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, see pages 6-8, filed 1/9/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-14 under U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 1, 7, 12 and 15, applicant argues the claims provide a technological improvement of using high-frequency vertical signal to synchronize and enhance accuracy of low-frequency horizontal measurements in buildings and further argues the techniques used are hardware-integrated solution addressing clock drift in distributed accelerometers (Remarks page 6-8). However, the only pieces of hardware mentioned in the claim are the multi-axis accelerometers including a first accelerometer (which is mainly for data gathering) and at least one processor(used for processing/calculations). The processor is used for calculating a phase offset between the accelerometer signals and a displacement along an axis. These calculations, according to 2106.04(a)(2) are still considered mental processes performed on a generic computer. According to 2106.04(a)(2)- III Mental processes “The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation … Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.", thus calculating a phase offset and a displacement are still considered mental processes. Furthermore, According to MPEP 2106.05(a), “To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology.” Thus, simply using a generic computer component such as a processor to perform the method is not enough to be a technological improvement. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments regarding the claims integrating a judicial exception into a practical application are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first accelerometer signals" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether it is referring to the first acceleration signal responsive to a motion of the structure along the first axis in lines 3-4 or another first acceleration signal. If it is referring to the first acceleration signal in lines 3-4, then it is recommended to amend to recite “the first acceleration signal responsive to a motion of the structure along the first axis”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second acceleration signals of the multi-axis accelerometers" in line 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether it is referring to the singular second acceleration signal in lines 4-5 or a plurality of second acceleration signals. Furthermore, it is unclear if it’s referring to the second acceleration signal responsive to the motion of the structure along the second axis in lines 4-5 or second acceleration signals of the multi-axis accelerometers. If it is referring to the second acceleration signal responsive to the motion of the structure along the second axis in lines 4-5, then it is recommended to amend to recite “second acceleration signal responsive to the motion of the structure along the second axis”. If it is referring to the second acceleration signals of the multi-axis accelerometers, then it is recommended to amend to recite “using [[the]] second acceleration signals of the multi-axis accelerometers”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the motion" in lines 4 and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring to the motion of the structure in line 2 or another motion. If it is referring to the motion of the structure in line 2, then it is recommended to amend to recite “the motion of the structure …”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the motion" in lines 4 and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring to the motion of the structure in line 2 or another motion. If it is referring to the motion of the structure in line 2, then it is recommended to amend to recite “the motion of the structure …”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the first natural frequency" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring to the first lowest natural frequency in line 15 or another first natural frequency. If it is referring to the first lowest natural frequency in line 15, then it is recommended to amend to recite “the first lowest natural frequency …”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the detected vertical acceleration of the structure" in lines 8 and 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring to the plurality of detected vertical and horizontal accelerations of the structure in lines 3-4 and 5-6 or another singular detected vertical acceleration. If it is referring to the plurality of detected vertical and horizontal accelerations of the structure in lines 3-4, then it is recommended to amend to recite “the detected vertical accelerations …”. If it is referring to a singular detected vertical acceleration, then it is recommended to amend to recite “a detected vertical acceleration”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the detected horizontal acceleration of the structure" in lines 12 and 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring to the plurality of detected vertical and horizontal accelerations of the structure in lines 3-4 and 5-6 or another singular detected horizontal acceleration. If it is referring to the plurality of detected vertical and horizontal accelerations of the structure in lines 3-4, then it is recommended to amend to recite “the detected horizontal accelerations …”. If it is referring to a singular detected horizontal acceleration, then it is recommended to amend to recite “a detected horizontal acceleration”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-6 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent on claim 1.
Claims 8-11 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent on claim 7.
Claims 13-14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent on claim 12.
Claims 16-17 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent on claim 15.
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 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; 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-access 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 with 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 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 does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps of analyzing a motion of a structure are performed: 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
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);
The following references establish the conventionality of the limitation “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”:
US 20170123088 A1 “MULTI-AXIS, SINGLE MASS ACCELEROMETER” (Faber; Kees) teaches “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” see par.42, 46 and fig.1A – 1C
US 4510802 A “Angular rate sensor utilizing two vibrating accelerometers secured to a parallelogram linkage” (Peters; Rex B.) teaches “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” see col.1 ln 60 – col.2 ln 1-7 and fig.1-3 “… an apparatus for generating a signal representing the angular rate motion of a structure that includes first and second accelerometers each having a force sensing axis; a parallelogram mechanism including a first accelerometer support member holding the first accelerometer, a second accelerometer support member holding the second accelerometer and a linkage mechanism attached to the accelerometer support members and secured to the structure such that the force sensing axes are aligned in parallel. The apparatus also includes a drive mechanism to vibrate the accelerometer support members in a direction substantially normal to the accelerometer force sensing axes at a frequency. omega. and a signal processing circuit for generating a rate signal representing the angular rate motion of the structure.”
US 20140324356 A1; “APPARATUS FOR EVALUATING SAFETY OF BUILDING USING EARTHQUAKE ACCELERATION MEASUREMENT” teaches “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” see par.33 “The first and second earthquake acceleration measurement instruments 21 and 22 are respectively installed in a top story and a bottom story of a building 11 so as to measure earthquake accelerations of the top story and the bottom story of the building 11.” and par. 18 “the third earthquake acceleration measurement instrument measuring an earthquake acceleration of a free field; a peak horizontal ground acceleration calculation unit combining maximum values of horizontal components of the earthquake acceleration of the free field measured by the third earthquake acceleration measuring instrument”
US 20150355050 A1; “Building Safety Verification System And Building Safety Verification Method” teaches “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” see par.28 “each of the acceleration sensors S.sub.1 to S.sub.n measures an acceleration value applied to each acceleration sensor in first to n.sup.th floors and transmits it as the acceleration data to the building safety verification system 1 via the information communication network. Here, as illustrated in FIG. 1, the acceleration sensor is disposed in each floor of the building. When the building 100 of FIG. 1 is a six-floor building, the acceleration sensor S.sub.1 is disposed in a first floor 100.sub.1, the acceleration sensor S.sub.2 is disposed in a second floor 100.sub.2, the acceleration sensor S.sub.3 is disposed in a third floor 100.sub.3, the acceleration sensor S.sub.4 is disposed in a fourth floor 100.sub.4, the acceleration sensor S.sub.5 is disposed in a fifth floor 100.sub.5, the acceleration sensor S.sub.6 is disposed in a sixth floor 100.sub.6, and the acceleration sensor S.sub.7 is disposed in a rooftop 100.sub.R. In addition, the acceleration sensor S.sub.0 is disposed in a foundation portion 100.sub.0 of the building 100. Moreover, a micro vibration sensor SB is disposed in the rooftop 100.sub.R of the building 100. Furthermore, the micro vibration sensor SB may be disposed in the highest floor near the rooftop 100.sub.R instead of the rooftop 100.sub.R.”
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 to determine offsets 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 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 does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps of analyzing a motion of a structure are performed: 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;
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
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);
The following references establish the conventionality of the limitation “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;”:
US 20170123088 A1 “MULTI-AXIS, SINGLE MASS ACCELEROMETER” (Faber; Kees) teaches “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;” see par.42, 46 and fig.1A
US 4510802 A “Angular rate sensor utilizing two vibrating accelerometers secured to a parallelogram linkage” (Peters; Rex B.) teaches “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;” see col.1 ln 60 – col.2 ln 1-7 and fig.1-3 “an apparatus for generating a signal representing the angular rate motion of a structure that includes first and second accelerometers each having a force sensing axis; a parallelogram mechanism including a first accelerometer support member holding the first accelerometer, a second accelerometer support member holding the second accelerometer and a linkage mechanism attached to the accelerometer support members and secured to the structure such that the force sensing axes are aligned in parallel. The apparatus also includes a drive mechanism to vibrate the accelerometer support members in a direction substantially normal to the accelerometer force sensing axes at a frequency .omega. and a signal processing circuit for generating a rate signal representing the angular rate motion of the structure.”
US 20140324356 A1; “APPARATUS FOR EVALUATING SAFETY OF BUILDING USING EARTHQUAKE ACCELERATION MEASUREMENT” teaches “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;” see par.33 “The first and second earthquake acceleration measurement instruments 21 and 22 are respectively installed in a top story and a bottom story of a building 11 so as to measure earthquake accelerations of the top story and the bottom story of the building 11.” and par. 18 “the third earthquake acceleration measurement instrument measuring an earthquake acceleration of a free field; a peak horizontal ground acceleration calculation unit combining maximum values of horizontal components of the earthquake acceleration of the free field measured by the third earthquake acceleration measuring instrument”
US 20150355050 A1; “Building Safety Verification System And Building Safety Verification Method” teaches “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;” see par.28 “each of the acceleration sensors S.sub.1 to S.sub.n measures an acceleration value applied to each acceleration sensor in first to n.sup.th floors and transmits it as the acceleration data to the building safety verification system 1 via the information communication network. Here, as illustrated in FIG. 1, the acceleration sensor is disposed in each floor of the building. When the building 100 of FIG. 1 is a six-floor building, the acceleration sensor S.sub.1 is disposed in a first floor 100.sub.1, the acceleration sensor S.sub.2 is disposed in a second floor 100.sub.2, the acceleration sensor S.sub.3 is disposed in a third floor 100.sub.3, the acceleration sensor S.sub.4 is disposed in a fourth floor 100.sub.4, the acceleration sensor S.sub.5 is disposed in a fifth floor 100.sub.5, the acceleration sensor S.sub.6 is disposed in a sixth floor 100.sub.6, and the acceleration sensor S.sub.7 is disposed in a rooftop 100.sub.R. In addition, the acceleration sensor S.sub.0 is disposed in a foundation portion 100.sub.0 of the building 100. Moreover, a micro vibration sensor SB is disposed in the rooftop 100.sub.R of the building 100. Furthermore, the micro vibration sensor SB may be disposed in the highest floor near the rooftop 100.sub.R instead of the rooftop 100.sub.R.”
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.
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.
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 does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps of analyzing a motion of a structure are performed:
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.
the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea
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;
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
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);
The following references establish the conventionality of the limitation:
“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”
US 20170123088 A1 “MULTI-AXIS, SINGLE MASS ACCELEROMETER” (Faber; Kees) teaches “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;” see par.42, 46 and fig.1A
US 4510802 A “Angular rate sensor utilizing two vibrating accelerometers secured to a parallelogram linkage” (Peters; Rex B.) teaches “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;” see col.1 ln 60 – col.2 ln 1-7 and fig.1-3 “an apparatus for generating a signal representing the angular rate motion of a structure that includes first and second accelerometers each having a force sensing axis; a parallelogram mechanism including a first accelerometer support member holding the first accelerometer, a second accelerometer support member holding the second accelerometer and a linkage mechanism attached to the accelerometer support members and secured to the structure such that the force sensing axes are aligned in parallel. The apparatus also includes a drive mechanism to vibrate the accelerometer support members in a direction substantially normal to the accelerometer force sensing axes at a frequency .omega. and a signal processing circuit for generating a rate signal representing the angular rate motion of the structure
US 20140324356 A1; “APPARATUS FOR EVALUATING SAFETY OF BUILDING USING EARTHQUAKE ACCELERATION MEASUREMENT” teaches “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;” see par.33 “The first and second earthquake acceleration measurement instruments 21 and 22 are respectively installed in a top story and a bottom story of a building 11 so as to measure earthquake accelerations of the top story and the bottom story of the building 11.” and par. 18 “the third earthquake acceleration measurement instrument measuring an earthquake acceleration of a free field; a peak horizontal ground acceleration calculation unit combining maximum values of horizontal components of the earthquake acceleration of the free field measured by the third earthquake acceleration measuring instrument”
US 20150355050 A1; “Building Safety Verification System And Building Safety Verification Method” teaches “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;” see par.28 “each of the acceleration sensors S.sub.1 to S.sub.n measures an acceleration value applied to each acceleration sensor in first to n.sup.th floors and transmits it as the acceleration data to the building safety verification system 1 via the information communication network. Here, as illustrated in FIG. 1, the acceleration sensor is disposed in each floor of the building. When the building 100 of FIG. 1 is a six-floor building, the acceleration sensor S.sub.1 is disposed in a first floor 100.sub.1, the acceleration sensor S.sub.2 is disposed in a second floor 100.sub.2, the acceleration sensor S.sub.3 is disposed in a third floor 100.sub.3, the acceleration sensor S.sub.4 is disposed in a fourth floor 100.sub.4, the acceleration sensor S.sub.5 is disposed in a fifth floor 100.sub.5, the acceleration sensor S.sub.6 is disposed in a sixth floor 100.sub.6, and the acceleration sensor S.sub.7 is disposed in a rooftop 100.sub.R. In addition, the acceleration sensor S.sub.0 is disposed in a foundation portion 100.sub.0 of the building 100. Moreover, a micro vibration sensor SB is disposed in the rooftop 100.sub.R of the building 100. Furthermore, the micro vibration sensor SB may be disposed in the highest floor near the rooftop 100.sub.R instead of the rooftop 100.sub.R.”
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
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);
The following references establish the conventionality of the limitation:
“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”
US 20170123088 A1 “MULTI-AXIS, SINGLE MASS ACCELEROMETER” (Faber; Kees) teaches “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;” see par.42, 46 and fig.1A
US 4510802 A “Angular rate sensor utilizing two vibrating accelerometers secured to a parallelogram linkage” (Peters; Rex B.) teaches “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;” see col.1 ln 60 – col.2 ln 1-7 and fig.1-3 “an apparatus for generating a signal representing the angular rate motion of a structure that includes first and second accelerometers each having a force sensing axis; a parallelogram mechanism including a first accelerometer support member holding the first accelerometer, a second accelerometer support member holding the second accelerometer and a linkage mechanism attached to the accelerometer support members and secured to the structure such that the force sensing axes are aligned in parallel. The apparatus also includes a drive mechanism to vibrate the accelerometer support members in a direction substantially normal to the accelerometer force sensing axes at a frequency .omega. and a signal processing circuit for generating a rate signal representing the angular rate motion of the structure
US 20140324356 A1; “APPARATUS FOR EVALUATING SAFETY OF BUILDING USING EARTHQUAKE ACCELERATION MEASUREMENT” teaches “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;” see par.33 “The first and second earthquake acceleration measurement instruments 21 and 22 are respectively installed in a top story and a bottom story of a building 11 so as to measure earthquake accelerations of the top story and the bottom story of the building 11.” and par. 18 “the third earthquake acceleration measurement instrument measuring an earthquake acceleration of a free field; a peak horizontal ground acceleration calculation unit combining maximum values of horizontal components of the earthquake acceleration of the free field measured by the third earthquake acceleration measuring instrument”
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mollineaux; Mark G. et al. (US 20140316708 A1; hereinafter Mollineaux; newly cited) in view of Brooks; Andrew G.,Junichi; Sugiura (US 20130151157 A1; hereinafter Brooks; newly cited) further in view of KWON NAM YEOL et al. (Korean Patent Publication #KR 101803503 B1; hereinafter Kwon; previously cited; translation provided by the examiner).
Regarding claim 1, Mollineaux teaches,
A system for analyzing a motion of a structure (abstract “A sensor for structural health monitoring includes a tri-axis microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) accelerometer and a tri-axis MEMS gyrometer.”), 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 (par.22 “In step 100 a microprocessor samples signals from multiple tri-axis sensors, e.g., a tri-axis microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) accelerometer and a tri-axis MEMS gyrometer”), the multi-axis accelerometers positioned at different locations on the structure (par.20-22 and fig.1 teaches “receives data from multiple sensor units in the same building.”); and
at least one processor (par.22 teaches a microprocessor) to calculate a displacement between the multi-axis accelerometers (Par.27 teaches calculating displacement “Integrating the acceleration estimate 410 produces a change in velocity which is added to previous velocity 412 to yield an estimate of velocity 414. Integrating the velocity estimate 414 yields a change in displacement which is added to a previous estimated displacement 416 to yield a new estimate of displacement 418.”) along the second axis using the second acceleration signals of the multi access multi-axis accelerometers and the phase offset (par.28-29 “The use of a Bayesian filter allows the use of probabilistic correspondences between displacement and orientation angle. Whenever an external measurement 420 is made, the resulting corrections 422 are used at each subsequent time step in the integrations that produce the estimated orientation 406, estimated velocity 414, and estimated displacement 418.”).
Mollineaux does not explicitly teach to calculate a phase offset between the first accelerometer signals of the multi-axis accelerometers (par.20 “The ability to obtain sensor displacement estimates maps directly onto calculating estimates of drift ratio”);
Brooks does teach calculate a phase offset between the first accelerometer signals of the multi-axis accelerometers (Par.46 “B.sub.xy is the magnitude of the approximately sinusoidal wave (i.e., a periodic variation) traced out the by cross-axial magnetometer response and (T-M) is the phase difference between approximately sinusoidal waves traced out by the cross-axial magnetometer and cross-axial accelerometer; Par.47 teaches phase offset equation).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mollineaux to include the teachings of Brooks; which would provide an improved method of making azimuth measurements within a borehole which includes determining the dynamic borehole azimuth while drilling in combination with a near bit sensor sub to compute a near bit dynamic borehole azimuth as disclosed by Brooks(par.7).
Regarding claim 2, Mollineaux in view of Brooks teaches, the system of claim 1, Mollineaux further teaches wherein the first axis is orthogonal to the second axis (par.21 teaches X, Y and Z axes, which are all orthogonal to each other in a cartesian coordinate system).
Regarding claim 3, Mollineaux in view of Brooks teaches, the system of claim 1, Mollineaux further teaches wherein the structure comprises a building (par.24 and fig.2 teaches building 202), the first axis extends through the building in a vertical dimension (par. 21 teaches X, Y and Z axes, where the X axis extends through the building in a vertical dimension), and the second axis extends through the building in a horizontal dimension (par. 21 teaches X, Y and Z axes, where the Y axis extends through the building in a horizontal dimension).
Regarding claim 6, Mollineaux in view of Brooks further in view of Kwon teaches, the system of claim 1, Mollineaux further teaches the at least one processor to calculate (par.25 and fig.1 show digital processor 308), using the phase offset, a displacement of one of the multi-axis accelerometers relative to another of the multi-axis accelerometers (par.22 “The processing uses sensor fusion filtering that combines 3D data from the different sensors to correct for sensor errors so that the estimate of 3D rotation and the estimate of 3D displacement are both expressed in a global reference frame.”; par.28-29 “The use of a Bayesian filter allows the use of probabilistic correspondences between displacement and orientation angle. Whenever an external measurement 420 is made, the resulting corrections 422 are used at each subsequent time step in the integrations that produce the estimated orientation 406, estimated velocity 414, and estimated displacement 418.”).
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mollineaux in view of Brooks further in view of KWON NAM YEOL et al. (Korean Patent Publication #KR 101803503 B1; hereinafter Kwon; previously cited; translation provided by the examiner).
Regarding claim 4, Mollineaux in view of Brooks teaches, the system of claim 1, but fails to teach 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.
Kwon does teach each multi-axis accelerometer further including a third accelerometer to produce a third acceleration signal (par.45 “plurality of response measuring devices (120) are installed at a plurality of locations of the structure, each including an acceleration sensor (121) and a response GPS module (125), and can transmit a plurality of RTK displacement information measured through the response GPS module (125) using acceleration information acquired through the acceleration sensor (121) and GPS reference information.”) responsive to the motion of the structure along a third axis (par.46 “acceleration information can be obtained by measuring the X-axis component, Y-axis component, and Z-axis component of the structure through the acceleration sensor (121)”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mollineaux in view of Brooks to include the teachings of Kwon; which would provide a response measuring device that can provide a precision measuring system of a structure that measures the three-axis relative displacement of the satellite signal based on the GPS reference information and provides displacement time information corresponding to each relative displacement data as disclosed by Kwon (par.15).
Regarding claim 5, Mollineaux in view of Brooks further in view of Kwon teaches, the system of claim 4, Mollineaux further teaches wherein the third axis is orthogonal to the first axis and the second axis (par.21 teaches X, Y and Z axes, which are all orthogonal to each other in a cartesian coordinate system).
Claim(s) 7-11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon; in view of Brooks.
Regarding claim 7, Kwon teaches, a method (abstract teaches method) of measuring acceleration along a first dimension (par.15 teaches the response measuring
device can provide a precision measuring system of a structure that obtains acceleration information by measuring the X-axis component) through a structure (par.15 teaches a structure), the acceleration responsive to a motion of the structure (par.15 teaches the response measuring device can provide a precision measuring system of a structure that obtains acceleration information), the method comprising:
sensing, at a first part of the structure and responsive to the motion, a first vibration conducted through the structure (par.45 “plurality of response measuring devices (120) are installed at a plurality of locations of the structure, each including an acceleration sensor (121) and a response GPS module (125), and can transmit a plurality of RTK displacement information measured through the response GPS module (125) using acceleration information acquired through the acceleration sensor (121) and GPS reference information.”) along the first dimension (par.46 “acceleration information can be obtained by measuring the X-axis component, Y-axis component, and Z-axis component of the structure through the acceleration sensor (121)”) and a second vibration (par.45 “plurality of response measuring devices (120) are installed at a plurality of locations of the structure, each including an acceleration sensor (121) and a response GPS module (125), and can transmit a plurality of RTK displacement information measured through the response GPS module (125) using acceleration information acquired through the acceleration sensor (121) and GPS reference information.”) conducted through the structure along a second dimension (par.46 “acceleration information can be obtained by measuring the X-axis component, Y-axis component, and Z-axis component of the structure through the acceleration sensor (121)”);
sensing, at a second part of the structure and responsive to the motion, a third vibration conducted through the structure (par.45 “plurality of response measuring devices (120) are installed at a plurality of locations of the structure, each including an acceleration sensor (121) and a response GPS module (125), and can transmit a plurality of RTK displacement information measured through the response GPS module (125) using acceleration information acquired through the acceleration sensor (121) and GPS reference information.”) along the first dimension (par.46 “acceleration information can be obtained by measuring the X-axis component, Y-axis component, and Z-axis component of the structure through the acceleration sensor (121)”) and a fourth vibration conducted through the structure along the second dimension (par.45 “plurality of response measuring devices (120) are installed at a plurality of locations of the structure, each including an acceleration sensor (121) and a response GPS module (125), and can transmit a plurality of RTK displacement information measured through the response GPS module (125) using acceleration information acquired through the acceleration sensor (121) and GPS reference information.”);
calculating the acceleration (par.30 “calculating the three-degree-of freedom
acceleration and the three-degree-of-freedom angular displacement of the acceleration) along the first dimension through the structure from the phase offset and the first and third vibrations (par.31 “calculating the structure response information calculates the first displacement including the acceleration internal bias through the first-stage Kalman filter.”) conducted through the structure along the first dimension (par.107 teaches calculating bias, which is inherent to do between vibrations along any of the dimensions).
Kwon fails to explicitly teach calculating an offset (par.65 “the first displacement including the internal bias of the acceleration can be calculated through the first-stage Kalman filter, and after calculating the displacement error from the first displacement calculated through the second-stage Kalman filter, the structural response information can be calculated by removing the displacement error from the first displacement.”) between the second and fourth vibrations conducted through the structure along the second dimension (par.107 teaches calculating bias, which is inherent to do between vibrations along any of the dimensions);
Brooks does teach calculating a phase offset (Par.46 “B.sub.xy is the magnitude of the approximately sinusoidal wave (i.e., a periodic variation) traced out the by cross-axial magnetometer response and (T-M) is the phase difference between approximately sinusoidal waves traced out by the cross-axial magnetometer and cross-axial accelerometer; Par.47 teaches phase offset equation) between the second and fourth vibrations conducted through the structure along the second dimension (par.46-47);
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kwon to include the teachings of Brooks; which would provide an improved method of making azimuth measurements within a borehole which includes determining the dynamic borehole azimuth while drilling in combination with a near bit sensor sub to compute a near bit dynamic borehole azimuth as disclosed by Brooks(par.7).
Regarding claim 8, Kwon in view of Brooks teaches the method of claim 7, Kwon further teaches wherein the first dimension is orthogonal to the second dimension (par.46 teaches X, Y and Z axes, which are all orthogonal to each other).
Regarding claim 9, Kwon in view of Brooks teaches the method of claim 8, Kwon further teaches wherein the first dimension extends horizontally (par.46 teaches X, Y and Z axes, where the X axis extends through the building in a vertical dimension), and the second dimension extends vertically (par.46 teaches X, Y and Z axes, where the Y axis extends through the building in a horizontal dimension).
Regarding claim 10, Kwon in view of Brooks teaches the method of claim 7, Kwon further teaches the method further to measure acceleration in a third dimension orthogonal claieach other), 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 accelerometers (par.65 “the first displacement including the internal bias of the acceleration can be calculated through the first-stage Kalman filter, and after calculating the displacement error from the first displacement calculated through the second-stage Kalman filter, the structural response information can be calculated by removing the displacement error from the first displacement.”).
Regarding claim 11, Kwon in view of Brooks teaches the method of claim 7, Kwon further teaches wherein the structure comprises a building (par.34 teaches high-rise buildings).
Regarding claim 15, Kwon teaches a system for measuring dynamics of (abstract) a structure (abstract) having a vertical dimension and a horizontal dimension (abstract discloses structures such as high-rise buildings, bridges, dams, and harbors, which have vertical and horizontal dimensions), but fails to teach the system comprising:
a first accelerometer at a first location of the structure (par.45 “A plurality of response measuring devices (120) are installed at a plurality of locations of the structure) to detect vertical and horizontal accelerations (par.46 “In these multiple response measuring devices (120), acceleration information can be obtained by measuring the X-axis component, Y-axis component, and Z-axis component of the structure through the acceleration sensor (121)”) of the structure at the first location (par.45 “A plurality of response measuring devices (120) are installed at a plurality of locations of the structure, each including an acceleration sensor (121) and a response GPS module (125), and can transmit a plurality of RTK displacement information measured through the response GPS module (125) using acceleration information acquired through the acceleration sensor (121) and GPS reference information.);
a second accelerometer at a second location of the structure (par.45 “A plurality of response measuring devices (120) are installed at a plurality of locations of the structure) to detect vertical and horizontal accelerations of the structure at the second location (par.45 “A plurality of response measuring devices (120) are installed at a plurality of locations of the structure, each including an acceleration sensor (121) and a response GPS module (125), and can transmit a plurality of RTK displacement information measured through the response GPS module (125) using acceleration information acquired through the acceleration sensor (121) and GPS reference information.);
at least one processor (par.61 “processor 124”) to calculate:
a horizontal displacement (par.63 “displacement information (e.g., dynamic displacement data corresponding to the X-axis, Y-axis, and Z-axis, displacement time data, etc.) can be transmitted to the data processor (124).”) between the first location and the second location (par.93 “Each of these precise displacement data is structural response information corresponding to the respective installation location.” This implies there are multiple installation location) using the phase offset (par.63 “the displacement created by integrating the acceleration has an error that accumulates”) and the detected horizontal acceleration of the structure at the first location and the detected horizontal acceleration of the structure at the second location (par.101 “in a plurality of response measuring devices (120) installed at each of a plurality of locations of the structure, the X-axis component, Y-axis component, and Z-axis component of the structure at the installation location can be sensed through an acceleration sensor (121) and the sensing signal can be transmitted”).
Kwon fails to teach
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
Brooks does teach 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 (Par.46 “B.sub.xy is the magnitude of the approximately sinusoidal wave (i.e., a periodic variation) traced out the by cross-axial magnetometer response and (T-M) is the phase difference between approximately sinusoidal waves traced out by the cross-axial magnetometer and cross-axial accelerometer; Par.47 teaches phase offset equation); and
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kwon to include the teachings of Brooks; which would provide an improved method of making azimuth measurements within a borehole which includes determining the dynamic borehole azimuth while drilling in combination with a near bit sensor sub to compute a near bit dynamic borehole azimuth as disclosed by Brooks(par.7).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon in view of Brooks further in view of Mollineaux.
Regarding claim 17, Kwon in view of Brooks teaches, the system of claim 15, but fails to teach 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.
Mollineaux does teach wherein at least one of the first and second accelerometers produces three acceleration signals (par.22 “samples signals from multiple tri-axis sensors, e.g., a tri-axis microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) accelerometer and a tri-axis MEMS gyrometer”), including a vertical acceleration signal (A triaxial accelerometer measures acceleration in three perpendicular axes: typically, these are referred to as the X, Y, and Z axes, with the vertical axis often corresponding to the Z-axis. The "vertical acceleration signal" from a triaxial accelerometer refers to the acceleration measurement along the vertical axis, which could represent upward or downward motion relative to the sensor's orientation) responsive to the vertical accelerations and a horizontal acceleration signal responsive to the horizontal accelerations (In a triaxial accelerometer, the X and Y axes are typically used to measure horizontal acceleration. ).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kwon in view of Brooks to include the teachings of Mollineaux; which would provide improved Structural health monitoring and would be especially valuable in structures that experience large rotations and/or displacements by providing increased accuracy and more effective damage sensitive features as disclosed by Mollineaux(par.12).
Claim(s) 12-13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mollineaux; in view of Brooks further in view of Nadeau, Sylvain et al. (US publication # US 20030155822 A1; hereinafter Nadeau)
Regarding claim 12, Kwon teaches 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 (par.45 “A plurality of response measuring devices (120) are installed at a plurality of locations of the structure), a first vibration (par.46 “In these multiple response measuring devices (120), acceleration information can be obtained”) conducted through the structure along the first dimension and a second vibration (par.46 “In these multiple response measuring devices (120), acceleration information can be obtained”) conducted through the structure along a second dimension (par.46 “In these multiple response measuring devices (120), acceleration information can be obtained by measuring the X-axis component, Y-axis component, and Z-axis component of the structure through the acceleration sensor (121)”) of the structure at the first location (par.45 “A plurality of response measuring devices (120) are installed at a plurality of locations of the structure, each including an acceleration sensor (121) and a response GPS module (125), and can transmit a plurality of RTK displacement information measured through the response GPS module (125) using acceleration information acquired through the acceleration sensor (121) and GPS reference information.);
sensing, at a second part of the structure and responsive to the motion (par.45 “A plurality of response measuring devices (120) are installed at a plurality of locations of the structure), a third vibration (par.46 “In these multiple response measuring devices (120), acceleration information can be obtained”) conducted through the structure along the first dimension and a fourth vibration (par.46 “In these multiple response measuring devices (120), acceleration information can be obtained”) conducted through the structure along the second dimension (par.45 “A plurality of response measuring devices (120) are installed at a plurality of locations of the structure, each including an acceleration sensor (121) and a response GPS module (125), and can transmit a plurality of RTK displacement information measured through the response GPS module (125) using acceleration information acquired through the acceleration sensor (121) and GPS reference information.); and
calculating the acceleration along the first dimension through the structure (par.30 “calculates structure response information”; since the acceleration sensors are placed at numerous locations along the building’s dimensions, the calculation of acceleration from the accelerometers must be correlated with their respective dimensions) from the phase offset and the first and third vibrations conducted through the structure along the first dimension (par.46 “In these multiple response measuring devices (120), acceleration information can be obtained” 1st and 3rd accelerometer signals could be from any of the multiple acceleration sensors);
Kwon fails to teach
calculating a phase offset between the second and fourth vibrations conducted through the structure along the second dimension; and 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.
Brooks does teach calculating a phase offset (Par.46 “B.sub.xy is the magnitude of the approximately sinusoidal wave (i.e., a periodic variation) traced out the by cross-axial magnetometer response and (T-M) is the phase difference between approximately sinusoidal waves traced out by the cross-axial magnetometer and cross-axial accelerometer; Par.47 teaches phase offset equation) between the second and fourth vibrations conducted through the structure along the second dimension (par.46-47);
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kwon to include the teachings of Brooks; which would provide an improved method of drilling which includes determining the dynamic borehole azimuth while drilling in combination with a near bit sensor sub to compute a near bit dynamic borehole azimuth as disclosed by Brooks(par.7).
Kwon in view of Brooks fail to teach 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.
Nadeau does teach wherein the structure exhibits a first lowest natural frequency in the first dimension (par.14 “a low natural frequency of the motor 12 in torsion around the axis of rotation”) and a second lowest natural frequency greater than the first natural frequency in the second dimension (par.14 “a low natural frequency of the motor 12 in torsion around the axis of rotation A of the shaft 22 while providing natural frequencies higher than the low natural frequency for degrees of freedom of the motor 12”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kwon in view of Brooks to include the teachings of Nadeau; which would provide decoupling structure to reduce the motor structure-borne noise in engine cooling applications while constraining translation of the motor as disclosed by Nadeau(par.3).
Regarding claim 16, Kwon in view of Brooks teaches, the system of claim 15, but fails to teach 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.
Nadeau does teach wherein the structure exhibits a first lowest natural frequency in the horizontal dimension (par.14 “a low natural frequency of the motor 12 in torsion around the axis of rotation”) and a second lowest natural frequency more than thrice (par.14 “Preferably, the natural frequency is at least 3 times less than the lowest frequency of excitation to be isolated”; this implies the lowest frequency is 3 times more the natural frequency) the first lowest natural frequency in the vertical dimension (par.14 “a low natural frequency of the motor 12 in torsion around the axis of rotation A of the shaft 22 while providing natural frequencies higher than the low natural frequency for degrees of freedom of the motor 12”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kwon in view of Huang to include the teachings of Nadeau; which would provide decoupling structure to reduce the motor structure-borne noise in engine cooling applications while constraining translation of the motor as disclosed by Nadeau(par.3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kwon.
Regarding claim 7, Kwon teaches, a method (abstract teaches method) of measuring acceleration along a first dimension (par.15 teaches the response measuring
device can provide a precision measuring system of a structure that obtains acceleration information by measuring the X-axis component) through a structure (par.15 teaches a structure), the acceleration responsive to a motion of the structure (par.15 teaches the response measuring device can provide a precision measuring system of a structure that obtains acceleration information), the method comprising:
sensing, at a first part of the structure and responsive to the motion, a first vibration conducted through the structure (par.45 “plurality of response measuring devices (120) are installed at a plurality of locations of the structure, each including an acceleration sensor (121) and a response GPS module (125), and can transmit a plurality of RTK displacement information measured through the response GPS module (125) using acceleration information acquired through the acceleration sensor (121) and GPS reference information.”) along the first dimension (par.46 “acceleration information can be obtained by measuring the X-axis component, Y-axis component, and Z-axis component of the structure through the acceleration sensor (121)”) and a second vibration (par.45 “plurality of response measuring devices (120) are installed at a plurality of locations of the structure, each including an acceleration sensor (121) and a response GPS module (125), and can transmit a plurality of RTK displacement information measured through the response GPS module (125) using acceleration information acquired through the acceleration sensor (121) and GPS reference information.”) conducted through the structure along a second dimension (par.46 “acceleration information can be obtained by measuring the X-axis component, Y-axis component, and Z-axis component of the structure through the acceleration sensor (121)”);
sensing, at a second part of the structure and responsive to the motion, a third vibration conducted through the structure (par.45 “plurality of response measuring devices (120) are installed at a plurality of locations of the structure, each including an acceleration sensor (121) and a response GPS module (125), and can transmit a plurality of RTK displacement information measured through the response GPS module (125) using acceleration information acquired through the acceleration sensor (121) and GPS reference information.”) along the first dimension (par.46 “acceleration information can be obtained by measuring the X-axis component, Y-axis component, and Z-axis component of the structure through the acceleration sensor (121)”) and a fourth vibration conducted through the structure along the second dimension (par.45 “plurality of response measuring devices (120) are installed at a plurality of locations of the structure, each including an acceleration sensor (121) and a response GPS module (125), and can transmit a plurality of RTK displacement information measured through the response GPS module (125) using acceleration information acquired through the acceleration sensor (121) and GPS reference information.”);
calculating an offset (par.65 “the first displacement including the internal bias of the acceleration can be calculated through the first-stage Kalman filter, and after calculating the displacement error from the first displacement calculated through the second-stage Kalman filter, the structural response information can be calculated by removing the displacement error from the first displacement.”) between the second and fourth vibrations conducted through the structure along the second dimension (par.107 teaches calculating bias, which is inherent to do between vibrations along any of the dimensions); and
calculating the acceleration (par.30 “calculating the three-degree-of freedom
acceleration and the three-degree-of-freedom angular displacement of the acceleration) along the first dimension through the structure from the phase offset and the first and third vibrations (par.31 “calculating the structure response information calculates the first displacement including the acceleration internal bias through the first-stage Kalman filter.”) conducted through the structure along the first dimension (par.107 teaches calculating bias, which is inherent to do between vibrations along any of the dimensions).
Regarding claim 8, Kwon teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the first dimension is orthogonal to the second dimension (par.46 teaches X, Y and Z axes, which are all orthogonal to each other).
Regarding claim 9, Kwon teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the first dimension extends horizontally (par.46 teaches X, Y and Z axes, where the X axis extends through the building in a vertical dimension), and the second dimension extends vertically (par.46 teaches X, Y and Z axes, where the Y axis extends through the building in a horizontal dimension).
Regarding claim 10, Kwon teaches the method of claim 7, the method further to measure acceleration in a third dimension orthogonal to the second dimension (par.46 teaches X, Y and Z axes, which are all orthogonal to each other), 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 accelerometers (par.65 “the first displacement including the internal bias of the acceleration can be calculated through the first-stage Kalman filter, and after calculating the displacement error from the first displacement calculated through the second-stage Kalman filter, the structural response information can be calculated by removing the displacement error from the first displacement.”).
Regarding claim 11, Kwon teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the structure comprises a building (par.34 teaches high-rise buildings).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 6575037 B2; Momoi; Yasuyuki et al. is a Multiple degree of freedom vibration exciting apparatus and system.
US 5128671 A; Thomas, Jr.; William A. is a Control device having multiple degrees of freedom.
US 7533569 B2; Sheynblat; Len is a sensor-based orientation system.
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
Prosecution Insights