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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1149 filed 06/11/2026. This IDS has been considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in the paragraph spanning pages 6 and 7 that the claimed limitation of “determining a health status of the infrastructure component based on the detected response” cannot be performed in the human mind because the human mind cannot transmit a microwave signal into a bridge deck or pipeline weld, cannot perceive the resulting electromagnetic response, and cannot evaluate signal content. Applicant goes on to argue that the clamed determination is not the observation of humanly available data. Examiner respectfully disagrees with this characterization of the rejection. First, the determination that the cited limitation is an abstract idea is based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims and only applies to the limitation “determining a health status of the infrastructure component based on the detected response”. The transmission and reception of the signals are not included in the determination of whether there is an abstract idea claimed. The abstract idea was identified as “determining a health status of the infrastructure component based on the detected response” because under broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, there is no limit to how the determination is made or what is used to make other than “based on the detected response”. The claim does not address what the response is or whether or not it contains “spectral content across thousands of frequencies” (only one signal is explicitly claimed and thus only a single frequency is necessary). It does not specify that “the claimed determination is not the observation of humanly available data”. “Determining a health status” can be interpreted as looking at a graph and noticing a trend, looking at raw data and noticing a series of outliers, estimating a large difference between data and reference values as just a few examples and therefore meets the USPTO standard of abstract idea under either or both of the “mental processes” (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III))) and the mathematical concepts groups (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(I)). As noted in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), “claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)” (emphasis added).
On page 7, Applicant argues that the claim was not properly evaluated for an improvement to a technology. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim is drawn to simply “analyzing an infrastructure component” by transmitting and receiving EM signals to determine “a health status”. It is unclear from the claim what the specific technology is as “infrastructure” encompasses any material used to build a structure and using conventional EM interrogation methods on ubiquitous materials does not describe any improvement to any particular technology. Applicant points to paragraph [0002] in the specification as evidence to the improvement in the technology but that is background information about basic materials characterization and does not explain what the improvement of the claimed invention is. Only that other existing technologies have drawbacks. According to MPEP §2106.05(a), “[i]f it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art.” It is not apparent that any of the limitations or the claim as a whole is directed to the improvement of a technology.
Applicant argues in the paragraph spanning pages 7 and 8 that the data gathering steps are not insignificant because they are not gathering historical data but rather the physical interrogation of the structure itself renders the step significant. Applicant goes on to argue that the determination that “all uses of the recited judicial exception require a detected response” is evidence of significance. To the contrary, the test to determine whether a data gathering step is “insignificant” is to what extent the claimed data gather is necessary for the abstract idea and how generally it is claimed. In other words, does the data gathering impose any meaningful limitations on the abstract idea. In this case, the transmitting and receiving of EM signals is claimed in such general terms that it is necessary for any abstract idea that forms a conclusion based on an EM response. Therefore its effect on the scope of the claim is insignificant. See MPEP §2106.05(g), “[w]hether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output).”
In the first full paragraph of page 8, Applicant argues that there was no evidence presented that the claimed combination is well-understood, routine and conventional. Respectfully, this is not required as part of the Alice-Mayo analysis unless Examiner asserts that any of the additional limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional. In this case, all the claimed limitations were determined to be either an abstract idea or insignificant extra-solution/data gathering activity. So the question of whether additional limitations were conventional is moot.
Turning to the prior art rejection, Applicant argues in the paragraph spanning pages 9 and 10 that Vaissiere’s figure 9 does not depict element (1) cited in the rejection nor does it depict a “method” but rather an instrument. Examiner respectfully notes that the figures and element-to-element matching are used to identify the claimed structural components used for the method. While Vaissiere does not provide a figure showing a flowchart of a method, the reference as a whole is clearly describing a method of “analyzing an infrastructure component” with the cited paragraphs explicitly corresponding the claimed methods steps. Throughout the reference, and in the specific cited paragraphs, Vaissiere refers to a pipe generally as (1). Cited paragraph [0125] specifies that the device of figure 9 is “connected to or inserted in one of the pipes (1)”. Vaissiere need not show the pipe (1) in figure 9 for one to understand its presence in the method in combination with the citation.
Applicant also argues that in Vaissiere the transmission is into the fluid within the measurement device’s own measurement cell. Examiner asserts that under broadest reasonable interpretation, the transmission only needs to be “to the infrastructure component” where “to” has no specified physical boundaries or structural relationship between the transmission and the infrastructure component. Vaissiere describes the transmission as through the tube and the tube as connected to a pipe, therefore the transmission is also to the pipe (which is connected to the tube). Alternatively, Vaissiere says the tube can be inside the pipe, therefore the transmission is “into the pipe” or still, broadly, “to the pipe”.
Applicant argues in the first full paragraph of page 10 that Vaissiere does not make a determination as to “a health status of the infrastructure component based on the detected response” but concedes Vaissiere makes a determination of an impaired condition within the piping system. First, Examiner considers “a determination an impaired condition” as consistent with “determine a health status” within the plain and ordinary understanding of “health status”. As noted in paragraph [0096], the piping system includes at least one pipe, and element (1) can denote one or more pipes. Therefore, a system of just one pipe (1) is included in the scope of Vaissiere, or, a piping system where each pipe of several is denoted as (1) is also within the scope of Vaissiere’s disclosure. The claimed “infrastructure component” can be interpreted as a single pipe which is withing the scope of Vaissiere’s disclose of a piping system or similarly, the claimed “infrastructure component” can the piping system itself, composed of one or more pipes. Applicant notes that Vaissiere does not disclose “which component is impaired or the status of that component” and that “a system-level determination” is not “a health status of the infrastructure component (1)”. Respectfully, based on the breadth of the claim, and the scope of Vaissiere’s disclosure, a system-level determination can reasonably be interpreted as a health status when the piping system, composed of one or more pipes can be interpreted as “an infrastructure component”. Applicant has not required that the determination be either which component is impaired or the status of the component. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Examiner suggests that Applicant specify some structural limitation of the “infrastructure component” or what the “health status” is in order to avoid Vaissiere’s anticipation.
Applicant argues in the last paragraph of page 10 that no embodiment of Vaissiere presents the elements as arranged in the claim. Applicant argues Vaissiere’s method would require two measurement devices of different times having different dependences on the impairment. It is not clear what claimed differences between the invention and the prior art this argument is referring to. It appears Applicant is again arguing that Vaissiere does not show transmission to or into an infrastructure component. This argument has been addressed above in regards to the first argument spanning pages 9 and 10 of the remarks. Applicant has not explicitly pointed to any other limitation that is missing from the claim language. Applicant's argument seems to amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the reference.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Legal Framework
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, the Office is guided by the Court’s two-part framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, Examiners first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267–68 (1853))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Court held that “a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, Examiners turn to the second part of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
In January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) published revised guidance on the application of § 101 and further updated this guidance in October 2019. This guidance is now found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), and particularly Sections 2103 through 2106.07(c). See MPEP §§ 2103–2106.07(c) (9th ed., Rev. 10.2019, June 2020).
Under the 2019 Revised Guidance and the October 2019 Update, Examiners first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes) (“Step 2A, Prong One”); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th ed. 2018)) (“Step 2A, Prong Two”). 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55. Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do Examiners then look, under Step 2B, to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, [and] conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55.
Analysis
Examiners consider the claim as a whole giving it the broadest reasonable construction as one of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted it in light of the Specification at the time of filing.
The Examiner finds, under Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Guidance, that claims 1-20 are directed to a method and, therefore, all claims recite a statutory category of invention.
Revised Step 2A, Prong One –recites a judicial exception
According to Alice step one, “[w]e must first determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 218 (emphasis added). The Memorandum instructs Examiners first to determine whether each claim recites any judicial exception to patent eligibility. 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. The Memorandum identifies three judicially-excepted groupings: (1) mathematical concepts, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic practices, and (3) mental processes. Id. at 52. Examiners primarily focus here on the first and third groupings - mathematical concepts and mental processes.
Claim 1 recites the method step of determining a health status of the infrastructure component based on the detected response which is considered an abstract idea because under broadest reasonable interpretation this method step can be considered a mental process comprised of observing data and making a judgement as to the health status.
Claim 13 recites the method steps of comparing the detected response with one or more stored reference signals, wherein the one or more stored reference signals comprise at least one of a signal indicative of an acceptable infrastructure component or a signal indicative of an unacceptable infrastructure component which is considered an abstract idea because under broadest reasonable interpretation this method step can be considered a mathematical concept since it can encompass taking a mathematical difference or a mental process since it also can be interpreted as a qualitative/subjective comparison and determining a health status of the infrastructure component based on the comparing, including classifying the health status of the infrastructure component as being acceptable or unacceptable which is considered an abstract idea because under broadest reasonable interpretation this method step can be considered a mental process comprised of observing data and making a judgement as to the health status.
Claim 17 recites the method step of determining a health status of the infrastructure component based on the detected response which is considered an abstract idea because under broadest reasonable interpretation this method step can be considered a mental process comprised of observing data and making a judgement as to the health status.
Revised Step 2A, Prong Two – Practical Application
Having determined that independent claims 1, 13, and 17 recite abstract ideas, Examiners next look to determine whether the claims recite “additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.” MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h); 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, 84 Reg. at 53–54. Integration into a practical application requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to “apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53–54; see also id. at 55 (setting forth exemplary considerations indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application).
In the current instance, there are no limitations integrating the abstract ideas into a practical application as there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, it is not used by a particular machine or to effect a particular transformation.
Step 2B–Inventive Concept
Because the Examiner has determined that claims 1, 13, and 17 are directed to an abstract idea and do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the Examiner looks to whether each claim provides an inventive concept, i.e., adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field. 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. That is not the case here. See Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 890 F.3d 1354, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that “the ‘inventive concept’ cannot be the abstract idea itself”).
The additional limitations of claim 1 comprise transmitting and receiving a radio or microwave signal from a transmitting antenna to a receiving antenna to or through an infrastructure component. This is considered insignificant extra-solution activity because it amounts to necessary data gathering since all uses of the recited judicial exception require a detected response. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
Therefore, because there are no additional elements that can provide an inventive concept, we conclude that claim 1 does not recite patent eligible subject matter.
The additional limitations of claim 13 comprise transmitting and receiving a radio or microwave signal from a transmitting antenna to a receiving antenna to or through an infrastructure component. This is considered insignificant extra-solution activity because it amounts to necessary data gathering since all uses of the recited judicial exception require a detected response. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
Therefore, because there are no additional elements that can provide an inventive concept, we conclude that claim 13 does not recite patent eligible subject matter.
The additional limitations of claim 17 comprise transmitting and receiving a radio or microwave signal from a transmitting antenna to a receiving antenna to or through an infrastructure component when the infrastructure component is removed from in-service infrastructure. This is considered insignificant extra-solution activity because it amounts to necessary data gathering since all uses of the recited judicial exception require a detected response. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
Whether or not the component is removed from service does not place any meaningful limitations on the abstract idea because the data itself is not limited by whether the component is in-service or not. It also represents a generic technological environment which only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment. See MPEP §2106.05(h).
Therefore, because there are no additional elements that can provide an inventive concept, we conclude that claim 17 does not recite patent eligible subject matter.
As to the dependent claims, claims 2-8 and 16 further define the abstract idea as either classifying, which is also considered a mental process, or the output of a machine learning algorithm which is broadly considered a mathematical concept and still an abstract idea.
Claim 9 recites converting the signal into a digital signal using an ADC which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity in data processing and does not provide an inventive concept. See MPEP §2106.05(d).
Claims 10, 11, 12, 15, and 20 are drawn to the infrastructure component itself, recited at a high level of generality and thus are considered as only generally linking the abstract idea to a technological environment. See MPEP §2106.05(h).
Claims 14 , 18, and 19 are drawn to the data gathering and place no meaningful limitations on the claimed abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
Therefore, Applying the guidance set forth in the Memorandum, the Examiner concludes that claims 1-12 do not recite patent eligible subject matter.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10, 12-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vaissiere et al. (US 2022/0390344; “Vaissiere”).
Regarding claim 1, Vaissiere discloses in figure 9 a method of analyzing an infrastructure component (1) (¶¶ [0002], [0095]), the method comprising transmitting a transmit signal from a transmit antenna (51) to or into the infrastructure component (1), the transmit signal is in a radio or microwave frequency range of the electromagnetic spectrum (¶ [0125]), detecting a response at a receive antenna (51) that results from transmission of the transmit signal to or into the infrastructure component (1) (¶ [0125]) and determining a health status of the infrastructure component based on the detected response (¶ [0101]).
Regarding claim 2, Vaissiere discloses determining of the health status of the infrastructure component (1) further comprises using the detected response as an input for a pre-trained machine learning model (¶ [0099]).
Regarding claim 3, Vaissiere discloses the pre-trained machine learning model is trained using a plurality of reference signals as a training dataset (¶ [0099]).
Regarding claim 4, Vaissiere discloses the pre-trained machine learning model uses a classification algorithm to classify the health status as being acceptable or unacceptable (¶¶ [0102], [0136]-[0137]).
Regarding claim 5, Vaissiere discloses determining of the health status of the infrastructure component further comprises classifying the health status as being acceptable or unacceptable (¶¶ [0102], [0136]-[0137]).
Regarding claim 6, Vaissiere discloses the classifying of the health status as being acceptable or unacceptable further comprises comparing the detected response with one or more reference signals (¶¶ [0101]-[0102]).
Regarding claim 7, Vaissiere discloses the one or more reference signals comprise a signal indicative of an acceptable infrastructure component (1) (¶ [0099]).
Regarding claim 8, Vaissiere discloses the one or more reference signals comprise a signal indicative of an unacceptable infrastructure component (¶¶ [0136]-[0137]).
Regarding claim 10, Vaissiere discloses transmitting the transmit signal from the transmit antenna (51) to or into the infrastructure component (1) occurs while the infrastructure component is located on in-service infrastructure (¶ [0098]).
Regarding claim 12, Vaissiere discloses the infrastructure component (1) comprises a building foundation or a portion thereof, a building exterior or interior element or a portion thereof, a building roof or a portion thereof, a structural framing of a building or a portion thereof, a bridge deck or a portion thereof, a bridge foundation or a portion thereof, a bridge joint or a portion thereof, a bridge cable or a portion thereof, an inside of a pipeline or a portion thereof, a weld or joint connection of a pipeline (¶ [0095]).
Regarding claim 13, Vaissiere discloses in figure 9 a method of analyzing an infrastructure component (1) (¶¶ [0002], [0095]), the method comprising transmitting a transmit signal from a transmit antenna (51) to or into the infrastructure component (1), the transmit signal is in a radio or microwave frequency range of the electromagnetic spectrum (¶ [0125]), detecting a response at a receive antenna (51) that results from transmission of the transmit signal to or into the infrastructure component (1) (¶ [0125]) and comparing the detected response with one or more stored reference signals (¶¶ [0101]-[0102]), wherein the one or more stored reference signals comprise at least one of a signal indicative of an acceptable infrastructure component (¶ [0099]) or a signal indicative of an unacceptable infrastructure component (¶¶ [0136]-[0137]) and determining a health status of the infrastructure component (1) based on the comparing, including classifying the health status of the infrastructure component (1) as being acceptable or unacceptable. (¶ [0101]).
Regarding claim 14, Vaissiere discloses the transmitting comprises transmitting the transmit signal at each of a plurality of frequencies within the radio or microwave frequency range (¶ [0122]), and wherein the detected response comprises a spectral response of the infrastructure component (1) across the plurality of frequencies (¶ [0125]).
Regarding claim 16, Vaissiere discloses determining of the health status of the infrastructure component (1) further comprises using the detected response as an input for a pre-trained machine learning model (¶ [0099]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaissiere in view of Kuo et al. (US 2002/0005812; “Kuo”).
Regarding claim 9, Vaissiere discloses all the limitations of claim 6 on which this claim depends.
Vaissiere does not explicitly disclose comparing of the detected response with the one or more reference signal comprises converting the detected response from an analog signal into a digital signal by an analog to digital (AD) converter, and comparing the digital signal with the one or more reference signal.
However, this step in signal processing is well known in the art.
In the same field of endeavor, Kuo teaches transmitting and receiving signals through a pipeline to monitor structural health (¶¶ [0068]-[0069]) comprising the step of converting the detected response from an analog signal into a digital signal by an analog to digital (AD) converter (¶ [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to convert Vaissiere’s detect response to a digital signal using an ADC as taught by Kuo for the purpose of enabling complex signal processing such as advanced algorithms utilizing machine learning or neural networks.
When this combination is made the modified digital signal is them compared with the reference signal without further modification necessary (all the reference signals were at one time detected responses as well, see Vaissiere ¶ [0099]).
Allowable Subject Matter
There is no prior art rejection for claims 11 15, and 17-20however Examiner cannot comment on its allowability under the rejections under §101 are overcome.
It is noted that Vaissiere discloses in multiple places that an advantage of the invention is not having to remove the pipe from service and failure is predicted using a time series algorithm so there is no reason to remove it until it is time to replace it (after which testing is no longer necessary). A search for explicit recitation of testing a piece of infrastructure after it has been removed from service (as opposed to pre-installation) did not turn up an adequate reference.
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 NATALIE HULS whose telephone number is (571)270-5914. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Breene can be reached at (571) 272-4107. 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.
/NATALIE HULS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights