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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/06/25 has been acknowledged and considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
(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, 3, 6-7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Brenne (US 2023/0388012).
Regarding claim 1; Brenne discloses a cascaded distributed fiber optic sensing (DFOS) system (140-0, 140-1, 140-2, 140-3 @ figure 1) comprising:
a first DFOS system (140-0 @ figure 1 or 230 @ figure 2) in optical communication with an optical sensing fiber (212-R, 225 @ figure 2); and
one or more additional DFOS systems (140-1, 140-2, 1404-3 @ figure 1) in optical communication with the optical sensing fibers (101 @ figure 1), wherein the first DFOS system (140-0 @ figure 1 or 300 @ figure 3) generates DFOS optical interrogation pulses (paragraph [0055]: e.g., controlling various aspects of the amplified optical interrogator or probe signal 342 that is used to interrogate the optical fiber to be interrogated…the pattern-modulated optical signal 332 output by the optical modulator 330 is a pulsed optical signal suitable for DFOS measurements). See figures 1-3
PNG
media_image1.png
819
705
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
819
714
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3; Brenne discloses only a single laser (320 @ figure 3) generates all interrogation light (342 @ figure 3) for the system (300 @ figure 3).
Regarding claim 6; Brenne discloses the one or more additional DFOS systems (140-0, 140-1, 140-2 140-3 @ figure 1) include a multiplexer (WDM 220 @ figure 2), configured to receive all backscattered signals (239 @ figure 2) from its downstream nodes (downstream from 140-3 to 140-0 @ figure 1), multiplex the received backscattered signals (239 @ figure 2), and send the multiplexed backscattered signals (239 @ figure 2) to its upstream node (upstream from 140-0 to 140-3 @ figure 1).
Regarding claim 7; Brenne discloses the backscattered signals (239 @ figure 2) are sent to the upstream node (140-0 to 140-1 @ figure 1) in an original format.
Regarding claim 10; Brenne discloses one or more of the additional DFOS systems (figure 1) generate DFOS interrogation pulses (paragraph [0535]: e.g., controlling various aspects of the amplified optical interrogator or probe signal 342 that is used to interrogate the optical fiber to be interrogated…the pattern-modulated optical signal 332 output by the optical modulator 330 is a pulsed optical signal suitable for DFOS measurements).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brenne (US 2023/0388012) in view of Ji (US 2022/0086541).
Regarding claim 2; Brenne discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for each of the one or more additional DFOS systems are configured to analyze only backscattered signals originating in a segment of the optical sensing fiber positioned between an individual one of the one or more additional DFOS systems and a next one of the one or more additional DFOS systems. However, Ji teaches that it is known in the art to provide each of the one or more additional DFOS systems (A @ figure 7A) are configured to analyze only backscattered signals (figure 1) originating in a segment (see Examiner noted in figure 7A) of the optical sensing fiber positioned between an individual one of the one or more additional DFOS systems (DFOS-A @ figure 7A) and a next one of the one or more additional DFOS systems (DFOS-B @ figure 7A). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine cascaded DFOS system of Brenne with limitation above as taught by Ji for the purpose of improving an entire sensing network.
PNG
media_image3.png
706
1430
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5; Brenne discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the one or more additional DFOS systems include a signal relay to pass the optical interrogation pulses to its next one of the one or more additional DFOS systems. However, Ji teaches that it is known in the art to provide the one or more additional DFOS systems (A @ figure 7A) include a signal relay (Node D @ figure 7A) to pass the optical interrogation pulses (figure 1) to its next one of the one or more additional DFOS systems (E @ figure 7A). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine cascaded DFOS system of Brenne with limitation above as taught by Ji for the purpose of improving an entire sensing network.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brenne (US 2023/0388012) in view of Huang et al (US 2021/0360029 hereinafter “Huang”).
Regarding claim 4; Brenne discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the DFOS is one selected from the group consisting of distributed vibration sensing (DVS), distributed acoustic sensing (DAS), and distributed temperature sensing (DTS). However, Huang teaches that it is known in the art to provide the DFOS (figure 1 and paragraphs [0020]: e.g., distributed fiber optic sensing system (DFOS) generally known in the art—we begin by noting that distributed fiber optic sensing (DFOS) is an important and widely used technology to detect environmental conditions such as temperature (distributed temperature sensing—DTS), vibration (distributed vibration sensing—DVS), stretch level etc. anywhere along an optical fiber cable that in turn is connected to an interrogator) is one selected from the group consisting of distributed vibration sensing (DVS), distributed temperature sensing (DTS), and distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) (paragraph [0024]: e.g., Distributed Acoustic Sensing (DAS) using coherent optical time-domain reflectometry (OTDR) based on Rayleigh backscatter is a well-known technique for detecting acoustic vibrations). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine cascaded DFOS system of Brenne with limitation above as taught by Huang for the purpose of improving distributed fiber optic sensing (DFOS) operating concurrently on optical telecommunications networks to provide physical layer security.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brenne (US 2023/0388012) in view of Kupershmidt (US 2011/0090936).
Regarding claim 8; Brenne discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the backscattered signals frequency shifted prior to being sent to the upstream node. However, Huang teaches that it is known in the art to provide the backscattered signals frequency shifted prior (paragraph [0023]: e.g., Source 110 is often called a probe laser, and launches a sensing signal or a probe signal 115 (an optical pulse) towards the sensing fiber 140 through an optical coupler 130, which may be a circulator. Backscattered signal 145 is frequency shifted due to spontaneous Brillouin effect. Second source 120 generates local oscillation signal 125, which is at a frequency offset with respect to the probe signal) to being sent to the upstream node. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine cascaded DFOS system of Brenne with limitation above as taught by Kupershmidt for the purpose of improving high-fidelity measurement process for an effective monitoring and control through sensor data analysis in the integrated fiber-optic sensing system.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brenne (US 2023/0388012) in view of Hu et al (US 2022/0187121 hereinafter “Hu”).
Regarding claim 9; Brenne discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the backscattered signals are sent to the upstream node such that they do not overlap in frequency. However, Huang teaches that it is known in the art to provide the backscattered signals (claim 1: e.g., backscattered light that results from the interrogating light sent into the optical sensing fiber) are sent to the upstream node such that they do not overlap in frequency (paragraph [0006]: e.g., The first operation involves location grouping and group internal phase alignment wherein 1) locations along the fiber are divided into non-overlapping fixed size groups, with the number of locations in each group equal to the spatial averaging taps; 2) within each group, the location having the maximum averaged power (“elected location”) is identified—for each DAS frame cycle ). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine cascaded DFOS system of Brenne with limitation above as taught by Hu for the purpose of reduce the possibility of Rayleigh fading before sending to phase calculation, which is expected to improve the output signal's quality.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Ozharar et al (US 2023/0130788) discloses distributed fiber optic sensing (DFOS) systems, methods, and structures that advantageously sense/monitor outdoor facilities and structures including outdoor cabinets containing fiber optic facilities in which the cabinet/fiber optic cable contained therein are configured to provide superior acoustic sensing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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.
/SN/
January 31, 2026
/SANG H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877