Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final, first office action on the merits.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 01/23/2024 comply with the provisions 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
Response to Amendment
The previously pending restriction/election requirement is withdrawn in view of applicant remarks.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
a. Claim 11: Acronym “IQ”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1
Claims 1-20 are directed toward a method (process). Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1]
Claims 1-20 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Regarding independent claim 1, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
Claim 1. (Original) A method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, data indicative of an event causing movement of a portion of a cable;
determining, based on the data, a location of the portion of the cable;
determining, by a machine-learning model and based on the data and the location, a classification of the event; and
based on the classification of the event, causing a response associated with the portion of the cable.
Claim 10. (Original) A method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, data indicative of an event causing movement of a portion of a cable;
determining, based on the data, an environment for the portion of the cable;
determining, by a machine-learning model and based on the data and the environment, a classification of the event; and
based on the classification of the event, causing a response associated with the portion of the cable.
Claim 17. (Original) A method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, a plurality of event data associated with a plurality of locations along at least one cable, the plurality of event data indicative of an event causing movement of at least one cable;
determining, based on the plurality of event data, the plurality of locations along the at least one cable;
determining, based on the plurality of event data and the plurality of locations along the at least one cable, a location of the event; and
based on determining the location of the event, causing a response.
The Applicant's Specification titled "SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND APPARATUSES FOR EVENT DETECTION FOR A TRANSMISSION CABLE OR LINE-BASED ON SYSTEM" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods for generating a response to an event based on plurality of received event data (Spec. abstract). Thus, data analytics to the Specification is a business concept being addressed by the claimed invention.
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 10, and 17 are directed to the abstract idea of generating a response to an event based on plurality of received event data (Spec. abstract). which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (i) commercial or legal interactions and (ii) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business solution of generating a response to an event based on plurality of event data received (Spec. abstract). Applicant's claimed invention pertains to relationships or interactions between people and including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations and because the independent claims 1, 10, and 17 recite the abstract idea of generating a response to an event based on plurality of received event data (Spec. abstract). which pertain to "social activities, teaching, and following rules or instruction" expressly categorized under managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Furthermore, the claim limitations are also directed analyze biometric data (EN: typing speed) to generating a response to an event based on plurality of received event data which could be based on locations of the cable or a movement. Which is “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion,” expressly categorized under mental processes. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-16, and 18-20 further reiterate the same abstract ideas with further embellishments (the bolded limitations), such as
claim 2 wherein the data indicative of the event comprises a plurality of event data associated with a plurality of locations along the portion of the cable, wherein the plurality of locations comprises the location, and wherein determining the classification of the event is based on the plurality of event data and the plurality of locations along the portion of the cable.
claim 3 wherein determining the location of the portion of the cable further comprises determining a medium in which the portion of the cable extends through.
claim 4 wherein the cable is one of a coaxial cable or a fiber- optic cable.
claim 5 wherein the data comprises at least one of: Rayleigh scattering data or impedance level for the portion of the cable.
claim 6 determining, based on at least one of the data or the classification of the event, a likelihood of a disruption of data through the portion of the cable; and
determining, based on the likelihood of the disruption, the response.
claim 7 determining, based on the data, an environment for the portion of the cable, wherein determining the classification of the event is further based on the environment for
claim 8 determining, based on the data, at least one magnitude of a force received by the portion of the cable; and
determining, based on the data, a duration of the force, wherein determining, based on the data, the classification of the event comprises determining, based on the at least one magnitude of the force and the duration of the force, the classification of the event.
claim 9 wherein the response is at least one of: moving the portion of the cable to another location, providing additional protection to the location of the portion of the cable, rerouting subsequent data from the cable to another cable, or dispatching a technician to the location.
claim 11 wherein the data indicative of the event comprises IQ error-vector data, the method further comprising determining, based on the IQ error- vector data, the event occurred.
claim 12 wherein the environment comprises at least one of:air, soil, concrete, or rock.
claim 13 determining, based on the data, a location of the portion of the cable, wherein determining the classification of the event is further based on the locatio
claim 14 determining, based the data and the classification of the event, a likelihood of a disruption of data through the portion of the cable; and
determining, based on the likelihood of the disruption, the response.
claim 15 determining, based on the data and the classification of the event, a distance of the event from the portion of the cable.
claim 16 determining, based on the data, at least one magnitude of a force received by the portion of the cable; and
determining, based on the data, a duration of the force,
wherein determining, based on the data, the classification of the event comprises determining, based on the at least one magnitude of the force and the duration of the force, the classification of the event.
claim 18 further comprising determining, by a machine- learning model and based on at least one of the plurality of event data, a classification of the event, wherein the response is further determined based on the classification of the event.
claim 19 medium for a portion of the at least one cable associated with the at least one of the plurality of event data, wherein determining the location
claim 20 wherein the at least one cable is one of coaxial cable or fiber-optic cable.
which are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract ideas as indicated for independent claims 1, 10, and 17.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2]
Claims 1-20 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent claims 1, 10, and 17 include the following bolded additional elements which do not amount to a practical application:
Claim 1. A computing device and a machine learning model
Claim 10. A computing device and a machine learning model
Claim 17. A computing device
The bolded limitations recited above in independent claims 1, 10, and 17 pertain to additional elements which merely provide an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with computer hardware and software components, including the additional elements of a computing device and a machine learning model which fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are (1) no actual improvements to the functioning of a computer, (2) nor to any other technology or technical field, (3) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, (4) nor do the claims provide a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, (5) nor provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106.05 (a-c & e-h), (6) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(2).
The Specification provides a high level of generality regarding the additional elements claimed without sufficient detail or specific implementation structure so as to limit the abstract idea, for instance, the computing platform includes generic processors, memories, and communication interfaces. Paragraph [figure 1] of the specification. Nothing in the Specification describes the specific operations recited in claims 1, 10, and 17 as particularly invoking any inventive programming, or requiring any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is somehow implemented using any specialized element other than all-purpose computer components to perform recited computer functions. The claimed invention is merely directed to utilizing computer technology as a tool for solving a business problem of data analytics. Nowhere in the Specification does the Applicant emphasize additional hardware and/or software elements which provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field, other than using these elements as a computational tool to automate and perform the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(a & e).
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant's claimed invention which merely pertains to steps for generating a response to an event based on plurality of received event data which could be based on locations of the cable or a movement and the additional computer elements a tool to perform the abstract idea, and merely linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04 and §21062106.05(f-h). Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering, analysis and data output to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.04 and §2106.05(g). Thus, the additional elements recited above fail to provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field. See MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106§2106.05 (a & e).
Instead, the recited additional elements above, merely limit the invention to a technological environment in which the abstract concept identified above is implemented utilizing the computational tools provided by the additional elements to automate and perform the abstract idea, which is insufficient to provide a practical application since the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering and data processing as well as data output recruitment information on a social network to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements used to gather and output recruitment information on a social network are insignificant extra-solution limitations that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g). The current invention directed to generating a response to an event based on plurality of received event data which could be based on locations of the cable or a movement. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements of the functioning of a computer, or to any technology or technical field. Applicant's limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-16, and 18-20 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 10, and 17 respectively, for example, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the additional elements: Which are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract ideas as indicated for independent claims 1, 10, and 17, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 10, and 17, furthermore, merely using/applying in a computer environment such as merely using the computer as a tool to apply instructions of the abstract idea do nothing more than provide insignificant extra-solution activity since they amount to data gathering, analysis and outputting. Furthermore, they do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B
Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional element of Claims 1, 10, and 17. a computing device and a machine learning model. The displaying interface and storing data merely amount to a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea(s) (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or performs insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data retrieval and storage, as described above (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which are further merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activit(ies) as evidenced by MPEP 2106.06(05)(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, and a web browser’s back and forward button functionality). Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea directed to generating a response to an event based on plurality of received event data which could be based on locations of the cable or a movement.
Claims 1-20 is accordingly rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more.
REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
Examiner Note: Some rejections will be followed/begin by an “EN” that will denote an examiner note. This will be place to further explain a rejection.
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 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, 3-7, 9-10, 12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yano et al. US 2023/0296473 (hereinafter Yano).
Regarding Claim 1:
(Original) A method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, data indicative of an event causing movement of a portion of a cable; (Yano [0052], “failure prediction … a target object …. Cable”. [0062], event detected at a plurality of positions, or tracking a moving event”. [0192], “classifies the event into the type in which an occurrence position moves, ….. information on a plurality of positions of the target object at which the event has occurred”.)
determining, based on the data, a location of the portion of the cable; (Yano [0026-0039], “detects environmental information of the target object ….. an event occurring at each position (EN: location) of the target object being indicated by the environmental”. [0057] & [0066], “information (these pieces of information are referred to as a route position list: RPL) such as a position (geographical coordinate including a water depth) where the submarine cable 10 as a monitoring target is installed, a type of the submarine cable 10 and an installation form (surface laying, burying, and presence or absence of an additional protective tube)”.)
determining, by a machine-learning model and based on the data and the location, a classification of the event; and (Yano [0029-0042], “the environmental information, based on an event classification condition, for each type … an event classification function unit that classifies an event occurring at each position of the target object”. [0089], [0138], [0140], “machine learning model”)
based on the classification of the event, causing a response associated with the portion of the cable. (Yano [0029-0042], “a failure occurrence risk calculation unit inputs a history on the classified event to the failure model associated with the type of the event, calculates each failure occurrence risk by the mechanism in the target object, accumulates a result of the calculation in a designated section, and outputs the accumulated result as a risk or availability”. [0055-0056], “output … the data”.)
Regarding Claim 3:
(Original) The method of claim 1, wherein determining the location of the portion of the cable further comprises determining a medium in which the portion of the cable extends through. (Yano [0054], “the optical fiber 11 lays a role of a sensor function, and a transmission medium of a sensing signa … generated at each point of the long optical fiber 11, and outputs a sensing signal (also referred to as "sensing data") including environmental information at each point. The environmental information may be, for example, a sound, a vibration, a temperature, or a change thereof over time”.)
Regarding Claim 4:
(Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the cable is one of a coaxial cable or a fiber- optic cable. (Yano [0052], “submarine cable 10 to be described later is a target object for failure prediction. Note that, the target object may also be a communication cable, a power transmission cable, a pipeline, or the like”. [0094], “optical fiber cable”.)
Regarding Claim 5:
(Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the data comprises at least one of: Rayleigh scattering data or impedance level for the portion of the cable. (Yano [0011], “Rayleigh backscarrered light …. Environmental information”. Also, see [0021])
Regarding Claim 6:
(Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining, based on at least one of the data or the classification of the event, a likelihood of a disruption of data through the portion of the cable; and determining, based on the likelihood of the disruption, the response. (Yano [0086-0089], “"A feature unique to an abnormal event" for use in classification within the classification condition is prepared in such a way that the feature can be accurately classified, even when an installation place of a cable, soil of seabed, or the like is changed. The classification method is, for example, finding a feature that is less likely to be affected by an installation place of a cable, soil of seabed, or the like, classifying based on the feature, and the like. [0088] Even when a same abnormal event cannot be accurately classified in one classification condition due to a fluctuation of an installation status of a cable or the like, the same abnormal event may be associated with a same abnormal event type in such a way that the same abnormal event is detected in any of a plurality of classification conditions.” Also, see [0116], [0126])
Regarding Claim 7:
(Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining, based on the data, an environment for the portion of the cable, wherein determining the classification of the event is further based on the environment for (Yano [0056-0061], “extracts a portion which includes an abnormal event and narrows down the data amount, and then outputs the data to the monitoring server 30. For example, in a case in which a magnitude of a sound or vibration satisfies a predetermined condition, the event detection function unit 22 classifies the environmental information as an abnormal event. Herein, all events detected by the event detection function unit 22 are referred to as abnormal events … an event classification”. Also, see [0069], [0072])
Regarding Claim 9:
(Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the response is at least one of: moving the portion of the cable to another location, providing additional protection to the location of the portion of the cable, rerouting subsequent data from the cable to another cable, or dispatching a technician to the location. (Yano [0121-0128], “occurrence risk is acquired by a function of accumulating sensing data and estimating a risk thereof. Three usage examples of the information are described by way of the submarine cable 10. The first usage example is preparation of a repair work and the like. A repair work herein includes arranging and preparing materials needed, making a contract for a bypass communication route in a disconnected period, and reserving a repair work ship. Performing preventative replacement repair by these operations enables to shorten a service suspension period, as compared with a case in which repair is arranged after a failure occurs”.)
Regarding Claim 10:
(Original) A method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, data indicative of an event causing movement of a portion of a cable; (Yano [0052], “failure prediction … a target object …. Cable”. [0062], event detected at a plurality of positions, or tracking a moving event”. [0192], “classifies the event into the type in which an occurrence position moves, ….. information on a plurality of positions of the target object at which the event has occurred”.)
determining, based on the data, an environment for the portion of the cable; (Yano [0026-0039], “detects environmental information of the target object ….. an event occurring at each position (EN: location) of the target object being indicated by the environmental”. [0057] & [0066], “information (these pieces of information are referred to as a route position list: RPL) such as a position (geographical coordinate including a water depth) where the submarine cable 10 as a monitoring target is installed, a type of the submarine cable 10 and an installation form (surface laying, burying, and presence or absence of an additional protective tube)”.)
determining, by a machine-learning model and based on the data and the environment, a classification of the event; and (Yano [0029-0042], “the environmental information, based on an event classification condition, for each type … an event classification function unit that classifies an event occurring at each position of the target object”. [0089], [0138], [0140], “machine learning model”)
based on the classification of the event, causing a response associated with the portion of the cable. (Yano [0029-0042], “a failure occurrence risk calculation unit inputs a history on the classified event to the failure model associated with the type of the event, calculates each failure occurrence risk by the mechanism in the target object, accumulates a result of the calculation in a designated section, and outputs the accumulated result as a risk or availability”. [0055-0056], “output … the data”.)
Regarding Claim 12:
(Original) The method of claim 10, wherein the environment comprises at least one of: air, soil, concrete, or rock. (Yano [0087], “Soil … classifying based on the feature”. [0103] & [0157], “rock … risk”.)
Regarding Claim 14:
(Currently Amended) The method of claim 10, further comprising:
determining, based the data and the classification of the event, a likelihood of a disruption of data through the portion of the cable; and determining, based on the likelihood of the disruption, the response. (Yano [0086-0089], “"A feature unique to an abnormal event" for use in classification within the classification condition is prepared in such a way that the feature can be accurately classified, even when an installation place of a cable, soil of seabed, or the like is changed. The classification method is, for example, finding a feature that is less likely to be affected by an installation place of a cable, soil of seabed, or the like, classifying based on the feature, and the like. [0088] Even when a same abnormal event cannot be accurately classified in one classification condition due to a fluctuation of an installation status of a cable or the like, the same abnormal event may be associated with a same abnormal event type in such a way that the same abnormal event is detected in any of a plurality of classification conditions.” Also, see [0116], [0126])
Regarding Claim 15:
(Original) The method of claim 10, further comprising determining, based on the data and the classification of the event, a distance of the event from the portion of the cable. (Yano [0066], “an acquisition position of an individual piece of data is expressed by a position on an optical cable (e.g., a distance from an end of an optical cable). The event detection function unit 22 adds, to an individual piece of data, a geographical coordinate (including a water depth) associated with a position on a cable”. Also, see [0009], [0074])
Regarding Claim 16:
(Original) The method of claim 10 but, does not specifically teach or disclose, however, Sargand, in the same field of endeavor teaches further comprising:
determining, based on the data, at least one magnitude of a force received by the portion of the cable; and determining, based on the data, a duration of the force, wherein determining, based on the data, the classification of the event comprises determining, based on the at least one magnitude of the force and the duration of the force, the classification of the event. (Sargand [0004], [0014], & [0016], “The signal measuring mechanism is configured to compare one or more properties of the reflected monitoring signal (for example, timing or magnitude of the signal) with one or more corresponding properties of a predicted reflected monitoring signal”. [0025], “the cable engaging member transmits a force (e.g., a bending, pulling, or pushing force) to the signal carrying cable to produce a detectable disruption in the signal carrying cable, resulting in an alteration of the reflected monitoring signal to the signal measuring mechanism to identify the existence of the disruption and the approximate location of the disruption (EN: classified]”. [0016-0020], “records the elapsed times”. Also, see [0028])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yano, to include the feature as taught by Sargand, in order to determine a force received by a portion of a cable (Sargand [0025]). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor and, in the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Yano and Sargand, the results of the combination were predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claim 17:
(Original) A method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, a plurality of event data associated with a plurality of locations along at least one cable, the plurality of event data indicative of an event causing movement of at least one cable; (Yano [0052], “failure prediction … a target object …. Cable”. [0062], event detected at a plurality of positions, or tracking a moving event”. [0192], “classifies the event into the type in which an occurrence position moves, ….. information on a plurality of positions of the target object at which the event has occurred”.)
determining, based on the plurality of event data, the plurality of locations along the at least one cable; (Yano [0026-0039], “detects environmental information of the target object ….. an event occurring at each position (EN: location) of the target object being indicated by the environmental”. [0057] & [0066], “information (these pieces of information are referred to as a route position list: RPL) such as a position (geographical coordinate including a water depth) where the submarine cable 10 as a monitoring target is installed, a type of the submarine cable 10 and an installation form (surface laying, burying, and presence or absence of an additional protective tube)”.)
determining, based on the plurality of event data and the plurality of locations along the at least one cable, a location of the event; and (Yano [0029-0042], “the environmental information, based on an event classification condition, for each type … an event classification function unit that classifies an event occurring at each position of the target object”. [0089], [0138], [0140], “machine learning model”)
based on determining the location of the event, causing a response. (Yano [0029-0042], “a failure occurrence risk calculation unit inputs a history on the classified event to the failure model associated with the type of the event, calculates each failure occurrence risk by the mechanism in the target object, accumulates a result of the calculation in a designated section, and outputs the accumulated result as a risk or availability”. [0055-0056], “output … the data”.)
Regarding Claim 18:
(Original) The method of claim 17, further comprising determining, by a machine- learning model and based on at least one of the plurality of event data, a classification of the event, wherein the response is further determined based on the classification of the event. (Yano [0029-0042], “the environmental information, based on an event classification condition, for each type … an event classification function unit that classifies an event occurring at each position of the target object”. [0089], [0138], [0140], “machine learning model”)
Regarding Claim 19:
(Currently Amended) The method of claim 17, further comprising determining a medium for a portion of the at least one cable associated with the at least one of the plurality of event data, wherein determining the location(Yano [0054], “the optical fiber 11 lays a role of a sensor function, and a transmission medium of a sensing signa … generated at each point of the long optical fiber 11, and outputs a sensing signal (also referred to as "sensing data") including environmental information at each point. The environmental information may be, for example, a sound, a vibration, a temperature, or a change thereof over time”.)
Regarding Claim 20:
(Currently Amended) The method of claim 17, wherein the at least one cable is one of coaxial cable or fiber-optic cable. (Yano [0052], “submarine cable 10 to be described later is a target object for failure prediction. Note that, the target object may also be a communication cable, a power transmission cable, a pipeline, or the like”. [0094], “optical fiber cable”.)
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.
Claims 2, 8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yano et al. US 2023/0296473 (hereinafter Yano) in view of Sergand et al. US 2014/0091809 (hereinafter Sergand).
Regarding Claim 2:
(Currently Amended) The method of claim 1 but, does not specifically teach or disclose, however, Sargand, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the data indicative of the event comprises a plurality of event data associated with a plurality of locations along the portion of the cable, wherein the plurality of locations comprises the location, and wherein determining the classification of the event is based on the plurality of event data and the plurality of locations along the portion of the cable. (Sargand figure 4, [0015-0016], “event that the signal carrying cable is severed, damaged, bent, or otherwise altered (for example, due to natural, accidental, or malicious events, as mentioned above, that disturb an area around a structure to be protected), an altered feedback signal will be reflected back to the signal measuring mechanism. The signal measuring mechanism may be configured to determine, based on the timing and magnitude of the reflected signal, the affected location on the signal carrying cable, and consequently, the physical location of the disturbance”. [0026], “cables at one or more locations … impacts”. Also, see claim 13”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yano, to include the feature as taught by Sargand, in order to receive event data comprises a plurality of event data associated with a plurality of locations along the cable (Sargand figure 1-4). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor and, in the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Yano and Sargand, the results of the combination were predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claim 8:
(Original) The method of claim 1 but, does not specifically teach or disclose, however, Sargand, in the same field of endeavor teaches further comprising: determining, based on the data, at least one magnitude of a force received by the portion of the cable; and determining, based on the data, a duration of the force, wherein determining, based on the data, the classification of the event comprises determining, based on the at least one magnitude of the force and the duration of the force, the classification of the event. (Sargand [0004], [0014], & [0016], “The signal measuring mechanism is configured to compare one or more properties of the reflected monitoring signal (for example, timing or magnitude of the signal) with one or more corresponding properties of a predicted reflected monitoring signal”. [0025], “the cable engaging member transmits a force (e.g., a bending, pulling, or pushing force) to the signal carrying cable to produce a detectable disruption in the signal carrying cable, resulting in an alteration of the reflected monitoring signal to the signal measuring mechanism to identify the existence of the disruption and the approximate location of the disruption (EN: classified]”. [0016-0020], “records the elapsed times”. Also, see [0028])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yano, to include the feature as taught by Sargand, in order to determine a force received by a portion of a cable (Sargand [0025]). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor and, in the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Yano and Sargand, the results of the combination were predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claim 13:
(Currently Amended) The method of claim 10 but, does not specifically teach or disclose, however, Sargand, in the same field of endeavor teaches further comprising:
determining, based on the data, a location of the portion of the cable, wherein determining the classification of the event is further based on the locatio(Sargand figure 4, [0015-0016], “event that the signal carrying cable is severed, damaged, bent, or otherwise altered (for example, due to natural, accidental, or malicious events, as mentioned above, that disturb an area around a structure to be protected), an altered feedback signal will be reflected back to the signal measuring mechanism. The signal measuring mechanism may be configured to determine, based on the timing and magnitude of the reflected signal, the affected location on the signal carrying cable, and consequently, the physical location of the disturbance”. [0026], “cables at one or more locations … impacts”. Also, see claim 13”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yano, to include the feature as taught by Sargand, in order to receive event data comprises a plurality of event data associated with a plurality of locations along the cable (Sargand figure 1-4). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor and, in the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Yano and Sargand, the results of the combination were predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yano et al. US 2023/0296473 (hereinafter Yano) in view of Porras et al. US 2007/0025245 (hereinafter Porras).
Regarding Claim 11:
(Original) The method of claim 10 but, does not specifically teach or disclose, however, Porras, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the data indicative of the event comprises IQ error-vector data, the method further comprising determining, based on the IQ error- vector data, the event occurred. (Porras [0022], [0026], “a number of symbols in a frame, common pilot error (i.e., the difference between the measured and ideal pilot subcarrier symbols, indicative of residual phase and frequency settling following the preamble), error vector magnitude (i.e., the root mean square value of the error vector magnitudes over the entire burst, including all data symbols for all 52 subcarriers), pilot subcarrier error vector magnitude (i.e., the root mean square value of the error vector magnitudes of the four pilot subcarriers for all symbols over the entire burst), center frequency error (i.e., the measured difference between the center frequency of the OFDM frame and the specified center frequency of the channel), IQ offset or I/Q origin offset (e.g., indicative of the magnitude of the carrier feedthrough signal), quadrature skew error (e.g., indicative of the orthogonal error between the I and the Q signals), IQ gain imbalance (i.e., the ratio of the magnitudes of the I symbol and the Q symbol), synchronization correlation (i.e., a cross correlation of the preamble synchronization of the measured signal to an ideal signal) and symbol clock frequency error (i.e., the difference between the ideal and actual symbol clock frequency).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yano, to include the feature as taught by Porres, in order to calculate an Error and vector data (Porres [0026]) Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor and, in the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Yano and Porres, the results of the combination were predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Enescu, Diana, et al. "Concepts and methods to assess the dynamic thermal rating of underground power cables." Energies 14.9 (2021): 2591.
Teimourzadeh, Hamid. Development of a Data-Driven Approach for Permanent Fault Location in Underground Power Cables. Diss. 2023.
Salkuti, Surender Reddy, Papia Ray, and Arvind R. Singh, eds. Power Quality in Microgrids: Issues, Challenges and Mitigation Techniques. Springer Nature Singapore, 2023.
Shekhar, Shishir, and Shashwat Shekhar. "Improving utility cables diagnostics and prognostics using machine learning." 2023 IEEE PES Grid Edge Technologies Conference & Exposition (Grid Edge). IEEE, 2023.
Nielsen CA 2707246: Methods, apparatus and system for generating searchable electronic records of underground facility locate and/or marking operations.
Xiao et al. US 2022/0012155: Activity recognition model balanced between versatility and individuation and system thereof.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMZEH OBAID whose telephone number is (313)446-4941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
/HAMZEH OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights