DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
“signal acquisition unit” in claims 1, 9-10, 13
“signal selection unit” in claims 1-7, 13
“section estimation unit” in claims 1, 13
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims are indefinite because the specification does not disclose the structure of the terms “signal acquisition unit” “signal selection unit” and “section estimation unit” in at least independent claims 1 and 13, and there is no corresponding structure described in the claims or specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation.
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.
Claims 1-12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 14 recite the judicial exception of a mathematical concept, in particular an apparatus and method of acquiring signals based on backscattered light and performing calculations. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are directed only to generic data acquisition “acquire a plurality of signal groups acquired based on backscattered light” and performing selection & determination steps.
Claim 1 only sets forth a processing apparatus that does data processing, and while the signal acquisition unit acquires a plurality of signal groups, this is “based on backscattered light” so the claim does not actively perform the process of sending light into the fiber and performing the detection of that light. Claim 14’s method steps parallel the functions in claim 1, as it also recites that the signal groups are acquired “based on backscattered light” rather than actively detecting the light.
Claims 1 and 14 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the concept of accepting data is not an inventive step (i.e. the claims do not actively acquire data, as opposed to claim 13).
Applicant’s specification paragraph 0030 indicates the signal selection is done by comparison to a threshold, and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) indicates “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping.” and as such is not patentable, even if the solution is for a specific purpose.
Regarding claims 2-7 the limitations merely further describe the function of the signal selection unit.
Regarding claim 8 the limitations are directed to the physical arrangement of the fibers.
Regarding claims 9-10 the limitations merely further describe the function of the signal acquisition unit.
Regarding claims 11-12 the limitations are directed to additional processing and analysis done by the processing apparatus, but do not recite positive steps of data acquisition.
. The selecting and determining count as ‘doing math’, and a final result of “determine one short gauge length section” isn’t enough to make the claims patentable.
Claim 13 performs active data collection with the steps of “output a light pulse” and “receive a monitoring result”, which raise the claim above generic data acceptance and the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This concept might be amended into claims 1 and 14 to integrate those abstract ideas into practical applications.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and/or 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 1, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a processing apparatus comprising an optic fiber used for distributed acoustic sensing, and a signal selection unit configured to select a long gauge length section based on a first signal feature of each of signal groups of the plurality of long gauge length sections and select a plurality of short gauge length sections corresponding to the selected long gauge length section; and a section estimation unit configured to determine one short gauge length section, as a section in which an event has occurred, based on a second signal feature of each of signal groups of the plurality of selected short gauge length sections, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim.
As to claim 13, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a distributed acoustic sensing system, comprising a signal selection unit configured to select a long gauge length section based on a first signal feature of each of signal groups of the plurality of long gauge length sections and select a plurality of short gauge length sections corresponding to the selected long gauge length section; and a section estimation unit configured to determine one short gauge length section, as a section in which an event has occurred, based on a second signal feature of each of signal groups of the plurality of selected short gauge length sections, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim.
As to claim 14, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a distributed acoustic sensing method comprising selecting a long gauge length section based on a first signal feature of each of signal groups of the plurality of long gauge length sections and selecting a plurality of short gauge length sections corresponding to the selected long gauge length section; and determining one short gauge length section, as a section in which an event has occurred, based on a second signal feature of each of signal groups of the plurality of selected short gauge length sections, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kojima (WO 2020157917) teaches a fiber optic detector (Figure 1) that receives two signals from an event (Abstract), but does not teach a long gauge signal that is used to select a set of short gauge signals.
Davis (US 20230108047) teaches the use of long and short gauge lengths (paragraph 0047) but averages weighted sets together instead of using one set to select another set.
Wu (WO 2018136056) teaches taking data from both long and short gauge lengths (paragraph 0038) but uses both sets of data (high SNR for long gauge, broad frequency spectrum for short gauge) , and it would not be obvious to modify or combine these references to obtain the applicant’s invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARREAS UNDERWOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-1536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0600-1400 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 2705789. 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.
/J.C.U/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877