DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
3.1 Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A- Prong One
The claim(s) recite(s) a method, system, and non-transitory medium of structural health monitoring, comprising: The step of: “comparing the sensor data to a threshold value corresponding to a safety factor of the structure”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation fall under a mental process. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea, by use of generic computer components and thus are clearly directed to an abstract idea, as constructed.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitation such as: “one or more non-transitory … medium”, “one or more processors”, “computer program code”, either alone or in combination, all serve to gather and process data and do not add anything more significantly to the judicial exception, but are mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that are well known, routine, and conventional activities (see specification at para [0035], and fig.1-2) which can be of any type, including general-purpose computer (para [0093] These computer readable program instructions may be provided to a processor of a general-purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, such that the instructions, which execute via the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing apparatus, create means for implementing the functions/acts specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks.) previously known in the industries, [0035] processor set 110 includes one, or more, computer processors of any type now known or to be developed in the future.. Merely adding a programmable computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24. Furthermore, the use of a general-purpose computer to apply an otherwise ineligible algorithm does not qualify as a particular machine. See Ultramerciallnc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772F.3d 709, 716-17 (Fed. Cir. 20l4); In re TLI Commc 'ns LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785; the step of: “transmitting a signal corresponding to interrogation of sensors embedded within structural components associated with a structure; receiving a backscattered response signal including sensor data associated with the structure”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, reasonable fall under data gathering and processing activities that are pre-solution activities” are also well-known, routine and conventional activities to store data in a memory and the step of: “scheduling maintenance or manual inspection of the structure based on the sensor data being above the threshold value” could amount to post-solution activities and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See further MPEP 2106.05(d)(i-iv)-f); thus are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as previously discussed above with reference to the integration of abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of: “one or more non-transitory … medium”, “one or more processors”, “computer program code”, either alone or in combination, all serve to gather and process data and do not add anything more significantly to the judicial exception, but are mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that are well known, routine, and conventional activities (see specification at para [0035], and fig.1-2) which can be of any type, including general-purpose computer (para [0093] These computer readable program instructions may be provided to a processor of a general-purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, such that the instructions, which execute via the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing apparatus, create means for implementing the functions/acts specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks.) previously known in the industries, [0035] processor set 110 includes one, or more, computer processors of any type now known or to be developed in the future.. Merely adding a programmable computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24. Furthermore, the use of a general-purpose computer to apply an otherwise ineligible algorithm does not qualify as a particular machine. See Ultramerciallnc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772F.3d 709, 716-17 (Fed. Cir. 20l4); In re TLI Commc 'ns LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785; the step of: “transmitting a signal corresponding to interrogation of sensors embedded within structural components associated with a structure; receiving a backscattered response signal including sensor data associated with the structure”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, reasonable fall under data gathering and processing activities that are pre-solution activities” are also well-known, routine and conventional activities to store data in a memory and the step of: “scheduling maintenance or manual inspection of the structure based on the sensor data being above the threshold value” could amount to post-solution activities and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See further MPEP 2106.05(d)(i-iv)-f); thus are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Therefore, using computer components amount to no more than mere instructions to perform the abstract, and thus are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract, as constructed.
3.2 Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 merely include limitations pertaining to: (claims 2, 9, and 16), “wherein the sensors are embedded within the structural components based on manufacture of the structural components through 3D printing” (mental process; (claims 3, 10, 17); “wherein the sensors are embedded within the structural components based on being embedded within feedstock used for manufacturing of the structural components” (mental process); (claims 4, 11, 18); “wherein the structural components comprise one or more from among screws, bolts, nuts, threads, shock absorbers, fasteners, bearings, gaskets, o-rings” (mental process); (claims 5, 12, and 19); “wherein the sensor values correspond to one or more from among temperature, pressure, material stress, material strain, deflection, and a presence of smoke” (data gathering/mental process); (claim 6 and 13) “wherein the sensors comprise piezoelectric sensors” (all server to gather data); (claim 7, 14, and 20); “wherein the backscattered response signal is received by an interrogator that is mounted to a vehicle or included within a handheld device” (data gathering and process); all of which further amount to further data gathering and processor or otherwise mental process similar to that already recited by the independent claims and already addressed above and thus are further not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
4.0 Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dubov (USPF_PUB No. 2022/0196491).
4.1 In considering claims 1, 8, 15, Dubov teaches a method of structural health monitoring (see title, abstract), executable by a processor, comprising:
transmitting a signal corresponding to interrogation of sensors embedded within structural components associated with a structure (see para [0038] In the example provided here for purposes of illustration, structural health and monitoring system 100 can have a set of analog sensors 150, a set of digital sensors 160, a localized CPU board 170, and a remotely located PC or server 180, among other possible items. The localized CPU board 170 can function as a local system interrogator and/or data interpreter that forwards data for remote processing and analysis. Analog sensors can include, but are not limited to, for example, one or more vibration sensors 152, one or more accelerometers 154, and one or more tensometers 156. Each analog sensor can be coupled to an analog to digital converter (“ADC”) 158, which in turn provides a signal to the localized CPU board 170. [0039] FIG. 4A illustrates a block diagram of an example wired system connection arrangement for a structural health monitoring system. Wired system connection arrangement 101 can include a localized CPU board 170 that can function as a local system interrogator and/or data interpreter that forwards data for remote processing and analysis.); receiving a backscattered response signal including sensor data associated with the structure (see para [0005], methods provide improved structural health monitoring solutions that involve the use of lower cost sensors and system components that can be placed at various strategic locations on a 3D printed building component to facilitate improved structural monitoring at reduced costs. These can be accomplished in multiple ways, such as by modeling the 3D printed building component and performing failure analysis to determine the strategic sensor locations, embedding the sensors, and automatically collecting and formatting sensor data and forwarding the data to a remote processing system. [0030], In general, a simulation engine can model a given building structure and identify critical locations on the building structure for sensor placements, a local processor can collect and format data from the placed sensors, and a remotely located processing system can receive and analyze the formatted collected data.); comparing the sensor data to a threshold value corresponding to a safety factor of the structure (see para [0055]-[0056], Data from the various system sensors can be analyzed to measure structural performance and identify issues in the additive structure of the monitored building or building component. This can involve, for example, comparing a current state to a boundary state, which can represent one or more failure conditions. Accordingly, a boundary state can include many values that represent structural performance simulated in extreme load conditions and in situations with expected structural failures of the monitored 3D printed structure. [0060] Complex data analyzing 350 can be performed at a remotely located processing system 352. This can include, for example, sensor data comparison to predefined extreme levels of dynamic load and displacement analysis taking into account data from other sensors. Results 360 can then be provided from the complex data analyzing 350 performed at the remotely located processing system 352.); and scheduling maintenance or manual inspection of the structure based on the sensor data being above the threshold value (see para [0032], The disclosed systems and methods can also monitor and track structural changes in the overall building health after installation at the construction site by providing continuous data collection and analysis after construction. Data can be fed into a digital twin model of finite element model, for example, which can perform predictive analysis and provide proactive alerts about preventive maintenance to ensure the safety of the installed 3D printed building component or structure. [0037], [0055], Sensors and multisensor devices can be equipped with batteries, in some arrangements, and can be configured to transmit data only in the event of measured values being out of a predetermined threshold. For example, added steps can involve adjusting modeled building properties, repeating modeling for the adjustments, collecting, filtering, and formatting data from additional sensor types, and/or providing automated alerts when certain thresholds are reached or exceeded in the collected or analyzed data, among other possible steps.).
4.2 As per claims 2, 9, and 16, Dubov teaches that wherein the sensors are embedded within the structural components based on manufacture of the structural components through 3D printing.
4.3 As per claims 3, 10, and 17, teaches that wherein the sensors are embedded within the structural components based on being embedded within feedstock used for manufacturing of the structural components (see abstract, The sensors can be embedded during or after the 3D-printing process. [0005], . These advantages can be accomplished in multiple ways, such as by modeling the 3D printed building component and performing failure analysis to determine the strategic sensor locations, embedding the sensors, and automatically collecting and formatting sensor data and forwarding the data to a remote processing system. [0008] In various additional detailed embodiments, at least some of the plurality of orientation sensors and the plurality of strain gauge sensors can embedded within additive material of the building component).
4.4 With regards to claims 4, 11, and 18, Dubov teaches that wherein the structural components comprise one or more from among screws, bolts, nuts, threads, shock absorbers, fasteners, bearings, gaskets, o-rings (see para 0034] Referring first to FIG. 1, 3D printed structure 10 can include, for example, a ceiling 20, one or more straight wall portions 22, a curved wall portion 24, and a floor 26, all of which can be formed by way of a 3D printing process. 3D printed structure 10 may also include one or more structural supports 28 and/or other components to include the one of more screws, bolts, nuts, fasteners, etc. not formed by way of 3D printing).
4.5 Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, Dubov teaches that wherein the sensor values correspond to one or more from among temperature, pressure, material stress, material strain, deflection, and a presence of smoke (see abstract, system components can include an environmental subsystem and tensometers to collect humidity, temperature, and material deformation data. [0009], The environmental subsystem can include an environmental processing unit coupled to one or more environmental sensors and an environmental subsystem interface, and the environmental sensor(s) can collect humidity and temperature data at the building component while the environmental processing unit provides the humidity and temperature data to the local central processing unit via the environmental subsystem interface. These can include, but are not limited to: identifying volumetric shrinkage of 3D printed structures, identifying creep in printed materials, validating correlations between outer surface and inner temperatures of printed materials, identifying correlations between outer/inner surface temperatures and internal stresses between printed layers).
4.6 As per claims 6, 13, Dubov teaches that wherein the sensors comprise piezoelectric sensors (see para [0038], Digital sensors can include, but are not limited to, for example, one or more accelerometers 162, one or more temperature sensors 164, one or more multisensors (e.g., accelerometer, gyroscope, and/or magnetic) 166, and one or more environmental sensors 168. [0041], [0048], subsystem can involve a strain sensing subsystem “piezoelectric sensors” that includes multiple strain gauges located at the same building or building components having an orientation sensing subsystem. FIG. 8A illustrates in side perspective view a first portion of an example strain gauge installed at a 3D printed structure, while FIG. 8B illustrates in side perspective view a second portion of an example strain gauge installed at the 3D printed structure. Strain gauge 121 can be coupled by way of strain gauge wiring 122 to a strain sensing processor 123, all of which can be installed at a relevant 3D printed building or building component. Further see [0052]).
4.7 With regards to claims 7, 14, and 20, teaches that wherein the backscattered response signal is received by an interrogator that is mounted to a vehicle or included within a handheld device (see para [0038] In the example provided here for purposes of illustration, structural health and monitoring system 100 can have a set of analog sensors 150, a set of digital sensors 160, a localized CPU board 170, and a remotely located PC or server 180, among other possible items. The localized CPU board 170 can function as a local system interrogator and/or data interpreter that forwards data for remote processing and analysis. Wired system connection arrangement 101 can include a localized CPU board 170 that can function as a local system interrogator and/or data interpreter that forwards data for remote processing and analysis. Analog sensors can include, but are not limited to, for example, one or more vibration sensors 152, one or more accelerometers 154, and one or more tensometers 156. Each analog sensor can be coupled to an analog to digital converter (“ADC”) 158, which in turn provides a signal to the localized CPU board 170. Digital sensors can include, but are not limited to, for example, one or more accelerometers 162, one or more temperature sensors 164, one or more multisensors (e.g., accelerometer, gyroscope, and/or magnetic) 166, and one or more environmental sensors 168.).
5. Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watters et al. (USPF_PUB No. 2002/0154029).
5.1 Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Watters et al. teaches a method of structural health monitoring (see title, abstract), executable by a processor, comprising:
transmitting a signal corresponding to interrogation of sensors embedded within structural components associated with a structure (see abstract, [0013], The device also comprises a transponder in electrical communication with the sensor and that transmits a wireless signal through a portion of the structure indicating the parameter status when triggered by a wireless interrogation signal. [0018], the method further comprises probing the device with an interrogator that produces a wireless signal that transmits through a portion of the concrete. [0060] System 30 relies on a hand-held or portable interrogator 32 carried by a person. Using wireless techniques, interrogator 32 communicates with sensing devices 50a-50d. Interrogator 32 produces a probing signal that penetrates portions of concrete 34 between each of the devices 50 and the current position of interrogator 32. Further see [0085]); receiving a backscattered response signal including sensor data associated with the structure (see abstract, Para [0018], The method additionally comprises returning a wireless signal from the device through a portion of the concrete. The return wireless signal indicates the parameter status. In one embodiment, the structure is a bridge or a portion of a bridge. [0060], In response to the probing signal from interrogator 32, each device 50 makes a sensor reading. Circuitry within device may convert the sensor measurement into a signal output by a transponder in the device. See further [0085]); comparing the sensor data to a threshold value corresponding to a safety factor of the structure (see see para [0120], [0120] Threshold detector 144 compares one or more particular levels of output from sensor 142 with a predetermined threshold for an application. [0126], Comparator 159 compares the output of operational amplifier 158 with threshold voltage 162. A logical LO output from comparator 159 indicates that chloride concentrations received by sensor 142 are below the threshold and within acceptable ranges.); and scheduling maintenance or manual inspection of the structure based on the sensor data being above the threshold value (see para [0180]).
Claim Interpretation
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
6.1 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. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
6.2 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “… storage media configured to”, and “…processors configured to” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
7.1 MURIALDO et al. (USPG_PUB No. 2020/0194410) teaches a 3D printable feedstock ink is disclosed for use in a 3D printing process where the ink is flowed through a printing nozzle.
7.2 Afzali-Ardakan et al. (USPG_PUB No. 2019/0286859) teaches systems, methods, and electronic circuits facilitating embedded sensor chips in polymer-based coatings.
7.3 Hasan et al. (US Pat No. 10,062,831 B2) teaches a structural health management system and apparatus.
8. Claims 1-20 are rejected and this action is non-final. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE PIERRE-LOUIS whose telephone number is (571)272-8636. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, EMERSON C PUENTE can be reached at 571-272-3652. 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.
/ANDRE PIERRE LOUIS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187 February 7, 2026