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
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4-03-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Huang does disclose specifically hitting manholes to generate sound and using that sound to determine the layout route of an optical fiber. However, the examiner disagrees with this line of reasoning. As the applicant states Huang does disclose hitting “close to a manhole cover,” and further Huang discloses in the same paragraph “Usually, determining locations of manholes (302) and/or poles (303) is easier than determining locations of optical fiber cable”. In other words, the exact location of a manhole on the surface is relatively easy to discover and using such location to then locate the position of the fiber cable is by extension ideal. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “close to a manhole cover” would also include hitting the manhole cover since one cannot get much closer than that. Therefore, the examiner disagrees with the applicant’s arguments and will maintain the rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al (PGPub 2023/0028676) (Huang).
Regarding Claims 1, 6, & 11, Huang discloses an optical fiber sensing system (Figs. 2 & 8) comprising:
an optical fiber configured to be buried in the ground and detect a hitting sound at a time when each of a plurality of manholes is hit in order (Paragraph 43). As disclosed a vibrator is used to create a noise and that the noise can be used close to locations at manholes. The vibrator would create said “hitting sound”;
at least one memory configured to store an instruction group. Since the instructions are disclosed as being run this would be inherent since some form of memory would be used to store them; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instruction group in such a way as to control a communication unit (DFOS system, 101) in such a way as to transmit pulsed light to the optical fiber, and also receive an optical signal from the optical fiber (Paragraphs 33-35);
extract, for each of the plurality of manholes, a detection result of the hitting sound by the optical fiber at a time when the manhole is hit, based on the pulsed light and the optical signa (Paragraph 44). By pairing the time stamps and the DFOS system data this limitation is being met;
decide, for each of the plurality of manholes, whether the manhole is located on a laying route of the optical fiber, based on the detection result (Paragraph 60) by pairing the acoustic signals and vibration signals the system is determining whether the manhole is located on the laying route of the optical fiber; and
determine, for each manhole located on the laying route of the optical fiber, a distance of the optical fiber from a location of the communication unit to a location of the manhole, based on the detection result, and determine the laying route of the optical fiber based on the distance of the optical fiber (Paragraphs 61 & 66, Last two steps of fig. 8).
The limitations of claims 6 & 11 are also met by this disclosure.
Regarding Claims 2, 7, & 12, Huang discloses the aforementioned. Further, Huang discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instruction group in such a way as to determine a laying route of the optical fiber, based on a relative magnitude relationship of a distance of the optical fiber between manholes on a laying route of the optical fiber (Paragraphs 48-52, & 65). The pairing of the acoustic signals with the vibration signals one is determining a magnitude relationship (peak matching) between them. Further, since the signal is being detected on some portion of the fiber and that portion can be between two manholes the limitation is met.
Regarding Claims 3, 8, & 13, Huang discloses the aforementioned. Further, Huang discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instruction group in such a way as to extract, as a detection result of the hitting sound, an acoustic characteristic indicating intensity of the hitting sound detected by the optical fiber at each distance of the optical fiber from a location of the communication unit to a location where the hitting sound is detected by the optical fiber (Paragraph 66, Fig. 10).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 9, 10, 14, & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang.
Regarding Claims 4, 9, & 14, Huang discloses the aforementioned. Further, Huang discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instruction group in such a way as to acquire in advance global positioning system (GPS) position information of each of the plurality of manholes, and map the laying route of the optical fiber on a map, based on GPS position information of each of the plurality of manholes (Paragraphs 44 & 61);
Huang fails to explicitly disclose the processor is configured to cause a display unit to display the laying route of the optical fiber mapped on the map;
However, the examiner takes official notice that this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing;
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was filed to modify Huang with the processor is configured to cause a display unit to display the laying route of the optical fiber mapped on the map because this is common sense and allows a user in the field to immediately see where the fiber is located quickly which is of critical importance (Huang, Paragraph 4).
Regarding Claims 5, 10, & 15, Huang discloses the aforementioned. Further, Huang discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instruction group in such a way as to map the laying route of the optical fiber and the plurality of manholes on a map, based on GPS position information of each of the plurality of manholes (Paragraphs 44 & 61);
Huang fails to explicitly disclose the processor is configured to cause the display unit to display the laying route of the optical fiber and the plurality of manholes mapped on the map;
However, the examiner takes official notice that this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing;
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was filed to modify Huang with the processor is configured to cause the display unit to display the laying route of the optical fiber and the plurality of manholes mapped on the map because this is common sense and allows a user in the field to immediately see where the fiber is located quickly which is of critical importance (Huang, Paragraph 4).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JONATHON COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-1323. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-7pm.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/JONATHON COOK/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 June 8, 2026
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights