DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Amendment
1- The amendment filed on 01/05/2022 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 9-14 remain pending in the application, where the independent claims have been amended.
Response to Arguments
2- Examiner has considered Applicants’ proposed amendments and acknowledges they moot/overcome only partially the 35 USC 112 rejection of the pending claims as set forth in the non-final office action mailed on 8/21/2025. The remaining rejections are kept and presented hereunder.
Response to Arguments
3- Moreover, Applicant’s amendments and their corresponding arguments, with respect to the rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made over McManamon in view of White et al. (US Patent 9366692).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4- 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.
5- Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As to claims 1 and 5, which read “A system for measuring the dynamic displacement of a structure” and “a method for measuring the dynamic displacement of a structure”, the underlined clauses appear to present antecedence issues.
Claims 2-3 and 6-7, 9-14 are similarly rejected by virtue of their dependence on claims 1 and 5.
As to claims 3 and 7, which read “linear movement of said LDV to obtain transverse displacement measurements of a structure”, the underlined clauses present indefiniteness issues as it is not clear whether “a structure” in these claims correspond to the same “a structure” in the independent claims, or whether it is another “structure” to be considered. For examination purposes, both options will be considered.
As to claims 11, 12, 13 which read “wherein the bridge is in a remote or inaccessible condition.”, “wherein the response of said LDV… for the motions to which the moving object” and “wherein one or more algorithms compensate for the errors”, respectively, the underlined clauses appear to present antecedence issues.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6- 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
7- Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9- 14 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McManamon et al. (PGPUB No. 2019/0018165) in view of White et al. (US Patent 9366692)
As to amended claims 1, 5, McManamon teaches a system, and its method of making (Abstract, Figs. 1-3) for measuring the dynamic displacement of a structure (¶ 8, 12, 20-21, 26, 74 for ex.) reference-free (this part is construed as a mere intended use as nothing in the claim body pertains to this reference free characteristic of the system/method reference free), comprising: a laser Doppler vibrometer LDV (¶ 68); an unmanned aerial system UAS (¶ 43), said LDV mounted on said UAS (Fig. 1); and a processor (in fig. 2) in communication with said LDV adapted to compensate error in the LDV output due to the UAS movement (¶ 81, 125 for ex.).
McManamon does not teach expressly a linear variable differential transducer -LVDT-; and wherein said processor includes a signal difference between the measured outputs of a moving LDV system and said LVDT is achieved that is between 10% to 15% peak and 2% to 5% RMS.
However, one PHOSITA would find it obvious to calibrate the LDV systems with corresponding means in the art, such as a LVDT, to optimize the accuracy of the LDV measurements (See MPEP 2143 Sect. I. B-D). In a related measurement field, White teaches a compensation of load sensors (Abstract and Figs. 1-7), wherein LVDT is used (Figs. 6-7. Table 1 and Col/ll. 10/18-29; wherein % peak Difference is arbitrarily adjustable and measurable, for ex. 13%. The claimed % Rms appears to be a commonly acceptable in the art where values of down to 0.1% rms is also achievable (see attached references in the Conclusion, as mere evidence, and not relied upon in the present rejection). The claimed output difference ranges are therefore found to be obvious to obtain in a mere calibration process, since it has been held that that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus and method of McManamon, according to White’s suggestions, so that a linear variable differential transducer -LVDT-; and wherein said processor includes a signal difference between the measured outputs of a moving LDV system and said LVDT is achieved that is between 10% to 15% peak and 2% to 5% RMS, with the advantage of effectively optimizing the accuracy of the measurement outputs.
Moreover, McManamon discloses:
(claims 2, 6) further including one or more non-contact and reference- free moving vibrometers (Fig. 1; devices 104 and 118).
(claims 3, 7) wherein said processor compensates for measurement errors due to the angular and linear movement of said LDV to obtain transverse displacement measurements of a structure (¶ 81).
(claim 9) wherein the structure is a bridge (¶ 7, 29, 40 for ex).
(claim 10) wherein the structure is in a remote or inaccessible condition (¶ 7; section of ocean and well head are examples).
(claim 12) wherein the response of said LDV is analyzed for the motions to which the moving object is subjected (¶ 19, 28-30, 83 for ex.).
(claim 13) wherein one or more algorithms compensate for the errors introduced due to motions of said LDV and the measured signals are corrected (¶ 81, 94).
As to claim 14, the combination of McManamon and White teaches the system of claim 1, and the method of claim 5.
McManamon does not teach expressly wherein outputs show errors of 10% avg and 8% RMS.
However, one PHOSITA would find it obvious, using the teachings of White (see rejections of claim 5), to calibrate the LDV systems with corresponding means in the art, such as a LVDT, to optimize the accuracy of the LDV measurements (See MPEP 2143 Sect. I. B-D). The claimed output difference ranges are also found to be obvious to obtain in a mere calibration process, since it has been held that that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus and method of McManamon and White so that said processor includes a signal difference between the measured outputs of a moving LDV system and a LVDT is achieved that is between 10% to 15% peak and 2% to 5% RMS; wherein outputs show errors of 10% avg and 8% RMS, with the advantage of effectively optimizing the accuracy of the measurement outputs.
As to claim 11, the combination of McManamon and White teaches the system of claim 1, and the method of claim 5.
The combination does not teach expressly wherein the bridge is in a remote or inaccessible condition.
However, McManamon does teach considering bridges and section of an ocean as remote targets (¶ 7). One PHOSITA would find it obvious to consider bridges in an ocean as targets to be measured (See MPEP 2143, Sect. I. B-D)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus and method of McManamon and White so that the bridge is in a remote or inaccessible condition, with the advantage of effectively characterize the structure of the bridge.
Conclusion
Relevant art:
CN 119043400 which appear to be relevant to claims 1 and 5.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED AMARA whose telephone number is (571)272-7847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 9:00-17:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (571)272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohamed K AMARA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877