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 .
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 8-19 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.
The term “near” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation “near a subgrade of infrastructure” is rendered indefinite by the usage of the term “near”. For the purposes of further examination, the limitation is being interpreted as --on top of a subgrade of infrastructure--.
Regarding claim 12, the claim states “where the variance was detected by the one or more IMUs in the subgrade”; however, it is not mentioned before that the IMUs are “in the subgrade”. Claim 8, from which claim 12 depends upon only states that the sensor enabled geogrid and the sensor pod are installed “near a subgrade”. It is unclear as to whether or not this claim requires further manipulation of the IMUs to be within the subgrade or not.
Regarding claims 9-19, they are dependent on claim 8.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 7, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gao et al. (CN 212340314 U) (hereinafter Gao) (translation cited in IDS dated 30 January 2024).
Regarding claim 1, Gao teaches a system for monitoring and detecting deformation in a subgrade of an infrastructure [monitoring highway subgrade disease and horizontal displacement of a roadbed] (Para [0009, 0049]), comprising:
a sensor enabled geogrid, comprising: a geogrid [geogrid 2]; and one or more sensors operatively configured to the geogrid, wherein the one or more sensors is configured to detect change from an initial position [sensors deployed on geogrids; deformation of sensors to monitor roadbed deformation] (Para [0024, 0047], see Figs. 1-2);
a sensor pod [7], wherein the sensor pod is in electrical communication to the sensor enabled geogrid [strained optical fiber connected to data acquisition and transmission device 7] (Para [0048], see Fig. 1);
a gateway device [11c], wherein the gateway device is in electrical communication to the sensor pod [wireless data transmission module 11c wirelessly transmits the collected optical fiber monitoring data] (Para [0050], see Fig. 1); and
a backend system, comprising: a computing device; a display; and a software program for interpreting information from the one or more sensors that is configured to non-transitory memory of the computing device [data processing and analyzing device 12 and result display device 14; processes monitoring data] (Para [0048]).
Regarding claim 5, Gao as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the one or more sensors is a strain gauge configured to a member of the sensor enabled geogrid so that strain is detected from forces on the sensor enabled geogrid [strain optical fiber arranged on geogrid] (Para [0049], see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Gao as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to further comprising a mobile computing device, wherein the mobile computing device is configured to access the backend system and can view a user interface to the software program [remote receiving device 16] (Para [0050], see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Gao teaches a system for monitoring and detecting deformation in a subgrade of an infrastructure [monitoring highway subgrade disease and horizontal displacement of a roadbed] (Para [0009, 0049]), comprising:
a sensor enabled geogrid, comprising: a geogrid [geogrid 2]; and one or more sensors equipped to the geogrid, wherein the one or more sensors is configured to detect change from an initial position [sensors deployed on geogrids; deformation of sensors to monitor roadbed deformation] (Para [0024, 0047], see Figs. 1-2);
a sensor pod [7], wherein the sensor pod is in electrical communication to the sensor enabled geogrid and is equipped to receive information from the one or more sensors [strained optical fiber connected to data acquisition and transmission device 7] (Para [0048], see Fig. 1);
a gateway device [11c], wherein the gateway device is in electrical communication to the sensor pod and is equipped to transmit the information from the one or more sensors [wireless data transmission module 11c wirelessly transmits the collected optical fiber monitoring data] (Para [0050], see Fig. 1); and
a backend computing device equipped with a software program on non-transitory memory, the software program is equipped for interpreting information from the one or more sensors [data processing and analyzing device 12 and result display device 14; processes monitoring data], wherein the software program identifies a variance from the initial position and provides an alert [value comparison module and alarm module] (Para [0046-0048], see Fig. 1).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Salt (US 2020/0171893 A1) (hereinafter Salt).
Regarding claims 2-3, Gao as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the one or more sensors comprise at least an inertial measurement unit (IMU), wherein the IMU is an accelerometer or a gyroscope. Salt teaches a system for monitoring and detecting deformation of infrastructure comprising an inertial measurement unit comprising a combination of accelerometers and gyroscopes to determine deformation of the pavement (Para [0069-0071]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Gao with Salt such that the one or more sensors comprise at least an IMU having an accelerometer or a gyroscope, in order to more accurately monitor deformation.
Regarding claims 4, Gao as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the one or more sensors is a flex sensor configured to a member of the sensor enabled geogrid so that the flex is detected from forces on the sensor enabled geogrid. Salt teaches a system for monitoring and detecting deformation of infrastructure comprising a flex sensor [inertial measurement unit comprising a combination of accelerometers and gyroscopes] to determine deformation of the pavement (Para [0069-0071]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Gao with Salt such that the one or more sensors is a flex sensor configured to a member of the sensor enabled geogrid so that the flex is detected from forces on the sensor enabled geogrid, in order to more accurately monitor deformation.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao, as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Gao as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, except for the gateway device is in electrical communication to a plurality of sensor pods, and wherein the gateway device sends and receives the information from the plurality of sensor pods. The Examiner takes Official Notice that it is known in the art to utilize a singular gateway device to communicate to a plurality of sensor pods in order to simultaneously gather data from a wide range of different sensors simultaneously. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Gao such that the gateway device is in electrical communication to a plurality of sensor pods, and wherein the gateway device sends and receives the information from the plurality of sensor pods, in order to gather data simultaneously from a plurality of sensors at differing locations simultaneously.
Claims 8 and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao in view of Salt.
As best understood regarding claim 8, Gao teaches a method for monitoring and detecting deformation in a subgrade [monitoring highway subgrade disease and horizontal displacement of a roadbed] (Para [0009, 0049]), comprising:
providing a sensor enabled geogrid comprising one or more sensors [sensors deployed on geogrids; deformation of sensors to monitor roadbed deformation] (Para [0024, 0047], see Figs. 1-2);
providing a sensor pod [7], wherein the sensor pod is in electrical communication to the sensor enabled geogrid [strained optical fiber connected to data acquisition and transmission device 7] (Para [0048], see Fig. 1);
providing, a gateway device [11c], wherein the gateway device is in electrical communication to the sensor pod [wireless data transmission module 11c wirelessly transmits the collected optical fiber monitoring data] (Para [0050], see Fig. 1);
installing the sensor enabled geogrid and the sensor pod near a subgrade of infrastructure [monitoring highway subgrade disease and horizontal displacement of a roadbed] (Para [0009, 0049], see Figs. 1-2);
receiving, by the sensor pod an initial position for the one or more sensors [collecting original data] (Para [0045]);
monitoring, by a backend computing system, the one or more sensors, for variance from the initial position [data processing and analyzing device 12 and result display device 14; processes monitoring data] (Para [0048]);
detecting, by the backend computing system, variance from the initial position in the one or more sensors [value comparison module] (Para [0046-0048], see Fig. 1); and
alerting, by the backend computing system, the detected variance in the one or more sensors [alarm module] (Para [0046-0048], see Fig. 1).
Gao fails to teach wherein the one or more sensors are one or more IMUs operatively configured to the sensor enabled geogrid that are capable of determining tilt. Salt teaches a system for monitoring and detecting deformation of infrastructure comprising an inertial measurement unit capable of determining tilt comprising a combination of accelerometers and gyroscopes to determine deformation of the pavement (Para [0069-0071]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Gao with Salt such that the one or more sensors comprise an IMU operatively configured to the sensor enabled geogrid that are capable of determining tilt, in order to more accurately monitor deformation.
Regarding claim 10, Gao in view of Salt as applied to claim 8 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to further comprising providing a sensor enabled geogrid configured with at least one of the following sensors: a flex sensor, a strain gauge, a moisture sensor, a temperature sensor [strain optical fiber arranged on geogrid] (Gao Para [0049], see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Gao in view of Salt as applied to claim 10 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to further comprising receiving, by the gateway device, signals from at least one of the following sensors: a flex sensor, a strain gauge, a moisture sensor, or a temperature sensor [wireless data transmission module 11c wirelessly transmits the collected optical fiber monitoring data; strain optical fiber] (Gao Para [0049-0050], see Fig. 1).
As best understood regarding claim 12, Gao in view of Salt as applied to claim 8 above teaches the claimed invention, except for comprising providing remedial repair at a location where the variance was detected by the one or more IMUs in the subgrade. Salt additionally teaches providing remedial repair at a location where deformation is detected (Para [0071, 0083]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify Gao in view of Salt such to provide remedial repair at a location where the variance was detected by the one or more IMUs in the subgrade, in order to repair any detected pavement deformation.
Regarding claim 13, Gao in view of Salt as applied to claim 8 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein alerting transmits a visual or audible signal to traffic on a roadway of potential failure [alarm issued in the form of sound and image] (Gao Para [0045]).
Regarding claim 14, Gao in view of Salt as applied to claim 8 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein alerting transmits a message or communication to a roadway maintenance unit regarding the detected variance by the one or more IMUs in the subgrade [transmits the information to the construction company] (Gao Para [0045]).
Regarding claim 15, Gao in view of Salt as applied to claim 8 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to further comprising transmitting, by the sensor pod, across a network, the initial position of the one or more IMUs [collecting original data; wireless data transmission module 11c wirelessly transmits the collected optical fiber monitoring data] (Gao Para [0045, 0050], see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Gao in view of Salt as applied to claim 8 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition wherein providing the sensor enabled geogrid further provides one or more sensors on a top and a bottom portion of the sensor enabled geogrid (see Gao Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Gao in view of Salt as applied to claim 8 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein providing the sensor enabled geogrid further provides a strain gauge operatively configured to an elongated member of the sensor enabled geogrid [strain optical fiber 1a] (see Gao Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 18, Gao in view of Salt as applied to claim 8 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein providing the sensor enabled geogrid further provides a flex sensor operatively configured to an elongated member of the sensor enabled geogrid. Salt additionally teaches a flex sensor [inertial measurement unit comprising a combination of accelerometers and gyroscopes] to determine deformation of the pavement (Para [0069-0071]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify Gao in view of Salt such that the providing the sensor enabled geogrid further provides a flex sensor operatively configured to an elongated member of the sensor enabled geogrid., in order to more accurately monitor deformation.
Regarding claims 19, Gao in view of Salt as applied to claim 8 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to further comprising executing an infrastructure processing engine on the backend computing systems [optical fiber data processing and analyzing device 12] (Gao Para [0046]). Gao in view of Salt fails to teach processing an algorithm to calculate a degree of tilt of the one or more IMUs. Salt additionally teaches processing the IMU sensor data to determine a degree of tilt (Para [0018]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify Gao in view of Salt such to further process an algorithm to calculate a degree of tilt of the one or more IMUs, in order to monitor for further types of deformation.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, and 8 of copending Application No. 18/283,589 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Regarding claim 1, the claim corresponds to claims 1 and 3 of the reference application.
Regarding claim 20, the claim corresponds to claims 1, 3, and 8 of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,455,156 B2 (hereinafter the ‘156 patent) in view of Gao.
Regarding claims 1 and 5, corresponding claims 1 and 5 of the ‘156 patent teaches the claimed invention, except for backend system further comprising a display. Gao teaches a system for monitoring and detecting deformation comprising a computer system comprising a display (see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the ‘156 patent with Gao such that the backend system further comprises a display in order to allow a user to observe the data.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 9, the primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter is the inclusion of the limitations regarding detecting deformation within the subgrade of the infrastructure due to a change in axis tilt of the one or more IMUs, in combination with the rest of the limitations found in the claim and claim 8, from which it depends upon.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID Z HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5360. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/DAVID Z HUANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855