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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 2 November 2024.
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined.
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
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1 recites a method for resource allocation in response to infrastructure damage where data is received and analyzed, areas where damage has occurred are identified and restoration efforts are prioritized and resources are allocated. These limitations, as drafted, illustrate a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. Receiving data, analyzing data, identifying areas, prioritizing efforts and allocating resources illustrate high level observation and evaluation type functions that could be done the same way mentally or manually with a pen and paper. Additionally, prioritizing efforts and allocating resources illustrates a certain method of organizing human activity by demonstrating a series of instructions for managing behavior, relationships or interactions between people. But for the preamble’s computer including a processor and memory containing instructions, the claims encompass a user simply observing and evaluating data/making decisions in their mind. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer component or computer system environment does not take the claim limitations out of the abstract groupings. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite additional elements for a computer including a processor and memory storing executable instructions that cause the computer to receive distributed fiber optic sensing data and execute the analyzing, identifying, prioritizing and allocating steps. The receiving is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra solution activity. The processor and computer that perform the receiving, analyzing, identifying prioritizing and allocating are also recited at a high level of generality and merely automate those steps. Each of the additional components is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception in a generic computer environment with generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component or linking the steps to a generic computer environment. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept.
For the receiving step that could be considered extra solution activity in step 2A above, this has been re-evaluated in step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the computer/processor components are anything other than generic, off the shelf computer components, and the Symantec, TLI and OIP Techs. court decisions in MPEP 2106.05 indicate that the mere collection, receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here.
Dependent claims 2-10 include all of the limitations of claim 1 and therefore recite the same abstract idea. The claims merely narrow the recited abstract idea by describing additional observation and evaluation steps and management functions including scheduling maintenance, describing the types of resources, describing the areas, describing the domains for analysis, describing using context and dynamic thresholding for identification functions and that it is done in real time. The additional elements recited fail to transform the claims into a patent eligible invention but instead describe establishing communications between systems which is considered insignificant extra solution activity since it is mere data transmission. Additionally, the elements describe using machine learning algorithms to make identifications. This high level recitation of machine learning is considered merely a high level recitation of applying an algorithm or execution of instructions by a computer. For the establish communication step that was considered extra solution activity in step 2A above, this has been re-evaluated in step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the computer/processor components are anything other than generic, off the shelf computer components, and the Symantec, TLI and OIP Techs. court decisions in MPEP 2106.05 indicate that the mere collection, receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here. No details of the algorithm or learning functions that would realize a technical improvement are incorporated in the claims or identified in the specification therefore the recited additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception in a generic computer environment with generic computer components. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, claims 1-10 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monsberger, C. M., & Lienhart, W. (2021). Distributed Fiber Optic Shape Sensing of Concrete Structures. Sensors, 21(18), 6098. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21186098 , hereinafter “Monsberger” in view of the machine translation of KR 102577030 Eum Kwan Yong and Oh Tae Ju. Risk Management System Using Optical Fiber Sensor and Terrain Change Management Method Thereby. (2023), hereinafter “Yong”.
As per Claim 1 Monsberger teaches:
A computer implemented method for resource allocation in response to infrastructure damage, the computer including a processor and a memory containing instructions that when executed by the processor cause the computer to:
receive distributed fiber optic sensing (DFOS) data; analyze the received DFOS data and from the analyzed data, identifying areas in which infrastructure damage has occurred (Monsberger in at least Pages 12-13, 15, 20 and Fig. 10 illustrates and describes strain peaks related to cracks arising along concrete surfaces with increased load, and analysis of different installation techniques including stain profiles along reinforcement, inside concrete, along surfaces, curvature values derived from DFOS strains and theoretical models, displacement curves from DFOS strains and installation techniques used to monitor distributed displacements along civil infrastructure objects within the usual working range before major cracking); and
Monsberger does not explicitly recite prioritizing restoration efforts and allocating resources to identified areas of damage. However, Yong teaches a crisis management system and method using optical fiber sensors. Yong further describes
receive distributed fiber optic sensing (DFOS) data; analyze the received DFOS data and from the analyzed data, identifying areas in which infrastructure damage has occurred (Yong on at least Pgs. 5-6 describes the crisis management devices as analyzing signals from the optical fiber sensors to detect a crisis); prioritizing restoration efforts and allocating resources to the identified areas in which the infrastructure damage has occurred (Yong on at least Pgs. 7 describes that the optical fibers sensors detect changes in the terrain, transmit the specified signals and detect a crisis situation by analyzing the data, the information is processed by dividing the data into levels in collapsed risk according to the crisis detection level and in order to respond accurately and quickly, a notification is sent to an administrator terminal device within designated rankings such as 3rd to 5th ranks, so if the risk levels can include “caution”, “inspection”, and/or “control and inspection” thus prioritizing response measures for appropriate levels and sending messages notifying user to take action, e.g. allocating resources, accordingly).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill int eh art to modify the distributed fiber optic sensing techniques taught in Monsberger to include the techniques for identifying a crisis and prioritizing responses and allocating resources accordingly because each of the elements were known, but not necessarily combined as claimed. The technical ability existed to combine the elements as claimed and the result of the combination is predictable because each of the elements perform the same function as they did independently. By combining the analytic techniques and data sensing with the crisis or response techniques of Yong, the combination manages a crisis or infrastructure damage through a central location while increasing the accuracy and speed of the required response thus reducing overall risk.
As per Claim 2 Monsberger further teaches:
establishing communications among power, communication, and transportation systems (Monsberger in at least Pages 1 and 5 describes a wide range of applications for an civil infrastructures including tunnels, bridges buildings, etc.).
As per Claim 3 Monsberger does not teach but Yong further teaches:
scheduling preventative maintenance of the infrastructure (Yong on at least Pgs. 7 describes that the optical fibers sensors detect changes in the terrain, transmit the specified signals and detect a crisis situation by analyzing the data, the information is processed by dividing the data into levels in collapsed risk according to the crisis detection level and in order to respond accurately and quickly, a notification is sent to an administrator terminal device within designated rankings such as 3rd to 5th ranks, so if the risk levels can include “caution”, “inspection”, and/or “control and inspection” thus prioritizing response measures for appropriate levels and sending messages notifying user to take action, e.g. allocating resources, accordingly).
Yong is combined based on the reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
As per Claim 4 Monsberger does not teach but Yong further teaches:
in which the resources allocated are selected from the group consisting of repair crews, equipment, and material (Yong on at least Pgs. 7 describes that the optical fibers sensors detect changes in the terrain, transmit the specified signals and detect a crisis situation by analyzing the data, the information is processed by dividing the data into levels in collapsed risk according to the crisis detection level and in order to respond accurately and quickly, a notification is sent to an administrator terminal device within designated rankings such as 3rd to 5th ranks, so if the risk levels can include “caution”, “inspection”, and/or “control and inspection” thus prioritizing response measures for appropriate levels and sending messages notifying user to take action, e.g. allocating resources, accordingly).
Yong is combined based on the reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
As per Claim 5 Monsberger does not teach but Yong further teaches:
in which the resources are allocated to identified areas having priority over other areas (Yong on at least Pgs. 7 describes that the optical fibers sensors detect changes in the terrain, transmit the specified signals and detect a crisis situation by analyzing the data, the information is processed by dividing the data into levels in collapsed risk according to the crisis detection level and in order to respond accurately and quickly, a notification is sent to an administrator terminal device within designated rankings such as 3rd to 5th ranks, so if the risk levels can include “caution”, “inspection”, and/or “control and inspection” thus prioritizing response measures for appropriate levels and sending messages notifying user to take action, e.g. allocating resources, accordingly).
Yong is combined based on the reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
As per Claim 6 Monsberger further teaches:
wherein the DFOS data is analyzed in both time and frequency domains such that the method provides a multi-domain feature extraction (Monsberger in at least Page 3 describes the Brillouin Optical Time/Frequency Domain analyzer).
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monsberger, C. M., & Lienhart, W. (2021). Distributed Fiber Optic Shape Sensing of Concrete Structures. Sensors, 21(18), 6098. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21186098 , hereinafter “Monsberger” in view of the machine translation of KR 102577030 Eum Kwan Yong and Oh Tae Ju. Risk Management System Using Optical Fiber Sensor and Terrain Change Management Method Thereby. (2023), hereinafter “Yong” further in of Yiming Liu and Yi Bao. Automatic interpretation of strain distributions measured from distributed fiber optic sensors for crack monitoring, Measurement, Volume 211, (2023), hereinafter “Liu”.
As per Claim 7 neither Monsberger nor Yong explicitly recite identifying damage or crisis situations using machine learning algorithms including supervised and unsupervised models. Yong describes using a deep learning program for prediction of crisis situations. However, Liu teaches an automatic interpretation of strain distributions measures from distributed fiber optic sensors for crack monitoring. Liu further teaches:
wherein the infrastructure damage is identified by multiple machine learning algorithms including supervised and unsupervised learning models (Liu in at least Page 4 describes supervised and unsupervised machine learning approaches to automatically interpret DFOS data at different resolutions to identify, locate, quantify and visualizing cracks).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill int eh art to modify the distributed fiber optic sensing techniques taught in Monsberger/Yong to include the techniques for identifying a crisis or damage using machine learning techniques because each of the elements were known, but not necessarily combined as claimed. The technical ability existed to combine the elements as claimed and the result of the combination is predictable because each of the elements perform the same function as they did independently. By combining the analytic techniques and data sensing with the crisis or response techniques performed via machine learning the combination eliminates human interventions and human errors while enabling real time monitoring and interpretation of cracks and maximizing efficiency.
As per Claim 8 Monsberger does not teach but Yong further teaches:
wherein the infrastructure damage is identified contextually, by infrastructure type, age, and material (Yong in at least Claim 1 describes optical fiber sensors detecting terrain changes and transmitting specific signals, then detecting characteristics of the signals that can be fed back and analyzed).
Yong is combined based on the reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
As per Claim 9 Monsberger does not teach but Yong further teaches:
wherein the infrastructure damage identification is performed according to a dynamic thresholding that adapts to changing conditions and DFOS sensor performance over time (Yong on at least Pgs. 6-8 describes that the optical fibers sensors detect changes in the terrain, transmit the specified signals and detect a crisis situation by analyzing the data, according to limits, ranges and is continuously adjusted, the information is processed by dividing the data into levels in collapsed risk according to the crisis detection level and in order to respond accurately and quickly, a notification is sent to an administrator terminal device within designated rankings such as 3rd to 5th ranks, so if the risk levels can include “caution”, “inspection”, and/or “control and inspection” thus prioritizing response measures for appropriate levels and sending messages notifying user to take action, e.g. allocating resources, accordingly).
Yong is combined based on the reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
As per Claim 10 Monsberger does not teach but Yong further teaches:
wherein the infrastructure damage identification is performed in real-time such that restoration efforts and resource allocation are performed timely (Yong on at least Pgs. 3, 6-8 describes real time monitoring and responses, that the optical fibers sensors detect changes in the terrain, transmit the specified signals and detect a crisis situation by analyzing the data, according to limits, ranges and is continuously adjusted, the information is processed by dividing the data into levels in collapsed risk according to the crisis detection level and in order to respond accurately and quickly, a notification is sent to an administrator terminal device within designated rankings such as 3rd to 5th ranks, so if the risk levels can include “caution”, “inspection”, and/or “control and inspection” thus prioritizing response measures for appropriate levels and sending messages notifying user to take action, e.g. allocating resources, accordingly).
Yong is combined based on the reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al. (US 20230409003) Intelligent Edge Interrogator, Server and Control Method of integrated Facility Safety Control System.
Hook (US 20090193906) Composite Fibre and Related Detection System.
Varadarajan (US 20110096624) Sensing Technique for Seismic Exploration.
JI et al. (US 20220149932) Distributed Fiber Optic Sensor Placement.
LV et al. (US 20170023504) Method for Lighting Stroke Identification and Location on Optical Fiber Composite Overhead Ground Wire.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE Z DELICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1288. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7-3:30.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached on 571-272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEPHANIE Z DELICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623