DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 04/26/2026.
2. Claim 2 is canceled.
3. Claims 3-11 have been added.
4. Claims 1 and 3-11 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed on 04/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, the Applicant argues in substance that:
“Amended Claim 1 provides a structural, algorithmic solution to this technical problem. Rather than relying on active hammer knocks, the claim operates on ambient vibrational events. To accurately localize poles using weak ambient data (which suffers from significant noise issues compared to hammer knocks), the claim requires a specific architecture: (1) separating frequency domain data into low and high sequences, (2) measuring similarities between these features, and crucially, (3) applying a Gaussian distribution to these measured similarities to generate weighted labels for training the ResNet. This specific training mechanism reduces the effects of label noise inherent in ambient spatiotemporal datasets” (pages 5-7).
a) In Response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Foremost, the decision of the Supreme Court in regard to Alice vs CLS Bank is succinctly discussed as follows. In their decision, Supreme Court has stated that the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract ideas (such as algorithms) into a patent eligible invention. Because the algorithm was an abstract idea, the claim had to supply a “new and useful" application of the idea in order to be patent eligible (Alice, Page 12). Furthermore, the additional limitations had to be significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself (Alice, page 7, 15).
Regarding independent Claim 1, we recognize that the limitations “analyzing two-dimensional spatiotemporal time-series data received from the monitoring and separating the data into a training, validation, and testing sets according to labeled utility pole geographical locations; transforming the time-series data into frequency domain data using a Fourier transform; separating the transformed frequency domain data into low frequency data sequences and high frequency data sequences for feature extraction; measure similarities between features extracted from the high frequency data sequences and low frequency data sequences and fusing learned features into a ResNet for pole detection; applying a Gaussian distribution to the measured similarities to generate weighted labels for training the ResNet to reduce effects of label noise; applying further monitored two-dimensional spatiotemporal time-series data to the trained ResNet for determination of utility pole location”, as abstract ideas. The abstract idea of claim 1 can be characterized as processes, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes and/or mathematical concepts.
Beyond the abstract idea, we next look at additional elements that can be considered to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In particular, the claim limitations “operating a distributed fiber optic sensing (DFOS) system configured to monitor ambient vibrational events affecting utility poles;… a ResNet,… and outputting an indicium of utility pole locations” are additional elements.
The limitation “operating a distributed fiber optic sensing (DFOS) system configured to monitor ambient vibrational events affecting utility poles” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., gathering data using a distributed sensor system) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic sensor. As shown in the prior art, Yoda et al. US 2021/0172767 (hereinafter, Yoda), ([0061], [0078]), and Lu et al. “Automatic Fine-Grained Localization of Utility Pole Landmarks on Distributed Acoustic Sensing Traces Based on Bilinear Resnets” (hereinafter, Lu), (Abstract, page 4677, and Fig. 1), both show that operating a distributed fiber optic sensing (DFOS) system configured to monitor ambient vibrational events affecting utility poles is well-understood and purely conventional in the relevant art and would be routinely used by those of ordinary skill in the art in order to apply the abstract idea(s) and/or activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Further, the claim recites the additional element(s) of using generic AI/ML technology, i.e. “ResNet,” to perform data evaluations or calculations, as identified under Prong 1 above. The claim does not recites any details regarding how the “ResNet” algorithm is trained. Instead, the claim is found to utilize the AI/ML algorithm as a tool that provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, the use of the “ResNet” merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the use of “ResNet” to perform steps that are otherwise abstract does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence; and Example 47, ineligible claim 2.
As shown in the prior art, Yoda, ([0078]), and Lu, (Abstract, page 4675), both show that generic AI/ML technology, i.e. “ResNet, is well-understood and purely conventional in the relevant art and would be routinely used by those of ordinary skill in the art in order to apply the abstract idea(s) and/or activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, the claim limitation “outputting an indicium of utility pole locations”, is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., outputting information using a computer structures) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. As shown in the prior art, Yoda, (Figs. 4, 6), and Lu, (Abstract, page 4677, and Fig. 1), both show that outputting an indicium of utility pole locations, is well-understood and purely conventional in the relevant art and would be routinely used by those of ordinary skill in the art in order to apply the abstract idea(s) and/or activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the combination of these additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to “significantly more” than the identified abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The representative claim 1 recites:
A method of determining utility pole locations, the method comprising:
operating a distributed fiber optic sensing (DFOS) system configured to monitor ambient vibrational events affecting utility poles;
analyzing two-dimensional spatiotemporal time-series data received from the monitoring and separating the data into a training, validation, and testing sets according to labeled utility pole geographical locations;
transforming the time-series data into frequency domain data using a Fourier transform;
separating the transformed frequency domain data into low frequency data sequences and high frequency data sequences for feature extraction;
measure similarities between features extracted from the high frequency data sequences and low frequency data sequences and fusing learned features into a ResNet for pole detection;
applying a Gaussian distribution to the measured similarities to generate weighted labels for training the ResNet to reduce effects of label noise;
applying further monitored two-dimensional spatiotemporal time-series data to the trained ResNet for determination of utility pole location; and
outputting an indicium of utility pole locations.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claims are considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitation that fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations in the claim are only: operating a distributed fiber optic sensing (DFOS) system configured to monitor ambient vibrational events affecting utility poles;…a ResNet… and outputting an indicium of utility pole locations. The limitation “operating a distributed fiber optic sensing (DFOS) system configured to monitor ambient vibrational events affecting utility poles” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., gathering data using a distributed sensor system) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic sensor.
Further, the claim recites the additional element(s) of using generic AI/ML technology, i.e. “ResNet,” to perform data evaluations or calculations, as identified under Prong 1 above. The claim does not recites any details regarding how the “ResNet” algorithm is trained. Instead, the claim is found to utilize the AI/ML algorithm as a tool that provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, the use of the “ResNet” merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the use of “ResNet” to perform steps that are otherwise abstract does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence; and Example 47, ineligible claim 2.
Furthermore, the claim limitation “outputting an indicium of utility pole locations”, is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer structures performing a generic computer function of outputting information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted above, the additional limitations recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic sensor and storing data outputting information using a computer components). Further, the additional elements are conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Yoda et al. US 2021/0172767 (hereinafter, Yoda), ([0061], [0078], and Figs. 4, 6), and Lu et al. “Automatic Fine-Grained Localization of Utility Pole Landmarks on Distributed Acoustic Sensing Traces Based on Bilinear Resnets” (hereinafter, Lu), (Abstract, page 4677, and Fig. 1). Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3-6 and 8, adds further details of the identified abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 7, recites additional element of “wherein operating the DFOS system comprises launching an interrogation signal from a sensing laser into an optical sensing fiber and receiving scattered or reflected optical signals via a circulator and an integrated coherent receiver”. However, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., transmitting and receiving optical signals) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic transmitter and receiver. Further, the additional element is conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Yoda, ([0061], [0078]), and Gupta et al. US 20210407187 (hereinafter, Gupta), ([0119]). Therefore, claim 7 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 10 and 11, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 1.
Examiner’s Notes
8. Claims 1 and 3-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
9. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yoda et al. (US 20210172767) discloses utility pole location specifying system includes a cable containing a communication optical fiber disposed in a utility pole, a receiving unit configured to receive an optical signal containing a characteristic pattern of the utility pole from at least one communication optical fiber contained in the cable, and a specifying unit configured to specify a location of the utility pole based on the characteristic pattern. Pittman et al. (US 20190130181), discloses a method for identifying utility structures. The method includes identifying a geographical area for locating the utility structures, receiving images of the geographical area that was identified, performing image processing on the images that were received, identifying the utility structures based on the image processing, and providing location information associated with the utility structures that were identified. Gupta et al. (US 20210407187) discloses an electric grid asset detection method includes: obtaining overhead imagery of a geographic region that includes electric grid wires; identifying the electric grid wires within the overhead imagery; and generating a polyline graph of the identified electric grid wires. The method includes replacing curves in polylines within the polyline graph with a series of fixed lines and endpoints; identifying, based on characteristics of the fixed lines and endpoints, a location of a utility pole that supports the electric grid wires. The prior art of record does not teach or make obvious the claim invention in claims 1,10, and 11 “applying a Gaussian distribution to the measured similarities to generate weighted labels for training the ResNet to reduce effects of label noise; and applying further monitored two-dimensional spatiotemporal time-series data to the trained ResNet for determination of utility pole location” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Conclusion
10. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EYOB HAGOS whose telephone number is (571)272-3508. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Shelby 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.
/Eyob Hagos/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights