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 .
Summary
This action is responsive to the application filed on 06/24/2025. Applicant has submitted Claims 1-12 for examination.
Examiner finds the following: 1) Claims 1-12 are rejected; 2) no claims objected to; and 3) no claims allowable.
Claim Interpretation
Generally: The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
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)(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.
(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 1-2 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li (US 20260202574 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Li discloses:
A landslide monitoring system (Li, FIG. 4B, [0153], “FIG. 4B illustrates an example where the region source comprises a source of a mass movement 410 comprising a landslide, avalanche, or mudslide, the source information comprises location of slip planes 412, and the physical source state being calculated includes mass”) comprising:
an integrated sensor having a light emitter (Li, FIG. 26, [0213], laser source 2201) connected to one end of a stretchable optical fiber (Li, FIG. 26, [0214], “The AOM 2203 is controlled by the driver 2204 to provide switching or “gating” of the laser beam to create a train of light pulses so that ranging (time-of-flight of each pulse launched in the fiber) can be performed by mapping backscatter to distance along the fiber, thereby enabling spatial localization of perturbations along the fiber”) and a light receiver connected to the other end of the stretchable optical fiber (Li, Fig. 26, [0212], “interrogator 2200 used for optical fiber sensing”), the stretchable optical fiber located across a slope of a terrain (Li, FIG. 4B, [0153], “FIG. 4B illustrates an example where the region source comprises a source of a mass movement 410 comprising a landslide, avalanche, or mudslide, the source information comprises location of slip planes 412, and the physical source state being calculated includes mass”);
circuitry configured
to operate the emitter and receiver and determine if the stretchable optical fiber stretches beyond a pre-determined amount (Li, FIG. 1, [0104], “Examples of optical fiber sensing data include, but are not limited to, any data reflecting a change in a property of the optical fiber [59], such as change in fiber length, cable vibration, deformation of the fiber, temperature, polarization (state of polarization, SOP) or photo-elastic properties (e.g., change of refractive index due to stress/strain), or distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) data. As needed, the optical fiber sensing data can be processed to obtain the strain rate data”); and
generate an alarm when the stretchable optical fiber stretches beyond the pre-determined amount (Li, FIG. 1, [0109], “In some embodiments, the monitoring comprises outputting a signal measuring the change in real time with the change. The forecast signal can comprise an early warning signal that forecasts the event (e.g., hazardous mass movement or mass flow) to either provide sufficient time for mitigation to prevent or suppress damage to surrounding infrastructure (e.g., building) caused by the mass movement, or allow evacuation prior to the event occurring. In some embodiments, the warning signal is provided at least 15 minutes prior to the event/mass movement occurring”);
wherein the alarm is a landslide warning (Li, FIG. 4B, [0153], “FIG. 4B illustrates an example where the region source comprises a source of a mass movement 410 comprising a landslide, avalanche, or mudslide, the source information comprises location of slip planes 412, and the physical source state being calculated includes mass”).
Regarding Claim 2, Li discloses Claim 1, and Li further discloses:
… wherein the integrated sensor is a time-of-flight sensor (Li, FIG. 26, [0214], “The AOM 2203 is controlled by the driver 2204 to provide switching or “gating” of the laser beam to create a train of light pulses so that ranging (time-of-flight of each pulse launched in the fiber) can be performed by mapping backscatter to distance along the fiber, thereby enabling spatial localization of perturbations along the fiber”).
Regarding Claim 5, Li discloses Claim 2, and Li further discloses:
… comprising a plurality of individual integrated sensors, each individual one of the plurality of individual integrated sensors connected to a respective one of a plurality of individual stretchable optical fibers (Li, FIG.3, [0143], “The number of channels can span an extensive network of optical fibers, e.g., 1-100 km range”).
Regarding Claim 6, Li discloses Claim 5, and Li further discloses:
… wherein the plurality of individual stretchable optical fibers are arranged along the slope in a pre-determined pattern (Li, [0101], “using the existing telecommunication fiber network, this method can measure subsurface deformation in both onshore and offshore environments.” Examiner notes that existing telecommunications would be in a pre-determined pattern).
Regarding Claim 7, Li discloses Claim 6, and Li further discloses:
… wherein the plurality of individual optical fibers are arranged to be substantially parallel to one another (Li, [0101], “using the existing telecommunication fiber network, this method can measure subsurface deformation in both onshore and offshore environments.” Examiner notes that existing telecommunications are often in parallel formations, specifically as they follow roads).
Regarding Claim 8, Li discloses Claim 7, and Li further discloses:
… wherein the plurality of individual optical fibers are at least partially buried (Li, FIG. 4C, [0156], optical fiber 470), and the integrated sensors are not (Li, FIG. 26, [0224], “The interrogator and/or computer can be located in a residential or commercial/industrial building with optical fiber service, wherein the optical fiber is used for local sensing of mass movement as used herein. Alternatively, the interrogator and/or computer system can be located at a remote location, e.g., a network operation center, cable landing station”).
Regarding Claim 9, Li discloses Claim 8, and Li further discloses:
… wherein the integrated sensors are all located at a base of the slope (Li, FIG. 4B, [0154], “IN this example, the optical fiber 470 is along a road, although other positionings are possible.” Examiner notes that the road in FIG. 4B is at the base of the slope).
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20260202574 A1) in view of LV (US 20260235763 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Li discloses Claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the light receiver includes a single-photon-avalanche diode (SPAD).
However, LV, in a similar field of endeavor (DEPTH COMPENSATION METHOD OF DIRECT TIME OF FLIGHT (DTOF) SENSOR AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE), discloses:
… wherein the light receiver includes a single-photon-avalanche diode (SPAD) (LV, FIG. 1, [0086], “The dTOF sensor is configured to collect image data. The ADC is configured to sample a VSPAD voltage to determine a real value of the VSPAD voltage, that is, a real drive voltage of a SPAD”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li with the SPAD of LV. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of SPAD’s as disclosed by LV and how to use them to modify Li. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(B)), specifically the use of a light receiver with an SPAD, depending on the needs of the user.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Li and LV discloses Claim 3, and Li further discloses:
… wherein the light emitter, the light receiver, and ends of the stretchable optical fiber are encapsulated together (Li, Fig. 26, [0212], interrogator 2200).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20260202574 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Li discloses Claim 9, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein at least one integrated sensor is connected to every 100 meters of individual optical fiber.
However, Li does disclose:
The number of channels can span an extensive network of optical fibers, e.g., 1-100 km range. Low frequency algorithms as described herein (e.g., FIG. 3) can also be applied for obtaining OFS data from long haul telecom cables, to receive strain rate data along 1,000 to few thousand km span of optical fiber, and allow monitoring with a single device (interrogator).
The sensor spacing is a result-effective variable. In that, if there are too few sensors it would fail to accurately sense and if there were too many sensors it would be cost effective to produce.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant's filing date to include “wherein at least one integrated sensor is connected to every 100 meters of individual optical fiber,” since determining the optimum sensor count and spacing is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 11, Li discloses Claim 8, but does not explicitly disclose:
… configured to exhibit a millimeter-level accuracy in measuring changes in optical fiber length.
The accuracy is a result-effective variable. In that, if the system was not sufficiently accurate it would fail to accurately sense.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant's filing date to include “configured to exhibit a millimeter-level accuracy in measuring changes in optical fiber length,” since determining the optimum sensor accuracy is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 12, Li discloses Claim 11, but does not explicitly disclose:
… configured to exhibit sub-millimeter-level accuracy in measuring changes in optical fiber length.
The accuracy is a result-effective variable. In that, if the system was not sufficiently accurate it would fail to accurately sense.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant's filing date to include “configured to exhibit a millimeter-level accuracy in measuring changes in optical fiber length,” since determining the optimum sensor accuracy is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD A REVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0079. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5 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, Kara Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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.
/CHAD ANDREW REVERMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights