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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oshimi et al. (WO 98/04895 A1) (hereinafter Oshimi) (citations reference attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Oshimi teaches a detection system [optical fiber monitoring device] (see Pg. 1) comprising: a first optical fiber cable [optical fiber 1] and a second optical fiber cable [reference optical fiber 22] (Pgs. 3-5, see Fig. 1); at least one memory storing instructions, and at least one processor [measurement controller 30 may be incorporated in optical fiber monitoring device 20 as a microprocessor or PC] (Pg. 5) configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire first sensing data corresponding to the first optical fiber [first and second measurement signals] and second sensing data corresponding to the second optical fiber data [first and second reference signals] by performing optical fiber sensing using each of the first optical fiber cable and the second optical fiber cable [light pulse sent and light returning is received for reference optical fiber and monitored optical fiber] (Pg. 3, see Fig. 1); and
detect occurrence of abnormality in the fist optical fiber cable or the second optical fiber cable on the basis of both the first sensing data and the second sensing data [waveform comparison unit 36; comparison of waveform with initial reference data; difference data used to determine drift amount; threshold comparison for determining fault in a monitored optical fiber] (Pgs. 5-7).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, Oshimi teaches a detection apparatus and method [optical fiber monitoring device and method] (see Pg. 1) comprising: at least one memory storing instructions, and at least one processor [measurement controller 30 may be incorporated in optical fiber monitoring device 20 as a microprocessor or PC] (Pg. 5) configured to execute the instructions to:
perform an acquisition step to acquire first sensing data corresponding to a first optical fiber [first and second measurement signals of monitored optical fiber 1] and second sensing data corresponding to a second optical fiber data [first and second reference signals of reference optical fiber 22] from a sensing unit configured to perform optical fiber sensing using each of the first optical fiber cable and the second optical fiber cable [OTDR unit 202; light pulse sent and light returning is received for reference optical fiber and monitored optical fiber] (Pg. 3, see Fig. 1); and
perform an abnormality detection step to detect occurrence of abnormality in the first optical fiber cable or the second optical fiber cable on the basis of both the first sensing data and the second sensing data [waveform comparison unit 36; comparison of waveform with initial reference data; difference data used to determine drift amount; threshold comparison for determining fault in a monitored optical fiber] (Pgs. 5-7).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshimi as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2020/0393290 A1) (hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Oshimi as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein each of the first sensing data and the second sensing data includes vibration data, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute instructions to detect the occurrence of the abnormality on the basis of a difference value between vibration intensity indicated by the first sensing data and vibration intensity indicated by the second sensing data. Chen teaches an optical fiber detection system and method wherein fiber optic sensing data includes vibration data (see Abstract), and a vibration measurement is compared to a reference optical fiber (Para [0051]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Oshimi with Chen such that each of the first sensing data and the second sensing data includes vibration data, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute instructions to detect the occurrence of the abnormality on the basis of a difference value between vibration intensity indicated by the first sensing data and vibration intensity indicated by the second sensing data, in order to calibrate a distributed optical fiber sensing system.
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Oshimi in view of Chen as applied to claims 2, 9, and 16 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein when detecting the occurrence of the abnormality on the basis of the difference value, the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to specify the first optical fiber cable or the second optical fiber cable corresponding to the sensing data in which the change occurs, among the first sensing data and the second sensing data, as the optical fiber cable in which the abnormality occurs [fault occurrence position of the monitored optical fiber 1 is obtained] (Oshimi Pg. 7).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, Oshimi in view of Chen as applied to claims 2, 9, and 16 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to monitor the difference value in response to a change in either the first sensing data or the second sensing data [first drift amount or second drift amount] (Oshimi Pg. 8).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20, Oshimi as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to acquire the first sensing data and the second sensing data by performing distributed optical fiber sensing using each of the first optical fiber cable and the second optical fiber cable. Chen teaches a distributed optical fiber sensing system (see Abstract), wherein fiber measurements are compared to a reference optical fiber (Para [0051]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Oshimi with Chen such that the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to acquire the first sensing data and the second sensing data by performing distributed optical fiber sensing using each of the first optical fiber cable and the second optical fiber cable, in order to calibrate a distributed optical fiber sensing system.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Oshimi as applied to claims 1 and 8 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to detect an environment around the first optical fiber cable and the second optical fiber cable on the basis of at least one of the first sensing data and the second sensing data. Chen teaches a distributed optical fiber sensing system for detecting an environment around an optical fiber (see Abstract), wherein fiber measurements are compared to a reference optical fiber (Para [0051]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Oshimi with Chen such that the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to detect an environment around the first optical fiber cable and the second optical fiber cable on the basis of at least one of the first sensing data and the second sensing data, in order to calibrate a distributed optical fiber sensing system.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshimi as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Ohno et al. (US 2018/0106977 A1) (hereinafter Ohno).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, Oshimi as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the abnormality includes damage due to animal feeding damage. Ohno teaches that commonly known damage to optical fibers include feeding damage caused by animals (Para [0049]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Oshimi with Ohno such that the abnormality includes damage due to animal feeding damage, in order to allow for detection of a common type of fiber optic damage.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID Z HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5360. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/DAVID Z HUANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855