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 .
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 11-13, 15-18, 22, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by McCallen et al. (US 2017/0307467 A1) (hereinafter McCallen).
Regarding claim 1, McCallen teaches a damage detection system [sensor system for determining building damage] (Para [0004-0006], see Abstract), comprising:
an elongate structure, wherein the elongate structure is a safety structure or a racking limb [multistory building 102, 1302; building considered a physical structure that protects an area from intrusion] (Para [0008], see Figs. 1A and 13A);
a radiation emitter [laser source 206] configured to emit a radiation signal internally to, and along a length of, the elongate structure [projects diffracted laser beam 208 along length of the multistory building] (Para [0053], see Fig. 2);
a radiation sensor [position sensitive detector array 210] configured to receive the radiation signal and output a sensing signal in response [data produced by PSDA 210] (Para [0053], see Fig. 2); and
a controller [computer system] configured to: receive the sensing signal from the radiation sensor; determine a damage status of the elongate structure based on the sensing signal; and output a damage signal representative of the damage status [computer system will collect, analyze, store, and display the data produced by PSDA 210] (Para [0053, 0067-0068, 0091]).
Regarding claim 11, McCallen as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the radiation emitter comprises an optical radiation emitter [laser source 206] and the radiation sensor comprises an optical radiation sensor [position sensitive detector array 210] (Para [0053], see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, McCallen as applied to claim 11 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the radiation emitter comprises a laser source [laser source 206] (Para [0053], see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, McCallen as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the radiation sensor comprises a radiation sensor array of a plurality of pixels, and wherein each pixel is configured to receive the radiation signal from a sub-volume of the elongate structure [detector array 504 having individual sensors 506 which can receive the laser from a sub-volume of the building above each sensor] (Para [0061], see Figs. 5-6).
Regarding claim 15, McCallen as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the radiation sensor comprises a radiation sensor array of a plurality of pixels [detector array 504 having individual sensors 506] (Para [0061], see Fig. 5), wherein: each pixel is configured to output a sub-sensing signal based on a received radiation signal (Para [0067]); and
the controller is configured to: determine a level of damage based on a number of sub-sensing signals that exhibit a change in power and/or temporal characteristics exceeding a detection threshold; and/or determine a lateral position of a damage site based on which sub-sensing signals exhibit a change in power and/or temporal characteristics exceeding a detection threshold [rapid interrogation of the entire array of diodes at every instant of time, the location of the laser line trace can be determined and tracked; direct measurement of interstory drift (damage and position of damage site); indicating levels of damage; comparison with pre-established damage thresholds] (Para [0065-0067, 0146-149], see Figs. 4-6).
Regarding claim 16, McCallen as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the damage status comprises one or more of: a damage state of the elongate structure; a level of damage to the elongate structure; a lateral position of a damage site; an axial position of a damage site; and/or an assembly status of the elongate structure [levels of damage] (Para [0148]).
Regarding claim 17, McCallen as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the controller is configured to determine the damage status based on a change in power level characteristics and/or temporal characteristics of the sensing signal [rapid interrogation of the entire array of diodes at every instant of time, the location of the laser line trace can be determined and tracked; direct measurement of interstory drift; indicating levels of damage; comparison with pre-established damage thresholds] (Para [0065-0067, 0146-149], see Figs. 4-6).
Regarding claim 18, McCallen as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the controller is configured to determine the damage status based on a signal difference between the sensing signal and a reference sensing signal corresponding to the sensing signal when the elongate structure is in an assembled and undamaged state [comparison with pre-established damage thresholds] (Para [0149]).
Regarding claim 22, McCallen as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the controller is configured to output the damage signal by one or more of: activating an audible visual indicator; activating a visual indicator; and transmitting the damage signal to an external device [visual indicator] (Para [0149]).
Regarding claim 24, McCallen as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to further comprising a plurality of radiation emitters, each radiation emitter configured to emit a radiation signal internally to, and along a length of, a corresponding elongate structure; a plurality of radiation sensors each configured to receive a corresponding radiation signal and output a corresponding sensing signal; a plurality of transceivers each coupled to a radiation sensor; and a server configured to communicate with each of the plurality of transceivers [multiple systems may be deployed across multiple floors and building a drift measurement can be performed at each floor of the building; visualize damage on each floor of the building] (Para [0023, 0146]).
Regarding claim 26, McCallen as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the radiation emitter is configured to emit the radiational signal along a cavity of the elongate structure [space between floors of building] (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 25, McCallen teaches a method of monitoring a condition of an elongate structure [determining building damage] (Para [0004-0006], see Abstract), wherein the elongate structure is a safety structure or a racking limb [multistory building 102, 1302; building considered a physical structure that protects an area from intrusion] (Para [0008], see Figs. 1A and 13A), comprising:
emitting a radiation signal [laser source 206] internally to, and along a length of, the elongate structure [projects diffracted laser beam 208 along length of the multistory building] (Para [0053], see Fig. 2);
receiving the radiation signal [position sensitive detector array 210] and outputting a sensing signal in response [data produced by PSDA 210] (Para [0053], see Fig. 2); and
determining a damage status of the elongate structure based on the sensing signal; and outputting a damage signal representative of the damage status [computer system will collect, analyze, store, and display the data produced by PSDA 210] (Para [0053, 0067-0068, 0091]).
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.
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.
Claims 2-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCallen, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Waseda (JP 5137875 B2) (hereinafter Waseda) (cited in Applicant IDS dated 12 January 2024).
Regarding claim 2, McCallen as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the radiation sensor is co-located with the radiation emitter and the radiation sensor is configured to receive the radiation signal as a reflected radiation signal. Waseda teaches a building damage detection system wherein a radiation sensor [10] is co-located with a radiation emitter [6] and the radiation sensor is configured to receive the radiation signal as a reflected radiation signal [reflector 7] (see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify McCallen with Waseda such that the radiation sensor is co-located with the radiation emitter and the radiation sensor is configured to receive the radiation signal as a reflected radiation signal, for the predictable result of detecting displacement of a structural part of a building.
Regarding claims 3-4, McCallen in view of Waseda as applied to claim 2 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the radiation sensor is configured to receive the reflected radiation signal from a reference reflecting surface when the elongate structure is in an undamaged state, wherein the reference reflecting surface comprises any one or more of: a surface of a reflector positioned along a length of the elongate structure; an end surface of the elongate structure; and a surface of a second structure abutted to an end of the elongate structure. Waseda additionally teaches wherein the radiation sensor [10] is configured to receive the reflected radiation signal from a reference reflecting surface when the elongate structure is in an undamaged state, wherein the reference reflecting surface comprise a surface of a reflector positioned along a length of the elongate structure [reflector 7] (see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify McCallen in view of Waseda such that the radiation sensor is configured to receive the reflected radiation signal from a reference reflecting surface when the elongate structure is in an undamaged state, wherein the reference reflecting surface comprises a surface of a reflector positioned along a length of the elongate structure, for the predictable result of detecting displacement of a structural part of a building.
Regarding claim 6, McCallen in view of Waseda as applied to claim 3 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to comprising a plurality of reference reflecting surfaces corresponding to a plurality of reference reflectors positioned on an internal sidewall along a length of the elongate structure [multiple systems may be deployed across multiple floors and building a drift measurement can be performed at each floor of the building; visualize damage on each floor of the building] (McCallen Para [0023, 0146]).
Regarding claim 7, McCallen as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to comprising a plurality of radiation emitter and radiation sensor pairs positioned successively along the length of the elongate structure, wherein the controller is configured to receive a sensing signal from each of the radiation sensors; and determine the status based on the sensing signals [multiple systems may be deployed across multiple floors and building a drift measurement can be performed at each floor of the building; visualize damage on each floor of the building] (Para [0023, 0146]). McCallen fails to teach wherein each radiation sensor is co-located with its corresponding radiation emitter and each radiation sensor is configured to receive a radiation signal emitted by the corresponding emitter and reflected from a corresponding reference reflection surface. Waseda teaches a building damage detection system wherein a radiation sensor [10] is co-located with a radiation emitter [6] and the radiation sensor is configured to receive the radiation signal as a reflected radiation signal [reflector 7] (see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify McCallen with Waseda such each radiation sensor is co-located with its corresponding radiation emitter and each radiation sensor is configured to receive a radiation signal emitted by the corresponding emitter and reflected from a corresponding reference reflection surface, for the predictable result of detecting displacement of a structural part of a building.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCallen as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 8-9, McCallen as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the controller is further configured to receive trigger signaling; and selectively activate the radiation emitter and radiation sensor and receive the sensing signal in response to the trigger signaling, wherein the trigger signaling comprises one or more of a periodic trigger signal for selectively activating the damage detection system according to a monitoring schedule; and an on-demand signal from a trigger sensor responsive to motion of an object within a predetermined radius of the elongate structure; and/or impact of an object with the elongate structure. McCallen further teaches wherein measurement and read-out of damage values after occurrence of an earthquake allows comparison to building damage indices, wherein assessment of the building damage and structural condition is performed immediately after an earthquake (Para [0013, 0020]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify McCallen such that the controller is further configured to receive trigger signaling; and selectively activate the radiation emitter and radiation sensor and receive the sensing signal in response to the trigger signaling, wherein the trigger signaling comprises an on-demand signal from a trigger sensor responsive to motion of an object within a predetermined radius of the elongate structure; and/or impact of an object with the elongate structure, such as object motion due to an earthquake, in order to assess building damage after an earthquake.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCallen, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gordon et al. (US 2006/0282297 A1) (hereinafter Gordon).
Regarding claim 20, McCallen as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the controller is configured to determine an axial position of a damage site based on time of flight characteristics of the sensing signal. Gordon teaches a damage detection system comprising a radiation emitter and sensor wherein an axial position of a damage site is determined based on time of flight characteristics of a sensing signal (Para [0026, 0036], see Abstract, Claims 7-8). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify McCallen with Gordon such that the controller is configured to determine an axial position of a damage site based on time of flight characteristics of the sensing signal, in order to verify integrity of the structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID Z HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5360. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/DAVID Z HUANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855