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 .
Response to Arguments
1. 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).
2. Grounds for the rejection of claims are provided below as necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. Claim(s) 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over Okamura Isanaka (JP 2008067467). Hereafter “Okamura”. (Please see attached files for Okamura’s reference).
Regarding Claim(s) 12, 18, 19, 20, Okamura teaches a system/apparatus/method/medium for detecting deterioration of a utility pole, comprising:
a receiver configured to receive, from an optical fiber laid on a utility pole (page 2, lines 25-27; Figure 2, pole breakage monitoring system 10. Monitoring system is not different from a receiver), backscattered light corresponding to an optical pulse launched into the optical fiber, the backscattered light including a pattern corresponding to a deterioration state of the utility pole; and a detector configured to detect the deterioration state of the utility pole based on the pattern included in the backscattered light, (page 4, lines 8-24; Page 8, lines 34-41. Level change of the backscattered light is not different from the pattern included in the backscattered light),
wherein the receiver is configured to identify a utility pole that has generated the backscattered light based on a generation position of the backscattered light and pre-acquired information indicating positions of the utility pole (page 4, lines 47-49; Page 5, lines 1-5, 14-24).
Further, according to claim 20, Okamura teaches computer-readable recording medium, (page 11, lines 32-43).
Regarding Claim(s) 13, Okamura teaches the backscattered light received by the receiver is backscattered light received from the optical fiber that extends via a plurality of utility poles (figure 2, pole 1, fiber r).
Regarding Claim(s) 14, Okamura teaches the detector is configured to detect the deterioration state of the identified utility pole based on the pattern included in the backscattered light and a trained model corresponding to the identified utility pole, (page 4, lines 8-24; Page 8, lines 34-41. Level change of the backscattered light is not different from the pattern included in the backscattered light).
Regarding Claim(s) 15, Okamura teaches the detector is configured to detect the deterioration state of the utility pole on a periodic basis, and to detect a temporal change in the deterioration state of the utility pole, (page 4, lines 8-24; Page 8, lines 34-41. Level change of the backscattered light is not different from a temporal change; Figure 2, poles 1 are in periodic basis).
Regarding Claim(s) 16, Okamura teaches the detector is configured to detect a sign of deterioration or breakage of the utility pole based on the temporal change in the deterioration state of the utility pole (page 1, Abstract; Page 2, lines 1-27).
Regarding Claim(s) 17, Okamura teaches the detector is configured to learn the pattern corresponding to the deterioration state of the utility pole, and to detect the deterioration state of the utility pole based on a result of the learning and the pattern included in the backscattered light received by the receiver (page 4, lines 8-24; Page 8, lines 34-41).
Conclusion
4. 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.
Fax/Telephone Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI T TON whose telephone number is (571)272-9064. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached on (571)270-5789. 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.