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
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.
Claims 1-2, 8-12 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hill et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20120226452).
Regarding claim 1, Hill teaches a computer-implemented method for acoustic sensing, comprising: determining sensing locations along a fiber to generate a beam pattern that is directed to an acoustic source (Paragraph 41); transmitting an optical pulse on the fiber (Abstract, “The sensor comprises an optical source (112) for interrogating an optical fibre (104)”); measuring optical phase of backscattering light from the sensing locations on the fiber (Abstract and paragraphs 41-42); and generating an output signal by combining the measured optical phase according to the beam pattern (Paragraph 82).
Regarding claim 2, Hill teaches updating the sensing locations in accordance with changing conditions (Paragraph 70).
Regarding claim 8, Hill teaches wherein determining the sensing locations includes generating distinct sets of sensing locations for multiple respective beam patterns (Paragraphs 76-81).
Regarding claim 9, Hill teaches wherein generating the output signal includes combining outputs from the distinct sets of sensing locations to combine the multiple beam patterns (Paragraphs 76-81).
Regarding claim 10, Hill teaches wherein determining the sensing locations includes determining sensing locations along multiple distinct fibers, transmitting the optical pulse includes transmitting optical pulses along the multiple distinct fibers, measuring optical phase of backscattering light includes measuring optical phase from the multiple distinct fibers, and generating the output signal includes combining the measured optical phase according to the multiple beam patterns (Paragraphs 76-81).
Regarding claims 11-12 and 18-19, the claims are commensurate in scope with the above claims 1-2 and 8-9, and are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above.
Regarding claim 20, Hill teaches an acoustic sensing system, comprising: a light source (Fig.1, 112); an optical detector (Fig.1, 116); a hardware processor (Fig.1, 108); and a memory that stores a computer program which, when executed by the hardware processor, cause the hardware processor to: determine sensing locations along a fiber to generate a beam pattern that is directed to an acoustic source (Paragraph 41); trigger transmission of an optical pulse on the fiber using the light source (Abstract, “The sensor comprises an optical source (112) for interrogating an optical fibre (104)”); measure optical phase from the sensing locations on the fiber using the optical detector (Abstract and paragraphs 41-42); and generate an output signal by combining the measured optical phases according to the beam pattern (Paragraph 82).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20120226452) in view of Lindsey et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20240255662).
Regarding claim 3, Hill teaches all the features of claim 2 as outlined above, Hill is silent about wherein updating the sensing locations includes estimating quality of the output signal.
Lindsey teaches updating the sensing locations includes estimating quality of the output signal (Fig.2 and paragraphs 40 and 47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to update Hill’s sensing locations based on quality of the output signal because it would increase accuracy of Hill’s sensor system.
Regarding claim 13, the claim 13 is commensurate in scope with the above claim 3, and is rejected for the same reasons as set forth above.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20120226452) in view of Prasad et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20260002813).
Regarding claim 4, Hill teaches all the features of claim 2 as outlined above, Hill is silent about wherein updating the sensing locations includes predicting a trajectory of a source.
Prasad teaches wherein updating the sensing locations includes predicting a trajectory of a source (Fig.12 and paragraphs 95-105).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to update Hill’s sensing locations based on trajectory prediction because it would increase accuracy of Hill’s sensor system.
Regarding claim 14, the claim 14 is commensurate in scope with the above claim 4, and is rejected for the same reasons as set forth above.
Claims 5-7 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20120226452) in view of Wang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20240201008).
Regarding claim 5, Hill teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, Hill is silent about generating the output signal includes pairing complex fields of the measured optical phase of backscattering light according to amplitude and estimating phase for respective pairs of complex fields.
Wang teaches generating the output signal includes pairing complex fields of the measured optical phase of backscattering light according to amplitude and estimating phase for respective pairs of complex fields (Fig.4 and paragraphs 116-133).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use complex optical field in Hill’s sensor system because it enables true linear quantitative measurements of acoustic strain while completely eliminating the signal distortions that plague traditional amplitude-only systems.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Hill and Wang teaches all the features of claim 5 as outlined above, Wang further teaches combining the phases of the pairs of complex fields as the output (Fig.4 and paragraphs 116-133).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use complex optical field in Hill’s sensor system because it enables true linear quantitative measurements of acoustic strain while completely eliminating the signal distortions that plague traditional amplitude-only systems.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Hill and Wang teaches all the features of claim 5 as outlined above, Wang further teaches wherein pairing the complex fields combines complex fields of progressively increasing amplitude with corresponding complex fields of progressively decreasing amplitude (Fig.4 and paragraphs 116-133).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use complex optical field in Hill’s sensor system because it enables true linear quantitative measurements of acoustic strain while completely eliminating the signal distortions that plague traditional amplitude-only systems.
Regarding claims 15-17, the claims are commensurate in scope with the above claims 5-7, and are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIN Y ZHONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3798. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 a.m. - 6 p.m..
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/XIN Y ZHONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights