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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Application filed on 06/13/2024
Claims 1-15 are pending in this case. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A). The Step 2A analysis is broken into two prongs. In the first prong (Step 2A, Prong 1), it is determined whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If it is determined in Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2), where it is determined whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If it is determined at step 2A, Prong 2 that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B). If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Applicant is advised to consult the 2019 PEG for more details of the analysis.
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Claims 1-7 are drawn to an information processing device, claims 8-14 are drawn to a information processing method and claim 15 is drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable medium, therefore each of these claim groups falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (machine/products/apparatus, process/method, manufactures and compositions of matter; Step 1). Nonetheless, the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea without significant more (Step 2A, see below). Independent claims 1 and 10 are nonverbatim but similar in claim construction, hence share the same rationale that the claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows:
Regarding claim 1:
Claim 1 recites: An information processing device comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute instructions to: acquire measurement signals measured at a plurality of measurement points on a laid optical fiber cable;
predict a predictive environment representing an environment of each of the measurement points from each of the measurement signals by using a prediction model set in advance; and
correct the predictive environment on a basis of a comparison between the predictive environment of each of the measurement points and the measurement signal measured at each of the measurement points
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, specifically, mental processes, organizing human activity and information processing/ data manipulation/ knowledge management. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Independent claim 1 recites in part:
predict a predictive environment representing an environment of each of the measurement points from each of the measurement signals […]
The limitation above is broadly and reasonably interpreted as a mental process. For example, an engineer observes vibration or temperature measurement from multiple locations along an optical fiber. Based on experience, the engineer predicts that one location indicates excavation activity, another indicates vehicle traffic, and another indicates normal conditions. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
correct the predictive environment on a basis of a comparison between the predictive environment of each of the measurement points and the measurement signal measured at each of the measurement points
The limitation above is broadly and reasonably interpreted as a mental process. For example, an engineer predicts that a location along an optical fiber indicates “vehicle traffic.” The engineer reviews the newly measured signal from that location. The engineer determined the measured signal is more consistent with “excavation”. Comparing information and revising a conclusion is a characteristic of a mental evaluation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Independent claim 1 recites in part:
An information processing device comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions, as drafted, amounts to adding the word “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception using a generic computer components. Such generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing data gathering and mathematical calculations) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
At least one processor configured to execute instructions to: acquire measurement signals measured at a plurality of measurement points on a laid optical fiber cable, as drafted, amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., pre-solution activity, gathering information). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). Also, recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing data gathering and mathematical calculations) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
[…] using a prediction model set in advance, as drafted, amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “prediction model” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
First, the additional elements directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the claimed limitations generally link the judicial exception to the technology environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
Second, the additional elements mere application of the abstract idea or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the limitations generally apply the use of a generic computer and/or process with the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
Independent claim 1 recites in part:
An information processing device comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions, as drafted, amounts to adding the word “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception using a generic computer components. Such generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing data gathering and mathematical calculations) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
At least one processor configured to execute instructions to: acquire measurement signals measured at a plurality of measurement points on a laid optical fiber cable, as drafted, amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., pre-solution activity, gathering information). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). Also, recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing data gathering and mathematical calculations) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
[…] using a prediction model set in advance, as drafted, amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “prediction model” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not eligible subject matter.
Therefore, in examining elements as recited by the limitations individually and as an ordered combination, as a whole the independent claim limitations do not recite what have the courts have identified as “significantly more”.
Regarding claim 8
Claim 8 recites: An information processing method comprising: acquiring measurement signals measured at a plurality of measurement points on a laid optical fiber cable;
predicting a predictive environment representing an environment of each of the measurement points from each of the measurement signals by using a prediction model set in advance; and
correcting the predictive environment on a basis of a comparison between the predictive environment of each of the measurement points and the measurement signal measured at each of the measurement points
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Claim 8 is directed to an abstract idea, specifically, mental processes, organizing human activity and information processing/ data manipulation/ knowledge management. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Independent claim 8 recites in part:
predict a predictive environment representing an environment of each of the measurement points from each of the measurement signals […]
The limitation above is broadly and reasonably interpreted as a mental process. For example, an engineer observes vibration or temperature measurement from multiple locations along an optical fiber. Based on experience, the engineer predicts that one location indicates excavation activity, another indicates vehicle traffic, and another indicates normal conditions. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
correct the predictive environment on a basis of a comparison between the predictive environment of each of the measurement points and the measurement signal measured at each of the measurement points
The limitation above is broadly and reasonably interpreted as a mental process. For example, an engineer predicts that a location along an optical fiber indicates “vehicle traffic.” The engineer reviews the newly measured signal from that location. The engineer determined the measured signal is more consistent with “excavation”. Comparing information and revising a conclusion is a characteristic of a mental evaluation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Independent claim 8 recites in part:
An information processing method comprising: acquiring measurement signals measured at a plurality of measurement points on a laid optical fiber cable, as drafted, amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., pre-solution activity, gathering information). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
First, the additional elements directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the claimed limitations generally link the judicial exception to the technology environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
Second, the additional elements mere application of the abstract idea or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the limitations generally apply the use of a generic computer and/or process with the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
Independent claim 8 recites in part:
An information processing method comprising: acquiring measurement signals measured at a plurality of measurement points on a laid optical fiber cable, as drafted, amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., pre-solution activity, gathering information). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not eligible subject matter.
Therefore, in examining elements as recited by the limitations individually and as an ordered combination, as a whole the independent claim limitations do not recite what have the courts have identified as “significantly more”.
Regarding claim 15
Claim 15 recites: A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing thereon a program comprising instructions for causing a computer to execute processing to:
acquire measurement signals measured at a plurality of measurement points on a laid optical fiber cable;
predict a predictive environment representing an environment of each of the measurement points from each of the measurement signals by using a prediction model set in advance; and
correct the predictive environment on a basis of a comparison between the predictive environment of each of the measurement points and the measurement signal measured at each of the measurement points
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Claim 15 is directed to an abstract idea, specifically, mental processes, organizing human activity and information processing/ data manipulation/ knowledge management. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Independent claim 15 recites in part:
predict a predictive environment representing an environment of each of the measurement points from each of the measurement signals […]
The limitation above is broadly and reasonably interpreted as a mental process. For example, an engineer observes vibration or temperature measurement from multiple locations along an optical fiber. Based on experience, the engineer predicts that one location indicates excavation activity, another indicates vehicle traffic, and another indicates normal conditions. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
correct the predictive environment on a basis of a comparison between the predictive environment of each of the measurement points and the measurement signal measured at each of the measurement points
The limitation above is broadly and reasonably interpreted as a mental process. For example, an engineer predicts that a location along an optical fiber indicates “vehicle traffic.” The engineer reviews the newly measured signal from that location. The engineer determined the measured signal is more consistent with “excavation”. Comparing information and revising a conclusion is a characteristic of a mental evaluation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Independent claim 15 recites in part:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing thereon a program comprising instructions for causing a computer to execute processing to:
acquire measurement signals measured at a plurality of measurement points on a laid optical fiber cable, as drafted, amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., pre-solution activity, gathering information). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). Also, recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing data gathering and mathematical calculations) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
First, the additional elements directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the claimed limitations generally link the judicial exception to the technology environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
Second, the additional elements mere application of the abstract idea or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the limitations generally apply the use of a generic computer and/or process with the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
Independent claim 15 recites in part:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing thereon a program comprising instructions for causing a computer to execute processing to:
acquire measurement signals measured at a plurality of measurement points on a laid optical fiber cable, as drafted, amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., pre-solution activity, gathering information). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). Also, recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing data gathering and mathematical calculations) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not eligible subject matter.
Therefore, in examining elements as recited by the limitations individually and as an ordered combination, as a whole the independent claim limitations do not recite what have the courts have identified as “significantly more”.
Furthermore, regarding dependent claims 2-7 which are dependent on claim 1 and claims 9-14 which is dependent on claim 8, the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more as highlighted below in the claim limitations by evaluating the claim limitations under Step 2A and 2B:
Claim(s) 2 and 9 are dependent on claims 1 and 8 respectively and doesn’t provide integration into a practical application or add significantly more to the abstract idea because this merely includes generic computer components and therefore doesn’t break away from the reason for the identified abstract idea.
Claim(s) 3 and 10 are dependent on claims 2 and 9 respectively, and incorporate a mental process, as a form of mental evaluation or judgement, and or by a human using a pen and paper. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim(s) 4 and 11 are dependent on claims 2 and 9 respectively and doesn’t provide integration into a practical application or add significantly more to the abstract idea because this merely includes generic computer components and therefore doesn’t break away from the reason for the identified abstract idea.
Claim(s) 5 and 12 are dependent on claims 4 and 11 respectively and include additional elements recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
Claims 6 and 13 are dependent on claim 5 and 12 and incorporate a mental process, as a form of mental evaluation or judgement, and or by a human using a pen and paper. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claims 7 and 14 are dependent on claims 6 and 13 and incorporate a mental process, as a form of mental evaluation or judgement, and or by a human using a pen and paper. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
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.
Claims 1-3, 8-10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAN et al. (Pub No.: 20220196462 A1), hereinafter referred to as HAN, in view of Nicholson et al. (Pub No.: 20120030154 A1), hereinafter referred to as Nicholson and further in view of Hill et al. (US Patent No. 9,739,645 B2), hereinafter referred to a Hill.
With respect to claim 1, HAN disclose:
Predict a predictive environment representing an environment of each of the measurement points from each of the measurement signals by using a prediction model set in advance (In paragraphs [0022, 0028, 0044 and 0067] collectively, HAN teaches predicting a predictive environment using a prediction model. Paragraphs [0022] and [0028], disclose that the distributed fiber optic sensing system includes an AI-based distance predictor model that processes measurement signals collected from a deployed optical fiber. Paragraph [0044] further explains that the AI predictive probabilistic model, to receive vibration intensities from multiple sensing points and determine a predicted perpendicular distance of a vibration source. Paragraph [0067], confirms that the disclosed probabilistic model predicts vibration-source distance with high accuracy.)
With respect to claim 1, HAN do not explicitly disclose:
Correct the predictive environment on a basis of a comparison between the predictive environment of each of the measurement points and the measurement signal measured at each of the measurement points
An information processing device comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions
At least one processor configured to execute instructions to: acquire measurement signals measured at a plurality of measurement points on a laid optical fiber cable
However, it is known by Nicholson to disclose:
Correct the predictive environment on a basis of a comparison between the predictive environment of each of the measurement points and the measurement signal measured at each of the measurement points (Under the broadest interpretation, the recited limitation of correct the predictive environment” encompasses updating, revising, modifying or otherwise adjusting the previously predicted environment. In paragraph [0028], Nicholson discloses the estimated (predicted) state, compares measurements with the estimated state, and updates the estimate using the new measurement.)
HAN and Nicholson are analogous pieces of art because both are distributing fiber optic sensing systems commonly obtaining measurement at numerous virtual sensing locations along a single fiber. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify HAN with estimating/determining the proximity of potentially damaging vibration sources to the optical sensor fiber as taught by HAN, with updating measurement, which is intended to correct the bias in the original measurement taken by the sensor as taught by Nicholson. The motivation for doing so would have been to the cables—particularly threats developing perpendicular to the optical fiber and thus improve the reliability of infrastructures (See [0058] of HAN).
With respect to claim 1, HAN in view of Nicholson do not explicitly disclose:
An information processing device comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions
At least one processor configured to execute instructions to: acquire measurement signals measured at a plurality of measurement points on a laid optical fiber cable
However, it is known by Hill to disclose:
An information processing device comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions (In Col. 13, lines 17–26, Hill discloses a computer readable medium having stored thereon a program for carrying out any of the methods described herein and/or for embodying any of the apparatus features described herein.)
At least one processor configured to execute instructions to: acquire measurement signals measured at a plurality of measurement points on a laid optical fiber cable (In Col. 11, lines 17–20, Hill disclose a processor configured to: analyze the back-scattered radiation to determine a measurement signal for a plurality of discrete longitudinal sensing portions of the optic fiber. In Col. 17, lines 10-19, Hill discloses acquiring measurement signals measured at a plurality of measurement points on a laid optical fiber cable. Specifically, the reference describes a distributed fiber optic sensor in which the optical fiber itself functions as the sensing element. Coherent light is launched into the deployed optical fiber, and Rayleigh backscattered light from different portions of the fiber is detected and analyzed to obtain measurement signals.)
HAN in view of Nicholson and Hill are analogous pieces of art because both are distributing fiber optic sensing systems commonly obtaining measurement at numerous virtual sensing locations along a single fiber. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hill, with providing measurement signals corresponding to a plurality of longitudinal sensing portions of the fiber as taught by Hill. The motivation for doing so would have been improve the flexibility of the distributed fiber optic sensor, reduce false alarms and provide a more intelligible and meaningful output to an operator to monitor the sensor system (See (Col. 2, lines 56-58) of Hill.)
Regarding claim 2, HAN in view of Nicholson and Hill disclose the elements of claim 1. In addition, Nicholson disclose:
The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: generate first relationship information representing a relationship of the predictive environments between the measurement points, and second relationship information representing a relationship of the measurement signals between the measurement points, and correct the predictive environment on a basis of a comparison between the first relationship information and the second relationship information (In paragraph [0011], Nicholson discloses that the first sensor may be part of a Distributed Data Fusion (DDF) network, including at least one further sensor. The method may further include fusing the updated target measurement with at least one further target measurement obtained from the least one further sensor in the distributed sensor fusion network to generate a fused measurement or measurements relating to the at least one target. The step of applying the Gaussian Process technique can include performing a learning process based on the at least one target measurement and the fused measurement or measurements to generate a training set for use with the regression model.)
Regarding claim 3, HAN in view of Nicholson and Hill disclose the elements of claim 1. In addition, Hill disclose:
The information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to correct the predictive environment on a basis of a similarity between the first relationship information and the second relationship information (In Col. 7, lines 4-12, Hill disclose similar to the characteristics of an event of interest for the land based portions of the fiber and thus in this situation events which are relevant for the second zone may not be at all relevant for the first zone.)
With respect to claim 8, HAN disclose:
Predicting a predictive environment representing an environment of each of the measurement points from each of the measurement signals by using a prediction model set in advance (In paragraphs [0022, 0028, 0044 and 0067] collectively, HAN teaches predicting a predictive environment using a prediction model. Paragraphs [0022] and [0028], disclose that the distributed fiber optic sensing system includes an AI-based distance predictor model that processes measurement signals collected from a deployed optical fiber. Paragraph [0044] further explains that the AI predictive probabilistic model, to receive vibration intensities from multiple sensing points and determine a predicted perpendicular distance of a vibration source. Paragraph [0067], confirms that the disclosed probabilistic model predicts vibration-source distance with high accuracy.)
With respect to claim 8, HAN do not explicitly disclose:
Correcting the predictive environment on a basis of a comparison between the predictive environment of each of the measurement points and the measurement signal measured at each of the measurement points
An information processing method comprising: acquiring measurement signals measured at a plurality of measurement points on a laid optical fiber cable
However, it is known by Nicholson to disclose:
Correcting the predictive environment on a basis of a comparison between the predictive environment of each of the measurement points and the measurement signal measured at each of the measurement points (Under the broadest interpretation, the recited limitation of correct the predictive environment” encompasses updating, revising, modifying or otherwise adjusting the previously predicted environment. In paragraph [0028], Nicholson discloses the estimated (predicted) state, compares measurements with the estimated state, and updates the estimate using the new measurement.)
HAN and Nicholson are analogous pieces of art because both are distributing fiber optic sensing systems commonly obtaining measurement at numerous virtual sensing locations along a single fiber. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify HAN with estimating/determining the proximity of potentially damaging vibration sources to the optical sensor fiber as taught by HAN, with updating measurement, which is intended to correct the bias in the original measurement taken by the sensor as taught by Nicholson. The motivation for doing so would have been to the cables—particularly threats developing perpendicular to the optical fiber and thus improve the reliability of infrastructures (See [0058] of HAN).
With respect to claim 8, HAN in view of Nicholson do not explicitly disclose:
An information processing method comprising: acquiring measurement signals measured at a plurality of measurement points on a laid optical fiber cable
However, it is known by Hill to disclose:
An information processing method comprising: acquiring measurement signals measured at a plurality of measurement points on a laid optical fiber cable (In Col. 11, lines 17–20, Hill disclose a processor configured to: analyze the back-scattered radiation to determine a measurement signal for a plurality of discrete longitudinal sensing portions of the optic fiber. In Col. 17, lines 10-19, Hill discloses acquiring measurement signals measured at a plurality of measurement points on a laid optical fiber cable. Specifically, the reference describes a distributed fiber optic sensor in which the optical fiber itself functions as the sensing element. Coherent light is launched into the deployed optical fiber, and Rayleigh backscattered light from different portions of the fiber is detected and analyzed to obtain measurement signals.)
HAN in view of Nicholson and Hill are analogous pieces of art because both are distributing fiber optic sensing systems commonly obtaining measurement at numerous virtual sensing locations along a single fiber. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hill, with providing measurement signals corresponding to a plurality of longitudinal sensing portions of the fiber as taught by Hill. The motivation for doing so would have been improve the flexibility of the distributed fiber optic sensor, reduce false alarms and provide a more intelligible and meaningful output to an operator to monitor the sensor system (See (Col. 2, lines 56-58) of Hill.)
Regarding claim 9, HAN in view of Nicholson and Hill disclose the elements of claim 8. In addition, Nicholson disclose:
The information processing method according to claim 8, further comprising generating first relationship information representing a relationship of the predictive environments between the measurement points, and second relationship information representing a relationship of the measurement signals between the measurement points, and correcting the predictive environment on a basis of a comparison between the first relationship information and the second relationship information (In paragraph [0011], Nicholson discloses that the first sensor may be part of a Distributed Data Fusion (DDF) network, including at least one further sensor. The method may further include fusing the updated target measurement with at least one further target measurement obtained from the least one further sensor in the distributed sensor fusion network to generate a fused measurement or measurements relating to the at least one target. The step of applying the Gaussian Process technique can include performing a learning process based on the at least one target measurement and the fused measurement or measurements to generate a training set for use with the regression model.)
Regarding claim 10, HAN in view of Nicholson and Hill disclose the elements of claim 8. In addition, Hill disclose:
The information processing method according to claim 9, further comprising correcting the predictive environment on a basis of a similarity between the first relationship information and the second relationship information (In Col. 7, lines 4-12, Hill disclose similar to the characteristics of an event of interest for the land based portions of the fiber and thus in this situation events which are relevant for the second zone may not be at all relevant for the first zone.)
With respect to claim 15, HAN disclose:
Predict a predictive environment representing an environment of each of the measurement points from each of the measurement signals by using a prediction model set in advance (In paragraphs [0022, 0028, 0044 and 0067] collectively, HAN teaches predicting a predictive environment using a prediction model. Paragraphs [0022] and [0028], disclose that the distributed fiber optic sensing system includes an AI-based distance predictor model that processes measurement signals collected from a deployed optical fiber. Paragraph [0044] further explains that the AI predictive probabilistic model, to receive vibration intensities from multiple sensing points and determine a predicted perpendicular distance of a vibration source. Paragraph [0067], confirms that the disclosed probabilistic model predicts vibration-source distance with high accuracy.)
With respect to claim 15, HAN do not explicitly disclose:
Correct the predictive environment on a basis of a comparison between the predictive environment of each of the measurement points and the measurement signal measured at each of the measurement points
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing thereon a program comprising instructions for causing a computer to execute processing to: acquire measurement signals measured at a plurality of measurement points on a laid optical fiber cable
However, it is known by Nicholson to disclose:
Correct the predictive environment on a basis of a comparison between the predictive environment of each of the measurement points and the measurement signal measured at each of the measurement points (Under the broadest interpretation, the recited limitation of correct the predictive environment” encompasses updating, revising, modifying or otherwise adjusting the previously predicted environment. In paragraph [0028], Nicholson discloses the estimated (predicted) state, compares measurements with the estimated state, and updates the estimate using the new measurement.)
HAN and Nicholson are analogous pieces of art because both are distributing fiber optic sensing systems commonly obtaining measurement at numerous virtual sensing locations along a single fiber. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify HAN with estimating/determining the proximity of potentially damaging vibration sources to the optical sensor fiber as taught by HAN, with updating measurement, which is intended to correct the bias in the original measurement taken by the sensor as taught by Nicholson. The motivation for doing so would have been to the cables—particularly threats developing perpendicular to the optical fiber and thus improve the reliability of infrastructures (See [0058] of HAN).
With respect to claim 15, HAN in view of Nicholson do not explicitly disclose:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing thereon a program comprising instructions for causing a computer to execute processing to: acquire measurement signals measured at a plurality of measurement points on a laid optical fiber cable
However, it is known by Hill to disclose:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing thereon a program comprising instructions for causing a computer to execute processing to: acquire measurement signals measured at a plurality of measurement points on a laid optical fiber cable (In Col. 11, lines 17–20, Hill disclose a processor configured to: analyze the back-scattered radiation to determine a measurement signal for a plurality of discrete longitudinal sensing portions of the optic fiber. In Col. 17, lines 10-19, Hill discloses acquiring measurement signals measured at a plurality of measurement points on a laid optical fiber cable. Specifically, the reference describes a distributed fiber optic sensor in which the optical fiber itself functions as the sensing element. Coherent light is launched into the deployed optical fiber, and Rayleigh backscattered light from different portions of the fiber is detected and analyzed to obtain measurement signals.)
HAN in view of Nicholson and Hill are analogous pieces of art because both are distributing fiber optic sensing systems commonly obtaining measurement at numerous virtual sensing locations along a single fiber. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hill, with providing measurement signals corresponding to a plurality of longitudinal sensing portions of the fiber as taught by Hill. The motivation for doing so would have been improve the flexibility of the distributed fiber optic sensor, reduce false alarms and provide a more intelligible and meaningful output to an operator to monitor the sensor system (See (Col. 2, lines 56-58) of Hill.)
Claims 4-6 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAN, in view of Nicholson, Hill and further in view of ROBINSON et al. (Pub No.: 20200356835 A1), hereinafter referred to a ROBINSON.
Regarding claim 4, HAN in view of Nicholson and Hill disclose elements of claim 2. HAN in view of Nicholson and Hill do not explicitly disclose:
The information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: for each of the measurement points, predict a predictive value with respect to each of a plurality of types of environment set in advance as the predictive environment, by using the prediction model; and generate a relationship of the predictive values that are predictive environments between the measurement points as the first relationship information
However, ROBINSON disclose the limitation (In paragraph [0068], ROBINSON discloses multiple sensing locations and prediction conditions. These predictions take the shared information from both sensors but represent this information in the latent space for each sensor. Spatial relationships among sensing locations, comparing information across locations, and updating or refining predictions.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of HAN in view of Nicholson and Hill to include ROBSINSON, with sensors to focus on the most important areas and features within the environment in order to provide the most effective sensor data as taught by ROBSINSON. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide improved sensor data for optimized environmental sensing (e.g. to an autonomous vehicle control system) (See [0001] of ROBSINSON.)
Regarding claim 5, HAN in view of Nicholson, Hill and ROBSINSON disclose elements of claim 4. In addition, Hill disclose:
The information processing device according to claim 4, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to generate the first relationship information in which a relationship of the predictive values between two of the measurement points serves as each element, and generate the second relationship information in which a relationship of the measurement signals between two of the measurement points serves as each element (In Col. 9, lines 33–39, Hill discloses that the first zone having a first sensing function at a first effective spatial resolution and a second zone having a second sensing function at a second effective spatial resolution. In some embodiments, however, the first and second subsets of longitudinal sensing portions may require or allow different analysis.)
Regarding claim 6, HAN in view of Nicholson, Hill and ROBSINSON disclose elements of claim 5. In addition, Hill disclose:
The information processing device according to claim 5, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to correct the predictive environment on a basis of a similarity between the elements corresponding to same two measurement points in the first relationship information and the second relationship information (In Col.9, lines 30–39, Hill discloses that the measurement signals from the first subset of longitudinal sensing portions may be analyzed in the same way as the measurement signals from the second subset. This may still provide a first zone having a first sensing function at a first effective spatial resolution and a second zone having a second sensing function at a second effective spatial resolution. In some embodiments, however, the first and second subsets of longitudinal sensing portions may require or allow different analysis.)
Regarding claim 11, HAN in view of Nicholson and Hill disclose elements of claim 9. HAN in view of Nicholson and Hill do not explicitly disclose:
The information processing method according to claim 9, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: for each of the measurement points, predict a predictive value with respect to each of a plurality of types of environment set in advance as the predictive environment, by using the prediction model; and generate a relationship of the predictive values that are predictive environments between the measurement points as the first relationship information
However, ROBINSON disclose the limitation (In paragraph [0068], ROBINSON discloses multiple sensing locations and prediction conditions. These predictions take the shared information from both sensors but represent this information in the latent space for each sensor. Spatial relationships among sensing locations, comparing information across locations, and updating or refining predictions.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of HAN in view of Nicholson and Hill to include ROBSINSON, with sensors to focus on the most important areas and features within the environment in order to provide the most effective sensor data as taught by ROBSINSON. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide improved sensor data for optimized environmental sensing (e.g. to an autonomous vehicle control system) (See [0001] of ROBSINSON.)
Regarding claim 12, HAN in view of Nicholson, Hill and ROBSINSON disclose elements of claim 11. In addition, Hill disclose:
The information processing device method to claim 11, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to generate the first relationship information in which a relationship of the predictive values between two of the measurement points serves as each element, and generate the second relationship information in which a relationship of the measurement signals between two of the measurement points serves as each element (In Col. 9, lines 33–39, Hill discloses that the first zone having a first sensing function at a first effective spatial resolution and a second zone having a second sensing function at a second effective spatial resolution. In some embodiments, however, the first and second subsets of longitudinal sensing portions may require or allow different analysis.)
Regarding claim 13, HAN in view of Nicholson, Hill and ROBSINSON disclose elements of claim 12. In addition, Hill disclose:
The information processing method according to claim 12, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to correct the predictive environment on a basis of a similarity between the elements corresponding to same two measurement points in the first relationship information and the second relationship information (In Col.9, lines 30–39, Hill discloses that the measurement signals from the first subset of longitudinal sensing portions may be analyzed in the same way as the measurement signals from the second subset. This may still provide a first zone having a first sensing function at a first effective spatial resolution and a second zone having a second sensing function at a second effective spatial resolution. In some embodiments, however, the first and second subsets of longitudinal sensing portions may require or allow different analysis.)
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAN, in view of Nicholson, Hill and further in view of Achin et al. (Pub No.: 20210326782 A1), hereinafter referred to a Achin.
Regarding claim 7, HAN in view of Nicholson and Hill disclose elements of claim 2. HAN in view of Nicholson and Hill do not explicitly disclose:
The information processing device according to claim 6, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to calculate a reliability of the predictive environment at each of the measurement points on a basis of the similarity between the elements, and correct the predictive environment on a basis of the reliability of each of the measurement points
However, Achin disclose the limitation (In paragraph [01229], Achin discloses generating predictive models, evaluating model confidence/reliability, selecting or weighting predictions based on reliability metrics and using similarity and predictive performance to determine how much confidence to place in prediction.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of HAN in view of Nicholson and Hill to include Achin, with a predictive model for the prediction problem may be selected based on those results as taught by Achin. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the performance of predictive modeling system (See [0119] of Achin.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVEL HONORE whose telephone number is (703)756-1179. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 a.m. -5:30 p.m.
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, Mariela D Reyes can be reached at (571) 270-1006. 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.
EVEL HONORE
Examiner
Art Unit 2142
/Mariela Reyes/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2142
Prosecution Insights