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 .
Drawings
Figures 1 and 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract exceeds the maximum allowable length of 150 words. Additionally, in line 8 of the abstract, the phrase “obtaining a change rate of a spectral” should be amended to read “obtaining a change rate of a spectrum shift” to match paragraph 0021 of the specification.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraphs 0008 and 0009 of the specification, in lines 4-5 of paragraph 0008 and line 4 of paragraph 0009, the phrase “obtaining a change rate of a spectral” should be amended to read “obtaining a change rate of a spectrum shift” to match paragraph 0021 of the specification.
In paragraphs 0012, 0021, 0025, and 0028, the variable “m^” should be amended to read m̂ to be consistent with the variable in the equation in which it is found.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As for claim 1, in line 1 of the claim, the acronym OFDR needs to be defined. Additionally, in line 2 of the claim, the phrase “obtaining a change rate of a spectral” should be amended to read “obtaining a change rate of a spectrum shift” to match paragraph 0021 of the specification.
As for claim 3, the claim must be rewritten so that it takes the form of a single sentence. The period after the phrase “Expression (C1)” must be deleted, and the capitalization of the word “Where” after that expression must be eliminated. See MPEP 608.01(m), which states, “Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See Fressola v. Manbeck, 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995).” Additionally, the statement “[Math. C1]” should be deleted from the claim as it is not necessary before setting forth the equation in the claim. Finally, “m^” in the limitation after the equation should be amended to read m̂ to be consistent with the variable in the equation.
As for claim 5, in line 1 of the claim, the acronym OFDR needs to be defined. Additionally, in line 3 of the claim, the phrase “obtaining a change rate of a spectral” should be amended to read “obtaining a change rate of a spectrum shift” to match paragraph 0021 of the specification.
As for claim 7, the claim must be rewritten so that it takes the form of a single sentence. The period after the phrase “Expression (C1)” must be deleted, and the capitalization of the word “Where” after that expression must be eliminated. See MPEP 608.01(m), which states, “Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See Fressola v. Manbeck, 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995).” Additionally, the statement “[Math. C1]” should be deleted from the claim as it is not necessary before setting forth the equation in the claim. Finally, “m^” in the limitation after the equation should be amended to read m̂ to be consistent with the variable in the equation.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim, which is an apparatus claim (“An optical fiber sensing device . . .”), recites “an analysis circuit that executes obtaining a change rate of a [spectrum] by time-differentiating a measured spectrum shift”, then recites four method steps – “detecting”, “calculating”, “estimating”, and “acquiring”. As a result, the claim appears to recite both an apparatus and the method steps of using that apparatus. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) as per In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011), as the combination of both an apparatus and method steps of using the apparatus creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs.
Claims 2-4 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on at least claim 1, thereby containing all the limitations of the claims on which they depend.
To overcome the above rejection, the examiner recommends amending the claim to make it clear that the claimed analysis circuit performs all the claimed functional steps in the claim, not just the “obtaining a change rate” step.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the judicial exception of a mathematical concept; more particularly, the claim drawn to the mathematical processing of data in order to acquire a corrected spectrum shift from a measured spectrum shift. In claim 1, the claim is drawn to an apparatus that is capable of obtaining a change rate of a spectrum by time-differentiating a measured spectrum shift, detecting a discontinuity point of the spectrum shift from the change rate, calculating a predicted value of the change rate for the discontinuity point, estimating an estimated value of the change rate at the discontinuity point by applying a Kalman filter to the change rate at the discontinuity point and the predicted value at the discontinuity point, and acquiring a corrected spectrum shift by time-integrating the change rate other than the discontinuity point and the estimated value estimated at the discontinuity point.
As disclosed in the instant specification, the change rate that is obtained by time-differentiating a measured spectrum shift involves a mathematical operation, as the change rate of the spectrum shift S is listed as dS/dt in paragraphs 0021 and 0023 of the specification. Detecting a discontinuity point involves processing of the data by identifying a peak in that change rate (see paragraph 0023). Calculating the predicted value of the change rate for that discontinuity point involves another mathematical operation, as the predicted value p is calculated by dS(tn-1)/dt as found in paragraph 0024. Estimating an estimated value by applying a Kalman filter to the change rate is another mathematical operation, this equation being expression C1 as found in paragraph 0025. Finally, the acquisition of the acquired spectrum shift is a final mathematical operation, as this acquisition is performed by time-integrating the change rate other than at the discontinuity point with the estimated value at the discontinuity point as disclosed in paragraph 0028. In this light, in view of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in view of the specification, the claim encompasses a series of mathematical calculations. This is considered an abstract idea in view of, for example, Digitech Image Techs, LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 111 USPQ2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim is directed only to an abstract idea that, in the best understanding of the examiner, is performed on a generic analysis circuit. Simply performing a series of mathematical equations to process a measured spectrum shift in order to determine a corrected spectrum shift would not be an improvement in the functioning of the computer, as merely using a computer (or its equivalent in the case of the claimed analysis circuit) as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f). Without any additional meaningfully claimed limitations, such as limitations directed as to how the initial spectrum shift is actually measured, it is not possible for the claimed abstract idea to be integrated into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the only positively recited element is the generic analysis circuit, which the examiner associates with the processes of a computer. The use of a computer in its ordinary capacity for well understood tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g. a mathematical equation or calculation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 2016) or Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) along with MPEP 2106.05(f).
As a result, claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As for claims 2-4, these claims are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above regarding claim 1 as they are only drawn to details of the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide limitations that are significantly more than the abstract idea. In claim 2, the claim only provides a further limitation of the predicted value that is calculated for the change rate at the discontinuity point. In claim 3, the claim only provides the mathematical expression by which the Kalman filter estimates the estimated value. In claim 4, the claim only further defines variables for the Kalman filter equation in claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites the judicial exception of a mathematical concept; more particularly, the claim drawn to the mathematical processing of data in order to acquire a corrected spectrum shift from a measured spectrum shift. In claim 5, the claim is drawn to performing a method of obtaining a change rate of a spectrum by time-differentiating a measured spectrum shift, detecting a discontinuity point of the spectrum shift from the change rate, calculating a predicted value of the change rate for the discontinuity point, estimating an estimated value of the change rate at the discontinuity point by applying a Kalman filter to the change rate at the discontinuity point and the predicted value at the discontinuity point, and acquiring a corrected spectrum shift by time-integrating the change rate other than the discontinuity point and the estimated value estimated at the discontinuity point.
As disclosed in the instant specification, the change rate that is obtained by time-differentiating a measured spectrum shift involves a mathematical operation, as the change rate of the spectrum shift S is listed as dS/dt in paragraphs 0021 and 0023 of the specification. Detecting a discontinuity point involves processing of the data by identifying a peak in that change rate (see paragraph 0023). Calculating the predicted value of the change rate for that discontinuity point involves another mathematical operation, as the predicted value p is calculated by dS(tn-1)/dt as found in paragraph 0024. Estimating an estimated value by applying a Kalman filter to the change rate is another mathematical operation, this equation being expression C1 as found in paragraph 0025. Finally, the acquisition of the acquired spectrum shift is a final mathematical operation, as this acquisition is performed by time-integrating the change rate other than at the discontinuity point with the estimated value at the discontinuity point as disclosed in paragraph 0028. In this light, in view of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in view of the specification, the claim encompasses a series of mathematical calculations. This is considered an abstract idea in view of, for example, Digitech Image Techs, LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 111 USPQ2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim is directed only to the abstract idea itself. There are no meaningfully claimed limitations that perform any other functions beyond the mathematical processes formed above, such as limitations directed as to how the initial spectrum shift is actually measured. As such, it is not possible for the claimed abstract idea to be integrated into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons set forth above regarding integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. As there are no limitations that go beyond the abstract idea, the claimed method lacks additional elements that would be able to be considered as significantly more than the judicial exception.
As a result, claim 5 is rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As for claims 6-8, these claims are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above regarding claim 5 as they are only drawn to details of the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide limitations that are significantly more than the abstract idea. In claim 6, the claim only provides a further limitation of the predicted value that is calculated for the change rate at the discontinuity point. In claim 7, the claim only provides the mathematical expression by which the Kalman filter estimates the estimated value. In claim 8, the claim only further defines variables for the Kalman filter equation in claim 7.
To overcome the above rejections, the examiner suggests amending claim 1 to add the structure of the device that performs optical frequency domain reflectometry in order to actively provide the measured spectrum shift, and amending claim 5 to positively recite steps for how the measured spectrum shift is actively obtained by practicing the method of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
While no prior art rejection is available to be made on claims 1 and 5, any statements on the allowability of these claims is precluded at this time until the 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 112 rejections of claims 1-4 and the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 5-8 are properly overcome.
However, the closest prior art is US 2022/0260428 to Keaveney et al. which discloses increasing the measurement precision of an optical measurement device using a Kalman-type filter. Keaveney, in the abstract, discloses increasing measurement precision by determining a measured value of an optical property measured by the optical instrument based on optical and environmental data, determining a predicted value of the optical property based on a model representing the time evolution of the optical instrument, and calculating an effective value of the optical property based on the measured value, the predicted value, and a Kalman gain that is based on respective uncertainties in the measured and predicted values. However, Keaveney does not appear to disclose detecting a discontinuity point of a measured spectrum shift from a change rate that is obtained by time-differentiating the measured spectrum shift and using the estimated value obtained by using a Kalman filter to acquire a corrected spectrum shift based on the estimated value estimated at the discontinuity point and the change rate other than at the discontinuity point.
Additional attention is drawn to the following references:
“Noise Reduction for Time-Domain Sensing Signal of Brillouin Scattering Based on Time Series Analysis and Kalman Filter Algorithm” by Yang et al. that discloses improving the accuracy of time-domain Brillouin reflection sensing in order to address precise strain and temperature sensing issues of overhead transmission lines or fibers by combining time series analysis with a Kalman filter in order to create a hybrid data noise reduction algorithm (see abstract).
US Pat. 11,499,849 to Waagaard et al. discloses a method and apparatus for noise suppression due to transmitted signal instability in a coherent optical fiber sensor system that involves the extrapolation of previous time samples using a Kalman filter (see Col. 16, lines 45-50).
US 2016/0370177 to Laine et al. discloses systems and methods for determining shape or position with a fiber optic shape sensor which uses a Kalman filter to estimate the position or shape of the fiber based on measurements obtained from the fiber optic shape sensor and one or more inertial measurement units (see abstract).
US 2004/0022547 to Szafraniec discloses a Kalman filter that is used to estimate the coefficients of a FIR filter to optimize noise subtraction (see abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP 2019-060666 to Inafune, JP 2015-105909 to Igawa et al. and JP 2018-185278 to Mori, all of which were cited in related application PCT/JP22/19571, disclose examples of optical frequency domain refractometers for measuring strain or temperature over an optical fiber.
Additionally, while not eligible as prior art, attention is drawn to “Robustness- and Processing-Rate-Improved OFDR Based on Local Search and Kalman Prediction” by Feng et al. which discloses using a Kalman filter to perform a local search and dynamic prediction method in order to correct for degradation between reference and measurement spectra measured by an optical frequency domain reflectometer that is caused by residual sampling error of a nonlinearly swept laser source (see abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael A. Lyons whose telephone number is (571)272-2420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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 571-270-5789. 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.
/Michael A Lyons/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 March 28, 2026