DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 02/26/2025 was filed. 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 § 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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Examples of abstract ideas include mental processes; certain methods of organizing human activities; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014).
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 (exemplary) recites a device.
The claim is directed to a machine, which is a statutory category of invention.
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites a device that comprises the limitations of:
performs filtering on a vibration distribution waveform, indicating a temporal change in a spatial distribution in a longitudinal direction of vibration of an aerial optical fiber cable, with a high-pass filter having a cutoff frequency higher than a spatial frequency of the vibration; and
identifies a utility pole location by performing envelope detection on a filtering waveform obtained by the filtering.
The claimed process simply describes series of steps for a device, based on performing, and identifying. These limitations set forth a judicial exception, because this is simply the organization and comparison of data which can be performed with pen and paper and is an idea of itself. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations activities that falls within the enumerated group of “mental processes” and/or “mathematical concept” See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). PEG.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitation of using a vibration analysis device and a high-pass filter to perform the steps. The processor (vibration analysis device) in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. The processor is a general-purpose processor (see para [0014 and 0015] of the specification) that performs general-purpose functions of performing, and identifying. The recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Also, these limitations are an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d)
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea and have additional elements present in the claims of a vibration analysis device and a high-pass filter. These additional limitations of a vibration analysis device and a high-pass filter are mere generic implantations and can be performed by pen and paper and falls under enumerated group of “mental processes” and/or “mathematical concept” and do not transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention including claims 1 and 3.
Furthermore, the dependent claim 2 does not resolve the issues raised in the independent claims. The dependent claim does not add limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea. The dependent claim does not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claims. Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Lastly, dependent claims do not include any additional elements and thus does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea. These limitations further define the abstract idea and are rejected under the same rational of claim 1.
Accordingly, claims 1-3 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
The instant claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 in view of The Decision in Alice Corporation Ply. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that the patent claims in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, el al. ("Alice Corp. ") are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoda (US 20210172767 A1) in view of Wakisaka (US 20210223095 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yoda teaches a vibration analysis device that performs filtering on a vibration distribution waveform, indicating a temporal change in a spatial distribution in a longitudinal direction of vibration of an aerial optical fiber cable (the specifying unit 332 determines a section in which the number of times of vibrations in a certain period is equal to or greater than a threshold as a section in which a characteristic pattern of a utility pole 10 occurs, and specifies the center of that section as the location of the utility pole 10), with a filter (32). (Paragraphs 61-67, Fig.2)
Yoda also teaches to identify a utility pole location (the specifying unit 332 determines a section in which the magnitude of vibrations is equal to or greater than a threshold as a section in which a characteristic pattern of a utility pole 10 occurs, and specifies a point in that section at which vibrations having the maximum magnitude occur as the location of the utility pole 10). (Paragraphs 61-67, Figs.2-3)
Yoda does not explicitly teach a high-pass filter having a cutoff frequency higher than a spatial frequency of the vibration and performing envelope detection on a filtering waveform obtained by the filtering.
Wakisaka teaches a high-pass filter having a cutoff frequency higher than a spatial frequency of the vibration (a spatial high pass filter having a cutoff frequency set to a value higher than a spatial frequency corresponding to a periodic oscillation) and performing envelope detection on a filtering waveform (the distance from the vibration source 304 is calculated from the onset of the envelope of the vibration according using Equation (2)) obtained by the filtering. (Paragraphs 44-45, 55, 48-49, Fig.4)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Yoda to incorporate a high-pass filter having a cutoff frequency higher than a spatial frequency of the vibration and performing envelope detection on a filtering waveform obtained by the filtering as taught by Wakisaka in order to prevent interference, isolates specific channels, and cleans up optical signals.
Regarding claim 2, Yoda does not explicitly teach to extract only a traveling wave component or a backward wave component in the longitudinal direction of the vibration from the vibration distribution waveform; and performs the filtering on the extracted traveling wave component or backward wave component.
Wakisaka teaches to extract only a traveling wave component or a backward wave component in the longitudinal direction of the vibration from the vibration distribution waveform; and performs the filtering on the extracted traveling wave component or backward wave component. (Paragraphs 11, 40, 48, 59)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Yoda to incorporate to extract only a traveling wave component or a backward wave component in the longitudinal direction of the vibration from the vibration distribution waveform; and performs the filtering on the extracted traveling wave component or backward wave component as taught by Wakisaka in order to prevent interference, isolates specific channels, and cleans up optical signals.
Regarding claim 3, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 1. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 3, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 3 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLAH ABULABAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00am-3:00pm EST.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571-272-6970. 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.
/ABDALLAH ABULABAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights