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
Applicant's arguments filed 2/18/20206 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the applicant’s arguments beginning on page 5 of Remarks, the applicant argues that Toru fails to disclose all of the claimed limitations of independent claims 1 and 12. Specifically, the applicant argues “Without acquiescing to the merits of this rejection, Applicant has amended claims 1 and 12,
on which all other rejected claims depend, to better capture commercial embodiments. Applicant respectfully submits that Toru fails to disclose each and every feature of pending claims 1 and 12. For example, Toru fails to disclose receiving "a back scattered light including a vibration pattern of the tower" and detecting deterioration "based on an amount of change over time in the vibration pattern." Instead, Toru merely discloses "Rayleigh scattered light enters the detector 24" and "measuring the time" during which vibration occurs, thereby identifying the tower at which vibration occurs. See Toru at [0041]-[0042]. This fails to mention anywhere receiving "a back scattered light including a vibration pattern of the tower" or detecting deterioration "based on an amount of change over time in the
vibration pattern." The examiner respectfully disagrees.
While the embodiment in Figure 3 of Toru does not disclose back scattered light including a vibration pattern of the tower, Figure 5 of Toru discloses a separate embodiment where reflected light from a tower including a vibration pattern is detected. Giving the claim its BRI, the reflected light of Toru reads on the claimed “back scattered light”. Additionally, Rayleigh scattered light, which scatters in multiple directions, includes back scattered light. Furthermore, it is noted that “based on an amount of change over time” is claimed generally broad and is inclusive of any amount of time. Therefore, the vibration pattern detected by Toru at a given time discloses the argued limitations. The previous grounds of rejection are maintained.
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Toru et al. (hereafter
Toru)(JP 2001-311749 (translation provided).
Regarding claim 1, Toru discloses a tower deterioration detection device (Figures 5-6)
comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors (Figure 5, Element
25 where the signal processing unit includes memories storing instructions for performing abnormal
signal monitoring) configured to execute the instructions to: receive a backscattered light including a vibration pattern of the tower from an optical fiber cable provided to a tower; and detect deterioration of the tower, based on an amount of change over time in the vibration pattern (Figure 5, Elements 2, 22, 25 and Pages 5-8 where the signal processing unit receives backscattered optical signals from the optical fiber 22. When vibration is transmitted to the optical fiber, the interference pattern changes. Vibration is detected as a change in light amount over a given time at the signal processing unit. The signal processing unit detects an abnormal signal localized at a tower which is indicative of tower deterioration such as loosening of a bolt/screw).
Regarding claim 2, Toru discloses wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute
the instructions to detect the deterioration based on a structural abnormality of the tower (Figure 5,
Elements 2, 22, 25 and Pages 5-8 where the signal processing unit receives optical signals from the
optical fiber 22. When vibration is transmitted to the optical fiber, the interference pattern changes.
Vibration is detected as a change in light amount at the signal processing unit. The signal processing
unit detects an abnormal signal localized at a tower which is indicative of tower deterioration such as
loosening of a bolt/screw).
Regarding claim 3, Toru discloses wherein the structural abnormality includes at least one of a
loosen screw of the tower, peeling of coating of the tower, and generation of rust of the tower (Figure 5,
Elements 2, 22, 25 and Pages 5-8 where the signal processing unit receives optical signals from the
optical fiber 22. When vibration is transmitted to the optical fiber, the interference pattern changes.
Vibration is detected as a change in light amount at the signal processing unit. The signal processing
unit detects an abnormal signal localized at a tower which is indicative of tower deterioration such as
loosening of a bolt/screw).
Regarding claim 4, Toru discloses wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute
the instructions to receive the back scattered light from the optical fiber cable provided to a plurality of the towers (Figure 5, Elements 2, 22, 25 and Pages 5-8 where the signal processing unit receives the optical signal from the fiber cable that is provided to plural towers).
Regarding claim 5, Toru discloses wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute
the instructions to detect the deterioration of each of the towers (Figure 5, Elements 2, 22, 25 and Pages
5-8 where the signal processing unit receives optical signals from the optical fiber 22. When vibration is transmitted to the optical fiber, the interference pattern changes. Vibration is detected as a change in
light amount at the signal processing unit. The signal processing unit detects an abnormal signal
localized at a tower which is indicative of tower deterioration such as loosening of a bolt/screw).
Regarding claim 6, Toru discloses wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute
the instructions to detect presence or absence of the deterioration, and detect a degree of the
deterioration (Figure 5, Elements 2, 22, 25 and Pages 5-8 where the signal processing unit receives
optical signals from the optical fiber 22. When vibration is transmitted to the optical fiber, the
interference pattern changes. Vibration is detected as a change in light amount at the signal processing
unit. The signal processing unit detects an abnormal signal localized at a tower which is indicative of a
degree of tower deterioration such as loosening of a bolt/screw).
Regarding claim 7, Toru discloses wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute
the instructions to detect a sign of the deterioration (Figure 5, Elements 2, 22, 25 and Pages 5-8 where
the signal processing unit receives optical signals from the optical fiber 22. When vibration is
transmitted to the optical fiber, the interference pattern changes. Vibration is detected as a change in
light amount at the signal processing unit. The signal processing unit detects an abnormal signal
localized at a tower which is indicative of a sign of tower deterioration such as loosening of a
bolt/screw).
Regarding claim 8, Toru discloses wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute
the instructions to execute control for outputting information indicating a result of detection (Page 8
where a supervisor or the like is notified of the abnormal signal detection. An alarm device is also
provided to output notification of abnormal signal detection).
Regarding claim 9, Toru discloses a tower deterioration detection system (Figure 5) comprising:
the tower deterioration detection device according to claim 1 (see rejection for claim 1); and the optical
fiber cable (Figure 5, Element 22).
Regarding claim 10, Toru discloses wherein the optical fiber cable is provided inside an overhead
ground wire (Figure 5, Element 22 and Pages 5-8).
Regarding claim 11, Toru discloses wherein the optical fiber cable is for communication or
sensing (Figure 5, Elements 2, 22, 25 and Pages 5-8 where the signal processing unit receives optical
signals from the optical fiber 22. When vibration is transmitted to the optical fiber, the interference
pattern changes. Vibration is detected as a change in light amount at the signal processing unit. The
signal processing unit detects an abnormal signal localized at a tower which is indicative of tower
deterioration such as loosening of a bolt/screw).
Method claims 12-19 are drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in
claims 1-8. Therefore method claims 12-19 correspond to apparatus claims 1-8 and are rejected for the
same reasons of anticipation as used above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS D ALUNKAL whose telephone number is (571)270-1127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/THOMAS D ALUNKAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights