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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobsen et al. (US Pub. # 20080215185), hereinafter referred to as Jacobsen, in view of Kragh et al. (US Pat. # 8924158), hereinafter referred to as Kragh.
Regarding claim 1, Jacobsen teaches, “A flexible rapid deployable perimeter monitoring system employing distributed fiber optic sensing (DFOS), the system comprising: a field vehicle (Fig. 4, ref. # 30) configured for movement in an environment including: a length of optical sensor fiber (32, 34; para. [0022]); an optical interrogator ([0022]; communicated back to vehicle body with communication therewith) in optical communication with the length of optical sensor fiber, the optical interrogator configured to generate optical pulses from laser light, introduce the pulses into the optical sensor fiber and detect/receive backscattered/reflected signals from the optical sensor fiber, and determine environmental activity at one or more locations along the length of the optical sensor fiber from the backscattered / reflected signals detected / received (para. [0030, 0033]); wherein the length of optical sensor fiber is deployed during movement of the field vehicle (para. [0026]); and wherein deployed optical sensor fiber defines a perimeter of an area to be monitored by DFOS (para. [0018, 0032–0034]; multiple appendages (optical fiber sensor wires) with sensors in combination with para. [0022]).” Jacobsen appears silent as to, “a processor co-located with the optical interrogator in the field vehicle, the processor configured to receive and process the determined environmental activity in real-time within the field vehicle and automatically extract event information therefrom.” However, Kragh teaches the deficiencies of Jacobsen (see Fig. 1, 2; ref. # 106, 110, 108, 200; col. 2, ln. 60–col. 3, ln. 36; here, Kragh teaches a processor and optical interrogator co-located on a field vehicle, inherently powered on 200 and configured to receive/process environmental activity in real-time, extracting event information therefrom). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jacobsen’s invention to include a processor co-located with the optical interrogator in the field vehicle, the processor configured to receive and process the determined environmental activity in real-time within the field vehicle and automatically extract event information therefrom.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Jacobsen’s invention for at least the purpose of ensuring the environmental activity information is reliably and more efficiently (close to sensing points) communicated remotely, as desired by the user/operator of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 2, Jacobsen teaches, “wherein the length of optical sensor fiber is provided on a spool attached to the field vehicle (36; [0022]).”
Regarding claim 4, Jacobsen teaches, “wherein the determined environmental activities are relayed to a control center from the field vehicle in real-time (para. [0029, 0032–0034]).”
Claim(s) 3, and 5–10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobsen (US Pub. # 20080215185) in view of Kragh (US Pat. # 8924158), and in further view of Choi et al. (“ROV-Based Automated Cable-Laying System: Application to DONET2 Installation; IEEE JOURNAL OF OCEANIC ENGINEERING, VOL. 43, NO. 3, JULY 2018; https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=8027198), hereinafter referred to as DONET2.
Regarding claim 3, while Jacobsen teaches placing a field vehicle in a specific environment with a plan to detect, Jacobsen in combination with Kragh does not appear to specifically teach, “wherein the field vehicle operates in response to a field deployment plan and map.” However, DONET2 teaches the deficiencies of Jacobsen and Kragh (see abstract, pg. 667–673; specifically see section III, “APPLICATION TO DONET2 INSTALLATION” and detailed discussion related to route and path tracking, survey route determination, planned route tracking, navigation, and controlling positioning). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jacobsen and Kragh’s invention to include wherein the field vehicle operates in response to a field deployment plan and map.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify the combination of Jacobsen and Kragh’s invention for at least the purpose of ensuring placement accuracy and safety of the cable/vehicle when deploying the fiber.
Regarding claim 5, Jacobsen teaches, “wherein the length of optical sensor fiber is one of a plurality of optical sensor fibers configured as a ruggedized cable, and the interrogator is configured to interrogate, a plurality of the optical sensor fibers in the ruggedized cable (see para. [0018, 0030, 0036]).”
Regarding claim 6, Jacobsen teaches, “wherein the field vehicle operates autonomously (see abstract and para. [0035]).”
Regarding claims 7, 9, and 10, Jacobsen teaches, “A method of operating a flexible rapid deployable perimeter system employing distributed fiber optic sensing (DFOS), the method comprising: providing a field vehicle (Fig. 4, ref. # 30) having an internal power source (see para. [0022, 0025, 0026]; control of spool, fiber data rates, etc. inherently require internal power source) and including a length of optical sensor fiber (32, 34; para. [0022]) located on a spool attached to the field vehicle; and an optical interrogator ([0022]; communicated back to vehicle body with communication therewith) in optical communication with the length of optical sensor fiber, the optical interrogator configured to generate optical pulses from laser light, introduce the pulses into the optical sensor fiber and detect/receive backscattered/reflected signals from the optical sensor fiber, and determine environmental activity at one or more locations along the length of the optical sensor fiber from the backscattered / reflected signals detected / received (para. [0030, 0033]); deploying the length of optical sensor fiber by operating the field vehicle while deploying the length of optical sensor fiber (para. [0026]); and operating the optical interrogator to obtain the determined environmental activity (para. [0018, 0032–0034]; multiple appendages (optical fiber sensor wires) with sensors in combination with para. [0022]).” Jacobsen appears silent to, “co-locating a processor with the optical interrogator in the field vehicle; operating the co-located processor to receive and process the determined environmental activity in real-time within the field vehicle and automatically extract event information therefrom.” Kragh teaches the deficiencies of Jacobsen (see Fig. 1, 2; ref. # 106, 110, 108, 200; col. 2, ln. 60–col. 3, ln. 36; here, Kragh teaches a processor and optical interrogator co-located on a field vehicle, inherently powered on 200 and configured to receive/process environmental activity in real-time, extracting event information therefrom). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jacobsen’s invention to include co-locating a processor with the optical interrogator in the field vehicle; operating the co-located processor to receive and process the determined environmental activity in real-time within the field vehicle and automatically extract event information therefrom.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Jacobsen’s invention for at least the purpose of ensuring the environmental activity information is reliably and more efficiently (close to sensing points) communicated remotely, as desired by the user/operator of the apparatus.
Furthermore, while Jacobsen teaches placing a field vehicle in a specific environment with a plan to detect, Jacobsen does not appear to specifically teach, “providing a deployment plan and map to the field vehicle; deploying the length of optical sensor fiber according to the deployment plan and map; updating the deployment plan and map and providing the updated plan and map to the field vehicle; redeploying the field vehicle according to the updated plan and map.” However, DONET2 teaches the deficiencies of Jacobsen and Kragh (see abstract, pg. 667–673; specifically see section III, “APPLICATION TO DONET2 INSTALLATION” and detailed discussion related to route and path tracking, survey route determination, planned route tracking, navigation, and controlling positioning; tracking and controlling positioning in real-time and accurately updating position is redeploying, which is also described when connecting cables between observatories as described on pg. 668, 669). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jacobsen and Kragh’s invention to include providing a deployment plan and map to the field vehicle; deploying the length of optical sensor fiber according to the deployment plan and map; updating the deployment plan and map and providing the updated plan and map to the field vehicle; redeploying the field vehicle according to the updated plan and map.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify the combination of Jacobsen and Kragh’s invention for at least the purpose of ensuring placement accuracy and safety of the cable/vehicle when deploying the fiber.
Regarding claim 8, Jacobsen teaches, “transmitting the determined environmental activity to a control center for additional analysis in real-time (see para. [0029, 0032–0034]).”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks (pages 5–6), filed 1/23/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 7, and their related dependent claims, under 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kragh et al. (US Pat. # 8924158).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:30pm.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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.
/RYAN D WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights