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
This action is responsive to applicant's amendment and remarks received on 08/21/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: it recites ”A structure alarm for sensing a change of a status in the structure..."; however, it appears that it should recite "A structure alarm for sensing a change of a status in a structure..." Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: it recites “a magnetic material.” in line 4: however, the period should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the lattice" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maki (US 20170097279 A1) in view of Script et al. (US 20070126576 A1), Dahlgren et al. (US 20250024423 A1), and Breed (US 20080061959 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Maki discloses a structure alarm for sensing a change of a status in the structure comprising (figs. 1-3), in combination:
an insert (fig. 3 element(s) ST) having a magnetic field ([0105] “the magnetic field from the metal portion ST can be detected with high accuracy using the magnetic sensor 2”), wherein the insert comprises a core material ([0054] "metal portion ST such as reinforcing steel"; [0105] “the magnetic field from the metal portion ST "; [0126] "metal portion ST ...is generally formed of a steel material for a general structure that includes soft iron as a representative example, the metal portion ST exhibits ferromagnetism.") ;
an encasing material encasing the insert (fig. 3 element C; [0053] metal portion ST such as reinforcing steel is encased by a concrete portion C); and
a base (figs. 2-3 elements 2/4) attached to the encasing material (fig. 3 element C) and comprising a sensing assembly (fig. 3 elements 2/20; [0050] the sensor device 4 includes a plurality of magnetic sensors 2 (2a, 2b, and 2c) installed in the concrete of the structure; [0054] “a portion (body portion 20) of the magnetic sensor 2 is embedded into the concrete portion C of the wall W.”);
wherein a change in the magnetic field of the insert corresponds to the change in the status of the structure ([0126] “In this metal portion ST, a magnetic field generated from the metal portion ST changes with the metal fatigue (distortion), as illustrated in FIG. 7. More specifically, the magnetic field generated from the metal portion ST increases with the progress of the metal fatigue (distortion). Accordingly, it is possible to determine a degree of fatigue of the metal portion ST using the detection result of the magnetic sensor 2.”), the sensing assembly which directly measures the magnetic field of the insert ([0105] “the magnetic field from the metal portion ST can be detected with high accuracy using the magnetic sensor 2”. Also [0126].) and is adapted to send a signal corresponding to the change in the magnetic field of the insert (figs. 1-2; [0133] “Detection results of the magnetic sensor 2 and the vibration sensor 3 are transmitted from the sensor unit 4 to the collection device 5 and collected by the collection device 5”).
However, Maki does not expressly disclose the insert comprising a magnetic material and the magnetic material is a radio frequency paint applied around the core material, the structure is one of a bridge and a satellite, the sensing assembly is an inertial measurement unit.
Nonetheless, in analogous art, Script teaches combining a magnetic field sensor with an inertial sensor such as a gyroscope or accelerometer ([0227]) and explains that additional advantages can be obtained by combining such sensors within a single unit. Script further teaches the use of inertial sensors (gyroscope and accelerometer) as part of an inertial measurement unit for motion and position sensing ([0144]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the sensing assembly of Maki’s sensor device as an inertial measurement unit including both (i) the magnetic sensor that detects the intensity of the magnetic field from the metal portion ST (Maki) and (ii) inertial sensors (gyroscope and/or accelerometer) as taught by Script, so that the same integrated assembly directly measures the magnetic field of the insert while also providing inertial information for structural and positional monitoring. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve structural and position monitoring capabilities, including position sensing, location detection, safety and security, and other uses as suggested by Script ([0144], [0227]), while retaining Maki’s ability to determine the degree of fatigue/soundness of the metal portion ST based on the directly measured magnetic field ([0126])
However, Maki in view of Script does not expressly disclose the insert comprising a magnetic material and the magnetic material is a radio frequency paint applied around the core material, the structure is one of a bridge and a satellite.
Nonetheless, in an analogous art, Dahlgren teaches using RF sensitive paint on structures inside of a surface (e.g., wall, floor, ceiling, etc.) in order to make the structures inside of the surface visible/detectable to RF sensing. Dahlgren’s RF-sensitive paint is applied to the external surface of the structural element to be detected ([0214]). Whether that external surface is planar or follows a different contour is a routine matter of surface geometry.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of first filing of the claimed invention to have the core of the insert taught by Maki in view of Script to include radio frequency (RF) paint as taught by Dahlgren. The motivation for doing so would have been to enhance visibility/detectability to RF sensing of an object inside of a structure/surface (as suggested in [0214] of Dahlgren), thereby yielding an insert comprising a core material (metal portion ST) and a magnetic RF paint applied around the core material, for the same purpose of enabling RF-based sensing of internal structures (Dahlgren [0214])
However, Maki in view of Script and Dahglgren does not expressly disclose the structure is one of a bridge and a satellite; nonetheless in an analogous art, Breed teaches the structure is a bridge.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of first filing of the claimed invention to have the structure alarm taught by Maki (as modified by Script and Dahlgren) be applied to a bridge structure as taught by Breed. The motivation for doing so would have been to monitor a bridge structure (as suggested in the abstract of Breed). Applying Maki’s (as modified by Script and Dahlgren) structural-health monitoring system to a bridge represents a predictable variation of known monitoring techniques.
Regarding claim 5, Maki in view of Script, Dahlgren and Breed discloses the structure alarm of claim 1 wherein the encasing material defines a show surface and a bottom surface opposite the show surface, and the base is attached to the bottom surface (Maki fig. 3).
Same motivation to combine as claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Maki in view of Script, Dahlgren and Breed discloses the structure alarm of claim 1 wherein sensing assembly further comprises a controller (Maki fig. 2 element 43. Also see Script fig. 16 element 202) and the inertial measurement unit is positioned in the base and physically separated from the insert (Maki fig. 3. Also see Script [0227]).
Same motivation to combine as claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Maki in view of Script, Dahlgren and Breed discloses the structure alarm of claim 1 wherein the inertial measurement unit further comprises a gyroscope and an accelerometer (Script [0144]).
Same motivation to combine as claim 1.
Claims 3, 6, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maki (US 20170097279 A1) in view of Script et al. (US 20070126576 A1), Dahlgren et al. (US 20250024423 A1), and Breed (US 20080061959 A1) as applied to claim 1 or 5 above, and further in view of Loukus et al. (US 20150014323 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Maki in view of Script, Dahlgren and Breed discloses the structure alarm of claim 1 but does not expressly disclose wherein the insert (Maki [0053] teaches a structural component comprising a metal portion ST such as reinforcing steel) is lattice-shaped; nonetheless, in an analogous art, Loukus teaches steel structural component that is lattice-shaped. See [0006], [0013], and [0054].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of first filing of the claimed invention to have the insert taught by Maki in view of Script, Dahlgren and Breed lattice-shaped as taught by Loukus. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase the load bearing capacity of any type of structural component (as suggested in [0004] of Loukus).
Regarding claim 6, Maki in view of Script, Dahlgren and Breed discloses the structure alarm of claim 5 but does not expressly disclose wherein the lattice is a matrix having Schwarz-P minimal surfaces; nontheless, in an analogous art, Loukus discloses a matrix having Schwarz-P minimal surfaces (Loukus [0011], [0079], and [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of first filing of the claimed invention to have the insert taught by Maki in view of Script, Dahlgren and Breed shaped as a matrix having Schwarz-P minimal surfaces as taught by Loukus. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase the load bearing capacity of any type of structural component (as suggested in [0004] of Loukus).
Regarding claim 10, Maki in view of Script, Dahlgren and Breed discloses the structure alarm of claim 1 wherein the insert has a core and a radio frequency paint covers the core (see claim 1 rejction above), but does not expressly disclose the insert is a cuboid; nonetheless, in an analogous art, Loukus teaches steel structural component that is cuboid and has a core. See figs. 1-5, [0006], [0013]-[0014], and [0056].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of first filing of the claimed invention to have the insert taught by Maki in view of Script, Dahlgren and Breed that is cuboid and has a core as taught by Loukus. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase the load bearing capacity of any type of structural component (as suggested in [0004] of Loukus).
Claims 8, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maki (US 20170097279 A1) in view of Script et al. (US 20070126576 A1), Dahlgren et al. (US 20250024423 A1), and Breed (US 20080061959 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fitzgibbons (US 7273634 B2).
Regarding claim 8, Maki in view of Script, Dahlgren and Breed discloses the structure alarm of claim 1 but does not expressly disclose wherein the encasing material comprises one of a ceramic, a plastic, and combinations thereof; nonetheless, in an analogous art, Fitzgibbons teaches encasing material comprises ceramic materials. See abstract and col 1 ln 57-col 2 ln 9.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of first filing of the claimed invention to have the encasing material comprises one of a ceramic, a plastic, and combinations thereof as taught by Fitzgibbons in the system taught by Maki in view of Script, Dahlgren and Breed. The motivation for doing so would have been to protect the structural integrity of a building (as suggested in the abstract and col 2 ln 4-48 of Fitzgibbons).
Regarding claim 11, Maki in view of Script, Dahlgren and Breed discloses the structure alarm of claim 1 but does not expressly disclose wherein the encasing material consists essentially of a ceramic; nonetheless, in an analogous art, Fitzgibbons teaches encasing material comprises ceramic materials. See abstract and col 1 ln 57-col 2 ln 9.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of first filing of the claimed invention to have the encasing consisting essentially of a ceramic as taught by Fitzgibbons in the system taught by Maki in view of Script, Dahlgren and Breed. The motivation for doing so would have been to protect the structural integrity of a building (as suggested in the abstract and col 2 ln 4-48 of Fitzgibbons).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument A: Regarding the limitation “The sensing assembly is an inertial measurement unit which directly measures the magnetic field of the insert”, the applicant asserts that an IMU “directly measures the magnetic field of the insert” via a magnetometer, and that Maki allegedly teaches a “convoluted” alkali-atom quantum interference–based system rather than direct magnetic field detection. The arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons.
Although Applicant argues that Maki’s magnetic sensor relies on “quantum interference effects” and “characteristics of an energy transition of alkali metal atoms,” this does not mean that Maki fails to directly measure the magnetic field. To the contrary, Maki repeatedly and explicitly describes the sensor as “a magnetic sensor that detects an intensity of a magnetic field from a structure including a metal portion using characteristics of an energy transition of alkali metal atoms” (Abstract; [0010]; see also [0018]–[0019], [0028]–[0031], [0054], [0105]). The alkali-atom energy transition behavior is merely the measurement principle (a magneto-optical effect) by which the intensity of the external magnetic field is obtained; the quantity actually detected and used to determine the degree of soundness/fatigue of the metal portion ST is, in fact, the intensity of the magnetic field from the metal portion ([0126]).
Accordingly, when claim 1 recites that the sensing assembly (implemented as an inertial measurement unit in view of Script) “directly measures the magnetic field of the insert,” Maki already teaches a magnetic sensor 2 that directly measures the magnetic field from the metal portion ST (the claimed "insert"), and Script merely provides the additional inertial-sensor components (gyroscope and accelerometer) to form an IMU.
The amendments to claim 1 (reciting that the sensing assembly is an inertial measurement unit which directly measures the magnetic field of the insert, that the insert comprises a core material and a radio-frequency paint applied around the core material, and that the structure is one of a bridge and a satellite) have been fully considered. However, as discussed above, Maki already teaches a magnetic sensor that directly detects the intensity of a magnetic field from a metal portion of the structure using alkali-atom energy transitions (Abstract; [0010], [0018]–[0019], [0028]–[0031], [0054], [0105], [0126]), Script teaches combining such magnetic sensing with inertial sensors in an integrated sensor unit ([0227]), and Dahlgren and Breed teach applying RF paint to internal structures and applying structural-monitoring systems to bridges, respectively.
Accordingly, the amendments do not render claim 1 patentable over the prior art, and the §103 rejection is maintained.
Argument B: Applicant argues "Nothing in Loukus et al cures the deficiencies of Maki in view of Script et al. Loukus et al is directed to structural components with core structures, and not to structure alarms with a magnetic material formed as a radio frequency paint (as well as the other limitations of amended Claim 1). The Applicant, therefore, respectfully requests that the rejection be withdrawn." The arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons.
First, the rejection does not rely on Loukus to cure any alleged deficiency in Maki and Script relating to RF paint, structure alarms, or magnetic sensing. Maki (in view of Script) already provides the claimed structure alarm, including the sensing assembly, the magnetic field detection, the insert, and the structural-monitoring context. Loukus is relied upon only for the additional feature recited in claim 3: “the insert is lattice shaped.”
Loukus expressly teaches lattice shaped metallic structural components and explains that such lattice structures improve mechanical performance and load distribution ([0006], [0013], [0054]). Maki’s insert (metal portion ST) is a structural metal member within the concrete encasing. Substituting a known lattice shaped structural member for Maki’s metal portion ST would have been an obvious variation to achieve the benefits taught in Loukus, consistent with the reasoning in paragraph [0004] of Loukus.
Thus, Loukus is used only for the structural geometry of the insert—not for magnetic sensing, RF paint, or structure-alarm functionality—so Applicant’s arguments directed to those aspects do not address the actual basis of the rejection.
Second, applicant’s argument that Loukus is “directed to structural components with core structures, and not to structure alarms” is not persuasive. Under § 103, a reference may be properly relied upon for any teaching it provides, regardless of whether its overall purpose differs from the claimed invention. Loukus teaches that structural members may be formed in lattice geometries for improved performance, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized such lattice geometries as interchangeable structural variants for metal components like Maki’s metal portion ST. The fact that Loukus does not address structure alarms, magnetic detection, or RF paint is irrelevant to its use for the lattice-shaped insert limitation.
Accordingly, Loukus properly teaches the lattice-shaped insert of claim 3, and Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the § 103 rejection.
Argument C: Applicant argues that “Dahlgren et al is directed to a mobile communication device and therefore does not teach or suggest the structure alarm as recited in Claim 1,” and further that although Dahlgren mentions RF-sensitive paint on a flat surface, it “does not teach or suggest ‘a radio frequency paint applied around the core material’ as recited in amended Claim 1.” The arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons.
First, the rejection does not rely on Dahlgren as teaching the entirety of the claimed structure alarm. As set forth in the rejection, Maki (in view of Script) provides the claimed structure alarm, including an insert that generates a magnetic field, an encasing material, and a sensing assembly that detects a magnetic field and provides a signal corresponding to a change in the status of the structure. Dahlgren is cited only for the additional teaching that RF-sensitive paint may be applied to internal structures or surfaces within a wall, floor, or similar building element so that those structures become visible/detectable to RF sensing. The fact that Dahlgren employs a mobile communication device as one example of a sensing platform does not detract from its clear teaching that RF-sensitive paint is used on structural elements to facilitate RF-based detection of those elements. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a reference can properly be used for its teaching of a particular feature, even if its overall system is different from the claimed system.
Second, with respect to Applicant’s assertion that Dahlgren only teaches RF-sensitive paint on a “flat surface” and does not teach “a radio frequency paint applied around the core material,” the claimed distinction is not persuasive. Dahlgren teaches applying an RF-sensitive paint layer to a structure inside or underneath a surface in order to make that structure detectable to RF interrogation. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the RF-sensitive coating is applied to the outer surface of whatever structural element is to be detected, whether that element is planar (e.g., a plate or panel), linear (e.g., a bar or rebar), or volumetric (e.g., a block or core). In other words, the RF-sensitive paint in Dahlgren is applied on and around the exterior of the structural element that is to be made RF-detectable.
Adapting Dahlgren’s RF-sensitive paint from a planar coating configuration to a coating applied around a bar-shaped or block-shaped core (such as Maki’s metal portion ST) would have been a straightforward implementation detail for a person of ordinary skill in the art, done with the predictable result of enhancing RF detectability of that internal member. The claim language “a radio frequency paint applied around the core material” reads on applying the RF-sensitive paint to the external surface of the core material, which is exactly how Dahlgren’s coating is used: it is applied to the outer surface of the structure to be located so that RF waves can interact with it. The change from a nominally “flat” coating geometry to a coating that follows the contour of the core (e.g., around a rod, beam, or block) does not represent a patentably distinct structural feature, but rather a routine variation in coating geometry that a skilled artisan would select based on the shape of the underlying member being monitored.
Accordingly, Dahlgren is properly relied upon for teaching the use of RF-sensitive paint applied to structural members or surfaces in order to make those members detectable by RF sensing, and it would have been obvious to apply such RF-sensitive paint to and around the core material of Maki’s metal structural member. Applicant’s arguments therefore do not overcome the § 103 rejection.
Conclusion
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 RAJSHEED O BLACK-CHILDRESS whose telephone number is (571)270-7838. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 10am to 5pm.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at (571) 272-3114. 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.
/RAJSHEED O BLACK-CHILDRESS/Examiner, Art Unit 2685
/QUAN ZHEN WANG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2685