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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 97-119 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1-16 is directed to a method, claim 17-18 is directed to using a wind farm controller to perform the method, and claim 19 is directed to a wind farm controller. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Regarding claim 97:
A method of determining a peak ground acceleration, comprising:
providing a distributed fiber optic sensing (DFOS) instrument connected to at least one optical fiber;
recording DFOS data with the DFOS instrument, wherein the DFOS data includes strain data along the at least one optical fiber;
converting the strain data into complex Fourier coefficients;
scaling the complex Fourier coefficients;
applying an inverse transform to the scaled Fourier coefficients; and
selecting a maximum value from an output of the inverse transform to identify the peak ground acceleration for a position along the at least one optical fiber.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“recording DFOS data with the DFOS instrument, wherein the DFOS data includes strain data along the at least one optical fiber” is directed to mental step of data gathering.
“converting the strain data into complex Fourier coefficients” is directed to math because the core mathematical principle is the Fourier transform (or Fourier series, if dealing with periodic data). This mathematical tool states that nearly any continuous function (like your strain data) can be expressed as an infinite sum or integral of sines and cosines. To simplify the representation of these sines and cosines, they are expressed using Euler's formula (eix = cos(x) + i sin(x)), which inherently uses complex numbers (i is the imaginary unit). The "complex Fourier coefficients" are the amplitudes and phases of these complex exponential functions.
“scaling the complex Fourier coefficients” is directed to math because it is described by the scaling property of the Fourier transform, which is a fundamental concept in Fourier analysis. This property mathematically demonstrates how a time-domain scaling (compression or expansion) of a signal affects its frequency-domain representation (the Fourier coefficients). The core mathematical relationship is the scaling property of the Fourier transform. It states that if a signal is scaled in the time domain (e.g., compressed by a factor of a), its Fourier transform is scaled in the frequency domain by a factor of 1/|a| and the frequency axis is also stretched or compressed.
“applying an inverse transform to the scaled Fourier coefficients” is directed to math because this is how the inverse Fourier transform works, allowing you to convert a function from the frequency domain back to the time domain. This is a mathematical operation that is defined by an integral that reconstructs the original function from its Fourier transform. The scaling factor (like the 1/2
π
in the formula) is a matter of mathematical convention and ensures that the forward and inverse transforms work together consistently to return you to the original signal.
Each limitation recites in the claim is a process that, under BRI covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic “sensor, body part, and measurement” which is a mere indication of the field of use. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Further, the claim recites the step of " converting the strain data into complex Fourier coefficients; scaling the complex Fourier coefficients; applying an inverse transform to the scaled Fourier coefficients” which as drafted, under BRI recites a mathematical calculation. The grouping of "mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PED includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section |, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, the recited limitation falls into the "mathematical concept" grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889.
Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(i) and (iii).
Additional Elements:
Step 2A Prong 2:
“providing a distributed fiber optic sensing (DFOS) instrument connected to at least one optical fiber” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“recording DFOS data with the DFOS instrument, wherein the DFOS data includes strain data along the at least one optical fiber” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“converting the strain data into complex Fourier coefficients” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“scaling the complex Fourier coefficients” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“applying an inverse transform to the scaled Fourier coefficients” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“selecting a maximum value from an output of the inverse transform to identify the peak ground acceleration for a position along the at least one optical fiber” is directed to insignificant activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim is merely selecting data, manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process, and displaying the results.
This is similar to electric power: MPEP 2106.05(h) vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or 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. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Step 2B:
“providing a distributed fiber optic sensing (DFOS) instrument connected to at least one optical fiber” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“recording DFOS data with the DFOS instrument, wherein the DFOS data includes strain data along the at least one optical fiber” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“converting the strain data into complex Fourier coefficients” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“scaling the complex Fourier coefficients” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“applying an inverse transform to the scaled Fourier coefficients” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“selecting a maximum value from an output of the inverse transform to identify the peak ground acceleration for a position along the at least one optical fiber” is directed to insignificant activity and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d)(ii), third list, (iv).
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 98, “wherein the converting the strain data into complex Fourier coefficients includes applying a two-dimensional Fourier transform to the strain data” is directed to math because the core of this process is Fourier analysis, a major branch of mathematics that deals with representing functions as sums of simpler trigonometric functions (sines and cosines). The results, the Fourier coefficients, specify the amplitude and phase of each frequency component in the original data. The "complex" in complex Fourier coefficients refers to the use of complex numbers to encode both the amplitude and phase information efficiently. This mathematical convenience is vital for the analysis. Two-Dimensional Fourier Transform is an extension of the standard one-dimensional Fourier transform used for data that varies in two dimensions (like a surface or image). It mathematically transforms the spatial distribution of strain into its frequency components in a 2D space.
Regarding claim 99, “wherein the applying the inverse transform includes applying a two-dimensional inverse Fourier transform to the scaled Fourier coefficients” is directed to math because this process reverses the original transformation, reconstructing the original signal from its frequency-domain representation. The specific scaling of coefficients can vary based on convention, but the mathematical relationship between the forward and inverse transforms is consistent. This is a central concept in the field of Fourier analysis, a branch of mathematics that uses the decomposition of functions into simpler trigonometric functions. The Fourier transform can be thought of as a generalization of the Fourier series, where a function is represented as a sum of sines and cosines. The inverse transform is the operation that performs this reconstruction.
Regarding claim 100, “determining characteristics of ground motion caused by an earthquake by: analyzing the recorded DFOS data to obtain a quantitative measurement of signal amplitude of the DFOS data; comparing the quantitative measurement of the signal amplitude to a predetermined threshold; preliminarily determining that an earthquake has occurred when the quantitative measurement is above the predetermined threshold; and quantifying effects of the earthquake” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 101, “verifying that the earthquake has occurred after the preliminary determining and before the quantifying” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 102, “wherein the analyzing the recorded DFOS data includes measuring the signal amplitude within a passband of a dominant frequency of the earthquake” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 103, “assessing effects of ground motion on a structure by: computing resonant peaks of the structure based on the DFOS data; storing the computed resonant peaks in a storage device archiving resonant peak values associated with the structure; retrieving archived values of resonant peaks from the storage device; detecting a change between the retrieved archived values and the computed resonant peaks based on the DFOS data, the change represented by a change value; comparing the change value to a threshold value; and generating an alert when the detected change is above the threshold value” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 104, “wherein the method is repeated on a schedule” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 105, “wherein a period of the schedule is adaptive and decreases in duration in response to a result of the comparing” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 106, “accumulating the detected change values over time to identify a cumulative change value that represents change between most recently calculated resonant peaks and oldest resonant peak values stored in the storage device” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 107, “wherein the threshold value is adaptive and decreases over time” .
Regarding claim 108, “receiving a notification that an earthquake has occurred; and responsive to the received notification, using the DFOS data to calculate at least one of earthquake magnitude, moment, strain, strain-rate, geodetic deformation, location, depth, focal mechanism, radiation pattern, moment tensor, finite fault region of slip, slip rate, and rupture velocity of the earthquake that has occurred“ does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 109, “generating an alert from the DFOS system based on the calculating; and transmitting the generated alert to a receiver in a populated area” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 101, “wherein the calculating represents physical effects at the second location or physical effects at a third location that is located between the first location and the second location” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 111, “wherein measuring the DFOS data includes selecting an unlit or unused piece of optical spectrum from an otherwise lit optical fiber, or a polarization eigen mode from an otherwise lit optical fiber or an entire dark fiber from an established and dedicated telecommunications network” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 112, “quantifying effects of an earthquake by: using the DFOS data and calculating at least one of a direction of ground motion during the earthquake and duration of the ground motion during the earthquake” is directed to math because seismologists use mathematical and physical models to analyze seismic waves and determine the direction, duration, and intensity of ground motion. DFOS can create an enormous amount of data, and sophisticated mathematical algorithms are used to process this data to make sense of the ground motion and its effects.
Regarding claim 113, “analyzing effects of an earthquake on a building by: calculating eigenmode resonance values of the building from the DFOS data; and determining a quantity representing an intensity of the building shaking from the eigenmodes” is directed to math because this process involves advanced mathematical concepts such as the Fourier Transform (or other signal processing techniques like the Wavelet Transform) to convert the raw time-series data from the Distributed Fiber Optic Sensors (DFOS) into the frequency domain. The "eigenmode resonance values" (natural frequencies and mode shapes) are then identified from peaks in the resulting amplitude spectra. This is fundamentally an eigenvalue problem, a core topic in linear algebra and differential equations, where the mathematical model of the building yields specific frequencies and corresponding structural shapes (eigenvectors/modes).
Regarding claim 114, “wherein the determining includes comparing the eigenmodes of the building calculated after an occurrence of the earthquake to pre- earthquake eigenmodes” is directed to math because comparing a building's eigenmodes after an earthquake to its pre-earthquake eigenmodes is fundamentally and heavily rooted in applied mathematics, specifically in the fields of structural dynamics, numerical analysis, and linear algebra.
Regarding claim 115, “relating a change in the eigenmodes to a state change of structural health of the building” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 116, “generating safety alerts for a structure in an aftermath of an earthquake by: calculating a safety score for the structure based on the DFOS data; and generating a safety alert based on the safety score” is directed to math because the raw data from a Distributed Fiber Optic Sensor (DFOS) system measures physical parameters like strain, temperature, and vibration. Mathematics, particularly statistics, is used to process and interpret this vast amount of data.
Regarding claim 117, “wherein the safety score is based on a comparison of the peak ground acceleration calculated from the DFOS data and a peak ground acceleration rating of the structure” is directed to math because the entire process—from raw data acquisition via sensors to the final calculation of a safety score—is a practical application of mathematical principles used to ensure structural safety.
Regarding claim 118, “detecting damage to infrastructure by: calculating a physical quantity based on the DFOS data representing at least one of building story drift, peak ground acceleration under or beside the building, peak ground acceleration of a component of the infrastructure itself, and liquefaction; comparing the calculated physical quantity to a specification of the infrastructure; and generating an alert indicating possible infrastructure damage based on the calculated physical quantity and the specification of the infrastructure” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 119, “visually representing effects of an earthquake on multiple distinct locations within a geographic area by: calculating the peak ground acceleration value for each one of the multiple distinct locations based on the DFOS data; and overlaying the calculated peak ground acceleration values on a map that represents the multiple locations” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Hence the claims 97119 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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.
Claim(s) 97 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sallas et al. (US 2014/0133272) in view of Jaaskelainen (US 2018/0306936).
Regarding claim 97, Sallas et al. discloses a method of determining a peak ground acceleration (para [0063]- An example of a seismic data acquisition system; para [0068]- the piston acceleration matches the source excitation signal.; FIGS. 6A-6B, para [0070]- imposed on peak piston acceleration), comprising:
converting the seismic data into complex Fourier coefficients (para [0029]- The method includes a step of determining a first target spectrum for the first vibratory seismic source; para [0088]- The sequence 'A' is converted in step 902 to the frequency domain using, for example, a FFT to produce a vector 'FA' of complex numbers...);
scaling the complex Fourier coefficients (FIG. 8, para [0098]- in step 832 a scaling factor "CT" is computed which in effect equals the minimum of the ratios {LDmax/MaxLD, Lcmax/MaxLC, Lvmax/MaxLV}. The ratios represent how much headroom is left before a particular variable hits a system limit. Thus, the scaling factor ".sigma.T" is applied in step 834 to rescale "FA" so that a system that is operated as close as possible to its limits without exceeding the limits is obtained.);
applying an inverse transform to the scaled Fourier coefficients (FIGS. 7-8, para [0099]- In step 836, "FA" is IFFT'd (inverse FFT transformed) to return it to the time domain and replace the matrix vector "A."); and
selecting a maximum value from an output of the inverse transform to identify the peak ground acceleration for a position along the at least one optical fiber (FIG. 3, para [0062]- other devices useful for measuring streamer position and/or streamer shape (this information being useful for determining the receiver group positions for each point in time).; para [0092]- The vector "FA" is then replaced after this adjustment. The vector "FA" is IFFT in step 806, back to the time domain and the result of this step replaces the vector "A" containing the LFV source signal undergoing modification. Steps 808 through 812 compute some statistics to normalize sequence "A" before it is companded. In particular, the peak magnitude of "A" called "MaxA").
Sallas et al. fail to disclose providing a DFOS instrument connected to at least one optical fiber; and recording DFOS data with the DFOS instrument, wherein the DFOS data includes strain data along the at least one optical fiber.
Jaaskelainen, drawn to seismic monitoring, does disclose providing a DFOS instrument connected to at least one optical fiber (FIG. 2, para [0041]-The fiber optic cable 145 exits through a wellhead exit 165 and is connected using a surface fiber cable 175 within an outdoor cabin or enclosure to a Distributed Acoustic System (DAS) interrogator 185); and recording DFOS data with the DFOS instrument, wherein the DFOS data includes strain data along the at least one optical fiber (FIG. 1, para [0032]- The perturbations or strains introduced to the optical fiber at the location of the various EAT sensors can alter the back propagation of light and those effected light propagations can then provide data with respect to the signal that generated the perturbations). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to incorporate providing a DFOS instrument connected to at least one optical fiber; and recording DFOS data with the DFOS instrument, wherein the DFOS data includes strain data along the at least one optical fiber of Jaaskelainen with the method of Sallas et al. for the purposes of providing improve the efficiency of the seismic measurement (Halliburton, para [0002]-[0006]).
Claim(s) 98-99 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sallas et al. (US 2014/0133272) in view of Jaaskelainen (US 2018/0306936) as applied to claim 97 above, and further in view of Vassiliou et al. (US 5,850,622).
Regarding claim 98, Jaaskelainen disclose wherein the converting the strain data into complex Fourier coefficients includes applying a two-dimensional Fourier transform to the strain data ((para [0012]- In source signature deconvolution, a fast Fourier transform (FFT), of a received signal and a measured source signal are taken using either uncorrelated or correlated data), but fails to disclose applying a two-dimensional Fourier transform.
However, Vassiliou et al., drawn to processing seismic data, does disclose applying a two-dimensional Fourier transform (col 2, In 61-64- the 2-D transform methods is the 2- D Fourier transform (or "f-k" transform), although there are many others. The general approach to noise reduction is roughly the same for any of the 2-D transform methods.; col 3. In 22-25- the transform of choice is applied to each trace separately in the time direction, producing as output the same number of new traces containing transformed data). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the method, as disclosed by Sallas et al. in view of Jaaskelainen, as to include applying a two dimensional Fourier transform, as disclosed by Vassiliou et al., to reduce noise and improve the efficiency of seismic data, as disclosed by Vassiliou et al. (see Vassiliou et al. col 2, In 57-col 3, In 60, col 4, In 19-21).
Regarding claim 99, Sallas et al. in view of Jaaskelainen disclose (para [0012]- An array including the resultant spectral quotients is converted back to the time domain using an inverse Fourier transform operation (IFFT)}, but fails to disclose applying a two-dimensional inverse Fourier transform.
Vassiliou et al. disclose wherein the applying the inverse transform includes applying a two-dimensional inverse Fourier transform to the scaled Fourier coefficients (col 3, In 5-9- the transformed data, now hopefully without the coherent noise energy, are then inverse transformed to return them to the time and offset (i.e., untransformed or "x-t") domain). If all has gone well, the coherent noise has been removed or greatly attenuated.; col 3, In 50-57-After the transformed data have been analyzed and/or modified, the inverse transform is applied If the data have not been modified while in the transform domain, application of the 2-D inverse transform).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the method, as disclosed by Sallas et al. in view of Jaaskelainen, as to include applying a two-dimensional inverse Fourier transform, as disclosed by Vassiliou et al., to reduce noise and improve the efficiency of seismic data, as disclosed by Vassiliou et al. (see Vassiliou et al. col 2, In 57-col 3, In 60, col 4, In 19-21).
Claim(s) 111-112 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sallas et al. (US 2014/0133272) in view of Jaaskelainen (US 2018/0306936) as applied to claim 97 above, and further in view of Kapleyn (US 5,627,637).
Regarding claim 111, the combination of Sallas et al. and Jaaskelainen fail to disclose measuring the DFOS data includes selecting an unlit or unused piece of optical spectrum from an otherwise lit optical fiber, or a polarization eigen mode from an otherwise lit optical fiber or an entire dark fiber from an established and dedicated telecommunications network
Kapleyn discloses measuring the DFOS data includes selecting an unlit or unused piece of optical spectrum from an otherwise lit optical fiber (Col.4, lines 33-38, Col.5, lines 42-45). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to incorporate measuring the DFOS data includes selecting an unlit or unused piece of optical spectrum from an otherwise lit optical fiber of Kapleyn with the method of Sallas et al. in view of Jaaskelainen for the purposes of providing an improved fully distributed optical fiber strain sensor (Kapleyn, abstract).
Regarding claim 112, Kapleyn disclose quantifying effects of an earthquake by: using the DFOS data and calculating at least one of a direction of ground motion during the earthquake and duration of the ground motion during the earthquake (Col.1, lines 20-22).
Claim(s) 113-115 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sallas et al. (US 2014/0133272) in view of Jaaskelainen (US 2018/0306936) as applied to claim 97 above, and further in view of Hayashi (JP 2018009838 A).
Regarding claim 113, the combination of Sallas et al. and Jaaskelainen fail to disclose analyzing effects of an earthquake on a building by: calculating eigenmode resonance values of the building from the DFOS data; and determining a quantity representing an intensity of the building shaking from the eigenmodes.
Hayashi teaches analyzing effects of an earthquake on a building by: calculating eigenmode resonance values of the building from the DFOS data; and determining a quantity representing an intensity of the building shaking from the eigenmodes (abstract, page 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to incorporate analyzing effects of an earthquake on a building by: calculating eigenmode resonance values of the building from the DFOS data; and determining a quantity representing an intensity of the building shaking from the eigenmodes of Hayashi with the method of Sallas et al. in view of Jaaskelainen for the purposes of providing a building damage presence estimation method which allows presence of a damage of each floor of a building to be accurately identified (Hayashi, abstract).
Regarding claim 114, Hayashi discloses wherein the determining includes comparing the eigenmodes of the building calculated after an occurrence of the earthquake to pre- earthquake eigenmodes (abstract, page 6).
Regarding claim 115, Hayashi discloses relating a change in the eigenmodes to a state change of structural health of the building (abstract, page 4, page 6).
Claim(s) 116 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sallas et al. (US 2014/0133272) in view of Jaaskelainen (US 2018/0306936) as applied to claim 97 above, and further in view of Marotta et al. (US 2022/0013222 A1).
Regarding claim 116, the combination of Sallas et al. and Jaaskelainen fail to disclose generating safety alerts for a structure in an aftermath of an earthquake by: calculating a safety score for the structure based on the DFOS data; and generating a safety alert based on the safety score.
Marotta et al. teach generating safety alerts for a structure in an aftermath of an earthquake (para. 0058], [0060], [0100], [0107]) by: calculating a safety score for the structure based on the DFOS data (para. [0008]- [0012]); and generating a safety alert based on the safety score (para. [0058], [0060], [0100]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to incorporate generating safety alerts for a structure in an aftermath of an earthquake by: calculating a safety score for the structure based on the DFOS data; and generating a safety alert based on the safety score of Marotta et al. with the method of Sallas et al. in view of Jaaskelainen for the purposes of providing a device for evaluating aspects of health of a residential property (Marotta et al., abstract).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN H LE whose telephone number is (571)272-2275. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00am – 3:30pm Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/JOHN H LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857