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 1-7, 10, 11 and 13-16 remain pending
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, the applicant argues the claim comprises computational analysis beyond human capability, is directed to a practical application and is significantly more than the abstract idea (Remarks, page 4-6). However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), numerical integration, signal filtering and model-based approximation can be performed by the human mind. In Signal filtering, engineers often use pen and paper to derive the necessary coefficients or transfer functions; in model-based approximation uses pen and paper for Mathematical Approximation, Simplified Neural Network Training, Machine Learning Techniques like Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) for Gaussian distributions can be derived and calculated with pencil and paper. The applicant uses a processor to perform these calculations, which according to MPEP 2106.05, is viewed as an additional element that does not add significantly more than the abstract because it is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in monitoring structural abnormality. The same analysis applies to the sensor installation step, which is a well-known, established practice known as Structural Health Monitoring (SHM). It uses sensors like accelerometers, strain gauges, and GPS to collect real-time data on vibrations, loads, and deformations, allowing engineers to evaluate structural integrity, identify damage, and manage maintenance. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments regarding the sensor deployment, real-time data acquisition and computational modeling offering significantly more is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-7, 10-11, 13-16 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 measurement method comprising: a sensor installation step of installing a plurality of acceleration sensors at an upper structure of a bridge, the plurality of acceleration sensors being configured to detect an acceleration of a plurality of observation points; a displacement data generation step of generating first displacement data based on the acceleration as a response to an action on the plurality of observation points in a plurality of regions of a railroad vehicle moving on the upper structure of the bridge based on data output from the plurality of acceleration sensors configured to observe the plurality of observation points of the upper structure, the railroad vehicle including a plurality of cars; an observation information generation step of generating observation information including an approach time and an exit time of the railroad vehicle with respect to the upper structure; a time interval calculation step of calculating a time interval in which each car of the plurality of cars of the railroad vehicle moves alone on the upper structure based on the observation information and environmental information including a dimension of the railroad vehicle and a dimension of the upper structure generated in advance; a first deflection amount calculation step of calculating a first deflection amount of the upper structure by the railroad vehicle based on an approximation formula of a deflection of the upper structure, the observation information, and the environmental information; a displacement response calculation step of calculating a displacement response when each car of the plurality of cars moves alone on the upper structure based on the first displacement data and the time interval in which each car of the plurality of cars moves alone on the upper structure; a deflection response calculation step of calculating a deflection response when each car of the plurality of cars moves alone on the upper structure based on the first deflection amount, and the time interval in which each car of the plurality of cars moves alone on the upper structure; a weighting coefficient calculation step of calculating weighting coefficients to a respective car of the plurality of cars based on the displacement response and the deflection response in the time interval in which each car of the plurality of cars moves alone on the upper structure, the weighting coefficients corresponding to ratios between the displacement responses and the deflection responses; a second deflection amount calculation step of calculating a second deflection amount obtained by correcting the first deflection amount based on the weighting coefficients to the respective car of the plurality of cars; and an abnormality determination step of determining an abnormality of the upper structure of the bridge based on the second deflection amount.
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 limitations of an observation information generation step of generating observation information. The generation limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the determining step from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally generating observation information as part of the method.
The claim recites the limitations of a time interval calculation step of calculating a time interval. The time interval calculation limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the time interval calculation step from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally calculating a time interval as part of the method.
The claim recites the limitations of calculating a first deflection amount. The limitation of calculating a first deflection amount, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the first deflection amount calculation step from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally calculating a first deflection amount as part of the method.
The claim recites the limitations of a displacement response calculation step of calculating a displacement response. The limitation of calculating displacement response, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the displacement response calculation step from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally calculating displacement response calculation as part of the method.
The claim recites the limitations of a deflection response calculation step of calculating a deflection response. The limitation of calculating a deflection response, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the deflection response calculation step from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally calculating a deflection response as part of the method.
The claim recites the limitations of a weighting coefficient calculation step of calculating weighting coefficients. The limitation of calculating weighting coefficients, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the weighting coefficient calculation step from practically being performed in the human mind, because the claim encompasses mentally calculating weighting coefficients.
The claim recites the limitations of calculating a second deflection amount. The limitation of calculating a second deflection amount, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the second deflection amount calculation step from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally calculating a second deflection amount as part of the method.
The claim recites the limitations of an abnormality determination step of determining an abnormality. The limitation of determining an abnormality, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes determining an abnormality from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally determining an abnormality as part of the method.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
NO. The claim recites the additional elements: an acceleration sensor used for generating first displacement data based on the acceleration and a sensor installation step of installing a plurality of acceleration sensors at an upper structure of a bridge.
The additional element of an acceleration sensor does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is well known in the art to use an acceleration sensor to monitor and generate data for a structure.
Similarly, installing a plurality of acceleration sensors at an upper structure of a bridge to detect acceleration is well known in the art.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
NO. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than installing a generic acceleration sensor on a structure to observe and generate data for a structure. Thus, it is not enough to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 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 defining a number of the plurality of cars of the railroad vehicle as CT, a length of the upper structure in a direction in which the railroad vehicle moves is shorter than a distance between a rearmost axle of a (car of the plurality of cars of the railroad vehicle and a head axle of a car of the plurality of cars with respect to each of integers Cm no smaller than 2 and no larger than CT-1.”, 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 weighting coefficient calculation step includes calculating an amplitude amount of the displacement response in the time interval in which each car of the plurality of cars moves alone on the upper structure, calculating an amplitude amount of the deflection response in the time interval in which each, car of the plurality of cars moves alone on the upper structure, and calculating a ratio between the amplitude amount of the displacement response and the amplitude amount of the deflection response as the weighting coefficient to each car of the plurality of cars.”, 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 3, 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 4 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the amplitude amount is an average value or an integrated value.”, 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 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 in the second deflection amount calculation step, the second deflection amount is calculated by adding products of deflection amounts of the upper structure by the car of the plurality of cars and the weighting coefficients to the car of the plurality of cars.”, 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) “a static response calculation step of calculating a static response when the railroad vehicle moves on the upper structure based on the first displacement data and the second deflection amount.”, 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.
Claim 7 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 7 depends on claim 6, 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 7 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the static response calculation step includes performing filter processing on the first displacement data to calculate second displacement data reduced in vibration component, performing filter processing on the second deflection amount to calculate a third deflection amount reduced in vibration component, approximating the second displacement data with a linear function of the third deflection amount to calculate a coefficient of a linear term and a constant term of the linear function, calculating a fourth deflection amount based on the coefficient of the linear term, the constant term, and the third deflection amount, calculating an offset based on the constant term, the third deflection amount, and the fourth deflection amount, and adding a product of the coefficient of the linear term and the second deflection amount to the offset to calculate the static response.”, 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 7 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 1, 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) “wherein the approximation formula of the deflection of the upper structure is a formula based on a structural model of the upper structure.”, 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 10 that depends on claim 1, 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 structural model is a simple beam supported at both ends of the upper structure of the bridge.”, 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.
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 1, 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 upper structure of the bridge has a structure in which BWIM (Bridge Weigh in Motion) works.”, 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.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites a measurement device comprising:
a memory configured to store a program; and a processor configured to execute the program so as to: generate first displacement data based on an acceleration as a response to an action on a plurality of observation points in a plurality of regions of a railroad vehicle moving on an upper structure of a bridge based on data output from a plurality of acceleration sensors configured to observe the plurality of observation points of the upper structure, the railroad vehicle including a plurality of cars, wherein the plurality of acceleration sensors are installed at the upper structure of the bridge; generate observation information including an approach time and an exit time of the railroad vehicle with respect to the upper structure; calculate a time interval in which each car of the plurality of cars of the railroad vehicle moves alone on the upper structure based on the observation information and environmental information including a dimension of the upper structure generated in advance; calculate a first deflection amount of the upper structure by the railroad vehicle based on an approximation formula of a deflection of the upper structure, the observation information, and the environmental information; calculate a displacement response when each car of the plurality of cars moves alone on the upper structure based on the first displacement data and the time interval in which each car of the upper structure; calculate a deflection response when each car of the plurality of cars moves alone on the upper structure based on the first deflection amount, and the time interval in which each. car of the vehicles plurality of cars moves alone on the upper structure; calculate weighting coefficients to a respective car of the plurality of cars based on the displacement response and the deflection response in the time interval in which each. car of the plurality of cars moves alone on the upper structure, the weighting coefficients corresponding to ratios between the displacement responses and the deflection responses; calculate a second deflection amount obtained by correcting the first deflection amount based on the weighting coefficients to the car of the plurality of cars; and determine an abnormality of the upper structure of the bridge based on the second deflection amount.
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 limitations of generating observation information. The generation limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the determining step from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally generating observation information as part of the method.
The claim recites the limitations of calculating a time interval. The time interval calculation limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the time interval calculation step from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally calculating a time interval as part of the method.
The claim recites the limitations of calculating a first deflection amount. The limitation of calculating a first deflection amount, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the first deflection amount calculation step from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally calculating a first deflection amount as part of the method.
The claim recites the limitations of calculating a displacement response. The limitation of calculating displacement response, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the displacement response calculation step from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally calculating displacement response calculation as part of the method.
The claim recites the limitations of calculating a deflection response. The limitation of calculating a deflection response, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the deflection response calculation step from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally calculating a deflection response as part of the method.
The claim recites the limitations of calculating weighting coefficients. The limitation of calculating weighting coefficients, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the weighting coefficient calculation step from practically being performed in the human mind, because the claim encompasses mentally calculating weighting coefficients.
The claim recites the limitations of calculating a second deflection amount. The limitation of calculating a second deflection amount, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the second deflection amount calculation step from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally calculating a second deflection amount as part of the method.
The claim recites the limitations of determining an abnormality. The limitation of determining an abnormality, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes determining an abnormality from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally determining an abnormality as part of the method.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
NO. The claim recites the additional elements: a memory, a processor and an acceleration sensor used for generating first displacement data based on an acceleration.
The memory and processor are both generic computer components onto which the abstract ideas are applied through storing and processing/calculating.
The additional element of an acceleration sensor does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is well known in the art to use an acceleration sensor to observe and generate data for a structure.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
NO. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than using generic computer components of a memory store data and processor to apply the mental processes and a generic acceleration sensor to monitor and generate data for a structure. Thus, it is not enough to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 15 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 15 depends on claim 14, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 15 is further recites the element(s) “… the plurality of acceleration sensors configured to observe the plurality of observation points.”, 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 15 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 16, the claim recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a measurement program-configured to make for causing a computer to execute a process by a processor so as to perform the steps of: generating first displacement data based on an acceleration as a response to an action on a plurality of observation points in a plurality of regions of a railroad vehicle moving on an upper structure of a bridge based on data output from a plurality of acceleration sensors configured to observe the plurality of observation points of the upper structure, the railroad vehicle including a plurality of cars, wherein the plurality of acceleration sensors are installed at the upper structure of the bridge; generating observation information including an approach time and an exit time of the railroad vehicle with respect to the upper structure; calculating a time interval in which each car of the plurality of cars of the railroad vehicle moves alone on the upper structure based on the observation information and environmental information including a dimension of the railroad vehicle and a dimension of the upper structure generated in advance; calculating a first deflection amount of the upper structure by the railroad vehicle based on an approximation formula of a deflection of the upper structure, the observation information, and the environmental information; calculating a displacement response when each car of the plurality of cars moves alone on the upper structure based on the first displacement data and the time interval in which each. car of the plurality of cars moves alone on the upper structure; calculating a deflection response when each car of the plurality of cars moves alone on the upper structure based on the first deflection amount, and the time interval in which each car of the plurality of cars moves alone on the upper structure; calculating weighting coefficients to a respective car of the plurality of cars based on the displacement response and the deflection response in the time interval in which each car of the plurality of cars moves alone on the; and upper structure, the weighting coefficients corresponding to ratios between the displacement responses and the deflection responses; calculating a second deflection amount obtained by correcting the first deflection amount based on the weighting coefficients to the respective car of the plurality of cars; and determining an abnormality of the upper structure of the bridge based on the second deflection amount.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a process; therefore, it is a process.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitations of generating observation information. The generation limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the determining step from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally generating observation information as part of the method.
The claim recites the limitations of calculating a time interval. The time interval calculation limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the time interval calculation step from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally calculating a time interval as part of the method.
The claim recites the limitations of calculating a first deflection amount. The limitation of calculating a first deflection amount, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the first deflection amount calculation step from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally calculating a first deflection amount as part of the method.
The claim recites the limitations of calculating a displacement response. The limitation of calculating displacement response, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the displacement response calculation step from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally calculating displacement response calculation as part of the method.
The claim recites the limitations of calculating a deflection response. The limitation of calculating a deflection response, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the deflection response calculation step from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally calculating a deflection response as part of the method.
The claim recites the limitations of calculating weighting coefficients. The limitation of calculating weighting coefficients, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the weighting coefficient calculation step from practically being performed in the human mind, because the claim encompasses mentally calculating weighting coefficients.
The claim recites the limitations of calculating a second deflection amount. The limitation of calculating a second deflection amount, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the second deflection amount calculation step from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally calculating a second deflection amount as part of the method.
The claim recites the limitations of determining an abnormality. The limitation of determining an abnormality, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes determining an abnormality from practically being performed in the human mind. The claim encompasses mentally determining an abnormality as part of the method.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
NO. The claim recites the additional elements: a processor and an acceleration sensor used for generating first displacement data based on an acceleration.
The processor is a generic computer component onto which the abstract ideas are applied through processing/calculating.
The additional element of an acceleration sensor does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is well known in the art to use an acceleration sensor to monitor and generate data for a structure.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
NO. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than using generic computer components of a processor to apply the mental processes and a generic acceleration sensor to observe and generate data for a structure. Thus, it is not enough to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 20140067284 A1; Breed; David S. is an embodiment for structural monitoring.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3991. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am -5:00am.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/ALVARO E FORTICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858