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 .
Summary
Claims 12-22 are pending. Claims 12-22 are rejected herein. This is a Final Rejection as necessitated by the amendment and arguments (hereinafter “the Response”) dated 30 March 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/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.
Regarding claim 14: There is no antecedent basis for “said at least one internal sensor” in line 6. The claim then lists all of the same possible sensors as in claim 1. It is not clear if the internal sensor is supposed to introduce a new structure or is a restatement of the structure in claim 1. The claims have been examined as if the “at least one sensor” of claim 1 is the same structure as the “at least one internal sensor” of claim 14.
Regarding claim 15: Claim 15 is rejected as indefinite for depending from an indefinite claim.
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) 12-17 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as being anticipated by PAVLIS et al. (US 20170211934).
Regarding claim 12: PAVLIS discloses: A unit (14 in FIG. 3) for detecting parameters of a component of a structure such as a construction (pillars, floors, construction works in para. 26), a building or other stationary civil engineering structures or other load-bearing assemblies of structural components or other permanent man-made arrangements of materials, comprising at least one processor (26) provided with signal transceiving means (29), memory means (para. 32), and connected to a respective electric power supply assembly (24); at least one sensor (18, 20, 22, 30), controlled by and connected to said at least one processor, of a type chosen preferably from an accelerometer (18), an inclinometer, a gyroscope (20), a magnetometer (22), a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, a strain gauge, a position sensor, a detector of a concentration of specific substances, a detector of electrical fields, a detector of magnetic fields, a vibration detector, a radio wave detector, an optical reader, a GPS (30) locator, and any other transducer configured to detect a physical or chemical quantity and convert it into a signal; said at least one processor being provided with an adapter module to convert data provided by each said sensor into a format that is compatible with said at least one processor (It is inherent that any sensor, such as 18, 20, and 22, that is interfaced with a processor, as the sensors are in FIG. 3, has an adapter module such that the processor receives data in a compatible format. Otherwise, the device would not function because the processor would not understand any of the data.).
Regarding claim 13: PAVLIS discloses: said at least one processor comprises at least one connection module (Wi-Fi or cellular connection in para. 35) configured for communication with external components (to external processor 34) via a wired connection, a wireless connection (Wi-Fi or cellular connection in para. 35), or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 14: As best understood, PAVLIS discloses: an accommodation support (It is inherent that the device 14 housing sensors, a processor, and a battery will have some kind of housing, which is its “accommodation support.”) for - said at least one processor,- said signal transceiving means,- said memory means, - said at least one internal sensor of a type chosen from an accelerometer (18 in FIG. 3), an inclinometer, a gyroscope (20), a magnetometer (22), a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, a strain gauge, a position sensor, a detector of a concentration of specific substances, a detector of electrical fields, a detector of magnetic fields (22), a vibration detector, a radio wave detector, an optical reader, a GPS locator (30), and any other transducer configured to detect a physical or chemical quantity and convert it into a signal,- wherein said at least one connection module is configured for connection to at least one external sensor (para. 37-38) chosen from an accelerometer, an inclinometer, a gyroscope, a magnetometer, a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, a strain gauge, a position sensor, a detector of a concentration of specific substances, a detector of electrical fields, a detector of magnetic fields, a vibration detector, a radio wave detector, an optical reader, a GPS locator, or any other transducer configured to detect a physical or chemical quantity and convert it into a signal (para. 37-38).
Regarding claim 15: PAVLIS discloses: said support accommodates at least two sensors chosen from an accelerometer (18), an inclinometer, a gyroscope (20), a magnetometer (22), a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, a strain gauge, a position sensor, a detector of a concentration of specific substances, a detector of electrical fields, a detector of magnetic fields, a vibration detector, a radio wave detector, an optical reader, a GPS locator (30), and any other transducer configured to detect a physical or chemical quantity and convert it into a signal.
Regarding claim 16: PAVLIS discloses: said at least one connection module comprises at least one respective connector for a wiring of at least one external component (digital display 16 in FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 17: PAVLIS discloses: said signal transceiving means are connected to a network of a type chosen from a wired network of the LAN type, a wireless network of the WLAN type, a combination thereof, and other data communication networks (para. 34).
Regarding claim 19: PAVLIS discloses: A network (40 in FIG. 4) for monitoring a structure of a type of a construction, a building, comprising at least one unit according to claim 12 (The rejection of claim 12 has been discussed above.); at least one electrical collector provided with a number of connectors configured for coupling to said at least one unit which is not smaller than a number of units that are present in the network and with at least one connector configured for coupling to a main processing unit designed to process data that originate from said units (Wi-Fi connection in para. 35); at least one apparatus for transceiving signals to a component chosen from local display means, a remote server (42 in FIG. 4), and other local or remote data processing or visualization devices.
Regarding claim 20: PAVLIS discloses: said connectors of said electrical collector comprise mechanical plug-and-socket interfaces, for the connection of respective cables or a wireless transceiver configured to exchange data via a communication protocol (Bluetooth® in para. 34; Wi-Fi in para. 35).
Regarding claim 21: PAVLIS discloses: said main processing unit designed to process the data that originate from said units comprises a memory element which contains a model of TCP/IP protocols for communication with said server and with any additional remote devices of a type chosen from smartphones, tablets, computers, and the like (This is the network shown in FIG. 4 with sensing devices 13, servers 42, and client devices 44, such as a tablet or smartphone as discussed in para. 47-48.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 18 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PAVLIS in view of CUSANO et al. (US 20170369127) and IEEE Standard for a Precision Clock Synchronization Protocol for Networked Measurement and Control Systems IEEE Standard 1588-2019, published 16 June 2020, (hereinafter IEEE).
Regarding claims 18 and 22: PAVLIS discloses: said memory (memory in microcontroller 26 [FIG. 3] as discussed in para. 31) means store specialized firmware comprising: sensor drivers (This is the software that makes the microcontroller 26 “facilitate the operation of the various components associated with the digital geological inclinometer 14, such as, for example, the magnetometer 22, the gyroscope 20, the accelerometer 18” as discussed in para. 32.);-applications for control and management of the sensors (This is the software that makes the microcontroller 26 “facilitate the operation of the various components associated with the digital geological inclinometer 14, such as, for example, the magnetometer 22, the gyroscope 20, the accelerometer 18” as discussed in para. 32);- data conversion protocols configured to transform raw data strings from the sensors into formatted strings compatible with an operating language of said processor (This is inherent in all sensors sending data to processors otherwise the processor would not be able to interpret or use the data.); communication protocols for external signal transceiving (This is inherent in the fact that the microcontroller 26 can interface with the Wireless Comm Module 29 and the various sensors shown in FIG. 3, otherwise the microprocessor 26 would not be able to read in or output data.).
PAVLIS does not specify a master-slave network architecture.
CUSANO however does teach a network of sensors (FIG. 1A; para. 125), which can include a GPS, gyro, and radio wave detector (FIG. 12A) that uses an information technology architecture according to which one component chosen from said main processing unit and one unit is configured as master and all the other units are configured as slaves (para. 158-159).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use a master-slave network architecture as taught by CUSANO for the network of PAVLIS so that a large number of sensors can be connected while reducing noise that can come from long runs of wires (para. 159 of CUSANO).
PAVLIS as modified by CUSANO does not explicitly state that the clocks are synchronized using master-slave synchronization algorithms.
It is obvious that real-time data coming from different sensors must be synchronized in time in order for it to be correctly processed. Such synchronization algorithms are known as set forth in IEEE. Section 12 sets forth many master-slave synchronization algorithms.
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the algorithms of IEEE to synchronize the clocks of the master and slave modules of PAVLIS as modified by CUSANO because it provides “precise synchronization of clocks in packet-based networked systems” (page 8 of IEEE).
Response to Amendment/Arguments
The new drawings are acknowledged and the objections thereto are accordingly withdrawn.
The amendment to the claims to overcome the previous objection are acknowledged and said objection is accordingly withdrawn.
The Applicant has argued (page 8 of the Response) that magnetometer and magnetic field sensor are not synonymous. This argument is persuasive and the 112 rejection is accordingly withdrawn.
The amendments to the claims to overcome the previous 112(b) rejections are acknowledged. Said rejections are accordingly withdrawn. Please note that there is a new 112(b) rejection based on the amended claim language.
The amendments to the claims to overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) are acknowledged and said rejections are accordingly withdrawn.
The Applicant has argued (pages 9-10 of the Response) that the invention of PAVLIS is different from the present application because the invention of PAVLIS requires four sensors and the present application does not. This argument is moot. The language of claim 12 recites “at least one sensor” therefore the multiple sensors of PAVLIS meet this limitation.
The Applicant has argued (page 11 of the Response) that PAVLIS “is not capable of performing the operations that the present invention is capable of performing, namely collecting data via the sensors described and using the data to calculate the condition of the structure.” This argument has been fully considered and is not persuasive. It is not clear what limitation in claim 12 the Applicant is referring to. The invention of PAVLIS has sensors, therefore it is capable of collecting sensor data. Claim 12 recites that the invention can be used on a “construction” (“pillars, floors, and construction works” are discussed as applications in para. 26 of PAVLIS). Therefore, it is unclear from this argument what limitations in claim 12 are missing from the disclosure of PAVLIS.
The Applicant has argued (page 11 of the Response) that PAVLIS does not disclose master-slave synchronization algorithms. The Examiner agrees with this statement and new art has been introduced into the rejection of claims 18 and 22 to address this limitation as necessitated by amendment.
The Applicant has listed many differences (pages 11-15 of the Response) between the invention of the present application and that of PAVLIS however none of these comments addresses the specific claim language which is shown to be disclosed by PAVLIS nor have the citations to specific paragraphs and FIGS in PAVLIS been addressed to show how they do not meet the claimed limitations. Therefore the Applicant is directed to the above rejections to see where the claim limitations are anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art.
The Applicant has argued (page 15 of the Response) that CUSANO and PAVLIS are not analogous art because CUSANO is for structural monitoring of a ship’s hull and the PAVLIS is for monitoring a building. The argument has been fully considered and is not persuasive. The only teaching relied upon in CUSANO is a master-slave connection between a network of sensors. Such a teaching is applicable to any network of sensors no matter what they are monitoring or how they are installed. Therefore the particular data connection of CUSANO is “reasonably pertinent” to the data connection of any network of sensors and is therefore analogous art. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)270-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, JESSICA HAN can be reached at (571) 272-2078. 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.
/NATHANIEL J KOLB/Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights