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 .
Response to Arguments
The reply filed on 26 February 2024 has been entered. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 11-22 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. The new grounds are not caused by the amendments; therefore this rejection is non-final.
Claims 11-22 are pending in this application and have been considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS dated 16 February 2022 was considered and placed in the application file previously.
Specification - Drawings
Color drawings were submitted in this application. Absent a successful petition to include color drawings, black and white drawings will be used. The current black and white drawings are not objected to.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-14 and 15-22 have been amended to correct the informalities. The objection to claims 11-22 based on informalities is withdrawn.
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.
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) because the claim limitations use 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 limitations are:
receiver that receives in claim 11;
image generator that generates in claim 11; and
detector that detects in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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 limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant has amended claims 11-14 and 16-22 to address the rejections under 35 USC 112. The rejection under 35 USC 112 is withdrawn.
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.
Claims 11-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over International Patent Publication WO 2018 045433 A1 (Englund) in view of US Patent Publication 2018 0087372 A1 (Stokely et al.).
Claim 11
[AltContent: textbox (Englund Fig. 1, showing a fiber optic detector system)]
PNG
media_image1.png
761
765
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, Englund teaches an anomaly detection system ("classifying the alert signal into one or more classes of alerts based on acoustic signatures of the fluctuations," page 6, lines 12-13)comprising:
a receiver that receives a reflected optical pulse containing a vibration from an optical fiber ("The OTDR 102 includes a photodetector 108 configured to detect the reflected light 110 and produce a corresponding electrical signal 112 with an amplitude proportional to the reflected optical intensity," page 8, lines 26-29);
An image generator that generates a waterfall image ("acoustic waterfall functionality," Page 15, line 25) showing the distribution of the vibration based on the optical pulse ("The noise bandwidth may be determined by the channel analysis," Page 15, lines 24-25).
Englund does not explicitly teach all of a detector that detects an anomaly based on the waterfall image.
However, Stokely et al. teach a detector that detects an anomaly based on the waterfall image ("various data processing options may be employed to enhance visualization, identification, and/or tracking of acoustic impedance boundary anomalies. For example, in different embodiments, the processing unit performs [AltContent: textbox (Stokely et al. Fig. 7 showing the waterfall image with analysis points labeled)]
PNG
media_image2.png
708
449
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a matched filtering operation and/or an image processing operation to generate or enhance the acoustic activity plot or report," Paragraph [0017]).
PNG
media_image3.png
267
469
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Stokely Fig 4, showing a laser emitter network)]It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify a method and system for distributed acoustic sensing as taught by Englund to use Methods and systems employing a controlled acoustic sources and distributed acoustic sensors to identify acoustic impedance boundary anomalies along a conduit as taught by Stokely et al.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that “previous proposals include deploying distributed sensors along a cased wellbore to monitor acoustic activity related to fluid flow. While fluid flow monitoring could possibly identify leaks along a cased wellbore, it is not effective in scenarios where fluid flow is restricted (e.g., pump off, blockages, stuck/lost objects),” as noted by Stokely et al. in paragraph [0003].
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Englund with Stokely et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Claim 12
Regarding claim 12, Englund teaches the anomaly detection system according to claim 11, wherein the detector detects the location of the anomaly based on the waterfall image ("If an acoustic event is detected at a position along the fibre between two calibration points, an interpolation (e.g. linear or nonlinear) may be used to estimate the location of the corresponding occurrence within the geographical area," page 18, lines 3-5).
Claim 13
Regarding claim 13, Englund teaches the anomaly detection system according to claim 11, wherein the detector superimposes the location of the anomaly on a map and displays it on a user monitor ("Figure 4 illustrates an aerial map in the Circular Quay area in Sydney, Australia. The aerial map is overlaid with multiple sections of optical fibre (represented by at least labels "ch1346" and "ch1384"), each corresponding to a location ( corner of Bent and Bligh Streets, and corner of Macquarie and Bridge Streets, respectively) near the Circular Quay area," Page 19, lines 15-19).
Claim 14
Regarding claim 14, Englund teaches the anomaly detection system according to claim 11, wherein the detector detects an excavator collision on the optical fiber as anomaly ("The acoustic event being determined may be indicative of specific stationary or moving occurrences, such as excavation, drilling, digging, traffic flows, trains passing by and pedestrian flows.," Page 9, lines 9-12, where excavator collision can be either excavation or digging).
Claim 15
Regarding claim 15, Englund teaches the anomaly detection system according to claim 11, wherein the waterfall image contains information indicating at least one of distance ("The peak point of the fluctuation on the optical fibre is logged, together with the end and start optical distances," Page 17, lines 15-17), time ("each point is identified with a date and time stamp," Page 17, line 12), and the vibration intensity ("The peak point of the fluctuation on the optical fibre is logged," Page 17, lines 15-17).
Claim 16
Regarding claim 16, Englund teaches the anomaly detection system according to claim 15, as noted above.
Englund does not explicitly teach all of wherein the detector calculates an abnormal score based on the information, and determines that an anomaly has occurred when the abnormal score exceeds the threshold.
However, Stokely et al. teaches wherein the detector calculates an abnormal score based on the information, and determines that an anomaly has occurred when the abnormal score exceeds the threshold ("With a known or determinable acoustic velocity value, the position of acoustic impedance boundary anomalies can be accurately determined," paragraph [0019]note that velocity value is a score and can be accurately determined is within a reasonable interpretation of score exceeds a threshold).
Claim 17
Regarding claim 17, Englund teaches a method of anomaly detecting ("classifying the alert signal into one or more classes of alerts based on acoustic signatures of the fluctuations," page 6, lines 12-13), the method comprising:
receiving a reflected optical pulse containing a vibration from an optical fiber ("The OTDR 102 includes a photodetector 108 configured to detect the reflected light 110 and produce a corresponding electrical signal 112 with an amplitude proportional to the reflected optical intensity," page 8, lines 26-29);
generating a waterfall image ("acoustic waterfall functionality," Page 15, line 25) showing the distribution of the vibration ("The noise bandwidth may be determined by the channel analysis," Page 15, lines 24-25) based on the optical pulse.
Englund does not explicitly teach all of detecting an anomaly based on the waterfall image.
However, Stokely et al. teach detecting an anomaly based on the waterfall image ("various data processing options may be employed to enhance visualization, identification, and/or tracking of acoustic impedance boundary anomalies. For example, in different embodiments, the processing unit performs a matched filtering operation and/or an image processing operation to generate or enhance the acoustic activity plot or report," Paragraph [0017]).
Claim 18
Regarding claim 18, Englund teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the detecting detects the location where the anomaly are detected based on the waterfall image ("If an acoustic event is detected at a position along the fibre between two calibration points, an interpolation (e.g. linear or nonlinear) may be used to estimate the location of the corresponding occurrence within the geographical area," page 18, lines 3-5).
Claim 19
Regarding claim 19, Englund teaches the method of claim 17, further comprising: superimposing the location of the anomaly on a map and displaying it on a user monitor ("Figure 4 illustrates an aerial map in the Circular Quay area in Sydney, Australia. The aerial map is overlaid with multiple sections of optical fibre (represented by at least labels "ch1346" and "ch1384"), each corresponding to a location ( corner of Bent and Bligh Streets, and corner of Macquarie and Bridge Streets, respectively) near the Circular Quay area," Page 19, lines 15-19).
Claim 20
Regarding claim 20, Englund teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the detecting detects an excavator collision on the optical fiber as anomaly ("The acoustic event being determined may be indicative of specific stationary or moving occurrences, such as excavation, drilling, digging, traffic flows, trains passing by and pedestrian flows.," Page 9, lines 9-12, where excavator collision can be either excavation or digging).
Claim 21
Regarding claim 21, Englund teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the waterfall image contains information indicating at least one of distance ("The peak point of the fluctuation on the optical fibre is logged, together with the end and start optical distances," Page 17, lines 15-17), time("each point is identified with a date and time stamp," Page 17, line 12), and the vibration intensity ("The peak point of the fluctuation on the optical fibre is logged," Page 17, lines 15-17).
Claim 22
Regarding claim 22, Englund teaches the method of claim 21, as noted above.
Englund does not explicitly teach all of wherein the detecting calculates an abnormal score based on the information, and determines that an anomaly has occurred when the abnormal score exceeds the threshold.
However, Stokely et al. teach wherein the detecting calculates an abnormal score based on the information, and determines that an anomaly has occurred when the abnormal score exceeds the threshold ("With a known or determinable acoustic velocity value, the position of acoustic impedance boundary anomalies can be accurately determined," paragraph [0019]note that velocity value is a score and can be accurately determined is within a reasonable interpretation of score exceeds a threshold).
Reference Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
PNG
media_image4.png
680
433
media_image4.png
Greyscale
U.S. Patent No. 10,558,207 B1 to McGuirk et al. discloses how a distance value is computed between the filtered frequency spectrum and a predefined reference spectrum using a distance computation function. When an event has occurred is determined based on a comparison between the computed distance value and a predefined distance threshold.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018 0080812 A1 to Wu et al. discloses a distributed optical fiber sensing signal processing method for safety monitoring of an underground pipe network, which is aimed to improve the intelligent ability of detection and identification of the existing distributed optical fiber sound/vibration sensing system under complex application conditions.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021 0164812 A1 to Adeyemi et al. discloses a system for determining multiple baselines for detecting events in a conduit. The system comprises an optical fiber interrogator for interrogating optical fiber; and one or more processors communicative with the optical fiber interrogator and memory having stored thereon computer program code configured, when executed by the one or more processors, to cause the one or more processors to check multiple channels of the conduit, each channel comprising a portion of the conduit: obtaining phase data for the channel, the phase data being obtained by causing the optical fiber interrogator to interrogate optical fiber positioned alongside the conduit; and determining one or more baselines from the phase data.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEATH E WELLS whose telephone number is (703)756-4696. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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, Mr. Nay Maung can be reached on 571-272-7882. 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.
/H.E.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2664
/NANCY BITAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2664
Date: 25 April 2024
Prosecution Insights