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. The amendment filed on 05/05/2026 has been received and fully considered.
3. claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 05/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with reference the rejection under 35 USC 101; but are moot with regards to the art rejection of Dubov in light of the new grounds of rejection. Regarding applicant’s assertions that: “the claimed invention does not fall within one of the enumerated subject matter groupings of abstract ideas included in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, e.g., the claimed invention is not a mathematical concept, a method of organizing human activity, or a mental process”, and that: “amended claim 1 recites specific and meaningful limitation using a computer. Additionally, claim 1 at least recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception, which can include one or more improvements to a computer or computer technology. Thus, Applicant submits that the amended independent claims, considered as a whole, recite subject matter beyond an abstract idea.” And “Applicant contends that at least the above underlined features (above) of amended claim 1 go beyond an abstract idea and conventional activities by providing specificity of the operations using specific hardware, as recited in claim 1.”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the claims clearly directed to abstract idea and do not recite anything that sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea nor integrate the recited abstract into a practical application, as asserted by the applicant. Furthermore, the claims do not in any way provide any improvement to a technological field. In fact, there absolutely no way to improve the functionality of the general processor by performing the steps set forth by the claims nor is there anything recited in the claims that goes beyond the recited judicial exception. Even assuming that that claim recites some sort of improvement, said improvement would only apply to Applicants’ method and not the computer in general, i.e., when other computer applications are executed, they do not benefit from the same improvement that Applicants intended to have produced. The Examiner further notes that to transform an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon into "a patent-eligible application", the claim must recite more than simply the judicial exception "while adding the words 'apply it.'" Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, 101 USPQ2d at 1965. Therefore, the claims are clearly abstract, as currently constructed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
5.1 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: “generating the backscattered response signal using a circuit component of each of the sensors, the backscattered response signal including a frequency response being modulated as a function of mechanical strain sensed by one of the sensors”; and “comparing the sensor data to a threshold value corresponding to a safety factor of the structure, wherein the sensor data indicates a mechanical stress of one or more of the structural”, 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: “the interrogator device having “electronic circuitry”, “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 by an interrogator device, the signal corresponding to interrogation of sensors embedded within structural components associated with a structure, wherein the sensors are at least part of integrated circuits which respond to the signal, .. to transmit the signal and receive a backscattered response signal”; “receiving, at the interrogator, the backscattered response signal from the sensors, the backscattered response signal including sensor data associated with the structure, in response to the transmitting of the signal corresponding to the interrogation of the sensors”, 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 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: “the interrogator device having “electronic circuitry”, “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 by an interrogator device, the signal corresponding to interrogation of sensors embedded within structural components associated with a structure, wherein the sensors are at least part of integrated circuits which respond to the signal, .. to transmit the signal and receive a backscattered response signal”; “receiving, at the interrogator, the backscattered response signal from the sensors, the backscattered response signal including sensor data associated with the structure, in response to the transmitting of the signal corresponding to the interrogation of the sensors”, 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 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.
5.2 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 § 103
6. 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.
6.0 Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubov (USPF_PUB No. 2022/0196491), in view of Huang et al. (USPG_PUB No. 2015/0015275).
6.1 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 by an interrogator device, the 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, at the interrogator, the backscattered response signal from the sensors, the backscattered response signal including sensor data associated with the structure, in response to the transmitting of the signal corresponding to the interrogation of the sensors (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.); and comparing the sensor data to a threshold value corresponding to a safety factor of the structure, wherein the sensor data indicates a mechanical stress of one or more of the structural (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). However, he does not expressly teach generating the backscattered response signal using a circuit component of each of the sensors, the backscattered response signal including a frequency response being modulated as a function of mechanical strain sensed by one of the sensors, wherein the sensors are at least part of integrated circuits which respond to the signal, the interrogator device having electronic circuitry configured to transmit the signal and receive a backscattered response signal.
Huang et al. teaches generating the backscattered response signal using a circuit component of each of the sensors, the backscattered response signal including a frequency response being modulated as a function of mechanical strain sensed by one of the sensors (see “Frequency Response Vs. Strain for a Patch Antenna” para [0070-0077] A sweeping frequency synthesizer 34 generates a series of RF signals with a sweeping frequencies centered at the resonance frequency 28 of the unloaded passive wireless antenna sensor 18 through a circulator 36. An antenna reader 24 includes a transceiver that transmits and detects a signal from the passive wireless antenna sensor 18, and the data is then sent to a band-pass filter 38, after which the backscattered signal will be amplified at low noise amplifier (LNA) 40 and detected by a RF power detector 42. [0081] A sweeping frequency synthesizer 34 generates a series of RF signals with a sweeping frequencies centered at the resonance frequency 28 of the unloaded passive wireless antenna sensor 18 through a circulator 36. An antenna transceiver 24 transmits and detects a signal from the passive wireless antenna sensor 18. The signal is then sent to a band-pass filter 38. After amplifying the filtered signal with a Low Noise Amplifier (LNA), the received signal is mixed with the reference signal to produce a low frequency intermediate frequency (IF) signal. The frequency shift will be in the range of zero to a few hundred Mega-Hertz.), wherein the sensors are at least part of integrated circuits which respond to the signal, the interrogator device having electronic circuitry configured to transmit the signal and receive a backscattered response signal (see para [0077]-[0078], An antenna reader 24 includes a transceiver that transmits and detects a signal from the passive wireless antenna sensor 18, and the data is then sent to a band-pass filter 38, after which the backscattered signal will be amplified at low noise amplifier (LNA) 40 and detected by a RF power detector 42. [0098] After the sensor node receives the interrogation signal, the re-radiator transmits the second harmonic of the received signal back to the interrogation antenna. The information from the antenna sensor can then be acquired from this harmonic signal. [0099] After sending a pulse signal to the wireless sensor node, the wireless interrogator was switched to the receiving mode. [0101], Referring to FIG. 18, a dynamic wireless sensing system 200 is configured to achieve dynamic interrogation of a wireless antenna sensor 202 for dynamic measurement, such as mechanical vibration monitoring. The dynamic wireless sensing system 200 includes a wireless antenna sensor 202 and a wireless interrogator 204. The dynamic wireless interrogation system 204 remotely interrogates the wireless antenna sensor 202 at high speeds and thus broadens the application of the passive wireless antenna sensors 202 and paves the way to achieve passive wireless health monitoring).
Dubov and Huang et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and that the model analyzes by Huang et al. is similar to that of Dubov. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of skilled in the art at the time of filing of the applicant’s invention to combine the method of Huang et al. with that of Dubov because Huang et al. teaches efficiently measure the antenna resonant efficiency (see para [0097]).
6.2 As per claims 2, 9, and 16, the combined teachings of Dubov and Huang et al. teaches that wherein the sensors are embedded within the structural components based on manufacture of the structural components through 3D printing (see Dubov 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 multi-sensors (e.g., accelerometer, gyroscope, and/or magnetic) 166, and one or more environmental sensors 168. 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).
6.3 As per claims 3, 10, and 17, the combined teachings of Dubov and Huang et al. 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 Dubov 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 sensor can embedded within additive material of the building component). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of skilled in the art at the time of filing of the applicant’s invention to combine the method of Huang et al. with that of Dubov because Huang et al. teaches efficiently measure the antenna resonant efficiency (see para [0097]).
6.4 With regards to claims 4, 11, and 18, the combined teachings of Dubov and Huang et al. teaches that wherein the structural components comprise one or more from among screws, bolts, nuts, threads, shock absorbers, fasteners, bearings, gaskets, o-rings (see Dubov 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). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of skilled in the art at the time of filing of the applicant’s invention to combine the method of Huang et al. with that of Dubov because Huang et al. teaches efficiently measure the antenna resonant efficiency (see para [0097]).
6.5 Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, the combined teachings of Dubov and Huang et al. 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 Dubov 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). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of skilled in the art at the time of filing of the applicant’s invention to combine the method of Huang et al. with that of Dubov because Huang et al. teaches efficiently measure the antenna resonant efficiency (see para [0097]).
6.6 As per claims 6, 13, the combined teachings of Dubov and Huang et al. teaches that wherein the sensors comprise piezoelectric sensors (see Dubov 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]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of skilled in the art at the time of filing of the applicant’s invention to combine the method of Huang et al. with that of Dubov because Huang et al. teaches efficiently measure the antenna resonant efficiency (see para [0097]).
6.7 With regards to claims 7, 14, and 20, the combined teachings of Dubov and Huang et al. 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 Dubov 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.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of skilled in the art at the time of filing of the applicant’s invention to combine the method of Huang et al. with that of Dubov because Huang et al. teaches efficiently measure the antenna resonant efficiency (see para [0097]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
7.0 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).
7.1 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 by an interrogator device, the 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]), wherein the sensors are at least part of integrated circuits which respond to the signal, the interrogator device having electronic circuitry configured to transmit the signal and receive a backscattered response signal (see para [0066] In another embodiment, vehicle 72 includes a two-antenna system comprising a transmitting antenna at the front of the vehicle and receiving antenna disposed at the rear. The two antenna system allows a wireless device within roadway 71 to receive a probing signal from the front transmitting antenna, generate a response, and transmit a response signal back to rear receiving antenna. [0075], In some cases, it automatically transmits signals when actuated or probed by a signal from an interrogator. Commonly, a transponder includes an amplifier for increasing the strength of a received incident signal (from the interrogator 102 or other actuating device), a modulator for modifying that signal with information provided to the transponder, and an antenna or antennas for receiving and transmitting. The modulator is that part of the transponder that impresses information on the transmitted signal. A "transceiver" may be a component of a transponder responsible for transmitting and receiving signals, usually independent of one another.); receiving, at the interrogator, the backscattered response signal from the sensors, the backscattered response signal including sensor data associated with the structure, in response to the transmitting of the signal corresponding to the interrogation of the sensors (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]); generating the backscattered response signal using a circuit component of each of the sensors, the backscattered response signal including a frequency response being modulated as a function of mechanical strain sensed by one of the sensors (see para [0065], These delays may include a delay for a probing signal to reach a particular device 50, a delay for the device 50 to generate a response, a delay for the response signal to reach interrogator 75, and any other processing or wireless transmission delays. Regardless of the speed of vehicle 72, inspection of devices 50 using system 70 allows convenient (to highway personnel sitting in the vehicle) and less-intrusive (to traffic) methods of road health inspection. [0066] In another embodiment, vehicle 72 includes a two-antenna system comprising a transmitting antenna at the front of the vehicle and receiving antenna disposed at the rear. The two antenna system allows a wireless device within roadway 71 to receive a probing signal from the front transmitting antenna, generate a response, and transmit a response signal back to rear receiving antenna. This two-antenna system allows for increased speed of vehicle 72 since delays in communicating with a device 50 are compensated by the distance between the front and rear antennas.); and comparing the sensor data to a threshold value corresponding to a safety factor of the structure, wherein the sensor data indicates a mechanical stress of one or more of the structural (see para[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).
Conclusion
8. Claims 1-20 are rejected and THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
9. 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 July 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights