculates the number of integer wavelengths contained in the entire wavelength part to then calculate the first cavity length change and wherein, for the non-integer wavelength part, the processor calculates the second cavity length change based on the function of the light intensity and the cavity length so that the total cavity length change is calculated by adding the first cavity length change and the second cavity length change; thereby, improving the sensitivity of the optical fiber F-P modulation system through improving the contrast of interference fringes by using the interference and superposition of linearly polarized light.’)
11. Claims 1, 4, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 103033202 B)-using machine translation in view of Wang et al. (CN 113405578 A)-using machine translation-hereafter ‘578 and Wang et al. (CN 113176032 A)-using machine translation-hereafter ‘032.
As for claim 1, Liu in a shift-low coherence interference demodulating device and method discloses/suggests the following: a demodulation system for optical fiber Fabry-Perot sensor (FIG. 1; abstract; paragraph [0017]) comprising: a light source (FIG. 1: 1); a Fabry-Perot sensor configured such that light undergoes multi-beam interference in the Fabry-Perot sensor to form interference light (FIG. 1: 3; noting paragraphs [0004], [0007], [0008]); a coupler configured to receive light emitted from the light source and transmit the light to the Fabry-Perot sensor and transmit the interference light formed by the Fabry-Perot sensor (FIG. 1: 2) ; a first optical assembly configured to shape the interference light into a linear first interference fringe pattern (FIG. 1: 4); a second optical assembly configured to form a second interference fringe pattern on the basis of the linear first interference fringe pattern (FIG. 1: 5, 6, 7); a first detector provided in a light path downstream of the second optical assembly and configured to receive a first light signal to form a first light signal curve (FIG. 1: 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 as the first detector; paragraphs [0004], [0005], [0008], [0021] with claim 1); a second detector provided in the light path downstream of the second optical assembly and configured to receive a second light signal to form a second light signal curve (FIG. 1: 9, 10, or 11 as the second detector if 8 is the first detector; 8, 10, or 11 as the second detector if 9 is the first detector; 8, 9, or 11 as the second detector if 10 is the first detector; 8, 9, or 10 as the second detector if 11 is the first detector; paragraphs [0004], [0005], [0008], [0021] with claim 1); wherein the first light signal and the second light signal have a phase difference of 90 degrees (last three lines of paragraph [0005], paragraphs [0008] and [0021] and claim 1).
As for a data collection device configured to receive the first light signal curve from the first detector to generate a first light intensity curve and receive the second light signal curve from the second detector to generate a second light intensity curve; and a processor configured to receive the first light intensity curve and the second light intensity curve from the data collection device, and calculate a cavity length variation of the Fabry-Perot sensor on the basis of the first light intensity curve and the second light intensity curve, Liu does not explicitly state this. Liu does mention that the device has a signal processing system for processing the signal to obtain a demodulated result (claim 2 noting paragraphs [0006 with 0008-0011 and 0021).
Nevertheless, ‘578 in a high-stability dynamic phase demodulation compensation method based on polarization interference and DCM algorithm teaches using two paths of a low coherence interference signal to obtain the cavity length change of the phase information (abstract). And notes that two detectors are used where the detected signals appear to have a phase difference of 90 degrees (FIG. 2: 6, 7, 8, 9; page 4: last paragraph to first two lines of page 5); wherein the demodulation device comprises a data collection device that appears to receive the first light signal curve from the first detector to generate a first light intensity curve and receive the second light signal curve from the second detector to generate a second light intensity curve and a processor configured to receive the first light intensity curve and the second light intensity curve from the data collection device, and calculate a cavity length variation of the Fabry-Perot sensor on the basis of the first light intensity curve and the second light intensity curve (FIG. 2: 10 and 11; page 5: last two paragraphs to page 6: line 17).
And ‘032 in a pressure measuring device and method based on orthogonal phase fast demodulation and intensity compensation teaches a pressure measuring device based on orthogonal phase fast demodulation and intensity compensation (FIG. 1) that uses two paths of low coherence interference signal wherein the two light signals have an orthogonal phase difference (page 5: lines 18-19; FIG. 1: noting 101 to 111 to 121 to 131 and 102 to 112 to 122 to 132); wherein the demodulation device comprises a data collection device that appears to receive the first light signal curve from the first detector to generate a first light intensity curve and receive the second light signal curve from the second detector to generate a second light intensity curve and a processor configured to receive the first light intensity curve and the second light intensity curve from the data collection device, and calculate a cavity length variation of the Fabry-Perot sensor on the basis of the first light intensity curve and the second light intensity curve (FIG. 1: 7 and 8; page 6: line 9 to page 7: lines 27).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a data collection device configured to receive the first light signal curve from the first detector to generate a first light intensity curve and receive the second light signal curve from the second detector to generate a second light intensity curve; and a processor configured to receive the first light intensity curve and the second light intensity curve from the data collection device, and calculate a cavity length variation of the Fabry-Perot sensor on the basis of the first light intensity curve and the second light intensity curve in order to provide automated collection and processing of optical signals to provide demodulation of Fabry-Perot sensors that uses polarization interference with two optical signals of orthogonal phase difference to determine the cavity length variation for pressure sensing.
As for claim 4, Liu in view of ‘578 and ‘032 discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Liu discloses/suggests wherein the second optical assembly (FIG. 1: 5, 6, and 7) comprises a first polarizer and a second polarizer (FIG. 1: 5 and 7), and wherein a polarization direction of the first polarizer and a polarization direction of the second polarizer are perpendicular or parallel to each other (FIG. 1: 5 and 7 have same orientation; thereby, their polarization directions are parallel to each other).
As for claim 5, Liu in view of ‘578 and ‘032 discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 4). In addition, Liu discloses/suggests wherein the second optical assembly (FIG. 1: 5, 6, and 7) further comprises a birefringent element (FIG. 1: 6), and the birefringent element is provided between the first polarizer and the second polarizer (FIG. 1: 6 between 5 and 7)
As for claim 8, Liu in view of ‘578 and ‘032 discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 5). In addition, Liu discloses/suggests wherein the birefringent element is provided near a focal plane of the first optical assembly (FIG. 1: treating focal plane of 4 as intersecting the free end of the fiber connected to the coupler, 2, and noting the relative position of 6 relative to 4 and its focal plane).
Allowable Subject Matter
12. 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.
13. Claims 6 and 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: please refer to the attached PTO-892.
Fax/Telephone Numbers
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gordon J. Stock, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 272-2431.
The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 10:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
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.
/GORDON J STOCK JR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877