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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-17 are pending
Claims 1 and 14 have been amended
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, the applicant argues that the claims integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and highlights the arrangement of accelerometers as non-routine (Remarks page 6-8). However, according to MPEP 2106.05, simply arranging conventional multi-axis accelerometers to collect signals is viewed as mere data gathering and uses a processor for mathematical calculations both of which are well-understood, routine, conventional activities. Multi-axis (typically 3-axis) accelerometers are widely used to study structural dynamics, providing critical data on vibration, displacement, and acceleration in X, Y, and Z directions. They are essential for modal analysis, monitoring bridge vibrations, and detecting structural health in buildings and dams. Additionally, a processor (microcontroller, DSP, or CPU) can calculate the phase offset between two sensor signals. It typically works by sampling both signals, then determining the time delay between corresponding zero-crossings or points of interest and converting this time to a phase angle using the frequency. It is because of this, that simply using multi-axis accelerometers together with a processor to calculate a phase offset is not enough to be considered significantly more than the judicial exception; thus, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a system for analyzing a motion of a structure, the system comprising: multi-axis accelerometers each including a first accelerometer to produce a first acceleration signal responsive to a motion of the structure along a first axis and a second acceleration signal responsive to the motion of the structure along a second axis, the multi-axis accelerometers positioned at different locations on the structure; and at least one processor to calculate a phase offset between the first accelerometer signals of the multi-axis accelerometers and to calculate a displacement between the multi-axis accelerometers along the second axis using the second acceleration signals of the multi-axis accelerometers and the phase offset.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a system; therefore, it is a machine
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of calculating a phase offset between the first accelerometer signals of the multi-axis accelerometers. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, calculating a phase offset of signals can be done by a human or pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of calculating a displacement between the multi-axis accelerometers along the second axis using the second acceleration signals of the multi-access accelerometers and the phase offset. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, calculating a displacement between accelerometers can be done by a human or with pen and paper.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: at least one processor
the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: multi-axis accelerometers each including a first accelerometer to produce a first acceleration signal responsive to a motion of a structure along a first axis and a second acceleration signal responsive to the motion of the structure along a second axis, the multi-axis accelerometers positioned at different locations on the structure
These additional elements have been recognized by the courts as being well-understood, routine, conventional activity:
Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As noted previously, the claim merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of analyzing the motion of a structure in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 2 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the first axis is orthogonal to the second axis.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 2 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 3 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 3 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the structure comprises a building, the first axis extends through the building in a vertical dimension, and the second axis extends through the building in a horizontal dimension.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 3 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 4 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 4 is further recites the element(s) “each multi-axis accelerometer further including a third accelerometer to produce a third acceleration signal responsive to the motion of the structure along a third axis.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 4 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 5 depends on claim 4, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 5 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the third axis is orthogonal to the first axis and the second axis.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 5 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 6 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s) “the at least one processor to calculate, using the phase offset, a displacement of one of the multi-axis accelerometers relative to another of the multi-axis accelerometers.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 6 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites a method of measuring acceleration along a first dimension through a structure, the acceleration responsive to a motion of the structure, the method comprising: sensing, at a first part of the structure and responsive to the motion, a first vibration conducted through the structure along the first dimension and a second vibration conducted through the structure along a second dimension; sensing, at a second part of the structure and responsive to the motion, a third vibration conducted through the structure along the first dimension and a fourth vibration conducted through the structure along the second dimension; calculating a phase offset between the second and fourth vibrations conducted through the structure along the second dimension; and calculating the acceleration along the first dimension through the structure from the phase offset and the first and third vibrations conducted through the structure along the first dimension.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a method; therefore, it is a process
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of calculating a phase offset between the second and fourth vibrations conducted through the structure along the second dimension. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, calculating a phase offset of signals can be done by a human with the help of a pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of calculating the acceleration along the first dimension through the structure from the phase offset and the first and third vibrations conducted through the structure along the first dimension. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, calculating a displacement can be done by a human with the help of a pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of sensing a first vibration conducted through the structure along the first dimension and a second vibration conducted through the structure along a second dimension. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, sensing vibrations along dimensions can be done by a human. Humans can perceive, detect, and distinguish vibrations across multiple, simultaneous linear dimensions (x, y, z axes) within 3D space, primarily through somatosensory mechanoreceptors.
The claim recites the limitation of sensing a third vibration conducted through the structure along the first dimension and a fourth vibration conducted through the structure along the second dimension. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, sensing vibrations along dimensions can be done by a human. Humans can perceive, detect, and distinguish vibrations across multiple, simultaneous linear dimensions (x, y, z axes) within 3D space, primarily through somatosensory mechanoreceptors.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: at a first part of the structure and responsive to the motion; at a second part of the structure and responsive to the motion.
These additional elements have been recognized by the courts as being well-understood, routine, conventional activity:
Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As noted previously, the claim merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of analyzing the motion of a structure without adding more. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 8 depends on claim 7, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 8 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the first dimension is orthogonal to the second dimension.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 8 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 9 depends on claim 8 that depends on claim 7, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 9 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the first dimension extends horizontally, and the second dimension extends vertically.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 9 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 10 depends on claim 7, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 10 is further recites the element(s) “the method further to measure acceleration in a third dimension orthogonal to the second dimension, the method further comprising calculating the acceleration in the third dimension from the phase offset and vibrations conducted through the structure along the third dimension.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 10 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 11 depends on claim 7, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 11 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the structure comprises a building.”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites a method of measuring acceleration along a first dimension through a structure, the acceleration responsive to a motion of the structure, the method comprising: sensing, at a first part of the structure and responsive to the motion, a first vibration conducted through the structure along the first dimension and a second vibration conducted through the structure along a second dimension; sensing, at a second part of the structure and responsive to the motion, a third vibration conducted through the structure along the first dimension and a fourth vibration conducted through the structure along the second dimension; calculating a phase offset between the second and fourth vibrations conducted through the structure along the second dimension; and calculating the acceleration along the first dimension through the structure from the phase offset and the first and third vibrations conducted through the structure along the first dimension; wherein the structure exhibits a first lowest natural frequency in the first dimension and a second lowest natural frequency greater than the first natural frequency in the second dimension.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a method; therefore, it is a process
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of sensing a first vibration conducted through the structure along the first dimension and a second vibration conducted through the structure along a second dimension. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, sensing vibrations along dimensions can be done by a human. Humans can perceive, detect, and distinguish vibrations across multiple, simultaneous linear dimensions (x, y, z axes) within 3D space, primarily through somatosensory mechanoreceptors.
The claim recites the limitation of sensing a third vibration conducted through the structure along the first dimension and a fourth vibration conducted through the structure along the second dimension. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, sensing vibrations along dimensions can be done by a human. Humans can perceive, detect, and distinguish vibrations across multiple, simultaneous linear dimensions (x, y, z axes) within 3D space, primarily through somatosensory mechanoreceptors.
The claim recites the limitation of assigning a calculating a phase offset between the second and fourth vibrations conducted through the structure along the second dimension. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, calculating a phase offset of signals can be done by a human or pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of calculating the acceleration along the first dimension through the structure from the phase offset and the first and third vibrations conducted through the structure along the first dimension. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, calculating a displacement can be done by a human or with pen and paper.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: at a first part of the structure and responsive to the motion; at a second part of the structure and responsive to the motion; wherein the structure exhibits a first lowest natural frequency in the first dimension and a second lowest natural frequency greater than the first natural frequency in the second dimension.
These additional elements have been recognized by the courts as being well-understood, routine, conventional activity:
Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As noted previously, the claim merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of analyzing the motion of a structure without adding more. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 13 depends on claim 12, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 13 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the second natural frequency is more than thrice the first natural frequency.”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 13 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 14 depends on Claim 13, which depends on claim 12, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 14 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the first natural frequency of less than three Hertz.”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 14 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites a system for measuring dynamics of a structure having a vertical dimension and a horizontal dimension, the system comprising: a first accelerometer at a first location of the structure to detect vertical and horizontal accelerations of the structure at the first location; a second accelerometer at a second location of the structure to detect vertical and horizontal accelerations of the structure at the second location; and at least one processor to calculate: a phase offset between the detected vertical acceleration of the structure at the first location and the detected vertical acceleration of the structure at the second location; and a horizontal displacement between the first location and the second location using the phase offset and the detected horizontal acceleration of the structure at the first location and the detected horizontal acceleration of the structure at the second location.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a system; therefore, it is a machine
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of calculating a phase offset between the detected vertical acceleration of the structure at the first location and the detected vertical acceleration of the structure at the second location; and a horizontal displacement between the first location and the second location using the phase offset and the detected horizontal acceleration of the structure at the first location and the detected horizontal acceleration of the structure at the second location. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, calculating a phase offset of signals and horizontal displacement can be done by a human or pen and paper.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: at least one processor
the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: a first accelerometer at a first location of the structure to detect vertical and horizontal accelerations of the structure at the first location; a second accelerometer at a second location of the structure to detect vertical and horizontal accelerations of the structure at the second location
These additional elements have been recognized by the courts as being well-understood, routine, conventional activity:
Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As noted previously, the claim merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of analyzing the motion of a structure without adding more. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 16 depends on Claim 15, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 16 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the structure exhibits a first lowest natural frequency in the horizontal dimension and a second lowest natural frequency more than thrice the first lowest natural frequency in the vertical dimension.”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 16 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 17 depends on Claim 15, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 17 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein at least one of the first and second accelerometers produces three acceleration signals, including a vertical acceleration signal responsive to the vertical accelerations and a horizontal acceleration signal responsive to the horizontal accelerations.”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 17 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 20190353553 A1; Woodbridge; Terrance O'Brien is a system for monitoring structural integrity and movement (“twist and sway”) in cellular towers.
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 CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3991. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am -5:00am.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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.
/CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/ALVARO E FORTICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858