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 Amendment
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment received on 05/18/2026.
Claims 110 and 118-119 have been amended.
Claims 1-96 have been cancelled.
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 110, “wherein the DFOS data are used to determine physical effects at a second location or physical effects at a third location that is located between a 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, the 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 for each one of the multiple distinct locations based on the DFOS data; and overlaying the calculated peak ground acceleration 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 97-119 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
-Applicant argues that recording DFOS strain along an optical fiber is not a mental step and cannot practically be performed in the human mind.
Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The step of “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.
The step of “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.
The step of “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.
The step of “applying an inverse transform to the scaled Fourier coefficients” is directed to math (see specification paragraph [0032]-0034]) 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 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.
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).).
As discussed above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of steps of 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 is that those steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the “defining” encompasses mental processes practically performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
“Unless it is clear that a claim recites distinct exceptions, such as a law of nature and an abstract idea, care should be taken not to parse the claim into multiple exceptions, particularly in claims involving abstract ideas.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. However, if possible, the examiner should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. “For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A, Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. Under such circumstances, however, the Supreme Court has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Id. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). Here, step “recording DFOS data with the DFOS instrument, wherein the DFOS data includes strain data along the at least one optical fiber” fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas, and steps “converting the strain data into complex Fourier coefficients; scaling the complex Fourier coefficients; applying an inverse transform to the scaled Fourier coefficients“ fall within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. Limitations of the steps are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A prong two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim recites “A method of determining a peak ground acceleration” recited in the preamble 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)). The claim also recites that steps “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” are performed by a computer. It 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)).
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.
-Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach, “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” as cited in claim 97.
Response: The examiner agrees. Therefor the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claim 97 has been withdrawn.
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.
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 ET.
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
Prosecution Insights