DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 are pending in the present application.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/4/2023 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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)(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, 6, 8, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuroda et al. (JP 2007-292530 A, hereinafter Kuroda).
Regarding claim 1, Kuroda teaches a detection system (see Fig. 1, 5, 13, and 14, all elements; see also Abstract; see also translation page 8, para. 5 through page 9, para. 8, description of detection system described) comprising: an optical fiber embedded in or near an embankment of a river (see Fig. 1 and 14, fiber 130 embedded in embankment of a river 105 as shown); at least one memory storing instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (see Fig. 1 and translation page 10, para. 3, control PC considered to have and execute instructions via the OTDR 112): receive, from the optical fiber, an optical signal including a pattern indicating that the optical fiber is exposed (see Fig. 13 and 14, optical fiber 130 provides signal waveform (pattern) indicated exposure of the fiber to the river 105; see also translation page 11, para. 1-10, OTDR waveforms via the fibers 130 indicate exposure to the river 105 due to failure of the embankment); and detect breakage of the embankment based on the pattern (see also translation page 11, para. 1-10, OTDR Fresnel reflection patterns in the fibers 130 indicate breakage or failure of the embankment).
Regarding claim 3, Kuroda above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Kuroda teaches that the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to specify a location where the breakage of the embankment has occurred based on the optical signal (see Fig. 1 and translation page 11, para. 7, location of the breakage determined based on the locations determined as described).
Regarding claim 6, Kuroda teaches a detection device (see Fig. 1, 5, 13, and 14, all elements; see also Abstract; see also translation page 8, para. 5 through page 9, para. 8, description of detection system described) comprising: at least one memory storing instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (see Fig. 1 and translation page 10, para. 3, control PC considered to have and execute instructions via the OTDR 112): receive, from an optical fiber embedded in or near an embankment of a river, an optical signal including a pattern indicating that the optical fiber is exposed (see Fig. 13 and 14, optical fiber 130 embedded in an embankment of the river 105 provides signal waveform (pattern) indicated exposure of the fiber to the river 105; see also translation page 11, para. 1-10, OTDR waveforms via the fibers 130 indicate exposure to the river 105 due to failure of the embankment); and detect breakage of the embankment based on the pattern (see also translation page 11, para. 1-10, OTDR Fresnel reflection patterns in the fibers 130 indicate breakage or failure of the embankment).
Regarding claim 8, Kuroda above teaches all of the limitations of claim 6.
Furthermore, Kuroda teaches that the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to specify a location where the breakage of the embankment has occurred based on the optical signal (see Fig. 1 and translation page 11, para. 7, location of the breakage determined based on the locations determined as described).
Regarding claim 11, Kuroda teaches a detection method executed by a detection device (see Fig. 1, 5, 13, and 14, all elements; see also Abstract; see also translation page 8, para. 5 through page 9, para. 8, description of detection system described), the detection method comprising: a reception step of receiving, from an optical fiber embedded in or near an embankment of a river, an optical signal including a pattern indicating that the optical fiber is exposed (see Fig. 13 and 14, optical fiber 130 embedded in an embankment of the river 105 provides signal waveform (pattern) indicated exposure of the fiber to the river 105; see also translation page 11, para. 1-10, OTDR waveforms via the fibers 130 indicate exposure to the river 105 due to failure of the embankment); and a detection step of detecting breakage of the embankment based on the pattern (see also translation page 11, para. 1-10, OTDR Fresnel reflection patterns in the fibers 130 indicate breakage or failure of the embankment).
Regarding claim 13, Kuroda above teaches all of the limitations of claim 11.
Furthermore, Kuroda teaches that in the detection step, a location where the breakage of the embankment has occurred is specified based on the optical signal see Fig. 1 and translation page 11, para. 7, location of the breakage determined based on the locations determined as described).
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, 5, 7, 10, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda.
Regarding claim 2, Kuroda above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Kuroda above fails to specifically teach that the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to detect the breakage of the embankment based on a vibration pattern included in the optical signal and indicating that the optical fiber is exposed.
However, Kuroda does teach that the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to detect the breakage of the embankment based on a pattern included in the optical signal and indicating that the optical fiber is exposed (see Fig. 13 and 14, optical fiber 130 provides signal waveform (pattern) indicated exposure of the fiber to the river 105; see also translation page 11, para. 1-10, OTDR waveforms via the fibers 130 indicate exposure to the river 105 due to failure of the embankment).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to recognize that the device of Kuroda indicates strain on the fiber due to embankment failure and exposure to the river, and thus vibrations due to the river flow would also indicate embankment failure. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that when the fiber weight is released from the embankment, the strain on the connection points would constantly change due to the flow of the river past the fiber weight, thus leading to vibration based optical return signals to the OTDR.
Regarding claim 5, Kuroda above teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 3.
Kuroda above fails to specifically teach that the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to notify a predetermined notification destination of occurrence of the breakage of the embankment and the location where the breakage of the embankment has occurred.
However, Kuroda does teach that the system is designed for the purpose of early detection of embankment breakage (see translation page 2, para. 5, system for detection of embankment breakdown).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the system of Kuroda such that a notification was provided to a predetermined destination. This would allow for an early response for disaster prevention as is known in the art.
Regarding claim 7, Kuroda above teaches all of the limitations of claim 6.
Kuroda above fails to specifically teach that the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to detect the breakage of the embankment based on a vibration pattern included in the optical signal and indicating that the optical fiber is exposed.
However, Kuroda does teach that the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to detect the breakage of the embankment based on a pattern included in the optical signal and indicating that the optical fiber is exposed (see Fig. 13 and 14, optical fiber 130 provides signal waveform (pattern) indicated exposure of the fiber to the river 105; see also translation page 11, para. 1-10, OTDR waveforms via the fibers 130 indicate exposure to the river 105 due to failure of the embankment).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to recognize that the device of Kuroda indicates strain on the fiber due to embankment failure and exposure to the river, and thus vibrations due to the river flow would also indicate embankment failure. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that when the fiber weight is released from the embankment, the strain on the connection points would constantly change due to the flow of the river past the fiber weight, thus leading to vibration based optical return signals to the OTDR.
Regarding claim 10, Kuroda above teaches all of the limitations of claims 6 and 8.
Kuroda above fails to specifically teach that the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to notify a predetermined notification destination of occurrence of the breakage of the embankment and the location where the breakage of the embankment has occurred.
However, Kuroda does teach that the system is designed for the purpose of early detection of embankment breakage (see translation page 2, para. 5, system for detection of embankment breakdown).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the system of Kuroda such that a notification was provided to a predetermined destination. This would allow for an early response for disaster prevention as is known in the art.
Regarding claim 12, Kuroda above teaches all of the limitations of claim 11.
Kuroda above fails to specifically teach that in the detection step, the breakage of the embankment is detected based on a vibration pattern included in the optical signal and indicating that the optical fiber is exposed.
However, Kuroda does teach that the method is configured to detect the breakage of the embankment based on a pattern included in the optical signal and indicate that the optical fiber is exposed (see Fig. 13 and 14, optical fiber 130 provides signal waveform (pattern) indicated exposure of the fiber to the river 105; see also translation page 11, para. 1-10, OTDR waveforms via the fibers 130 indicate exposure to the river 105 due to failure of the embankment).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to recognize that the method of Kuroda indicates strain on the fiber due to embankment failure and exposure to the river, and thus vibrations due to the river flow would also indicate embankment failure. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that when the fiber weight is released from the embankment, the strain on the connection points would constantly change due to the flow of the river past the fiber weight, thus leading to vibration based optical return signals to the OTDR.
Regarding claim 15, Kuroda above teaches all of the limitations of claims 11 and 13.
Kuroda above fails to specifically teach a step of notifying a predetermined notification destination of occurrence of the breakage of the embankment and the location where the breakage of the embankment has occurred.
However, Kuroda does teach that the system and methods are designed for the purpose of early detection of embankment breakage (see translation page 2, para. 5, system for detection of embankment breakdown).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the system and/or methods of Kuroda such that a notification was provided to a predetermined destination. This would allow for an early response for disaster prevention as is known in the art.
Claims 4, 9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda as applied to claims 3, 8, and 13 above, and further in view of Noma et al. (JP 2000-46597, hereinafter Noma).
Regarding claim 4, Kuroda above teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 3.
Kuroda above fails to teach a camera for monitoring the river and the embankment; wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to control the camera to image the location where the breakage of the embankment has occurred.
Noma teaches a camera for monitoring a river and an embankment; wherein the camera is controlled to image the location where the breakage of the embankment has occurred (see Fig. 1, camera 4A for monitoring a river 1 embankment 2; see also translation page 3, para. 5-6, cameras controlled to monitor and image the location of a breakage of a river embankment).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Kuroda with the camera system of Noma. This would allow for a visual monitoring of the state of the reiver, thereby enabling management of a river embankment as suggested by Noma (see translation page 3, para. 5).
Regarding claim 9, Kuroda above teaches all of the limitations of claims 6 and 8.
Kuroda above fails to teach that the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to control a camera for monitoring the river and the embankment to image the location where the breakage of the embankment has occurred.
Noma teaches a camera for monitoring a river and an embankment; wherein the camera is controlled to image the location where the breakage of the embankment has occurred (see Fig. 1, camera 4A for monitoring a river 1 embankment 2; see also translation page 3, para. 5-6, cameras controlled to monitor and image the location of a breakage of a river embankment).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Kuroda with the camera system of Noma. This would allow for a visual monitoring of the state of the reiver, thereby enabling management of a river embankment as suggested by Noma (see translation page 3, para. 5).
Regarding claim 14, Kuroda above teaches all of the limitations of claims 11 and 13.
Kuroda above fails to teach a step of controlling a camera for monitoring the river and the embankment to image the location where the breakage of the embankment has occurred.
Noma teaches a camera for monitoring a river and an embankment; wherein the camera is controlled to image the location where the breakage of the embankment has occurred (see Fig. 1, camera 4A for monitoring a river 1 embankment 2; see also translation page 3, para. 5-6, cameras controlled to monitor and image the location of a breakage of a river embankment).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the method of Kuroda with the camera system of Noma. This would allow for a visual monitoring of the state of the reiver, thereby enabling management of a river embankment as suggested by Noma (see translation page 3, para. 5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL T WOODWARD whose telephone number is (571)270-0704. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Patrick Assouad can be reached at (571) 272-2210. 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.
/NATHANIEL T WOODWARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855