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 Arguments
In response to a prior Office Action receipt date 02/04/2026 the Applicant amends the abstract of the Disclosure for minor spelling errors, cancels claim(s) 1-5, and amends claim 6. Claim(s) 7-10 were previously presented.
The Applicant argues that Petschacher (US-2014026671), and Toru (JP-2004294382) references that the Examiner chose in a §103 rejection supposedly discloses the steps a, b and c of claim 6 and does not mention TEDs, albeit without explicitly excluding TEDs which seems to be irrelevant as TEDS are no longer in the preamble of the claim. However the presented claim language is broad enough that other than the newly added QR limitations (now addressed below), the examiner maintains that steps of the claims do appear to be taught by the previous art of record.
Applicant’s arguments, see amendment/request, filed 07/01/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 6-10 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yassour (US-20190289010).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petschacher (US-2014026671), in view of, Toru (JP-2004294382), in further view of, Yassour (US-20190289010).
In regards to claim 6, Petschacher teaches method for installing and operating a measuring assembly with spatially widely distributed sensor measuring points, the method comprising: (abstract; para [0006, 0029, 0034, 0049-0050])
a. attaching the sensors to a measurement object; (para [0006, 0029, 0034, 0049-0050], 8-9 fig. 1, ‘sensors/WSG sensors’, ‘temperature sensor’; 21 fig 2A, ‘acceleration sensors’)
b. connecting measuring cables to the sensors in one-to-one correspondence; (39 fig. 4, ‘cables’; para(s) [0006, 0010, 0035, 0049])
c. connecting the measuring cables to measuring amplifier channels of a measuring amplifier in one-to-one correspondence; (32-33, 41-42 fig(s) 2A, 3, 4, ‘measuring channels’, ‘preamplifier’, ‘programmable amplifier’; para(s) [0029, 0041, 0049])
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Petschacher to provide a system for measuring the desired structure with a plurality of spatially widely distributed sensor measuring points.
Petschacher does not teach:
d. checking whether each of the measuring cables is connected and the measuring amplifier indicates a measuring signal for each of the measuring amplifier channels;
Toru teaches:
d. checking whether each of the measuring cables is connected and the measuring amplifier indicates a measuring signal for each of the measuring amplifier channels; (Toru: abstract, ‘performs connecting confirmation’; 11(a-n), 13(a-n), 15(a-n), 85(a-n), 91(a-n) fig. 1, ‘strain gauge units’, ‘strain gages’, ‘lead wires’, ‘measurement channels’; para(s) [0003, 0005, 0019, 0022, 0024-0025])
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Toru to provide a method for checking the connection of the cable channels for a system for measuring the desired structure with a plurality of spatially widely distributed sensor measuring points to verify the attachment of the applied components.
Toru teaches the same technology as identified above but does not teach getting its parameterization data via QR code.
Toru does not teach:
e. acquiring parameterization data from a data sheet having a QR code belonging to a corresponding one of the sensors using a scanning device;
f. feeding the parameterization data into a measuring cable end to which the corresponding one of the sensors is connected or directly into the corresponding one of the sensors;
g. when the measuring channels have received the measuring signals required for identification and parameterization of the corresponding ones of the sensors, the measuring amplifier generating a confirmation signal and transmitting the confirmation signal to a sensor location and confirming a proper parameterization of the sensor; and
h. repeating steps e, f, and g, until all measuring amplifier channels have been parametrized.
Yassour teaches:
e. acquiring parameterization data from a data sheet having a QR code belonging to a corresponding one of the sensors using a scanning device; (para [0118], ‘using QRs for parameterized workflows and uses QR codes to store parameterization data’)
f. feeding the parameterization data into a measuring cable end to which the corresponding one of the sensors is connected or directly into the corresponding one of the sensors; (para [0118], ‘using QRs for parameterized workflows and uses QR codes to store parameterization data’)
g. when the measuring channels have received the measuring signals required for identification and parameterization of the corresponding ones of the sensors, the measuring amplifier generating a confirmation signal and transmitting the confirmation signal to a sensor location and confirming a proper parameterization of the sensor; and(para [0118], ‘using QRs for parameterized workflows and uses QR codes to store parameterization data’; fig(s) 3A, 6B)
h. repeating steps e, f, and g, until all measuring amplifier channels have been parametrized. (para [0118], ‘using QRs for parameterized workflows and uses QR codes to store parameterization data’; ; fig(s) 3A, 6B)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Yassour to provide a method for checking the connection of the cable channels for a system for measuring the desired structure with a plurality of spatially widely distributed sensor measuring points to verify the attachment of the applied components.
In regards to claim 7, Petschacher, Toru & Yassour teach a method of claim 6, (see claim rejection 6) Toru teaches wherein the confirmation signal in step g is transmitted via a corresponding one of the measuring cables. (abstract; para [0031], recites: ‘Toru: And the received identification ID information signal 59, for example, the identification ID information of “N0.1 front fender” is displayed on the display unit 65, and the identification type strain gauge units 10a to 10n are identified.’)
In regards to claim 8, Petschacher, Toru, & Yassour teach a method of claim 6, (see claim rejection 6) Toru teaches wherein the confirmation signal in step g is not sent via a corresponding one of the measuring cables, but via an information channel. (Toru: abstract; 30 fig. 1, ‘strain measuring device’; 20(a-n) fig. 1, ‘identification tags’; para(s) [0016, 0018-0020, 0028, 0031-0034]; 50, 59-60, 65-66 fig. 4 , ‘RFID tag’, ‘information signal’, ‘identification monitor’, ‘display unit’, ‘operation switch’, ‘information request signal’)
In regards to claim 9, Petschacher, Toru, & Yassour teach a method of claim 6, (see claim rejection 6) wherein each of the sensors is a strain gauge. (Toru: 11(a-n), 13(a-n), 15(a-n) fig. 1, ‘strain gauge units’, ‘strain gages’)
In regards to claim 10, Petschacher, Toru, & Yassour teach a method of claim 6, (see claim rejection 6) wherein each of the sensors is a thermocouple. (Petschacher: 8-9 fig. 1, ‘sensors/WSG sensors’, ‘temperature sensor’)
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited Lazea (US-20240102983), Takashi (JPH09237524A), Angliker (US-20210326030), and Angliker (EP-3627298) references further describe a method for checking the connection of the cable channels for a system for measuring the desired structure with a plurality of spatially widely distributed sensor measuring points to verify the attachment of the applied components as described by the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C BUTLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3973. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Stephanie E Bloss can be reached at (571)272-3555. 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.
/K.C.B/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights