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 Arguments
Applicant's amendment, filed 12/19/2025, has overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation of “vibration detection means”. This interpretation has been withdrawn.
Applicant has amended “signal analysis means” and “association means” with “signal analysis unit” and “an association unit”. This does not overcome the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), and the analysis of this language is discussed below.
The interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) of “a step of analyzing” has been withdrawn, and therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) with respect to this interpretation has been rendered moot.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025, with regards to the rejection of claims 1 and 9 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument for claims 1 and 9 that “the moving body increases the magnitude of the vibration signal as the distance from the optical fiber increases” is not suggested by Ernst or Wilczek, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. It is noted that this is claimed as an intended use of the moving body, which could be performed by a human, and does not appear to be structural to the computer readable medium or the calibration system. As there does not appear to be any structural difference between the structure of claim 1 or 9 and the prior art device rendered obvious by Ernst in view of Wilczek, the prior art device is capable of performing this function, and therefore meets this limitation. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1 and 9 based on this prior art has been maintained.
As claim 8 is directed to a method, this argument is persuasive for the rejection based on Ernst in view of Wilczek. Therefore, this rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
A signal analysis unit (claim 1) - disclosed as an optical fiber sensor in ⁋ 20
An association unit (claims 1-3) – disclosed as an ordinary computer in ⁋ 27
An environmental information acquisition unit (claim 3) – disclosed as a program that pulls environmental information from another device, such as a server in ⁋ 61
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20150166087A1 (Ernst) in light of US20210140122A1 (Wilczek).
As to claim 1, teaches a calibration system comprising [0005]:
a moving body configured to generate a vibration signal ([0008] teaches movable vibration device);
an optical fiber (fiberoptic waveguide 50 [0028] with 30, Fig. 1, detection device such as photodetector [0024],), which is provided within the predetermined region (waveguide 50 is disposed along a stretch of track 100, [0025]), for detecting a vibration signal generated in the predetermined region [0028-29], Fig. 2;
a processor programmed to function as: a signal analysis unit (60 evaluation device) configured to analyze the vibration signal detected by the optical fiber ([0024] teaches detection device 30 transmits signals to evaluation device 60 which evaluates them), and
calculate a position on the optical fiber where the optical fiber detects the vibration signal (Fig. 2, [0028]); and
an association unit configured to (evaluation device 60) calibrate the optical fiber at a predetermined timing by associating the position on the optical fiber where the optical fiber detects the vibration signal with a position in the predetermined region (backscatter pattern Rme (Fig. 3) of vibration device 70 is produced in a known location of fiberoptic waveguide 50 (vibration detection device), because the location of 70 is known, [0037-38], [00038] teaches evaluation device measures time between generation of the activation signal and the detection of the backscatter pattern Rme),
based on a generation position and a generation time point of the vibration signal generated by the moving body and the position on the optical fiber where the optical fiber detects the vibration signal and a detection time point thereof ([0013] teaches a predefined activation time of the vibration device, at a known location to calibrate the locating apparatus).
Ernst is silent to: a moving body configured to move within a predetermined region wherein the moving body increases the magnitude of the vibration signal as the distance from the optical fiber increases.
However, Wilczek teaches a moving body configured to move within a predetermined region used as the vibration source for calibration ([0008] teaches using rail vehicle traveling on track line with known vibrations for calibration).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art of Ernst to have the vibration device be movable along the stretch of track (100, Fig. 1 of Ernst), as suggested by Wilczek (rail vehicle 2, travels on track line 1, Fig. 1 of Wilczek) in order to yield the predictable result of being able to perform the calibration at multiple points along the track to see how the locally present conditions affect the sensor measuring data [0008] of Wilczek.
As discussed above, the claim language “wherein the moving body changes magnitude of the vibration signal, according to a distance from the vibration detection means”, is a recitation of intended use of the system. The manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus (See MPEP 2114).
The moving body of the combination (rail vehicle) is capable of moving at different speeds which would inherently change the magnitude, therefore the prior art of the combination is capable of being used in the above described manner.
As to claim 2, the combination teaches the calibration system according to claim 1, wherein the moving body travels within the predetermined region at a predetermined cycle (Wilczek [0013] teaches activating at predefined time), and Ernst teaches: the association unit calibrates the vibration detection means ([0013] teaches the evaluation device is used to calibrate the locating apparatus), when a difference between a position of the moving body that is calculated based on the vibration signal from the moving body and the result of association [0013], and a position of the moving body that is calculated by the moving body is equal to or more than a predetermined value [0038], as the predetermined timing ([0038] teaches predefined time duration range Tmin and Tmax).
As to claim 5, the combination teaches the calibration system according to claim 1, wherein the moving body changes magnitude of the vibration signal by changing a moving speed (this would be inherent with the moving body (i.e. rail vehicle traveling along track as explained in Claim 1) traveling at different speeds, i.e. coming to a stop, accelerating).
As to claim 6, the combination teaches the calibration system according to claim 1.
The combination is silent to: wherein the moving body operates in such a way as to generate the vibration signal in a predetermined pattern.
However, Wilczek teaches wherein the moving body operates in such a way as to generate the vibration signal in a predetermined pattern [0038].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination to wherein the moving body operates in such a way as to generate the vibration signal in a predetermined pattern, as taught by Wilczek, in order to ensure if other signals are detected the sensor can identify the calibration signal.
As to claim 7, the combination teaches the calibration system according to claim 1, wherein the moving body generates the vibration signal while moving within a predetermined distance from the vibration detection means (Ernst teaches stretch of track 100 along which rail vehicle 110 travels, if the moving body generating a vibration signal were modified as explained in claim 1, it would inherently be generating the vibration signal while moving within a predetermined distance from the vibration detection means (along stretch of track 100)).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20150166087A1 (Ernst) and US20210140122A1 (Wilczek) and further in light of US20160334543A1 (Nagrodsky).
As to claim 3, the combination teaches the calibration system according to claim 1.
The combination system is silent to: an environmental information acquisition unit for acquiring environmental information including at least one of weather information, disaster information, and construction information regarding the predetermined region,
wherein the association means determines the predetermined timing, based on the environmental information acquired by the environmental information acquisition means, and performs calibration of the vibration detection means.
However, Nagrodsky teaches that environmental conditions impact the manner in which the vibrations propagate and are detected [0029-30], Nagrodsky further teaches that the systems and methods can identify the differences caused by the environmental conditions and modify the information that is determined based on the detected vibrations to account for changes caused by the environmental conditions, and the system can self-correct changes in the vibrations not caused by the objects of interest [0019]. Control system 102 and sensing system 104 act as an environmental information acquisition unit and are used to detect changing environmental conditions (Fig. 1, [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination to include the environmental information acquisition means for acquiring environmental information, wherein the association means determines the predetermined timing, based on the environmental information acquired by the environmental information acquisition means, and performs calibration of the optical fiber, as taught by Nagrodsky in order to improve vitality, accuracy, precision, and functionality of the system and method as suggested by Nagrodsky [0019].
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20150166087A1 (Ernst) in light of US20210140122A1 (Wilczek) and WO-2020116022-A1 (Degawa)(English machine previously provided).
As to claim 9, Ernst teaches processing of analyzing a vibration signal detected by an optical fiber within a predetermined region ([0028-29], and as discussed above in relation to claim 1), and calculating a position on the optical fiber where the optical fiber detects the vibration signal (Fig. 2, [0028], and as discussed above in relation to claim 1); and processing of calibrating the optical fiber at a predetermined timing by associating the position on the optical fiber where the optical fiber detects the vibration signal with a position in the predetermined region, based on a generation position and a generation time point of the vibration signal generated by the moving body and the position on the optical fiber vibration detection means where the optical fiber vibration detection means detects the vibration signal and a detection time point thereof ([0013] teaches a predefined activation time of the vibration device, at a known location to calibrate the locating apparatus, and as discussed in relation to claim 1).
Ernst is silent to: a moving body configured to move along a distance and wherein the moving body increases the magnitude of the vibration signal as the distance from the optical fiber increases.
However, Wilczek teaches a moving body configured to move within a predetermined region used as the vibration source for calibration ([0008] teaches using rail vehicle traveling on track line with known vibrations for calibration).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art of Ernst to have the vibration device be movable along the stretch of track (100, Fig. 1 of Ernst), as suggested by Wilczek (rail vehicle 2, travels on track line 1, Fig. 1 of Wilczek) in order to yield the predictable result of being able to perform the calibration at multiple points along the track to see how the locally present conditions affect the sensor measuring data [0008] of Wilczek.
As discussed above, the claim language “wherein the moving body changes magnitude of the vibration signal, according to a distance from the vibration detection means”, is a recitation of intended use of the moving body, and does not appear to be part of the computer readable medium. The manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus (See MPEP 2114), and therefore, the combination meets this limitation.
The combination is silent to: a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program that causes a computer to execute the steps of the combination.
However, Degawa teaches a position estimating sensor system based on vibrations [0004] which utilizes a non-transitory computer-readable medium [0119] storing a program that causes a computer to execute the functions of the embodiments described [0119].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination to include a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program that causes a computer to execute the functions as described in order to automate the process of calibration.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is allowed over the prior art of record.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art, alone or in combination, fails to disclose a calibration method comprising a moving body which moves within a predetermined region and generates a vibration signal, wherein the moving body increases the magnitude of the vibration signal as the distance from the optical fiber increases, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim.
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 KARA E GEISEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2416. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm.
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, Allana Bidder can be reached at 571-272-5560. 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.
/KARA E. GEISEL/
Art Unit 2877