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 .
Status of the Application
This final office action is in response to the arguments filed 12/9/2025. Claims 3-6 and 16 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 7-9, 11-15 and 17 have been amended. Claims 1, 2, 7-15, and 17-22 and currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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, 2, 7-15, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the eligibility analysis set forth in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, the claims are directed towards a process, machine, or manufacture.
Per step 2A Prong One, independent claim 1 recites specific limitations which fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) as follows:
identifying one QC measurement to be used for validation from among the plurality of
QC measurements; and
after collecting the plurality of QC measurements, validating the cable signal leak has been repaired based on WO information and the one identified QC measurement.
As noted above, this limitation falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). This limitation falls within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Specifically, a human being can mentally (or with pen and paper) identity one QC measurement to be used for validation from among the plurality of QC measurements and validate that a cable signal leak has been repaired based on work order information and the one identified QC measurement. Accordingly claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Per step 2A Prong 2, the Examiner finds that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional limitations of:
collecting a plurality of quality control (QC) measurements with leakage detectors, wherein at least some of the plurality of QC measurements are automatically collected by the leakage detectors based on activities of vehicles transporting the leakage detectors, wherein the plurality of QC measurements include some QC measurements reflecting the absence of a leak in the cable network at a particular location and at one or more frequencies.
The additional limitation when viewed individually and when viewed as an ordered combination with the abstract limitations, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at high level of generality and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. pre-solution data gathering).
Specifically, the limitation “collecting a plurality of quality control (QC) measurements with leakage detectors, wherein at least some of the plurality of QC measurements are automatically collected by the leakage detectors based on activities of vehicles transporting the leakage detectors, wherein the plurality of QC measurements include some QC measurements reflecting the absence of a leak in the cable network at a particular location and at one or more frequencies” is recited at a high level of generality using a generic leakage detector to gather leakage measurements based on activities of a vehicle. The claim does not recite any specific vehicle activities that trigger the measurements and merely requires that leakage measurements are taken at a particular location covering one or more frequencies. At this level of generality, this limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., pre-solution data gathering using a generic leakage detector). Therefore, this limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at high level of generality and amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. pre-solution data gathering). The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., insignificant extra-solution activity cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Additionally, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the limitation collecting a plurality of quality control (QC) measurements with leakage detectors, wherein at least some of the plurality of QC measurements are automatically collected by the leakage detectors based on activities of vehicles transporting the leakage detectors, wherein the plurality of QC measurements include some QC measurements reflecting the absence of a leak in the cable network at a particular location and at one or more frequencies was analyzed as extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. Here, examiner takes the position that this limitation is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by US Patent Application Publication Number 20160197804 (“Zinevich”) paragraph ]0007]-[0008] which recites “known methods of detecting leakage of digital signals” and “leakage detection methods . . . ha[ve] been well-known for many years and was widely used for detecting leakage” where [0058] recites “A service vehicle or truck (not shown) containing leakage detector 102 starts patrolling” and US Patent Application Publication Number 20140195176 (“Jones”) paragraph [0002] which cites in the background section which states that “monitoring is generally performed by permanently installing signal leakage receivers and global positioning system receivers in BCS service vehicles which will normally cover a substantial portion of the service area in a relatively short period of time while executing work orders for installations and repairs of the BCS. The location of the service vehicle is constantly monitored and reported . . . signal strength can be recorded or automatically reported and appropriate work orders.” Further, Examiner notes that Applicant’s response on 12/09/2025 page 9 indicates that “Variables such as the leakage level, the geo-location, and the date/time have long existed as metadata that has been captured with leakage for many years. These variables are not in themselves new concepts.” Accordingly, a conclusion that collecting a plurality of quality control (QC) measurements with leakage detectors, wherein at least some of the plurality of QC measurements are automatically collected by the leakage detectors based on activities of vehicles transporting the leakage detectors, wherein the plurality of QC measurements include some QC measurements reflecting the absence of a leak in the cable network at a particular location and at one or more frequencies is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 3.
Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims (e.g., product and process claims). Therefore, independent system claim 15 is also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as independent method claim 1. The additional limitation in system claim 15 (i.e., one or more processors) adds nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. The components are merely providing a particular technological environment to implement the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2, 7-14, and 17-22 are rejected on a similar rational to the claims upon which they depend because they merely generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or further narrow the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant's arguments, see pages 9-10, filed, filed 12/09/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1, 2, 7-15, and 17-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore the rejections have been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant's arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 12/09/2025 with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1, 2, 7-15, and 17-22 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues that:
To this end, the claims present a technical solution to a technical problem. The application details inventive features of exemplary embodiments with respect to both QC measurement collection and automated validation of leakage repairs. Following are some pertinent excerpts of the applicant's original specification:
[p.3:4-11] Some embodiments are a solution to a problem which may be characterized as follows. During a single day, a fleet of repair technician vehicles and the technicians driving them may collect many hundreds or thousands of QC measurements. To ascertain whether a single particular leak has been fixed, a solution is needed which can systematically select (through manual and/or automated steps) one QC measurement from among the hundreds or thousands of measurements which are available to choose from. The one QC measurement selected must, within a high level of confidence, contain information that empirically demonstrates the particular leak in question has been fixed or has not been fixed.
Examiner respectfully replies that the amended claim recites “identifying one QC measurement to be used for validation from among the plurality of QC measurements.” There is no recitation of how the QC measurement is identified or whether the QC measurement was one of the automated measurements collected by the leakage detector, as the claim recites that “at least some of the plurality of QC measurement are automatically collected” which necessarily means that some of the measurements may also be manually collected. The cited paragraph even specifies that the QC measurement can be selected through manual steps (e.g., a human being mentally picking the measurement). Accordingly, the claims do not appear to solve the technological problem of selecting the QC measurement that with a high degree of confidence contains information to empirically demonstrate the particular leak in question has or has not been fixed.
Second, Applicant cites to another paragraph of the specification which states:
[p.3:20-23] Exemplary embodiments deliberately minimize human (in particular, technician) input or decision making. Embodiments may deliberately exclude some or all technician input or capability to manipulate data which is collected and relied upon to ascertain whether or not a leak has been repaired (remarks page 8).
Examiner respectfully replies that nothing in Applicant’s claims excludes technicians from manually include QC measurements in the data collected by leakage detectors as the claims explicitly recites that “at least some of the plurality of QC measurement are automatically collected” which necessarily means that some of the measurements may also be manually collected. Further, the claims do not specify how the QR measurement is identified (or even specify that the QC measurement is identified using a computer). Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims includes a user mentally selecting a QC measurement of his/her choice.
Third, Applicant cites to another paragraph of the specification which states:
[p.5:22-24] Exemplary automated leakage measurement logic flows account for a variety of different technician behavior scenarios as well as real world limitations. The complex considerations ensure the correct QC measure is associated with the correct work order (remarks page 8).
Examiner respectfully disagrees and replies that the claims merely recite that identifying one QC measurement to be used for validation. There is no recitation of any features to ensure the correct QC measure is associated with the correct work order.
Fourth, Applicant cites to another paragraph of the specification which states:
[p.9:25-28] The collection of QC measurements is itself a unique feature of embodiments of this disclosure, not to mention exemplary processes for such collection. As already discussed above, QC measurements are in some respects related to and yet are distinguishable from leakage measurements.
Examiner respectfully replies that as claimed the QC measurements collected by leakage detectors. Whether the measurements are used to detect the presence or absence or a leak or to verify that whether a leak has been repaired, the claimed measurements collected by the leak detectors are the same and amount to no more than using a generic leakage detector to collect QC leakage measurements.
Finally, Applicant argues that:
Claims 1 and 15 are both amended to provide additional details concerning the automated collection of QC measurements relevant to the subsequent ability to validate leakage repairs. Applicant respectfully submits that upon consideration of amended claims 1 and 15 each as a whole, both are patent eligible at 35 USC 101 especially in view of their respective recitations of "collecting a plurality of quality control (QC) measurements with leakage detectors, wherein at least some of the plurality of QC measurements are automatically collected by the leakage detectors based on activities of vehicles transporting the leakage detectors, wherein the plurality of QC measurements include some QC measurements reflecting the absence of a leak in the cable network at a particular location and at one or more frequencies". All other claims depend from either claim 1 or claim 15 and are patent eligible for at least the same reasons. Withdrawal of the 101 rejection is respectfully requested in view of the claim amendments and preceding explanations (remarks page 8).
Examiner respectfully replies that the recited limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Specifically, “collecting a plurality of quality control (QC) measurements with leakage detectors, wherein at least some of the plurality of QC measurements are automatically collected by the leakage detectors based on activities of vehicles transporting the leakage detectors, wherein the plurality of QC measurements include some QC measurements reflecting the absence of a leak in the cable network at a particular location and at one or more frequencies” is recited at a high level of generality using a generic leakage detector to gather leakage measurements based on activities of a vehicle. The claim does not recite any specific vehicle activities that trigger the measurements and merely requires that leakage measurements are taken at a particular location covering one or more frequencies. At this level of generality, this limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., pre-solution data gathering using a generic leakage detector). Examiner takes the position that this limitation is well-understood, routine, and conventional under step 2B as evidenced by US Patent Application Publication Number 20160197804 (“Zinevich”) paragraph ]0007]-[0008] which recites “known methods of detecting leakage of digital signals” and “leakage detection methods . . . ha[ve] been well-known for many years and was widely used for detecting leakage” where [0058] recites “A service vehicle or truck (not shown) containing leakage detector 102 starts patrolling” and US Patent Application Publication Number 20140195176 (“Jones”) paragraph [0002] which cites in the background section which states that “monitoring is generally performed by permanently installing signal leakage receivers and global positioning system receivers in BCS service vehicles which will normally cover a substantial portion of the service area in a relatively short period of time while executing work orders for installations and repairs of the BCS. The location of the service vehicle is constantly monitored and reported . . . signal strength can be recorded or automatically reported and appropriate work orders.” Further, Examiner notes that Applicant’s response on 12/09/2025 page 9 indicates that “Variables such as the leakage level, the geo-location, and the date/time have long existed as metadata that has been captured with leakage for many years. These variables are not in themselves new concepts.” Accordingly, a conclusion that collecting a plurality of quality control (QC) measurements with leakage detectors, wherein at least some of the plurality of QC measurements are automatically collected by the leakage detectors based on activities of vehicles transporting the leakage detectors, wherein the plurality of QC measurements include some QC measurements reflecting the absence of a leak in the cable network at a particular location and at one or more frequencies is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Application Publication Number 20220109612 (“Bush”) discloses initiating of a QC procedure at a leakage receiver where the QC procedure may be initiated by measurement of a signal leakage level for a signal leak at a specified location and the combined signal leakage level, geo-location value, and time value may be sent to a signal leakage analyzer to determine whether a technician was at the correct signal leak location and whether the signal leak status is to remain open, or whether a status of the signal leak is to be changed from open to closed
US Patent Application Publication Number 20210226664 (“Couch”) discloses vehicles equipped with leakage detection equipment are able to detect the presence of the leakage from received signals;
US Patent Application Publication Number 20160197804 (“Zinevich”) discloses known methods of detecting leakage of digital and analog signals and a vehicle containing a leakage detector patrolling for leaks
US Patent Application Publication Number 20140195176 (“Jones”) discloses monitoring for signal leaks performed by permanently installing signal leakage receivers and global positioning system receivers in service vehicles and constantly monitoring and reporting signal strength can be automatically
US Patent Application Publication Number 20110043640 (“Zinevich”) discloses obtaining GPS coordinates of a roaming vehicle using a non-directional leakage detector antenna and measuring the strength of the leakage signal
However, the prior art fails to teach each and every limitation as claimed, and would involve hindsight reasoning to arrive at the claimed invention. Therefore, the claims are considered allowable over the prior art.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLAN J WOODWORTH, II whose telephone number is (571)272-6904. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at (571) 270-7537. 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.
/ALLAN J WOODWORTH, II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622