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 Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 15, line 3, “wherein the processing circuitry)” should be --wherein the processing circuitry-- to correct a typo.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 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”; see [0359]) and on data (i.e., “the required measure of strength”; see [0359]; “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]) 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]), the data comprising a plurality of data points derived from prior 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]), 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 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, 29, and 31 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.
Regarding claim 31, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as claim 1 and is rejected by applying the same teachings, except (see only the underlined) “the data comprising a plurality of data points derived from prior concrete processing operations and being used as input to the estimation of the onset of the first time window.”
However, as indicated in claim 1 above, the past measurements may be used to calibrate the system or algorithms for predicting the onset of the first time window. 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 including the plurality of data points derived from prior concrete processing operations as input to the estimation of the onset of the first time window, as claimed. The rationale would be to calibrate the system or algorithms, as part of the prediction process, 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 provided previously 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 previously; 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 previously).
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.
Response to Arguments
The objections to the specification and drawings have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
The rejections under 35 USC 101 have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
The objections to the claims have been fully considered. However, there is a minor informality remaining, as indicated above.
Regarding rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103, Applicant argued: Radjy fails to teach or suggest a database comprising a plurality of data points derived from prior concrete processing operations … [discussing Radjy] The "onset time" disclosed by Radjy is the time, t, when the predicted strength of the concrete is equal to the required strength (which may be input by the user, i.e. the "Action PSI")… However, this does not help the inexperienced operator since the operator still needs to know what "Action PSI" or actual strength value to input to the system. It is not enough that the operator simply inputs data associated with a particular type of concrete processing tool and/or a particular type of concrete processing operation… Radjy does not disclose the storage of past operation data, learning from prior jobs, or aggregating operator decisions… The "required measure of strength" disclosed by Radjy is a static parameter that does not constitute a database of data points related to past operations. The "required measure of strength" is not stored operational data, it is a single required value, not a dataset, not historical data, and not aggregated data… Additionally, new claim 31 requires that the plurality of data points be used as an input to the estimation of the onset of the first time window.
The Examiner respectfully submits that RADJY teaches using stored past measurements (i.e., prior concrete process operation data) for calibrating the system or algorithms for the prediction, as indicated in the rejection of claim 1 above (claim 28 is similarly rejected). Regarding claim 31, it is obvious to include the past measurements as input, so as to calibrate the system or algorithms as part of the prediction process, as indicated in the respective rejection above. Therefore, the claims are not patentable.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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