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 .
IDS
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on September 16, 2024 and December 17, 2025 are being considered by the Examiner.
Drawing
The drawing filed on April 12, 2024 is objected to because of the following minor clarity issue: Fig. 1B of the instant application is in poor quality and the labels in the drawing are unrecognizable or hard to read. A replacement drawing with better quality is required.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim rejection – 35 U.S.C. §112
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) or 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite: the acronym DFOS has several distinct meanings depending on the context; therefore, it needs to be defined before its use at least in claim 1, the remaining claims include similar issue or inherit the attributes of their respective base claims.
Claim rejection – 35 U.S.C. §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.
In reference to claims 1-20: the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The requirement for subject matter eligibility test for products and processes requires first, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. §101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. The latter three categories define "things" or "products" while the first category defines "actions" (i.e., inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be performed).
Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. The judicial exceptions (also called "judicially recognized exceptions" or simply "exceptions") are subject matter that the courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention, and are limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (including products of nature).
In the first step, it is to be determined whether the patent claim under examination is directed to an abstract idea. If so, in the second step of analysis, it is to be determined whether the patent adds to the idea "something more" or "significantly more" that embodies an "inventive concept."
In the instant case, claim 1 is representative and it is reproduced here with the limitations that are part of the abstract idea in bold:
A method of generating a geotechnical survey of a target area, comprising:
measuring DFOS data in an optical fiber located within a sensing distance of the target area; and
determining subterranean characteristics of the target area based on the measured DFOS data.
Step 2A:
Prong I: The claim recites the steps of " method of generating a geotechnical survey of a target area, measuring DFOS data in an optical fiber located within a sensing distance of the target area; and determining subterranean characteristics of the target area based on the measured DFOS data”. These limitations could be carried out as purely mental process (at least in some relatively small sample situations, like determining subterranean characteristics). Therefore, the recited method falls in the abstract idea grouping of mental processes and/or mathematical/computational concepts at Prong I of the §101 analysis.
Prong II:
This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application at Prong 2 of the §101 analysis because the claim does not recite sufficient additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim recites the method comprising the additional element steps of "measuring DFOS (distributed fiber optic sensing) data, which is real time measurements of physical properties, such as temperature, strain and vibration collected along the entire length of the fiber optic cable, and described in the instant application as a higher level of generality. It would be considered a mere data gathering step. This additional element does not cause the claim as a whole to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
The courts have found that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea (such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) is not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or make the claim qualify as "significantly more" (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
As stated above, the DFOS measurement data or the instrument is invoked as a tool to collect data that is used as input to determine the subterranean characteristic of the target area, which does not cause the claim as a whole to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim does not recite applying the abstract idea with, or by use of, any particular machine, nor does the claim affect a real-world transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The claim amounts to manipulating data: determining the characteristic of the target area based on the measured DFOS data. The claim does not recite any particular real-world actions that are taken as a result of the determination. The claim characterizes a “DFOS” data analysis as the general field-of-use, but does not recite a particular practical application being carried out within that field-of-use. Therefore, the claimed invention does not appear to be limited to the use of the mental process or math in a particular practical application, but instead the claim appears to monopolize the mental process or math itself, in any practical application where it might conceivably be used.
Step 2B:
Finally, at Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as discussed above with regard to Prong 2. Claim 1 is rejected as ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claims 19 and 20 are directed to a system and device respectively. They are analogous to claim 1; and further include a controller to execute the method of claim 1; and they need to be considered at Prong 2 of the §101 analysis. However, the controller is merely generic computer processing components that is invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which does not cause the claim as a whole to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Claims 19 and 20 are therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC §101 as well.
Dependent claims 2 and 3: the instant claims are directed to describing the type of data used in the analysis; and are part of the data gathering step and/or insignificant extra solution activity.
Dependent claims 4-15: the instant claims are directed to describing the surrounding of the measurement environment, the measured parameter types, modeling those collected values by applying known mathematical algorithms for the purposes of finding possible model parameters, such as Markov Chain Monte Carlo etc...
Dependent claims 16-18: the instant claims are directed to representation of seismic shear wave speed information and characterizing the survey result which includes also the use of the survey result both for modeling (artificial created seismic survey and natural seismic energy based on the collected data which in fact reads on human thought process and/or mathematical algorithm or computational analysis.
Claim rejection – 35 U.S.C. §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.
(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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Martin et al. (U.S. PAP 2016/0131520, hereon Martin).
In reference to claim 1: Martin discloses a method of generating a geotechnical survey of a target area (see Martin, Abstract and paragraph [0003]), comprising:
measuring DFOS data in an optical fiber located within a sensing distance of the target area (see Martin, paragraph [0068]; and
determining subterranean characteristics of the target area based on the measured DFOS data (see Martin, paragraph [0004] and [0042])
With regard to claim 2: Martin further discloses that the measuring of the DFOS data includes measuring at least one of: strain; strain rate; velocity; displacement; pressure; motion; acceleration induced in the optical fiber (see Martin, paragraph [0043]).
With regard to claim 4: Martin further discloses that the strain is induced in the optical fiber by background seismic noise; and the background seismic noise is caused by at least one of generators, vehicles, construction and excavation equipment, pumps, machinery, infrastructure, wind, and ocean waves (see Martin, paragraph [0043]-[0044]).
With regard to claim 5: Martin further discloses that the determining subterranean characteristics of the target area based on the measured DFOS data includes: measuring seismic wave velocity as a function of frequency (see Martin, paragraph [0063]); and modeling subsurface geological layers under the optical fiber based on the wave velocity calculated as a function of frequency (see Martin, paragraph [0064]- [0067], and [0143]).
With regard to claim 7: Martin further discloses that the determining subterranean characteristics of the target area based on the measured DFOS data includes at least one of: measuring seismic wave velocity as a function of offset (see Martin, paragraph [0048]); and modeling subsurface layers based on measuring a travel time or an attenuation of seismic waves that penetrate a subsurface (see Martin, paragraph [0110]).
With regard to claim 8: Martin further discloses that the method comprising: connecting a DFOS device to the optical fiber (see Martin, Fig. 30, optical source), wherein the measuring the DFOS data includes transmitting light from the DFOS device into the optical fiber and receiving refracted light from the optical fiber (see Martin, Fig. 31, the interferometer which can measure the refractive index of gases, liquids, or transparent solids. It does this by tracking changes in the optical path length rather than measuring the bending angle of light, and see also paragraph [0055])
With regard to claim 9: Martin further discloses that the measuring of the DFOS data includes measuring at least one of strain and ground motion (see Martin, paragraph [0151]).
With regard to claim 10: Martin further discloses that the method comprising: providing active seismic sources in a sensing range of the optical fiber (see Martin, Fig. 30, optical source); and emitting seismic energy from the active seismic source (see Martin, paragraph [0044]).
With regard to claim 11: Martin further discloses that a survey result in a two-dimensional profile of a subsurface along a path of the optical fiber (see Martin, paragraph [0068]).
With regard to claim 12: Martin further discloses that a survey result in three-dimensional, and is a subsurface volume with layers and iso-pachs across region (see Martin, paragraph [0056]).
With regard to claim 13: Martin further discloses that the optical fiber is installed in a horizontal fashion underwater, either on top of or below a seafloor (see Martin, paragraph [0069]).
With regard to claim 18: Martin further discloses recorded signals used for the geotechnical survey are at least one of natural seismic energy and artificially created seismic energy (see Martin, paragraph [0004] and [0044]).
In reference to claim 19: Martin discloses a geotechnical surveying system (see Martin, Fig. 22), comprising:
a DFOS device that includes a light transmitter configured to transmit light into an optical fiber (see Martin, paragraph [0042], fiber optic surveying system),
a receiver configured to receive light from the optical fiber (see Martin, paragraph [0129], interferometer 522a as in Fig. 31), and
a controller configured to execute a method of generating a geotechnical survey of a target area (see Martin, paragraph [0132], processing system 526), the method further comprising:
measuring DFOS data in an optical fiber located within a sensing distance of the target area (see Martin, paragraph [0068]); and
determining subterranean characteristics of the target area based on the measured DFOS data (see Martin, paragraphs [0004] and [0042]).
In reference to claim 20: Martin discloses a DFOS device (see Martin, Fig. 22 and paragraph [0049]), comprising:
a light transmitter configured to transmit light into an optical fiber (see Martin, paragraph [0042], fiber optic surveying system);
a receiver configured to receive light from the optical fiber (see Martin, paragraph [0129], interferometer 522a as in Fig. 31); and
a controller configured to execute a method of generating a geotechnical survey of a target area (see Martin, paragraph [0132], processing system 526), the method further comprising:
measuring DFOS data in an optical fiber located within a sensing distance of the target area (see Martin, paragraph [0068]); and
determining subterranean characteristics of the target area based on the measured DFOS data (see Martin, paragraphs [0004] and [0042]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ozharar et al. (U.S. PAP 2021/0318165) discloses systems that employs distributed fiber optic sensing – distributed acoustic sensing (DFOS-DAS) techniques to precisely measure the speed of acoustic waves at specific region(s) of infrastructure(s) to determine the existence/extent of any non-uniformities that are indicative of infrastructure decay disrepair. When such decay/disrepair is determined, appropriate remedial measures may be instituted.
Huang et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,681,042) discloses a method for determining geographical location(s) and depth(s) of underground optical fiber cables. More specifically, it pertains to the localization and depth determination of such underground optical fiber cables through the use of distributed fiber optic sensing (DFOS) techniques.
Hartog et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,377,551) discloses a method of detecting seismic waves traveling through a subsurface formation includes lowering a cable into a borehole in the subsurface formation, the cable having at least one optical fiber associated therewith, and causing descent of a remote end of the cable to be arrested. The method further includes feeding a further length of the cable into the borehole such that the cable is slack and in contact with at least part of a wall of the borehole, and using an interrogator coupled to the at least one optical fiber to detect seismic waves traveling through the subsurface formation and into the cable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIAS DESTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2214. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 to 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, Andrew M Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/ELIAS DESTA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights