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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status
This instant application No. 18/270718 has Claims 1-7 pending.
Priority /Filing Date
2. This patent application is a national stage of International Application No. PCT/CN2022/088073, filed on April 21, 2022, which claims the priority to Chinese Patent Application No. 202210257028.8, filed on March 16, 2022.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: Where it recites “NExT” in these claims, the nomenclature of this abbreviated term should be provided in the claim for better understanding and clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
4. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations uses a generic placeholder (such as “configured to” ) that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
an acceleration response time-history signal acquisition module,
a cross-correlation function signal acquisition module,
a three-dimensional recurrence plot determination module,
a division module,
a training and validation module,
a structural damage detection module,
a numerical model building unit,
a wind load generation unit,
a buffeting wind force calculation unit,
a different damage condition simulation unit,
and an acceleration response time-history signal acquisition unit
in Claims 6 and 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
5. Claims 6-7 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.
For claims 6 and 7, the claim limitations
an acceleration response time-history signal acquisition module,
a cross-correlation function signal acquisition module,
a three-dimensional recurrence plot determination module,
a division module,
a training and validation module,
a structural damage detection module,
a numerical model building unit,
a wind load generation unit,
a buffeting wind force calculation unit,
a different damage condition simulation unit,
and an acceleration response time-history signal acquisition unit
invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The Specification does not disclose the specific algorithm or functional logic of the claim limitations beyond what is recited in the claim limitations themselves. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Any claim not specifically treated is rejected by virtue of its dependency.
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.
6. Claims 1-7 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.
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claims 1 and 6 recite
processing the time-history signal of the acceleration response by using a NExT method to obtain cross-correlation function signals of acceleration responses at different structural points;
performing recurrence plot processing on the cross-correlation function signals, and stacking generated recurrence plots to obtain three-dimensional recurrence plots;
dividing the three-dimensional recurrence plots into a training set and a validation set;
training and validating a convolutional neural network model through the training set and the validation set, respectively;
detecting structural damage through a trained convolutional neural network model.
-all of which are mathematical calculations. Said limitations in claims 1 and 16 are a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations that are considered mathematical calculations/mathematical relationships but for the recitation of generic computing elements/entity. Other than reciting “a trained convolutional neural network model”, “a training set” and “a validation set” (all of which are themselves mathematical model or mathematical entity) in the claims nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed as mathematical calculations/mathematical relationships. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation that are considered mathematical calculations/mathematical relationships, but for the recitation of generic computing elements/entity, then it falls within the “mathematical concept” grouping of abstract ideas. As such claims 1 and 6 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional elements of “a trained convolutional neural network model”, “a training set” and “a validation set” to perform the claimed steps at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing elements/entity. This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The additional element of “acquiring a time-history signal of an acceleration response at each point of a structure under different damage conditions” is a data gathering steps and is an insignificant pre-solution activity. As such, this additional element also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Finally, the pre-processing step of receiving measured values is categorized as insignificant extra solution activity under 2106.05(g). Claims 1 and 6 only recite “a trained convolutional neural network model”, “a training set” and “a validation set” to perform the claimed steps and therefore only recite a generic computing elements/entity rather than a specific machine/algorithm under MPEP 2106.05(b), and are directed to mere instructions to apply the exception under MPEP 2106.05(f), and do not result in anything significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in the significantly more consideration. The inclusion of generic computing elements/entity to perform the acquiring, processing, performing, dividing, training and detecting steps amount to nor more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing elements/entity. Mere instructions to apply an exception using computing elements/entity cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1 and 6 are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas and mathematical techniques recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claim 2 further recites:
“building a numerical model of the structure;
generating a wind load by using a random wind field generated by a Kaimal spectrum;
calculating a buffeting wind force based on the wind load;
simulating different damage conditions of the structure through stiffness reduction; loading the buffeting wind force onto the numerical model under different damage
conditions to obtain the time-history signal of the acceleration response at each point of the structure under different damage conditions.”
All of which are mathematical calculations and/or mathematical analysis, further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical concepts.”
Dependent claim 3 further recites:
“normalizing the cross-correlation function signals.”
-which is a mathematical calculation and/or mathematical analysis, further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical concepts.”
Dependent claim 4 further recites:
“wherein when an error calculation value of a cost function in the validation set is less than a predetermined target, it is determined that training of the convolutional neural network model is completed.”-which is a mathematical calculation and/or mathematical analysis, further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical concepts.”
Dependent claim 5 further recites:
“generating each three-dimensional recurrence plot with a different average wind speed, a different damage condition and an acceleration response added with white noise of different signal-to-noise ratios, in comparison with the training set and the validation set, to build a testing set;
testing robustness of the trained convolutional neural network model through the testing set..”
-All of which are mathematical calculations and/or mathematical analysis, further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical concepts.”
Dependent claim 7 further recites:
“a numerical model building unit configured to build a numerical model of the
structure;
a wind load generation unit configured to generate a wind load by using a random
wind field generated by a Kaimal spectrum;
a buffeting wind force calculation unit configured to calculate buffeting wind force based on the wind load;
a different damage condition simulation unit configured to simulate different damage conditions of the structure through stiffness reduction;
an acceleration response time-history signal acquisition unit configured to load the buffeting wind force onto the numerical model under different damage conditions to obtain the acceleration response time-history signal at each point of the structure under different damage conditions.”
-All of which are mathematical calculations and/or mathematical analysis, further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical concepts.”
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 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 of this title, 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.
7. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yuanfeng et al. hereafter Yuanfeng (Chinese Pub. No.: CN112001110A), in view of Du et al. hereafter Du (Chinese Pub. No.: CN101706355A).
Regarding Claim 1, Yuanfeng disclose a method for detecting structural damage based on NExT-recurrence plots, comprising:
acquiring a time-history signal of an acceleration response at each point of a structure under different damage conditions (Yuanfeng: page 3 - sections S2, S3: record Acceleration time history generated by each point);
processing the time-history signal of the acceleration response by using a NExT method to obtain cross-correlation function signals of acceleration responses at different structural points (Du: Page 5- first and second paragraphs: The use of the NExT technology to convert the response signal into a cross-correlation function);
performing recurrence plot processing on the cross-correlation function signals (Yuanfeng: page 3- section S3: Generate the corresponding recursive graph from the time-domain acceleration
response),
and stacking generated recurrence plots to obtain three-dimensional recurrence plots (Yuanfeng: page 7- last paragraph: The recursive graphs of each point are combined to form a three-dimensional matrix);
dividing the three-dimensional recurrence plots into a training set and a validation set (Yuanfeng: page 8- section S4: 80% of which are selected as the training set, and the rest as the validation set, For convolutional neural network training);
training and validating a convolutional neural network model through the training set and the validation set, respectively (Yuanfeng: pages 8 and 9: Train and test the convolutional neural network on the sample);
detecting structural damage through a trained convolutional neural network model (Yuanfeng: pages 8 -11 sections S4-S6: the premise is to ensure that the numerical model can well reflect the dynamic characteristics of the real structure model, and the trained neural network will be able to predict the damage of the real structure well).
Yuanfeng do not explicitly disclose:
processing the time-history signal of the acceleration response by using a NExT method to obtain cross-correlation function signals of acceleration responses at different structural points.
Du disclose:
processing the time-history signal of the acceleration response by using a NExT method to obtain cross-correlation function signals of acceleration responses at different structural points (Du: Page 5- first and second paragraphs: The use of the NExT technology to convert the response signal into a cross-correlation function);
Yuanfeng and Du are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They both relate to structural response analysis.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above Structural damage identification monitoring application, as taught by Yuanfeng, and incorporating the use of the NExT technology, as taught by Du.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better handle the non-linear and astable response signals with multiple degrees of freedom under non-free vibration, and modal parameter identification, as suggested by Fogel (Du: abstract).
Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as Claim 1 and is rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 2, the combinations of Yuanfeng and Du further disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the acquiring a time-history signal of an acceleration response at each point of a structure under different damage conditions comprises:
building a numerical model of the structure (Yuanfeng: page 3 section S1: Build a numerical model);
generating a wind load by using a random wind field generated by a Kaimal spectrum (Yuanfeng: page 3 section S1);
calculating a buffeting wind force based on the wind load (Yuanfeng: page 3 section S1);
simulating different damage conditions of the structure through stiffness reduction (Yuanfeng: page 3 section S2);
loading the buffeting wind force onto the numerical model under different damage conditions to obtain the time-history signal of the acceleration response at each point of the structure under different damage conditions (Yuanfeng: pages 3-4 sections S2, S3).
Regarding Claim 7, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as Claim 2 and is rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 3, the combinations of Yuanfeng and Du further disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein before performing recurrence plot processing on the cross-correlation function signals, the method further comprises:
normalizing the cross-correlation function signals (Du: Page 5- first and second paragraphs; Page 6 -fourth paragraph);
Regarding Claim 4, the combinations of Yuanfeng and Du further disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein when an error calculation value of a cost function in the validation set is less than a predetermined target, it is determined that training of the convolutional neural network model is completed (Yuanfeng: page 4 second last paragraph).
Regarding Claim 5, the combinations of Yuanfeng and Du further disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
generating each three-dimensional recurrence plot with a different average wind speed, a different damage condition and an acceleration response added with white noise of different signal-to-noise ratios, in comparison with the training set and the validation set, to build a testing set (Yuanfeng: pages 3-4- sections S2, S3, S4; Du: page 6 last paragraph).;
testing robustness of the trained convolutional neural network model through the testing set (Yuanfeng: pages 3-4 -sections S2, S3, S4).
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kiranyazet al. (Patent No.: US 11,630,040 B2) teaches identifying a presence and a location of structural damage that include training a convolutional neural network (CNN) for a joint of a structure, sending instructions to a modal shaker to induce an input to the structure, receiving, as a result of the induced input, a raw acceleration signal at the joint, computing, based on the trained CNN and the raw acceleration signal, an index value of the joint, and identifying, according to the index value, a presence of a location of structural damage of the structure.
Xiong et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0058591 A1) teaches an autonomous asset detection system that leverages artificial intelligence (AI) models for three-dimensional asset identification and damage detection, asset damage classification, automatic in-field asset tag readings, and real-time asset management.
He et al. (Patent No.: US 11,709,979 B1) conceptually presents A bridge damage identification method considering uncertainty is used for damage identification based on a convolutional neural network.
Kumar et al. (Real-Time Concrete Damage Detection Using Deep Learning for High Rise Structures, 2021, IEEE, pp 112312- 112331) uses the edge computing principle to propose a real-time multi-drone damage detection system using one of the advance deep learning models called You Look Only Once-version3 (YOLO-v3) for high-rise civil structures.
9. Examiner’s Remarks: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IFTEKHAR A KHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5699. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9:00AM-6:00PM (CST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emerson Puente can be reached on (571)272-3652. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/IFTEKHAR A KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights