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 Objections
Claim 22 objected to because of the following informalities: the group contains duplicates, namely “a fibre signal quality algorithm, a fibre damage algorithm” (line 8) and “a fibre signal quality algorithm, a fibre damage algorithm” (lines 10-11). 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 17 and 18 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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. The claim recites “the analysis module” (line 1) and “a plurality of separated analysis modules” (lines 1-2). It then refers to “each analysis module” (line 2). This claim is an omnibus type claim. It is unclear if the “each analysis module” refers to the singular “analysis module” or the plural “separated analysis modules”. This claim is an omnibus type claim.
Claim 18 depends from claim 17 and incorporates it in its entirety and therefore is likewise rejected for the reasons presented above.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Thiruvenkatanathan (2020/0291772).
With respect to claim 1, Thiruvenkatanathan discloses providing a distributed acoustic sensor ([0055], lines 1-3), an analysis module, and optical fibre adjacent to the infrastructure ([0035], lines 1-6; [0054], lines 1-2), and an infrastructure state receiving system (ISRS) ([0068], lines 5-6), wherein the optical fibre cable comprises one or more logical sections, and the distributed acoustic sensor generates DAS sensor data from the one or more sections ([0035], lines 9-13; [0052], lines 1-7; [0057], lines 2, 8-11; [0066], lines 1-2); and wherein the analysis module comprises at least one processor ([0056], lines 10; [0066], line 1) and at least one memory unit ([0066], line 5), wherein the memory unit comprises at least two or more processing algorithms, wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the processing algorithms with the DAS sensor data as input ([0066], lines 6-7); wherein each of the at least two or more processing are configured to provide a time-varying output state for each logical section of the optical fibre ([0066], lines 12-17; [0068], lines 6-12; [00145], lines 6-10); generating, by a decision module, one or more time-varying infrastructure states corresponding to a respective logical section of optical fibre using the output states of at least two processing algorithms ([0068], lines 15-27; [0069], lines 2-9); and transmitting the one or more infrastructure states to the ISRS at approximately predetermined time intervals ([0081], lines 1-8; [0112] lines 1-3. 9-12; [0116)).
With respect to claim 17, Thiruvenkatanathan discloses the analysis module comprises a plurality of separated analysis modules, each analysis module comprising one or more processors and one or more memory units, the plurality of separated analysis modules acting as a whole ([0150], lines 6-16).
With respect to claim 18, Thiruvenkatanathan discloses the analysis module comprises a combination of local, physical electronic information processing devices found either in the distributed acoustic sensor, other sensor systems, local computers, and/or computers in a datacentre as part of cloud computing infrastructure ([0151], lines 1-3).
With respect to claim 19, Thiruvenkatanathan discloses wherein the infrastructure of interest is either a pipeline, a cable, a conveyor, an embankment or tailings storage facility, an underground tunnel or mine tunnel, an open pit mine, a well or a borehole ([0030), line 1).
With respect to claim 20, Thiruvenkatanathan discloses a processing algorithm receives as an input a prior infrastructure state from the same or different logical sections of the optical fibre [0027], lines 19; [0069]).
With respect to claim 21, Thiruvenkatanathan discloses where additional sensors are used and the analysis module receives additional sensor data from the additional sensors as input to the one or more processing algorithms, the additional sensors including one or more of: cameras, traffic summaries, vehicle location, public event data feeds, water flow counters, weather data feeds, geo-location of known landmarks such as hydrants, road intersections, utility pits and terrain variations, distributed temperature sensing, distributed fibre optic sensing, accelerometers, seismometers, geophones and hydrophones ([0053]).
With respect to claim 22, Thiruvenkatanathan discloses the at least two or more processing algorithms are selected from one or more of the group comprising: a skewness algorithm, an envelope demodulation algorithm, a neural network algorithm, a machine learning classifier algorithm, a spatial correlation algorithm, a temporal correlation algorithm, a machinery identification algorithm, a rainfall algorithm, a temperature anomaly algorithm, a flow rate anomaly algorithm, a pressure anomaly algorithm, a communication status algorithm, a spectral filtered power algorithm, a diurnal filtering algorithm, a fibre signal quality algorithm, a fibre damage algorithm, a bayesian classifier algorithm, an STLT algorithm, a root mean squared (RMS) algorithm, a shape factor algorithm, a crest factor algorithm, or a cross correlation algorithm ([0075], lines 9-11; [0126]).
With respect to claim 23, Thiruvenkatanathan discloses the decision module generates the infrastructure state for each respective logical section using one or more of: a simultaneity check; a persistence check; a transience check; a DAS data quality check; a DAS data availability check; a map check; a video check; a fibre cable check; a bayesian decision check, or an infrastructure state check [0072], lines 2-3; [0073]; [0075], lines 11-12).
With respect to claim 24, Thiruvenkatanathan discloses determining an inspection or maintenance response of the infrastructure ([0118], lines 26-30; [0119]).
Conclusion
The prior art which is cited but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The references made herein are done so for the convenience of the applicant. They are in no way intended to be limiting. The prior art should be considered in its entirety.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRYSTINE E BREIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7614. The examiner can normally be reached Monday (9:30am-6:30pm); Tuesday & Friday (11:30am-5:30pm).
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571 272 6970. 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.
/KRYSTINE E BREIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights