DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 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 1-8 are directed to a cable mapping method. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Regarding claim 1:
A cable mapping method comprising:
operating a distributed fiber optic sensing (DFOS) system configured to sense a route of interest;
operating a vehicle including a global positioning system receiver such that traffic patterns are generated;
detecting, by the DFOS, vibration signals from the route of interest;
identifying traffic patterns from the detected vibration signals and identifying a location along the route of interest by GPS coordinate; and
mapping the identifying location on a graphical information system (GIS).
Step 2A Prong 1:
“operating a vehicle including a global positioning system receiver such that traffic patterns are generated” is directed to mental step because the operation of a vehicle with a GPS receiver absolutely relates to a continuous series of mental steps. It is a symbiotic relationship where human cognition processes and acts upon the highly technical data provided by the device.
“detecting, by the DFOS, vibration signals from the route of interest” is directed to math because the operation of a DFOS system for vibration detection is intrinsically mathematical. From the foundational physics to the advanced signal processing and data interpretation, mathematical principles provide the framework for everything the system does. The ability to accurately measure amplitude, frequency, and location with high sensitivity is a direct result of applying rigorous mathematical techniques. Thus, the relationship between DFOS vibration detection and mathematics is not merely casual; it is a relationship of absolute dependence and integration, enabling the transformation of light signals into actionable intelligence. This profound reliance on mathematical rigor is what makes DFOS such a powerful and precise tool in modern monitoring and sensing applications.
“identifying traffic patterns from the detected vibration signals and identifying a location along the route of interest by GPS coordinate” is a mental step because that is an exceptionally insightful and nuanced query, delving into the fascinating intersection of physical signal processing, geographical data, and the very nature of human or automated cognition and decision-making processes. It touches upon how raw, tangible data from the physical world is transformed, analyzed, and ultimately used to inform an understanding of reality or to drive a subsequent action.
“mapping the identifying location on a graphical information system (GIS)” is a mental step because it's a cognitive process of visualizing, analyzing, and understanding spatial relationships, transforming raw data into meaningful insights about where things are, their patterns, and how they connect to people and issues, essentially making the "where" tangible for decision-making.
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 " detecting, by the DFOS, vibration signals from the route of interest” 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:
“operating a distributed fiber optic sensing (DFOS) system configured to sense a route of interest” 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)).
“operating a vehicle including a global positioning system receiver such that traffic patterns are generated” 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)).
“detecting, by the DFOS, vibration signals from the route of interest” 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)).
“identifying traffic patterns from the detected vibration signals and identifying a location along the route of interest by GPS coordinate” 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)).
“mapping the identifying location on a graphical information system (GIS)” 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:
“operating a distributed fiber optic sensing (DFOS) system configured to sense a route of interest” 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)).
“operating a vehicle including a global positioning system receiver such that traffic patterns are generated” 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)).
“identifying traffic patterns from the detected vibration signals and identifying a location along the route of interest by GPS coordinate” 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)).
“mapping the identifying location on a graphical information system (GIS)” 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 2, “identifying traffic patterns from the detected vibration signals by artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms” 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 3, “identifying traffic patterns from the detected vibration signals by AI algorithms with synchronized timestamp and identify a DFOS optical sensor fiber cable distance associated with the GPS coordinate” 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 4, “using landmarks along the route of interest, correlating the identified cable distance and GPS coordinate thereby generating correlated location data” 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 5, “mapping the correlated location data on the GIS” 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 6, “wherein the vibration signals include ambient noises, road traffic, road construction, and created traffic patterns along the route of interest” 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 7, “wherein the landmarks include buildings, manholes, manmade and natural structures” 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 8, “wherein the AI algorithm is performed by a deep neural network trained end-to-end of the DFOS optical sensor fiber cable” 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 1-8 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (US 12,078,528).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim 1, Huang et al. disclose a cable mapping method comprising: operating a distributed fiber optic sensing (DFOS) system configured to sense a route of interest; operating a vehicle including a global positioning system receiver such that traffic patterns are generated; detecting, by the DFOS, vibration signals from the route of interest; identifying traffic patterns from the detected vibration signals and identifying a location along the route of interest by GPS coordinate; and mapping the identifying location on a graphical information system (GIS) (Col.7, lines 43-Col.8, line 35, Col.8, line 45—Col.9, line 13).
Regarding claim 2, Huang et al. disclose identifying traffic patterns from the detected vibration signals by artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms (Col.5, lines 59-60).
Regarding claim 3, Huang et al. disclose Identifying traffic patterns from the detected vibration signals by AI algorithms with synchronized timestamp and identify a DFOS optical sensor fiber cable distance associated with the GPS coordinate (Col.5, lines 59-Col.6, line 4).
Regarding claim 4, Huang et al. disclose using landmarks along the route of interest, correlating the identified cable distance and GPS coordinate thereby generating correlated location data (Col.7, line 59-67).
Regarding claim 5, Huang et al. disclose mapping the correlated location data on the GIS (Col.8, lines 48-50).
Regarding claim 6, Huang et al. disclose the vibration signals include ambient noises, road traffic, road construction, and created traffic patterns along the route of interest (Col.7, lines 54-58).
Regarding claim 7, Huang et al. disclose the landmarks include buildings (Col.9, lines 22-24), manholes (Col.10, lines 8-11), manmade and natural structures (Col.3, lines 38-43).
Regarding claim 8, Huang et al. disclose the AI algorithm is performed by a deep neural network trained end-to-end of the DFOS optical sensor fiber cable (Col.5, lines 24-28).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2020/0124735 A1) in view of Martin et al. (US 2018/0342156 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Huang et al. disclose a method comprising: employing a distributed vibration sensing (DVS) and/or distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) operating via optical fiber cable(s) (see paragraphs 29, 31); operating a vehicle that will move/relocate along a suspected optical fiber cable pathway located under a roadway while providing a vibrational and/or acoustic signal/excitation to the roadway (see paragraph 30); monitoring signals received from an optical fiber, wherein DVS and/or DAS signals are active through the optical fiber cable (see paragraphs 30-31); analyzing vibrational data (see paragraph 38); performing data processing/analysis at a central office or via cloud computing mechanisms; based on coordinates determined from vibration source(s), GPS information associated with source vehicle, determining a location of the cable thereby realizing our smart cable positioning (see paragraph 46); and employing a graphical user interface (GUI) to show a fiber location on a geographic map (see paragraph 50).
Huang et al. fail to disclose operating a vehicle including a global positioning system receiver such that traffic patterns are generated, and identifying traffic patterns from detected vibration signals.
However, Martin et al. consider that a vehicle is driven along a section of road which is being monitored by a DAS (sensing optical fibers) at a known time so that a detected DAS response signal can be processed in light of the vehicle passage, the vehicle may be tracked by a GPS tracker so that a position of the vehicle on a section of road over time can be correlated with acoustic signals detected by the DAS (see paragraphs 24, 36, 61-62, 95-96), and flow data is detected by the DAS system to be used to provide an estimate of a true total flow used in analyzing traffic patterns (see paragraph 128); and GPS based traffic monitoring has also been proposed, vehicles are equipped with a GPS tracker and a transmitter so as to transmit information to a central server, and with enough vehicles transmitting data it will be possible to monitor general flow rates of traffic on various parts of the network (see paragraph 11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Martin et al. with the teaching of Huang et al. in order to provide an apparatus and methods for traffic monitoring, especially for monitoring of road traffic flow using fiber optic distributed acoustic sensing (Martin et al., abstract).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2020/0124735 A1) in view of Martin et al. (US 2018/0342156 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2020/0313763 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Huang et al. and Martin et al. fail to disclose identifying traffic patterns from the detected vibration signals by artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms.
Wang et al. teach vibration patterns are extracted from a waterfall trace act for traffic flow caused by passing vehicles, and with help of A.I. (artificial intelligence), information is extracted to show the traffic patterns (see paragraph 68). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Wang et al. with the teaching of Huang et al. in view of Martin et al. in order to provide systems, methods, and structures providing distributed fiber optic sensing over optical fiber networks carrying live, high-speed telecommunications signals. (Wang et al., para. [0006]).
Claim(s) 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2020/0124735 A1) in view of Martin et al. (US 2018/0342156 A1) and Wang et al. (US 2020/0313763 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Tampnet (WO 2022185074).
Regarding claim 3, Huang et al. disclose paired data including OTDR Distance and Latitude/Longitude data (GPS data) (see paragraph 17). Martin et al. considering that the vehicle may be tracked by the GPS tracker, so that the position of the vehicle on the section of road over time can be correlated with the acoustic signals detected by the DAS (see paragraph 95), and a time stamped video (i.e., a second different traffic monitoring system) of any traffic in lane(s) between the vehicle and the sensing fiber could be recorded and used to identify times where the vehicle may have been acoustically masked (see paragraphs 24-26, 97), Wang et al. considering that vibration patterns are extracted from a waterfall trace act for traffic flow caused by passing vehicles, and with help of A.I. (artificial intelligence), information is extracted to show the traffic patterns (see paragraph 68), and Tampnet considering receiving time-stamped synchronisation packets over an optical fiber assembly for a purpose of synchronising a clock with an external clock, wherein the time-stamped synchronisation packets may be embedded within first and/or second digital optical signals - e.g. interleaved between data packets (see page 11, lines 10-14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Tampnet with the teaching of Huang et al. in view of Martin et al. and Wang et al. in order to provide an apparatus for determining a position of a disturbance to an optical fiber assembly (Tampnet, abstarct).
Regarding claims 4-5, 7, Huang et al. considering that a data cloud pairs the GPS data and the dynamic-OTDR distance data-which are collected simultaneously-and saves the paired data into a database, and the GUI (graphical user interface) can be employed to show a fiber location on a geographic map based on a given OTDR distance (see paragraph 50) and Wang et al. considering determining/allocating locations of manholes and buried cables (see paragraph 12).
Regarding claim 6, Huang et al. considering monitoring signals received from an optical fiber, wherein DVS and/or DAS signals are active through the optical fiber cable (see paragraphs 30-31); and analyzing vibrational data (see paragraph 38).
Regarding claim 8, Wang et al. considering that vibration patterns are extracted from a waterfall trace act for traffic flow caused by passing vehicles, with help of A.I. (artificial intelligence), information is extracted to show the traffic patterns (see paragraph 68), and activities may collectively comprise a calibration and/or training phase of operation (see paragraph 58).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN H LE whose telephone number is (571)272-2275. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00am – 3:30pm Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN H LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857