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 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 2-4, 6-8, and 10-12 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "a phase difference signal at a position shifted in a longitudinal direction of the optical fiber" in line 4 of the claim. Claim 1 recites “a phase difference signal of backscattered light of laser light”. It is unclear if the “phase difference signal” of claim 2 is the same or different from the “phase difference signal” of claim 1. For examination purposes, “a phase difference signal” of claim 2 will be interpreted as the same signal as “a phase difference signal” of claim 1.
Claims 3 and 4 depend on claim 2, therefore claims 3 and 4 inherit the same issues as claim 2 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 6 and 10 are analogous to claim 2, therefore claims 6 and 10 have the same issues as claim 2 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 7 and 8 depend on claim 6, therefore claims 7 and 8 inherit the same issues as claim 6 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 11 and 12 depend on claim 10, therefore claims 11 and 12 inherit the same issues as claim 10 and are rejected for the same reasons.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea as discussed below. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the reasons discussed below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims are to one of the statutory categories of invention. Applied to the present application, the claims belong to the statutory class of a process or apparatus.
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two Prongs. Prong 1 requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that the abstract idea belong to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Claim 1 is copied below, with limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
A signal processing apparatus comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire a phase difference signal of backscattered light of laser light, by an optical fiber sensor configured to convert dynamic distortion of an optical fiber, at a first gauge length that is a predetermined section, into a phase difference of the backscattered light of the laser light passing through the first gauge length; and
a control unit configured to perform signal processing to obtain phase difference data of the backscattered light of the laser light at a second gauge length shorter than the first gauge length, from the acquired phase difference signal of the backscattered light of the laser light.
The limitation underline can be considered to describe a mathematical concept, namely a process to calculate phase difference data at a specific gauge length.
The additional limitation of “acquire a phase difference signal” is insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering, required to implement the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional limitation of “phase difference signal of the backscattered light of the laser light” only determines what information is used in the signal processing abstract idea, as such it does not amount to more than the abstract idea itself.
The additional limitations of “an acquisition unit” and “a control unit” do not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a computer (see ALICE CORP. v. CLS BANK INT’L 573 U. S. 208 (2014)).
The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea. The claim does not effect a real-world transformation or reduction of any particular article to a different state or thing. The claim does not contain additional elements which describe the functioning of a computer, or which describe a particular technology or technical field, being improved by the use of the abstract idea.
Step 2B of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The considerations for this particular claim are essentially the same as the considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2A, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 5 and 9 are analogous to claim 1. Claim 9 additionally recites “non-transitory computer readable medium”. This additional element is separate from the abstract idea that needs to be considered at Prong 2 of the 101 analysis. However, this additional element is merely a generic computer processing component that is invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which does not cause the claim as a whole to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Claims 5 and 9 are therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101 as well.
Dependent Claims 2-4 are similarly ineligible. Dependent Claim 2 adds the recited “calculate spatial difference data” and “remove a dummy signal” to the abstract idea limitations discussed above. Claim 2 additionally recites “spatial difference calculation unit” and “dummy signal removal unit” which do not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a computer. Dependent Claim 3 adds the recited “takes the spatial difference data” and “specifies a position” to the abstract idea limitations. Dependent Claim 4 adds a list of equations to the abstract idea limitations.
None of these dependent claims recite any further additional elements which would cause the claim as a whole to integrate the recited abstract idea into a particular practical application at Prong 2, or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea at Step 2B. Claims 2-4 are therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101 as well.
Dependent Claims 6-8 and 10-12 are analogous to claims 2-4, and are therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101 for analogous reasons.
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, 5-7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 20190331819 A1) in view of Cuny (US 20190227184 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Wu teaches a signal processing apparatus comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire a phase difference signal of backscattered light of laser light (330 Demodulator Fig. 3; Para 38: “A demodulator 330 can be used for splitting the beam and computing the phase difference between laser pulses”),
by an optical fiber sensor configured to convert dynamic distortion of an optical fiber (325 Interrogator Fig. 3; Para 38: “an interrogator 325 that receives the pulse trains”),
at a first gauge length that is a predetermined section (308 Gauge Length Fig. 3; Para 38: “laser pulses separated by the spacing of gauge length 308”),
into a phase difference of the backscattered light of the laser light passing through the first gauge length (Para 38: “computing the phase difference between laser pulses”); and
a control unit configured to perform signal processing to obtain phase difference data of the backscattered light of the laser light at a second gauge length (2330 Fig. 23; Para 77: “generate a prediction of a seismic wavefield of arbitrary gauge length is generated”)
from the acquired phase difference signal of the backscattered light of laser light (Para 77: “Such generation can be performed based on attenuation factors of the plurality of wavefields”).
Wu does not explicitly teach a second gauge length shorter than the first gauge length.
Cuny teaches an optimal gauge length (Fig. 3; Para 37: “Having selected the three criteria 50, 52, and 54, constraints then were applied to the criteria in order to define an optimal GL”, “In embodiments in which LF Boost 50, HF Attenuation 52 and Resolution Loss 54 are selected as the criteria, other target values can be selected. For example, in some applications, preservation of bandwidth may be considered more important than SNR”, and “In other applications, preservation of bandwidth may be considered less important than improvement of the SNR”. The examiner notes that Cuny teaches selection of an optimal gauge length based on the prioritization of bandwidth and SNR).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a shorter second gauge length when applying the teachings of Cuny to the arbitrary gauge length of Wu. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed invention is a result of routine optimization. The selection of a second gauge length shorter than the first gauge length amounts to an optimization based on the exact needs of the system.
Regarding Claim 2, Wu in view of Cuny teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Wu further teaches wherein the control unit includes:
a spatial difference data calculation unit configured to calculate spatial difference data indicating a spatial difference of a phase difference signal at a position shifted in a longitudinal direction of the optical fiber (Fig. 3; Para 38: “Arrangement 309-1 is the optical fiber 305 prior to being deformed by impinging seismic waves, while arrangement 309-2 is the optical fiber 305 with the receiver levels 306-1 . . . 306-M and waveforms 302-2 and 304-2 when the optical fiber 305 is deformed by impinging seismic waves”. The examiner notes Fig. 3 depicts the spatial difference of a phase difference signal at a position shifted in the longitudinal direction).
Wu does not explicitly teach a dummy signal removal unit configured to remove a dummy signal from the spatial difference data.
Cuny teaches a dummy signal removal unit configured to remove a dummy signal
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wu in view of Cuny with the method of Cuny by filtering the spatial difference data of Wu with the tapering of Cuny. Doing so would improve the accuracy of the system.
Regarding Claim 3, Wu in view of Cuny teach the limitations of claim 2, and Wu further teaches wherein the spatial difference data calculation unit takes the spatial difference data of the phase difference signal at a position shifted by the first gauge length (308 Gauge Length Fig. 3. Para 38: “The two waveforms 302-1 and 304-1 are laser pulses separated by the spacing of gauge length 308”).
Wu does not explicitly teach the dummy signal removal unit specifies a position of a signal source in the predetermined section and filters the dummy signal.
Cuny teaches the dummy signal removal unit specifies a position of a signal source in the predetermined section and filters the dummy signal (Apply Local Central Difference 78 Fig. 6; Para 44: “Processing block 78 maintains a local zero-phase output”), which would have been obvious as part of the modification discussed with respect to claim 2 above.
Regarding Claims 5-7, the limitations of claims 5-7 are analogous to claims 1-3.
Regarding Claim 9, the limitations of claim 9 are analogous to claim 1. Wu teaches the additional limitation of a non-transitory computer readable medium having recorded thereon a program to cause the signal processing apparatus to execute (Para 82: “a non-transitory machine-readable storage device can comprise instructions stored thereon, which, when performed by a machine, cause the machine to perform operations”).
Regarding Claims 10 and 11, the limitations of claims 10 and 11 are analogous to claims 2 and 3.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 4, 8, and 12 distinguish over the prior art made of record.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of distinguishing over the prior art made of record:
Regarding Claim 4, Wu and Cuny do not teach the mathematical formulas 47-56 of claim 4.
Brady (US 20110320147 A1) teaches measuring phase difference of backscattered light to detect vibrations (Abstract). Brady does not explicitly teach mathematical formulas 47-56.
Suh (US 20230243989 A1) teaches distributed acoustic sensing using a first and a second gauge length (Abstract). Suh does not explicitly teach mathematical formulas 47-56.
Cedilnik (US 20190128731 A1) teaches distributed acoustic sensing system by evaluating multiple backscattered light signals (Abstract). Cedilnik does not explicitly teach mathematical formulas 47-56.
None of the prior art teaches or fairly suggests using Mathematical formulas 47-55] “to obtain the phase difference data of the backscattered light of the laser light at the second gauge length as represented as [Mathematical formula 56]”.
Regarding Claims 8 and 12, the limitations of claims 8 and 12 are analogous to claim 4 and distinguish over the prior art for analogous reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODGER MENSING whose telephone number is (571)270-0129. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/RODGER STEWART MENSING/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights