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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 25 and 26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/11/2026.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In p. 21, line 24, “Each data processing operation 320, 340, 370” should be --Each data processing operation 320, 350, 380-- to be consistent with the drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 130 (FIG. 1B), 210 (FIG. 2), 415 (FIG.4). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because:
In FIGs 7-9, boxes or simple shapes are labeled only with reference numbers, without descriptive legends. The Examiner directs the applicant to 37 C.F.R. 1.84(n) and 1.84(o) which state, “Graphical drawing symbols may be used for conventional elements when appropriate” while “[o]ther symbols which are not universally recognized may be used, subject to approval by the Office” and that “[s]uitable descriptive legends may be used subject to approval by the Office, or may be required by the examiner where necessary for understanding of the drawing”. Since the boxes or simple shapes in FIGs 7-9 are not universally recognized for the elements they represent, the Examiner may require descriptive legends for better understanding of the drawings. See MPEP 608.02.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 13, 15, 17, 24, 28, and 29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 7, lines 1-2, “any previous claim 1” should be --clam 1-- for better clarity.
In claim 13, line 6, “the temperature and/or moisture level” should be --the temperature and/or moisture level in the second area-- for better clarity and avoid indefiniteness regarding which antecedent basis is referred to.
In claim 13, line 10, “the concrete mature level” should be --the concrete mature level in the second area-- or better clarity and avoid indefiniteness regarding which antecedent basis is referred to.
In claim 15, line 4, “the concrete sensor reporting data” should be --concrete sensor reporting data-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 15, line 5, “the lowest maturity level” should be --a lowest maturity level-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 15, line 6, “the sensor data from the plurality of distanced concrete sensors” should be --sensor data from the plurality of distanced concrete sensors-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 17, line 3, “the concrete surface” should be --a concrete surface-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 24, line 8, “an onset and/or a cessation of a first time window” should be --the onset and/or the cessation of the first time window-- to avoid creating another antecedent bases.
In claim 28, line 9, there should be a conjunction “and” in the end of the line to correct a grammatical error.
The other claim(s) not discussed above, or depending on the above claim(s), are objected to for inheriting the issue(s) from their linking claim(s).
Appropriate correction is required.
Issues under 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.
MPEP 2106 outlines a two-part analysis for Subject Matter Eligibility as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter.
Step 2, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception.
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. If the claim does not recite a judicial exception (a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), then the claim cannot be directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: NO), and thus the claim is eligible at Pathway B without further analysis. Abstract ideas can be grouped as, e.g., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes.
Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 24, Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes.
Step 2A: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicially recognized exceptions)? Yes (see analysis below).
Prong one: Whether the claim recites a judicial exception? (Yes).
The claim recites:
24. A data processing system for determining an onset and/or a cessation of a first time window for a concrete processing operation in a first area,
wherein the data processing system is configured to receive sensor data associated with a temperature and/or moisture level of a maturing concrete slab in the first area,
the data processing system comprising a database and processing circuitry configured to determine a concrete maturity level for the first area based on the sensor data, and to determine an onset and/or a cessation of a first time window based on the concrete maturity level and on data associated with the concrete processing operation stored in the database.
The claim recites an abstract idea of the bold-faced limitations above. These limitations are directed to mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (or with a pen and paper).
Prong two: Whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception? (No). The claim recites additional elements as underlined in the claim above. The data processing system is to invoke generic computer components to facilitate the application of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The receiving sensor data is an insignificant extra-solution activity for collecting data for the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements (other than the judicial exception) that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No (see analysis below).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to make the claim significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two above, the additional element(s) in the claim are an insignificant extra-solution activity, and to invoke a generic computer for its computing power to facilitate the application of the abstract idea. Also, it is routine and conventional to invoke a computer for data processing. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Considered as a whole, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
On the other hand, independent claims 1 and 28 are eligible under 35 USC 101. The claims recites features about determining an onset of a time window for a concrete processing operation based on sensor data. These are directed to an abstract idea of mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (or with a pen and paper).
However, the claims recite additional elements of determining temperature and/or moisture level of curing concrete using one or more concrete sensors in a first area of the concrete; transmitting the sensor data to a data processing system via a communication link; and transmitting the onset of the first time window to a timing support tool via a second communication link. The one or more sensors are positively recited and used, in particular, for determining temperature and/or moisture level. The determination necessarily require measuring or sensing by the particular sensors in the first area. The data processing system and communication links are generic computer components, though.
Viewed in combination, the additional elements sufficiently make the claims a practical application of the abstract idea, i.e., a monitoring system for monitoring an onset timing of a curing nonconcrete by using particular concrete sensors deployed in the first area of the curing concrete to measure and communicate temperature and/or moisture of the curing concrete. The system can timely inform an ordinary user via a communication link about when to proceed with the next concrete operation, such as panning, floating, and/or troweling the concrete, without needing expert knowledge. Accordingly, the claims are eligible.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8, 10, 12, 13, 21, 24, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by RADJY et al. (US 20170370898 A1; cited in IDS; hereinafter “RADJY”).
Regarding claim 1, RADJY teaches a concrete processing system (see FIG. 40) for determining an onset of a first time window for a concrete processing operation (i.e., “an estimated future time when the strength of the concrete in the concrete structure is expected to equal the required measure of strength is determined, based on the prediction of future strength. In particular, an estimated time when the strength of the concrete in the structure will achieve the strength that is required before performing the next action”; see [0359]) in a first area (i.e., “a construction site 4070”), the system comprising one or more concrete sensors (i.e., “sensing device 4080-A, 4080-B, 4080-C”), a data processing system (i.e., “Prediction module 4065”, “a data manager 4053”, “a first user device 4052”, “a data storage 4055”), and a timing support tool (i.e., “a user device 4038”; see [0318]),
wherein the one or more concrete sensors (i.e., 4080) are configured to determine a temperature and/or a moisture level of a maturing concrete slab in the first area (i.e., 4070), and to transmit sensor data indicating the temperature and/or moisture level via respective first communication links to the data processing system (i.e., “ prediction module 4065 may receive measurements of the temperature and humidity of a portion of concrete, obtained by a sensing device embedded in the concrete… Local gateway 4075 is a communication device adapted to receive measurement data from sensing devices 4080 and to transmit the data to data manager 4053 via network 4005”; see [0319]-[0320] and FIG. 40),
the data processing system comprising a database (i.e., “a data storage 4055”) and processing circuitry (i.e., “a prediction module 4065”; see [0138]) configured to determine a concrete maturity level for the first area based on the sensor data (i.e., “generate a prediction of the maturity of the concrete based on the temperature and humidity measurements”; see [0319]), to estimate the onset of the first time window (i.e., “estimated future time”) based on the concrete maturity level (i.e., “prediction of the strength”) and on data (i.e., “the required measure of strength”) associated with the concrete processing operation (i.e., “an estimated future time when the strength of the concrete in the concrete structure is expected to equal the required measure of strength is determined, based on the prediction of future strength”; see [0359]; “when an estimate of the current strength of the concrete of the structure is equal to the required strength… a determination is made that the predicted current strength of the concrete in the concrete structure equals the required measure of strength”; see [0361]) stored in the database (i.e., “Master database module 1611 stores data inputted from modules 1610-1618, sensing device 1130, and user device 1660”; see [0205]; “The desired measure of strength may be a measure of strength required by standards or regulations, or may be a measure of strength selected independently by the user. In the illustrative embodiment, the user enters 7200 PSI in field 4726”; see [0345]), and to transmit timing data indicating the onset of the first time window (i.e., “an alert indicating the estimated future time and the estimated future strength of the concrete is transmitted”; see [0360]) to the timing support tool (i.e., “master database module 2435 may transmit measurement data and/or prediction information relating to water-to-cementitious ratio, durability, strength, slump, maturity, etc. to a user device such as user device 2490 to enable a technician to access and view the information”; see [0268]) via a second communication link (see network 2405 or 4005 in FIG. 24 or 40),
wherein the timing support tool (i.e., “a user device such as user device 2490 to enable a technician to access and view the information”; see [0268]) is arranged to support timing of the concrete processing operation in the first area based on the timing data (i.e., “the upcoming action is performed, based on the determination that the predicted current strength of the concrete in the concrete structure equals the required measure of strength”; see [0363]).
Regarding claim 2, RADJY further teaches:
wherein the data associated with the concrete processing operation comprises data associated with a particular type of concrete processing tool or machine and/or a particular type of concrete processing operation (i.e., “An upcoming action related to the construction of the concrete structure is identified. A required measure of strength that the concrete in the concrete structure must have before that action can be performed is determined”; see [0071]).
Regarding claim 3, RADJY further teaches:
wherein the timing support tool comprises display means arranged to indicate onset of the first time window to a user of a concrete processing tool in the first area (i.e., “master database module 2435 may transmit measurement data and/or prediction information relating to water-to-cementitious ratio, durability, strength, slump, maturity, etc. to a user device such as user device 2490 to enable a technician to access and view the information. For example, user device 2490 may display measurement data and/or prediction data on a web page, or in another format”; see [0268]; “User device 4038 is a processing device employed by a person located at construction site 4070”; see [0320]).
Regarding claim 4, RADJY further teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is arranged to trigger the concrete processing operation in the first area at the onset of the first time window by the timing support tool (i.e., “If the estimated current strength of the structure equals (or exceeds) the required strength, an alert is issued to one or more selected parties. For example, an alert indicating that the “strength equals or exceeds the required strength” and an indication that the next action will be performed may be transmitted”; see [0362]).
Regarding claim 8, RADJY further teaches:
wherein the data processing system is configured to determine the onset of the first time window in dependence of a pre-determined maturity level requirement (i.e., “the required measure of strength”) of the concrete processing operation (i.e., “an estimated future time when the strength of the concrete in the concrete structure is expected to equal the required measure of strength is determined, based on the prediction of future strength”; see [0359]; “The desired measure of strength may be a measure of strength required by standards or regulations, or may be a measure of strength selected independently by the user”; see [0345]), or is configured to obtain a recipe of the concrete used in the concrete slab in the first area, and to determine the concrete maturity level in dependence of the recipe.
Regarding claim 10, RADJY further teaches:
wherein the data processing system is configured to obtain weather forecast data and/or data from one or more weather stations deployed in connection to the first area, and to predict a future concrete maturity level in dependence of the weather forecast data and/or in dependence of the data from the one or more weather stations (i.e., “information relating to predicted temperature (e.g., from a weather forecast) is included in the determination of a predicted time when concrete in a structural element is expected to have a desired measure of strength. Prediction module 4065 may access a publicly available weather forecast and obtain relevant information about the temperature at the construction site where the concrete is poured, for example. Prediction module 4065 may use this information to determine estimated timelines, in a manner similar to that discussed above”; see [0351]), or
wherein the data processing system is configured to generate extrapolated temperature and/or moisture level data from the sensor data, and to predict a future onset and/or a future cessation of the first time window.
Regarding claim 12, RADJY further teaches:
wherein the database is configured to be populated by data from empirical testing of concrete processing operations (i.e., “reference to calibration data in a central database”; see [0138]; “Sensing device(s) 1130 transmit data representing various measurements obtained by sensors, such measurements obtained by various sensors illustrated in FIG. 11, to master database module 1611 via a network 1605”; see [0200]; “Data transmitted by input module 1612 to master database module 1611 and stored in master database module 1611 may be historical in nature”; see [0211]; “Measurements from the sensors in the concrete mixture, as well as actual past measurements of temperature, wind speeds, etc., may also be used to calibrate the system and/or the algorithms used”; see [0366]).
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as claim 1 with respect to a second area, and is rejected by applying the same teachings. Note that the system supports a plurality of areas (i.e., “In another embodiment, multiple sensing devices 2450 may be located at multiple locations (e.g., at multiple construction sites)”; see [0265]).
Regarding claim 21, RADJY further teaches:
wherein the data associated with the concrete processing operation stored in the database comprises information related to previous concrete processing operations (i.e., “Measurements from the sensors in the concrete mixture, as well as actual past measurements of temperature, wind speeds, etc., may also be used to calibrate the system and/or the algorithms used”; see [0366]),
wherein the previous concrete processing operations are processing operations using a particular type of concrete processing tool or machine and/or a particular type of concrete processing operation, or
wherein the information related to the previous concrete processing operations comprises one or more statistics of onset of the processing operation with corresponding concrete temperature and/or a moisture level.
Regarding claim 24, RADJY teaches a data processing system (see FIG. 40) for determining an onset and/or a cessation of a first time window for a concrete processing operation (i.e., “an estimated future time when the strength of the concrete in the concrete structure is expected to equal the required measure of strength is determined, based on the prediction of future strength. In particular, an estimated time when the strength of the concrete in the structure will achieve the strength that is required before performing the next action”; see [0359]) in a first area (i.e., “a construction site 4070”; see [0318]),
wherein the data processing system is configured to receive sensor data associated with a temperature and/or moisture level of a maturing concrete slab in the first area (i.e., “ prediction module 4065 may receive measurements of the temperature and humidity of a portion of concrete, obtained by a sensing device embedded in the concrete”; see [0319]),
the data processing system comprising a database (i.e., “a data storage 4055”) and processing circuitry (i.e., “a prediction module 4065”; see [0138]) configured to determine a concrete maturity level for the first area based on the sensor data (i.e., “generate a prediction of the maturity of the concrete based on the temperature and humidity measurements”; see [0319]), and to determine an onset and/or a cessation of a first time window (i.e., “estimated future time”) based on the concrete maturity level (i.e., “prediction of the strength”) and on data (i.e., “required measure of strength”) associated with the concrete processing operation (i.e., “an estimated future time when the strength of the concrete in the concrete structure is expected to equal the required measure of strength is determined, based on the prediction of future strength”; see [0359]; “when an estimate of the current strength of the concrete of the structure is equal to the required strength… a determination is made that the predicted current strength of the concrete in the concrete structure equals the required measure of strength”; see [0361]) stored in the database (i.e., “Master database module 1611 stores data inputted from modules 1610-1618, sensing device 1130, and user device 1660”; see [0205]; “The desired measure of strength may be a measure of strength required by standards or regulations, or may be a measure of strength selected independently by the user. In the illustrative embodiment, the user enters 7200 PSI in field 4726”; see [0345]).
Regarding claim 28, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as claim 1 in terms of the method involved, and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
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 6, 14, 17, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RADJY.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art applied to the preceding linking claim(s) teaches the features of the linking claim(s).
RADJY does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the processing circuitry is arranged to generate a warning signal, and/or to prevent concrete processing operation in the first area by the timing support tool before the onset of the first time window and/or after cessation of the first time window.
However, since an operation (action) cannot be performed before the required strength is reached (see [0071]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify RADJY, such that the processing circuitry is arranged to generate a warning signal, and/or to prevent concrete processing operation in the first area by the timing support tool before the onset of the first time window and/or after cessation of the first time window, as claimed. The rationale would be to prevent the action been performed too early when the required strength has not been reached.
Regarding claim 14, RADJY further teaches:
configured to determine at least respective onsets of time windows (i.e., “an estimated future time when the strength of the concrete in the concrete structure is expected to equal the required measure of strength is determined, based on the prediction of future strength. In particular, an estimated time when the strength of the concrete in the structure will achieve the strength that is required before performing the next action”; see [0359]) for finishing a surface of a floor (i.e., “A particular construction project may include many other steps, such as: finish a surface of a flat deck or floor, post-tensioning release (in bridge construction), etc.”; see [0037]).
RADJY does not explicitly disclose (see only the underlined):
configured to determine at least respective onsets of time windows for any of panning, floating, and finishing power troweling concrete processing operations, and an early entry sawing concrete processing operation.
However, it is well-known to perform panning, floating, or power troweling concrete processing to finish a concrete floor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify RADJY by configuring the concrete processing system to determine at least respective onsets of time windows for any of panning, floating, and finishing power troweling concrete processing operations, and an early entry sawing concrete processing operation, as claimed. The rationale would be to help control the timing of known floor finishing actions.
Regarding claim 17, RADJY further teaches:
wherein the one or more of the concrete sensors are deployed at a depth (i.e., “One or more sensing devices are placed within concrete”; see [0070]).
RADJY does not explicitly disclose (see only the underlined):
wherein the one or more of the concrete sensors are deployed at a depth between 2-15 cm from the concrete surface.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify RADJY such that the one or more of the concrete sensors are deployed at a depth between 2-15 cm from the concrete surface, as claimed. The rationale would be to optimize the range of depth for better results.
Regarding claim 29, RADJY further teaches:
deploying the one or more concrete sensors at a depth configured in dependence of a particular concrete processing operation (i.e., “One or more sensing devices are placed within concrete… a desired measure of strength are received”; see [0070]), and
RADJY does not explicitly disclose (see only the underlined):
deploying the one or more concrete sensors at a depth configured in dependence of a particular concrete processing operation, and wherein the depth is between 2-15 cm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify RADJY by deploying the one or more concrete sensors at a depth configured in dependence of a particular concrete processing operation, and wherein the depth is between 2-15 cm, as claimed. The rationale would be to optimize the range of depth for better results.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RADJY in view of IGUCHI et al. (JP 2017043969 A; cited in IDS; full machine translation currently provided as NPL; hereinafter “IGUCHI”).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art applied to the preceding linking claim(s) teaches the features of the linking claim(s).
RADJY does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the data processing system is also arranged to determine a cessation of the first time window based on the concrete maturity level and on data associated with the concrete processing operation stored in the database, and to transmit timing data indicating the cessation of the first time window to the timing support tool via the second communication link.
However, IGUCHI teaches:
the required strength for a particular concrete processing operation should be within a range (i.e., not too soft, not too hard; see translation p. 3, middle section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify RADJY in view of IGUCHI to define the required strength in term of a range (i.e., having a minimum and a maximum), such that the data processing system is also arranged to determine a cessation of the first time window based on the concrete maturity level and on data associated with the concrete processing operation stored in the database, and to transmit timing data indicating the cessation of the first time window to the timing support tool via the second communication link, as claimed. The rationale would be to also provide the information of the corresponding cessation time for the required range of strength for the particular operation.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RADJY in view of KANG et al. (KR 20130121631 A; machine translation provided; hereinafter “KANG”).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art applied to the preceding linking claim(s) teaches the features of the linking claim(s).
RADJY does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the data processing system is configured to determine the concrete maturity level by indexing a maturity level table stored in the database using the sensor data.
But KANG teaches:
a lookup table for determining strength from actual temperature (i.e., “when the intensity calculation is stored in the storage unit 43 in the form of a look-up table”; see translation p.6 lower section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify RADJY in view of KANG, such that wherein the data processing system is configured to determine the concrete maturity level by indexing a maturity level table stored in the database using the sensor data, as claimed. The rationale would be to save time or computing resource by looking up the strength value instead of calculation.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RADJY in view of Vazquez-Herrero et al. (“A new procedure to ensure structural safety based on the maturity method and limit state theory” Construction and Building Materials 35 (2012) 393–398; cited in IDS; hereinafter “Vazquez-Herrero”).
Regarding claim 15, the prior art applied to the preceding linking claim(s) teaches the features of the linking claim(s).
RADJY does not explicitly disclose:
a plurality of concrete sensors arranged distanced from each other over the first area, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the concrete maturity level for the first area based on the concrete sensor reporting data indicating the lowest maturity level, or to estimate the onset of the first time window based on a variation in the sensor data from the plurality of distanced concrete sensors.
But Vazquez-Herrero teaches:
points of concrete structure may mature less with lower temperatures (i.e., “it is necessary to determine the points of the structure that will present less maturity, because concrete casting is delayed and/or lower internal temperatures are achieved”; see p. 397, col. 2, ¶ 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify RADJY in view of Vazquez-Herrero, by incorporating a plurality of concrete sensors arranged distanced from each other over the first area, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the concrete maturity level for the first area based on the concrete sensor reporting data indicating the lowest maturity level, or to estimate the onset of the first time window based on a variation in the sensor data from the plurality of distanced concrete sensors, as claimed. The rationale would be to ensure that all measured portions of concrete reach the required strength.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RADJY in view of CHOI (KR 20080046862 A; machine translation provided).
Regarding claim 18, the prior art applied to the preceding linking claim(s) teaches the features of the linking claim(s).
RADJY does not explicitly disclose: wherein the data processing system is arranged
to generate log data pertaining to the first time window and to the concrete processing operation,
to generate a warning and/or an alarm signal in case the concrete processing operation is performed outside of the first time window, or
to generate a receipt and/or a certificate in case the concrete processing operation is performed within the first time window.
But CHOI teaches:
a construction project managing method involving managing and marking project completion and milestone (see translation p. 7, upper sections; p. lower sections).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify RADJY in view of CHOI, to arrange the data processing system to generate log data pertaining to the first time window and to the concrete processing operation, to generate a warning and/or an alarm signal in case the concrete processing operation is performed outside of the first time window, or to generate a receipt and/or a certificate in case the concrete processing operation is performed within the first time window, as claimed. The rationale would be to facilitate construction project management.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WON (KR 20160123691 A) teaches a concrete quality management prediction system using a mobile terminal, involving measuring temperature of curing concrete and transmitting the sensor data for estimating concrete strength.
UNO et al. (JP 2012026734 A) teaches a system for determining a demolding time based on estimated strength using temperature and air quality data.
JO et al. (KR 20120017229 A) teaches a system of determining a form removal time for a concrete work by estimating the curing state and strength of concrete using measured temperature of the concrete.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN C KUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7066. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
/JOHN C KUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights