FIRST NON-FINAL REJECTION
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 Objections
Claim 9 recites the limitation "a single monitoring detection element" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the monitoring detection element" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "a light source" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "a fiber optic sensor unit" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "a sensor fiber" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "a sensor detection element" in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "an object" in line 6 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 3, 6-10, and 12 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.
With respect to claim 3, 6, 9, 10, and 12, the claim limitations “wherein a C-band light source, being an ASE light source, is used as the light source”, “wherein a monitoring FBG is used to monitor the interference parameter”, “wherein only a single monitoring detection element is used”, “wherein several monitoring detection elements are used”, and “The measuring method according to claim 1 for use in determining a mechanical force acting on a rail for use in a counting point of an axle counting device” are indefinite because “Attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process generally raises an issue of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph” (MPEP 2173.05q).
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation C-band light source, and the claim also recites ASE light source which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the same measuring fiber" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the measuring fiber" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 4, 9-11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deliwala U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0086244.
With respect to claims 1 and 13, Deliwala teaches a measuring method for detecting a mechanical force acting on an object by a fiber optic sensor unit, wherein at least one measuring channel is present which comprises a sensor fiber with at least one sensor fiber Bragg grating with a Bragg wavelength (fibers 345, 365 and sensors 360, 375, figure 3), the fiber Bragg grating being embedded in the sensor fiber (340 and 355, paragraph 102, figure 3), and a sensor detection element (sensors 360 and 375), wherein the sensor fiber is attached to the object in the area of the sensor FBG (paragraph 92), wherein the method comprises: coupling light from a light source into the sensor fiber (broadband light source 310, paragraph 95, figure 3): detecting the light reflected and/or transmitted by the sensor FBG by means of the sensor detection element (light detected by sensors 360 and 375, paragraphs 92, 95, and 104, figure 3); wherein the light source has a wavelength-dependent intensity distribution with an edge (paragraph 105, figure 4); wherein the light reflected and/or transmitted by the sensor FBG is detected by means of the sensor detection element over the entire wavelength range of the light reflected and/or transmitted by the sensor FBG (paragraphs 99-102 and 113-122); and wherein a wavelength change in the Bragg wavelength of the sensor FBG is determined by evaluating a measurement signal which comprises an intensity change in the light intensity detected by the sensor detection element (paragraphs 110-117).
With respect to claim 4, Deliwala teaches wherein at least one interference parameter is monitored which has an influence on the wavelength-dependent intensity distribution independently of a force acting on the object (paragraphs 110-117).
With respect to claims 9 and 10, Deliwala teaches wherein the fiber optic sensor unit has at least four measuring channels, and wherein only a single monitoring detection element is used, which detects light from all measurement channels, and wherein the fiber optic sensor unit has at least four measuring channels (interpreted as the system having plurality of sensors and fibers in figure 10), and wherein several monitoring detection elements are used, and wherein one separate monitoring detection element is used for each measuring channel (interpreted as the system having plurality of sensors and fibers in figure 10).
With respect to claim 11, Deliwala teaches wherein a force acting on the object is determined if a wavelength change is determined with the sensor detection element, wherein only if no wavelength change or a wavelength change which is below a predetermined limit value is determined with the monitoring detection element (paragraph 110).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deliwala U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0086244 in view of Ichimura et al. JP2017207458.
With respect to claims 2 and 14, Deliwala teaches the claimed invention except wherein the light source and the sensor FBG are tuned to each other wherein the Bragg wavelength of the sensor FBG lies in a wavelength range in which the frequency pattern of the light source has the edge, in the middle range of the edge.
Ichimura teaches a physical quantity measuring device that comprises a light source that generates broad-band light having an inclined range in its wavelength spectrum and an FBG having a reflective wavelength in the inclined range (abstract).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Deliwala with the light source and sensor lie in the same wavelengths as taught by Ichimura in order to provide a more accurate sensing system.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deliwala U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0086244 in view of Yoshida et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0140445.
With respect to claim 3, Deliwala teaches the claimed invention except wherein a C-band light source, being an ASE light source, is used as the light source.
Yoshida teaches a multi-point measuring apparatus of FBG sensor having a wide-band wavelength light source 9 that is applied one having a wide wavelength band that is an ASE (Amplified Spontaneous Emission) light source (paragraph 61).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Deliwala with the light source as taught by Yoshida in order to a provide a light source to obtain the decide light effects.
Claim(s) 5, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deliwala U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0086244 in view of Camozzi et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0291024.
With respect to claims 5 and 6, Deliwala teaches wherein a monitoring FBG is used to monitor the interference parameter, and in that the change in the intensity of the light reflected by the monitoring FBG is determined for monitoring the interference parameter (temperature is monitored by the sensor 360 and 375, paragraph 92), but fails to teach wherein the change in the intensity of the light transmitted by the sensor FBG is determined for monitoring the interference parameter, the light transmitted by the sensor FBG being directed, via a bandpass filter, to a monitoring detection element.
Camozzi teaches a method for interrogating an FBG sensor where conveying the optical spectrum transmitted OT or the optical spectrum reflected OR by the at least one optical fiber sensor of the Fiber Bragg Grating type FBG to at least one tunable optical bandpass filter BPF, having a first extraction port 1 and a second transmission port 2, which are complementary to each other (paragraph 29).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Deliwala with the FBG sensor system having the bandpass filters as taught by Camozzi in order to improved dynamic performance (paragraph 10, Camozzi).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deliwala U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0086244 in view of Camozzi et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0291024 and further in view of Pan et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0299753.
With respect to claim 7, Deliwala as modified by Camozzi teaches the claimed invention except wherein the monitoring FBG is embedded in the same measuring fiber as the sensor FBG, wherein the monitoring FBG has a Bragg wavelength which differs from the Bragg wavelength of the sensor FBG.
Pan teaches a fiber optic sensor device wherein the first fiber Bragg grating unit 120 and the second fiber Bragg grating unit 125 have different Bragg reflection wavelength characteristics (paragraph 25).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Deliwala as modified by CAmozzi with the grating units having wavelengths as taught by Pan in order to provide a low cost fiber optic grating sensor having a simple structure (paragraph 15, Pan).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deliwala U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0086244 in view of Pan et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0299753.
With respect to claim 15, Deliwala teaches the claimed invention except wherein a monitoring FBG is embedded in the sensor fiber, wherein the monitoring FBG has a Bragg wavelength which differs from the Bragg wavelength of the sensor FBG, and wherein the monitoring FBG can be positioned outside the area in which the sensor FBG is attached to the object.
Pan teaches a fiber optic sensor device wherein the first fiber Bragg grating unit 120 and the second fiber Bragg grating unit 125 have different Bragg reflection wavelength characteristics (paragraph 25).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Deliwala with the grating units having wavelengths as taught by Pan in order to provide a low cost fiber optic grating sensor having a simple structure (paragraph 15, Pan).
Claim(s) 12 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deliwala U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0086244 in view of Glueck et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0356661.
With respect to claims 12 and 16, Deliwala teaches the claimed invention except An axle counting device with a counting point comprising two measuring devices.
Glueck teaches a use of at least one fiber-optic sensor element for measuring a mechanical variable which acts on a rail, a fiber-optic sensor unit for detecting a mechanical variable that acts on a rail (paragraph 10).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Deliwala and with the rail measurement system as taught by Glueck in order to provide an improved measuring system for rail or track system (paragraph 9).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDDIE KIRKLAND III whose telephone number is (571)272-2232. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at (571) 272-4107. 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.
FREDDIE KIRKLAND III
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/Freddie Kirkland III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 9/5/2026
Prosecution Insights