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 .
This action is responsive to the amendment of 10/15/2025.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
As amended, claim 10, and, with it, claims dependent on claim 10, now includes the optical fiber cable under test as a positively recited component. Since claim 1 and its dependent claims do not do so, claims 10 and 12-18 are no longer substantial duplicates of claims 1 and 3-9, so the warning regarding potential objections under 37 CFR 1.75 is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The amendments to claims 8 and 17 render them definite, so the rejections under 35 USC § 112(b) are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s first argument is that the claimed invention does not require advance preparation of information indicating an installation environment, but can be used based on sensing data and model patterns prepared in advance for each environment, however, this argument is not persuasive. It is unclear what difference exists between advance preparation of information compared to the use of sensing data and model patterns prepared in advance. Additionally, Hill does teach the use of actually acquired sensor data for particular portions of the optical fiber cable to compare to when detecting events in that portion (paragraph 38 of Hill).
Applicant’s second argument is that Hill only teaches setting zones based on operator judgment, but that the claimed invention detects the environment and sets zones based on acquired sensing data and sets sections according to the environment, however, this argument is not persuasive. First, Hill also teaches the use of previously acquired data when interpreting new data (paragraph 38), which is different from setting zones based only on operator judgement. Second, the claims as currently drafted do not require the choice of model patterns related to each installation environment be chosen without operator judgement. Also, note that merely automating a task, such as setting environments, previously performed manually, such as by operator judgement, is generally considered to be obvious (see MPEP 2144.04 III).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claims 1, 10, and 19 each have a paragraph added in the most recent amendment (lines 6-8 of claim 1, lines 7-9 of claim 2, and lines 4-6 of claim 19) that consists of four phrases separated by commas, however, the ordering of the phrases and/or the punctuation chosen renders the meaning of each of those paragraphs unclear. In particular, it is unclear how “and the sensing data” is intended to fit into the paragraph as a whole, as well as which phrases are intended to modify which other phrases. Are the one or more processors configured to set the sections and set the sensing data (based on model patterns in a particular state)? The paragraph is interpreted to instead mean that the first and second sections are set into that state based on a set of models and based on the sensing data.
Claims 3-9 and 12-18 are indefinite due to depending, directly or indirectly on indefinite claim 1 or 10.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-10, and 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hill (US Patent Publication 20120230629).
Regarding claim 1, Hill teaches an event detection device comprising: one or more memories storing instructions (paragraph 73, computer readable medium); and
one or more processors (paragraph 58, processor) configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire sensing data by executing fiber optic sensing (FIG. 1, interrogator 106) using an optical fiber cable (FIG. 1, sensing fiber 104);
set a first section (FIG. 3, zone 306a) and a second section (FIG. 3, second zone 306b), based on a model pattern related to each installation environment of the optical fiber cable (paragraph 36, distinguishing water-based disturbances vs land-based disturbances), in a state in which no detection target event is occurring, and the sensing data (paragraph 38, previously acquired signal that new data can be compared to do detect events);
detect occurrence of a first event (paragraph 107, digging) in the first section (FIG. 3, zone 306a) of the optical fiber cable (FIG. 1, sensing fiber 104) by using first sensing data in the sensing data, the first sensing data being based on first back scattering light generated in the first section (FIG. 3, section of histogram 310 labeled 306a); and
detect occurrence of a second event (paragraph 111, presence of vehicles or people) in the second section (FIG. 3, second zone 306b) of the optical fiber cable (FIG. 1, sensing fiber 104) by using second sensing data in the sensing data, the second sensing data being based on second back scattering light generated in the second section (FIG. 3, section of histogram 310 labeled 306b).
Regarding claim 3, Hill teaches the event detection device according to claim 1 (as described above), wherein the one or more processors are configured to further execute the instructions to: set an event related to an installation environment of the optical fiber cable in the first section to the first event by using the first sensing data (paragraph 107, designating section 306a to detect digging or tunneling, but not presence or movement of vehicles); and
set an event related to an installation environment of the optical fiber cable in the second section to the second event by using the second sensing data (paragraphs 113-114, detecting zone where benign digging is occurring and designating that zone to not detect digging while the benign digging is occurring).
Regarding claim 4, Hill teaches the event detection device according to claim 1 (as described above), wherein an installation environment of the optical fiber cable in the first section is different from an installation environment of the optical fiber cable in the second section (FIG. 3, section 306a is different from section 306b).
Regarding claim 5, Hill teaches the event detection device according to claim 1 (as described above),wherein the first event is different from the second event (paragraphs 107 and 113, Note that digging or tunneling is different from the presence or movement of vehicles).
Regarding claim 6, Hill teaches the event detection device according to claim 1 (as described above),wherein the first section at least partially overlaps the second section (paragraph 107, the part of the fiber used to detect digging (typically all of it) overlaps at least partially with the part of the fiber used to detect presence or motion of vehicles (those parts not located near a road)).
Regarding claim 7, Hill teaches the event detection device according to claim 1 (as described above),wherein the fiber optic sensing is distributed fiber optic sensing (paragraph 11).
Regarding claim 8, Hill teaches the event detection device according to claim 1 (as described above), wherein the event detection device includes an AI engine (paragraph 62, a processor classifying measurement signals based on whether they match one or more predetermined characteristics falls within the broadest reasonable interpretation of an AI engine).
Regarding claim 9, Hill teaches the event detection device according to claim 1 (as described above), wherein information about the first event is output to a first customer system (paragraph 129, system for generating an automated message to a response unit when digging is detected), and information about the second event is output to a second customer system (paragraph 129, audible alert system when detecting an approaching vehicle).
Regarding claim 10, Hill teaches an event detection system comprising: an optical fiber cable (FIG. 1, sensing fiber 104);
one or more memories storing instructions (paragraph 73, computer readable medium); and
one or more processors (paragraph 58, processor) configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire sensing data by executing fiber optic sensing (FIG. 1, interrogator 106) using the optical fiber cable (FIG. 1, sensing fiber 104);
set a first section (FIG. 3, zone 306a) and a second section (FIG. 3, second zone 306b), based on a model pattern related to each installation environment of the optical fiber cable (paragraph 36, distinguishing water-based disturbances vs land-based disturbances), in a state in which no detection target event is occurring, and the sensing data (paragraph 38, previously acquired signal that new data can be compared to do detect events):
detect occurrence of a first event (paragraph 107, digging) in the first section (FIG. 3, zone 306a) of the optical fiber cable (FIG. 1, sensing fiber 104) by using first sensing data in the sensing data, the first sensing data being based on first back scattering light generated in the first section (FIG. 3, section of histogram 310 labeled 306a); and
detect occurrence of a second event (paragraph 111, presence of vehicles or people) in the second section (FIG. 3, second zone 306b) of the optical fiber cable by using second sensing data in the sensing data, the second sensing data being based on second back scattering light generated in the second section (FIG. 3, section of histogram 310 labeled 306b).
Regarding claim 12, Hill teaches the event detection system according to claim 10 (as described above), wherein the one or more processors are configured to further execute the instructions to: set an event related to an installation environment of the optical fiber cable in the first section to the first event by using the first sensing data (paragraph 107, designating section 306a to detect digging or tunneling, but not presence or movement of vehicles); and
set an event related to an installation environment of the optical fiber cable in the second section to the second event by using the second sensing data (paragraphs 113-114, detecting zone where benign digging is occurring and designating that zone to not detect digging while the benign digging is occurring).
Regarding claim 13, Hill teaches the event detection system according to claim 10 (as described above), wherein an installation environment of the optical fiber cable in the first section is different from an installation environment of the optical fiber cable in the second section (FIG. 3, section 306a is different from section 306b).
Regarding claim 14, Hill teaches the event detection system according to claim 10 (as described above), wherein the first event is different from the second event (paragraphs 107 and 113, Note that digging or tunneling is different from the presence or movement of vehicles).
Regarding claim 15, Hill teaches the event detection system according to claim 10 (as described above), wherein the first section at least partially overlaps the second section (paragraph 107, the part of the fiber used to detect digging (typically all of it) overlaps at least partially with the part of the fiber used to detect presence or motion of vehicles (those parts not located near a road)) .
Regarding claim 16, Hill teaches the event detection system according to claim 10 (as described above), wherein the fiber optic sensing is distributed fiber optic sensing (paragraph 11).
Regarding claim 17, Hill teaches the event detection system according to claim 10 (as described above), wherein at the event detection system includes an Al engine (paragraph 62, a processor classifying measurement signals based on whether they match one or more predetermined characteristics falls within the broadest reasonable interpretation of an AI engine).
Regarding claim 18, Hill teaches the event detection system according to claim 10 (as described above), wherein information about the first event is output to a first customer system (paragraph 129, system for generating an automated message to a response unit when digging is detected) , and information about the second event is output to a second customer system (paragraph 129, audible alert system when detecting an approaching vehicle).
Regarding claim 19, Hill teaches an event detection method comprising: by a computer (paragraph 73, suitably programmed computer): acquiring sensing data by executing fiber optic sensing (FIG. 1, interrogator 106) using an optical fiber cable (FIG. 1, sensing fiber 104);
setting a first section (FIG. 3, zone 306a) and a second section (FIG. 3, second zone 306b), based on a model pattern related to each installation environment of the optical fiber cable (paragraph 36, distinguishing water-based disturbances vs land-based disturbances), in a state in which no detection target event is occurring, and the sensing data (paragraph 38, previously acquired signal that new data can be compared to do detect events);
detecting occurrence of a first event (paragraph 107, digging) in the first section (FIG. 3, zone 306a) of the optical fiber cable (FIG. 1, sensing fiber 104) by using first sensing data in the sensing data, the first sensing data being based on first back scattering light generated in the first section (FIG. 3, section of histogram 310 labeled 306a); and
detecting occurrence of a second event (paragraph 111, presence of vehicles or people) in the second section (FIG. 3, second zone 306b) of the optical fiber cable (FIG. 1, sensing fiber 104) by using second sensing data in the sensing data, the second sensing data being based on second back scattering light generated in the second section (FIG. 3, section of histogram 310 labeled 306b).
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D SCHNASE whose telephone number is (703)756-1691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at (571) 272-3995. 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.
/PAUL SCHNASE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/UZMA ALAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877