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 .
DETAILED ACTION
2. This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 10/23/2025. Claim 1-3 are pending and have been considered below
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 (Statutory Category – Process)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, the claim recites a mathematical process, specifically:
“calculating, by the interrogator, mel-frequency transformation coefficients by estimating mel-frequency response of each channel with an offline method or an online method; calculating mel-frequency features for each channel and getting the corresponding mel-frequency transformation coefficients; and dividing each mel-frequency feature with the corresponding mel-frequency transformation coefficient to obtain a standardized mel-frequency response representation of each channel, and using the standardized mel-frequency response representation as input to a neural network to perform classification and/or anomalous event detection along the fiberoptic cable” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A).
2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A) “Mathematical Relationships A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. For example, pressure (p) can be described as the ratio between the magnitude of the normal force (F) and area of the surface on contact (A), or it can be set forth in the form of an equation such as p = F/A.”
2106.04(a)(2)(I)(B) “Mathematical Formulas or Equations A claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. In addition, there are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping. For example, the phrase "determining a ratio of A to B" is merely using a textual replacement for the particular equation (ratio = A/B). Additionally, the phrase "calculating the force of the object by multiplying its mass by its acceleration" is using a textual replacement for the particular equation (F= ma).”
2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) “Mathematical Calculations A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.”
Therefore, the claim recites mathematical concepts.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements consist of the method being executed in a distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) system with an interrogator coupled to a fiberoptic cable, the interrogator transmitting light pulses and measuring Rayleigh backscattered reflections from locations along the fiber-optic cable that define respective channels;
MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity has found mere data gathering and post solution activity to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the claim is thus directed to the abstract idea.
There are no additional steps that would be considered as insignificant extra-solution activity:
MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception has found simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
a processor, storage memory
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Therefore, no meaningful limits are imposed on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims are directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain any additional elements which provide significantly more than the abstract ideas. The additional elements of the method being executed in a distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) system with an interrogator coupled to a fiberoptic cable, the interrogator transmitting light pulses and measuring Rayleigh backscattered reflections from locations along the fiber-optic cable that define respective channels, are insignificant extra-solution activities required for any uses of the mental processes (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
No, as discussed with respect to Step 2A, no additional limitation that could be mere data gathering/post solution activity (Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity) and a general-purpose computer do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore the claim does not provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
The claim is ineligible.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “getting recordings of impulsive events for each channel; calculating mel-frequency features at the moments where impulsive event occurs for each record; calculating the average of mel-frequency features for different impulsive events for each channel where records are taken; interpolating the calculated mel-frequency features with channel interval number used to get a recording along fiber along channel axis to be able to cover all channels along fiber optic cable; and calculating mel-frequency transformation coefficients values for each channel such that when divided by calculated mel-frequency features corresponding to same channel, produces mel-frequency features for the center channel”, the claim recites the same mathematical process and mere data gathering. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 3 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “calculating mel-frequency features at every window for each channel; storing the mel-frequency features calculated for last arbitrary chosen number of windows; and finding median mel-frequency feature representation of each channel, using mel-frequency features data generated, at last chosen number of windows”, and amounts to no more than the same mathematical process instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer does not amount to significantly more.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 10/23/2025 have been fully considered, but are moot in light of new ground of rejection(s).
Applicant argues that the features of claim 1 provide an improvement in the technical field of distributed acoustic sensing (DAS). Specifically, Applicant asserts that by estimating per-channel mel-frequency transformation coefficients and using them to standardize each channel’s features, the claimed DAS system compensates inter-channel frequency-response differences, thereby improving separation of background noise and foreground activity and reducing feature variance. Applicant further contends that applying the standardized features to a neural network for classification integrates the mathematical operations into a practical application that enhances DAS-based event monitoring.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While Applicant’s argument characterizes the claims as providing a technical improvement, the claimed subject matter remains directed to mathematical operations performed on data—namely, calculating mel-frequency transformation coefficients, performing normalization or standardization, and applying the resulting features to a generic neural network model. These operations constitute mathematical concepts and data manipulations, which fall within the judicial exception to patent eligibility under MPEP §2106.04(a)(1) and §2106.04(a)(2).
The claims do not recite any specific or unconventional manner of performing these mathematical operations, nor do they specify an improvement to the underlying DAS hardware, sensing mechanism, or data acquisition process. The steps of standardizing features and feeding them into a neural network for classification are recited at a high level of generality and describe the desired result (improved event classification) without detailing any technical implementation that improves the functioning of the DAS system or computer itself. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis are abstract ideas.”).
Further, while Applicant asserts that the claimed method reduces the need for training data and model size, such results are performance benefits of the mathematical model itself, not improvements to computer technology or sensing hardware. The Federal Circuit has consistently held that enhancements in the accuracy or efficiency of an abstract mathematical process, without a specific improvement in how the computer or technology operates, do not render the claims patent-eligible. See SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163–64 (Fed. Cir. 2018) and Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
Additionally, the mere application of a mathematical transformation to data collected by a DAS system and subsequent input into a neural network does not “integrate” the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim recites only the use of generic processing components and a standard neural network model operating in their conventional capacities. See MPEP §2106.05(f) (extra-solution activity) and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
Accordingly, although the claims may produce useful results in the field of acoustic sensing, they do not recite an improvement to the functioning of the DAS system or computer technology itself. The claims, therefore, remain directed to a judicial exception without reciting significantly more under Step 2A, Prong Two or Step 2B. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that the explicit recitation of performing the method within a distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) system—including using an interrogator to transmit optical pulses and measure Rayleigh backscatter to define channels, followed by dividing each channel’s mel-frequency features by its transformation coefficient to obtain standardized representations—integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant further contends that using the standardized representation in a neural network for classification or anomaly detection constitutes a “field-improving” application rather than mere post-solution activity.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Although the claims nominally recite performance within a DAS system, the recited DAS components (e.g., interrogator, channels, Rayleigh backscatter) are used only as conventional data sources for acquiring input signals. The claimed mathematical operations—mel-frequency transformation, standardization, and normalization—are performed after data acquisition and merely manipulate or analyze data using mathematical relationships. Such data analysis, even when applied to data collected from a physical environment, remains an abstract idea. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (analyzing data from power grid sensors using mathematical relationships constitutes an abstract idea despite its real-world context).
Moreover, the claimed steps of dividing features by transformation coefficients and inputting the standardized representations into a neural network for classification do not specify any non-conventional data transformation, signal processing technique, or improvement to the operation of the DAS system or interrogator hardware. Rather, the DAS system merely functions as an environment in which the abstract mathematical processing is performed using conventional components operating in their ordinary capacity. See MPEP §2106.05(f) (extra-solution activity) and Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978) (post-solution activity, such as applying a mathematical result, does not render a claim patent-eligible).
While Applicant asserts that the recited neural network constitutes a field-improving application, the claims do not describe any specific neural network architecture, training methodology, or unconventional processing technique that improves the functioning of the neural network or the DAS technology itself. Instead, the neural network is invoked in generic terms to apply the results of prior mathematical operations to classify or detect anomalies—activities that represent the intended use or result of the abstract data processing, not an integration of the abstract idea into a specific technological improvement. See MPEP §2106.05(a) (improvements to technology) and Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Accordingly, the additional recitation of a DAS interrogator and neural network classifier does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea or integrate it into a practical application. The claim remains directed to mathematical operations applied to data, implemented using generic computer functionality, and thus does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 is therefore maintained.
Applicant contends that the ordered combination of steps—(1) acquiring Rayleigh backscatter channel data using a DAS interrogator, (2) estimating per-channel mel-frequency transformation coefficients using online or offline techniques, and (3) dividing each channel’s features by its corresponding coefficients to obtain standardized per-channel representations—is not routine or conventional in the field of distributed acoustic sensing (DAS). Applicant further argues that using the standardized representations as inputs to a neural network for classification or anomaly detection along a fiber optic cable is a specific, technology-improving application of the processed data.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The mere arrangement or ordering of conventional data acquisition and mathematical processing steps does not render the combination non-conventional when each step is itself well-understood and routinely performed by those of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2106.05(d) and Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The specification and claims describe known DAS hardware (an interrogator transmitting optical pulses and measuring Rayleigh backscatter) performing its ordinary sensing function, followed by mathematical processing of acquired data (mel-frequency transformation, normalization, and feature scaling) and subsequent application of the processed data to a generic neural network for classification. Each of these steps represents a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity performed by a generic computing system.
The use of mel-frequency transformations, normalization of feature vectors, and neural network-based classification are all conventional signal processing and machine learning techniques widely employed across technical fields, including acoustics and optical sensing. The claims recite these elements at a high level of generality without specifying any particular data structures, training methodology, network architecture, or hardware implementation that would amount to a technological improvement to the operation of a DAS system or a neural network itself. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Selecting information, analyzing it using mathematical techniques, and displaying results of the analysis is abstract.”).
Moreover, while Applicant asserts that the claimed steps improve DAS performance by enhancing event detection, such improvements are the intended result of the abstract mathematical operations and do not reflect a change in how the DAS system or computer operates at a technological level. Performance benefits arising from improved data analysis do not, by themselves, supply an inventive concept. See SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1164 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (improved accuracy in data analysis insufficient to confer eligibility).
Accordingly, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claimed elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The steps represent a conventional sequence of data collection, mathematical analysis, and classification using generic computing techniques. Therefore, the claims fail to recite an inventive concept that transforms the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 is maintained.
Conclusion
5. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (See PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Phenuel S. Salomon whose telephone number is (571) 270-1699. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 7:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. (Alternate Friday Off) EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew J. Jung can be reached on (571) 270-3779. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-3800.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PHENUEL S SALOMON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2146