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 § 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 1-5, 11-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Han et al. (US 2022/0065690).
Regarding claim 1: Han discloses a system for cable inspection using optical fiber sensing, comprising: a hardware processor; and a memory storing a computer program which, when executed by the hardware processor (all are inherently located in the control office/control room; [0037]), causes the hardware processor to: collect data from a fiber optic cable; analyze the data with a distributed fiber optic sensing (DFOS) system; identify losses and anomalies and their locations in the fiber optic cable; and generate an alert based on the losses and anomalies [0028-0036].
Regarding claim 2: Han discloses the DFOS system includes one or more of a Distributed Acoustic Sensing (DAS) system ([0079]; claim 1).
Regarding claim 3: Han discloses the computer program further causes the hardware processor to display information about the losses and anomalies on a user interface [0035, 0050, 0066].
Regarding claim 4: Han discloses the computer program further causes the hardware processor to display the alert on a user interface (on the technician’s device to make decisions and to check field activities [0066]) [0035, 0050, 0066].
Regarding claim 5: Han discloses the computer program further causes the hardware processor to identify losses and anomalies by applying machine learning to identify patterns in the data [0086].
Regarding claims 11 and 20: See claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12: See claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 13: See claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 14: See claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 15: See claim 5 above.
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.
Claims 6-10 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2022/0065690) in view of Balasubramanian et al. (US 11,943,096).
Regarding claims 6 and 16: Han does not disclose the machine learning includes a neural network trained to recognize specific patterns associated with cable degradation. Balasubramanian discloses the optic cable monitoring system comprising a neural network trained to recognize specific patterns associated with cable degradation (faults) (col. 9, lines 17-37). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the neural network as taught by Balasubramanian in a system as disclosed by Han to accurately process the received data/patterns associated with the optic cable.
Regarding claim 7: Balasubramanian discloses the neural network is trained on a dataset that includes different types of fiber losses and failure modes (col. 11, lines 3-21).
Regarding claims 8 and 17: Balasubramanian discloses the machine learning predicts future losses and anomalies in the fiber optic cable (col. 8, lines 53-61; col. 9, lines 38-53).
Regarding claims 9 and 18: Balasubramanian discloses the computer program further causes the hardware processor to graphically display the losses and anomalies on a cable (col. 9, line 62-col. 10, line 32; col. 10, line 58-col. 11, line 21).
Regarding claims 10 and 19: Balasubramanian discloses the computer program further causes the hardware processor to display cable images graphically showing the losses and anomalies overlaid on an image of the cable (images being overlay with different data; Figs. 4-8).
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter
Claim 20 is directed towards a "Computer-readable storage medium" that stores computer program/instructions. While specification at paragraph [0086-0087] recites some examples of this recording medium, specification does not define the term. Thus it is unclear whether the term is meant to encompass signals or not. The broadest, reasonable interpretation of the term is applied and currently the examiner is assuming that it encompasses signals. Signals do not fall within any of the four statutory categories of invention, thus claim 20 is not statutory. Examiner suggests amending claims to recite, "non-transitory computer-readable storage medium" to exclude non- statutory mediums such as signals (see, Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2 and also Memorandum on Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, Jan 26, 2010).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Huang et al. (US 11,619,523) discloses an underground optical fiber cable localization including DFOS and TDOA methods.
-Hathorn et al. (US 9,077,448) discloses a read optical power link service for link health diagnostics.
-Balasubramanian et al. (US 11,983,243) discloses an anomaly detection using feedback training.
-Xia et al. (US 11,726,221) discloses a system for identifying deployed cables.
-Xia et al. (US 11,060,950) discloses a system for identifying locations of deployed fiber cables based on vibrations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOAN NGOC PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-2967. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (7 AM - 3:30 PM).
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at (571) 272-3114. 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.
/TOAN N PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685 7/30/26
Prosecution Insights