DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim(s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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.
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) are: “a sine wave generating part” and “a superimposing part” in claim 1.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 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 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 them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim recites the limitation of “the odd-order harmonic frequencies”, however there is insufficient antecedent basis for “frequencies”, as the independent claim merely recites “an odd-order harmonic frequency”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
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) 1-3 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 6,563,589 to Bennett et al., in view of US Publication 2003/0128365 to Strandjord et al.
In regards to claims 1-3 and 6-10, Bennett discloses and shows in Figures 1-4, a phase modulation signal generating device (9) for a fiber-optic gyroscope that generates a phase modulation signal to a multi-function integrated optical circuit having a phase modulator that modulates light to enter a fiber-optic coil (4) of an interference type fiber-optic gyroscope (col. 3, ll. 22-57), the phase modulation signal generating device for a fiber-optic gyroscope comprising:
“a self-resonant oscillator and adjustable gain controlled circuit” (8) (applicant’s a sine wave generating part) that generates a fundamental sine wave of an odd-order frequency (v = (2n + 1)ve, where n = 0, 1, 2, ...) of the eigenfrequency (ve) of the fiber-optic coil and a higher-order sine wave of an odd-order harmonic frequency ((2m + 1) v, where m = 1, 2, 3, ...) of the odd-order frequency (v) (col. 2, ll. 39-68; col. 7, ll. 19-42; wherein a phase modulator receives a sine wave drive voltage, which is comprised of a fundamental signal and subsequent harmonics); and
“an open-loop signal processing configuration” or a “synchronous demodulator” (29) (applicant’s a superimposing part) that superimposes the fundamental sine wave and higher-order sine wave generated by the sine wave generating part at a ratio using a modulation index and outputs the resultant signal to the phase modulator as a phase modulation signal (col. 2, ll. 39-68; col. 7, 19-42; wherein the fundamental frequency and the three lowest order harmonic signals are combined at ratios to provide “a stable, linear output scale factor”);
[claim 2] wherein the odd-order harmonic frequency of the higher-order sine wave generated by the sine wave generating part is 3v (col. 2, ll. 58-68; wherein the apparatus utilizes “the three lowest order harmonics”).
Bennett differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the apparatus:
[claim 1] wherein the wave superimposition is optimized according to relative intensity noise or shot noise, or mixing noise thereof to be minimized;
[claim 3] wherein the odd-order harmonic frequency of the higher-order sine wave generated by the sine wave generating part is 5v;
[claims 6-10] wherein a noise target to be minimized in the superimposed part is relative intensity noise.
However, Strandjord teaches and shows in Figures 3, fiber-optic gyroscope that includes modulation techniques that seek to minimize excess noise, i.e. relative intensity noise, for the advantage of maximizing the sensitivity of the gyroscope (par. 25, 28), and wherein the fundamental, 3rd and 5th harmonics are utilized to allow additional control of the angle random walk and relative intensity noise (par. 35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Bennett to include the modulation techniques discussed above for the advantage of minimizing the relative intensity noise and maximizing the sensitivity of the gyroscope, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Bennett and Strandjord differ from the limitations in that they are silent to the apparatus:
[claim 4] wherein the fundamental sine wave generated by the sine wave generating part is used as a reference signal for demodulation;
[claim 5] wherein a superimposed signal output from the superimposing part is used as a reference signal for demodulation.
However, Malvern teaches and shows in Figure 1, a fiber-optic gyroscope which utilizes phase modulation and “a reference signal generating means” that is operable to generate reference signals corresponding to each of the integral multiples of the modulation frequency, and for each reference signal, to adjust the phase thereof (col. 1, ll. 58-68); wherein higher harmonics are utilized (col. 5, ll. 51-64); and the processing technique provides the advantage of reducing errors (col. 1, ll. 33-38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Bennett to include the modulation techniques discussed above for the advantage of reducing errors and maximizing the sensitivity of the gyroscope, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8am to 4pm.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. 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.
JONATHAN M. HANSEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2877
/JONATHAN M HANSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877