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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Application filed on February 4, 2025. Claims 1-5 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 6, 2023 and March 11, 2025 are 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 § 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis - Step 1
Claims 1-4 recite a device/apparatus, therefore claims 1-4 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 5 recites a method/process, therefore claim 5 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recites mathematical concepts and/or mental processes (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A signal processing device that
acquires a signal obtained by repeatedly injecting a plurality of light pulses with different optical frequencies into an optical fiber, and by performing distributed acoustic sensing-phase (DAS-P),
calculates a phase change, caused by vibration applied to a section of the optical fiber, using the acquired signal,
removes, from the calculated phase change, a component regarding a repetition period of the same optical frequency of the plurality of light pulses, and
calculates the vibration applied to the section of the optical fiber, using a phase change obtained by removing the component regarding the period.
These limitations, as drafted, is a system that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a mental process. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed as mental process. For example, " calculates a phase change…", “removes, from the calculated phase change…”, and " calculates the vibration applied..." encompass mathematical concepts. " calculates a phase change…", “removes, from the calculated phase change…”, and " calculates the vibration applied..." involves a mathematical process of using received sensor data to calculate a phase change, remove a portion of the calculated value in a repetition period, and calculating the vibration based on this. Thus, the claim recites at least a mathematical concept.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a "practical application."
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the "additional limitations" while the bolded portions continue to represent the "abstract idea"):
A signal processing device that
acquires a signal obtained by repeatedly injecting a plurality of light pulses with different optical frequencies into an optical fiber, and by performing distributed acoustic sensing-phase (DAS-P),
calculates a phase change, caused by vibration applied to a section of the optical fiber, using the acquired signal,
removes, from the calculated phase change, a component regarding a repetition period of the same optical frequency of the plurality of light pulses, and
calculates the vibration applied to the section of the optical fiber, using a phase change obtained by removing the component regarding the period.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim limitation “acquires a signal …” does not amount to an inventive concept since it is insignificant extra-solution activity as it is merely a form of data collection and outputting (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). It is additionally noted that the “signal processing device” is a generic component being used to perform the abstract idea. The examiner submits that these limitations are mere data collection and outputting components to apply the above-noted abstract idea within an indicated field of use (MPEP §2106.05).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular process for safety performance evaluation, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use 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 not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B in the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “acquires a signal …" amounts to extra-solution data gathering and outputting. Additionally, the specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements as it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. §112(a). With respect to “obtain a residue map of a worksite…”, “obtain supplemental data …”, and “generate an action signal…” it was ruled within Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015), which are recited within MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that mere data collection or receiving/obtaining and transmitting of data over a network is well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic matter, as it is here. Additionally, “signal processing device” are each generic computing components that merely apply the judicial exception (See 2106.05(f)).
Claim 5 recites analogous limitations to that of claim 1, and is therefore rejected by the same premise.
Dependent claims 2-4 specify limitations that elaborate on the abstract idea of claim 1, and thus are directed to an abstract idea nor do the claims recite additional limitations that integrate the claims into a practical application or amount to "significantly more" for similar reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to claim 1, the closest prior art of record is Iida et al. (JP 2017026503; hereinafter Iida; already of record from IDS) in view of Cedilnik (US 20190128731). Iida in view of Cedilnik teaches of a signal processing device that
acquires a signal obtained by repeatedly injecting a plurality of light pulses with different optical frequencies into an optical fiber, and by performing distributed acoustic sensing-phase (DAS-P),
calculates a phase change, caused by vibration applied to a section of the optical fiber, using the acquired signal.
However, the prior art does not fully teach of removes, from the calculated phase change, a component regarding a repetition period of the same optical frequency of the plurality of light pulses, and
calculates the vibration applied to the section of the optical fiber, using a phase change obtained by removing the component regarding the period. While it is noted that the prior art does teach of having a signal that acquires a signal from repeatedly injecting light pulses of different optical frequencies into an optical fiber and performing DAS-P, as well as calculating a phase change caused to the vibration applied to the optical fiber of filtering some of the phase change values. However, the prior art does not fully teach of removing from the calculated phase change a component regarding a repetition period of the same optical frequency of the plurality of light pulses, when the vibration applied to the section of optical fiber is then determined based on this result of the removed component, in combination with the remaining claim limitations. Therefore the claim is allowable subject matter.
In regards to claim 5, the claim contains analogous limitations to claim 1 and is therefore allowable subject matter on the same premise.
In regards to claims 2-4, the claims are dependent upon a claim containing allowable subject matter and therefore contain allowable subject matter as well.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wakisaka (WO 2021075015) discloses of determining a vibration of an optical fiber based on a DAS-P that injects different frequency of pulse light into the optical fiber.
Yuasa (US 20210285765) discloses of a surveying instrument includes a distance measuring unit which measures a distance to an object, wherein the distance measuring unit comprises a light emitter configured to change an emission repetition frequency and the peak power of pulses of a distance measuring light to at least two, a light projecting optical system configured to project the distance measuring light, and a light receiving optical system configured to cause a photodetector to receive the reflected distance measuring light, wherein the light receiving optical system has a light amount adjusting member which is insertable and removable with respect to an optical axis of the reflected distance measuring light, and the light amount adjusting member configured to adjust a light receiving amount of the reflected distance measuring light in correspondence with the emission repetition frequency and the peak power of the pulses.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle J Kingsland whose telephone number is (571)272-3268. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:00-4:30.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at (571) 272-9855. 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.
/KYLE J KINGSLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights