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 .
Response to Amendment
In the amendments filed December 23rd, 2025, the following has occurred: claims 1, 6, and 11 have been amended; claims 1-15 remain pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aono (WO 2020116030 A1, “Aono’) in view of in view of Hill et al. (US 20040067004 A1, “Hill”).
Regarding claim 1, Aono discloses an optical fiber sensing system comprising: a plurality of optical fibers laid along a road (Fig. 14, [attached machine translation, pg. 11] (331A) and (331Z) are optical fiber sensing units arranged on a plurality of roads, each having a respective fiber optic cable (20))(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the arrangement of multiple fiber optic cables on multiple roads is equivalent to placing the fiber optic cables in a plurality of lanes); at least one memory storing instructions (Fig. 4 (402)), and at least one processor (Fig. 4 (401) configured to execute the instructions to; receive, for each of the plurality of lanes, an optical signal from the optical fiber provided corresponding to the lane and detect vibration generated by a vehicle traveling in the lane based on the optical signal ([attached machine translation, pg. 7] fiber sensing unit receives backscattered light received from the same communication optical fiber in order to generate positional information where the light is generated by a travelling vehicle); calculate, for each of the plurality of lanes, vibration data indicating the vibration detected in the lane based on the optical signal received from the optical fiber provided corresponding to the lane; and detect, for each of the plurality of lanes, a traveling state of the vehicle traveling in the lane based on the vibration data calculated for the lane ([attached machine translation, pg. 7], detection unit detects a vibration pattern indicative of the travelling state and position of a travelling vehicle on the road based on the received backscattered light)).
Aono may not explicitly teach a plurality of optical fibers laid along plurality of lanes, the plurality of lanes being provided on a road.
Hill teaches a plurality of optical fibers laid along plurality of lanes, the plurality of lanes being provided on a road ([0026]-[0030], sensor stations each comprise multiple optical fiber sensor separated by a known distance per lane of highway. This configuration allows the traffic monitoring system to be employed on any type of highway (including multi-lane) along its entire length, including known traffic congestion spots)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of distributed acoustic sensing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Aono, to include the multiple lane optical fiber sensing of Hill with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of monitoring multi-lane highways including spots of known traffic congestion [0030].
Regarding claim 2, Aono, as modified in view of Hill teaches the optical fiber sensing system according to claim 1. Aono further discloses the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to calculate, for each of the plurality of lanes, a position and a time at which the vibration detected in the lane has been generated based on the optical signal received from the optical fiber provided corresponding to the lane, and calculate calculates, for each of the plurality of lanes, a graph with a horizontal axis representing the position at which the vibration detected in the lane has been generated and a vertical axis representing the time at which the vibration detected in the lane has been generated as the vibration data ([attached machine translation, pg. 7], patterns according to the traveling state of the vehicle are represented as a graph in which the horizontal axis represents the distance from the fiber sensing unit, and the vertical axis represents the passage of time).
Regarding claim 3, Aono, as modified in view of Hill teaches the optical fiber sensing system according to claim 1. Aono further discloses the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to detect, for each of the plurality of lanes, a vehicle speed and a position of each vehicle traveling in the lane based on the vibration data calculated for the lane ([attached machine translation, pg. 6] vibration pattern used to determine the traveling state of the vehicle can be used to determine the speed of the vehicle)([attached machine translation, pg. 7] position on the road in which the light is generated is specified by fiber sensing units).
Regarding claim 5, Aono, as modified in view of Hill teaches the optical fiber sensing system according to claim 1 Aono further discloses the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to broadcast the traveling state of the vehicle traveling in the lane to a predetermined broadcasting destination for each of the plurality of lanes (implicit, [attached machine translation, pg. 10], traffic control system manages traffic of vehicles on the road based on detection result of road monitoring device, which includes fiber sensing unit and detection unit. Traffic control system is positioned at a different location)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that as the traffic control system is not collocated with the road monitoring device, there is an implicit broadcasting of the detection results).
Regarding claim 6, the claim is a device claim corresponding to claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 7, the claim is a device claim corresponding to claim 2 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 8, the claim is a device claim corresponding to claim 3 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is a device claim corresponding to claim 5 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 2 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 3 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 5 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 4, 9, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aono in view of Hill and Martin et al. (US 20180342156 A1, “Martin”).
Regarding claim 4, Aono, as modified in view of Hill teaches the optical fiber sensing system according to claim 3. Aono, as modified in view of Hill may not explicitly teach the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to further detect, for each of the plurality of lanes, an inter-vehicle distance between each vehicle traveling in the lane and a preceding vehicle or a following vehicle based on the vibration data calculated for the lane.
Martin teaches the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to further detect, for each of the plurality of lanes, an inter-vehicle distance between each vehicle traveling in the lane and a preceding vehicle or a following vehicle based on the vibration data calculated for the lane ([0107], average speed of vehicles in each lane may be used together with an indication of flow in the land to calculate the spacing of traffic in each lane).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of distributed acoustic sensing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Aono, as modified in view of Hill to include the vehicle spacing determination of Martin with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of monitoring the flow of traffic on a roadway [abstract].
Regarding claim 9, the claim is a device claim corresponding to claim 4 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 4 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, filed December 23rd, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 6, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Aono in view of Hill under 35 U.S.C. 103.
On pg. 2-3 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues that due to the alleged allowability of claims 1, 6, and 11, claims 2-5, 7-10, and 12-15 are therefore in condition for allowance. As noted in the response to arguments with respect to claims 1, 6, and 11, above, the rejections of the claims are maintained under new grounds (as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments). Therefore the rejections of claims 2-5, 7-10, and 12-15 are maintained.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Karabacak et al. (US 10458818 B2, “Karabacak”) which discloses a fiber-optic based traffic monitoring system
McEwen-King et al. (US 20130151203 A1, “McEwen-King”) which discloses a system and method for detecting moving objects using DAS systems
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 CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6136. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at 571-270-3603. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645