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 .
35 USC 112(a) REJECTION
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
As to claims 1,9 and 10, it not expressed what “ESTMATED NUMBER OF VEHICLES” (ordinate of Figure 5) is that relates to “NUMBER OF SIMULTANEOUS SENSORS” (abscissa). More particularly, how does each of the 18 point in Figure 5 relate to each of the corresponding 18 values (0 to 2000) on the ordinate. Such is necessary to grasp so that one of ordinary skill may produce a graph and provide a “shape”. Any explanation seems to center upon Para 44 (Publication), but such paragraph is wanting as one of ordinary skill cannot relate the meaning of the (uncertain) values of the ordinate to the abscissa (0 to 20). Presently, the ordinate is tagged as estimate of “the number of vehicles passing though the structure”, but that it possibly is an estimate of the different numbers of vehicles that serve to produce the simultaneous hits on each of the 18 (possible) simultaneous hits depicted in the abscissa. An estimate of a single number of vehicles (“the number of vehicles”, italics added, claims 1-10) does not by itself provide the means for evaluation of deterioration, as other parameters are involved. After all, he sensor have something to do with it. There are no examples, no reference provides for such, and no suggestion as how one may proceed to experiment to provide for such.
35 USC 112(b) REJECTION
Claims 1-8,10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, this apparatus claim includes an “estimator” 309 and “evaluator” 422; but what they structurally are (if anything) is not clear. Understand, an apparatus claim is a combination of structural components. What is an ”estimator” in a structural manner? (Specification refers to a signal processor; while an “estimator” is undefined structure. Is there any support for processor configured to estimate?) What is an “evaluator” in a structural sense? (Specification employs terms such as controller 42, structure evaluation apparatus 40 and processor; while an evaluator identified as a box 42, and structurally speaking is undefined)
As to claim 10, this apparatus is indefinite for the same reason referred to in claim 1 immediately above.
As to claims 1,9,10, “number of vehicles passing through the structure” (italics added) is suspect. Note that the specification and drawings suggest the vehicle passing over a surface of a road and bridge. It’s uncertain what Applicant’s true intent is related to where this vehicle might be.
As to claims 1,9,10, it’s not clear what the “vehicle information” (last 2 lines, each of claims 1,9,10) relates to in the specification. The term “information” exists in the specification, but there is no clear meaning of what information such relates to. Para 53 refers to vehicle information acquired by the acquirer to ultimately provide a shape or peak position; but never identifies what that vehicle “information” might be. One of ordinary cannot grasp metes and bounds of these claims without known what the term relates to. As the “Information” source is signal processor 30 (per Para 52), it may not even not be information from vehicle 10.
As to claim 4, lines 4-6 (“a value …passing vehicles”) seem to just hang in the air, as they are not structurally or functionally connected to lines 1-3. Does estimator calculate (“calculated”, line 6) the “final estimation result” (line 6)?
As to claim 4, change “the estimation result” (line 2 from last) to - the final estimation result -?
As to claim 8, is the claimed system limited to the “case” (line 1) referred to?
As to claim 8, is “a sensor” one of the “plurality” (of line 6) of claim 1, or is claim 8 limited to at least the sum of a “plurality of sensors” (line 6, claim 1) and one?
As to claim 9, change “deterioration the” (line 2 from last) to - - deterioration of the - - .
35 USC 102 REJECTION
Claim(s) 1,9,10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by et al Takamine 20220130240.
As to claim 1, Tak teaches (Para 22,23) a structure evaluation system comprising: a plurality of sensors 10 configured to detect elastic waves generated inside a structure 11; a vehicle number estimator configured to estimate the number of vehicles passing through the structure on the basis of a plurality of elastic waves detected by each of the plurality of sensors (Para 47); and an evaluator configured to evaluate a state of deterioration of the structure using vehicle information relating to the number of vehicles estimated by the vehicle number estimator (Para 100).
As to claim 9, Tak teaches a structure evaluation method comprising: estimating the number of vehicles passing through a structure on the basis of a plurality of elastic waves detected by each of a plurality of sensors that detect elastic waves generated inside the structure (Para 47); and evaluating a state of deterioration the structure using vehicle information relating to the estimated number of vehicles (Para 100).
As to claims 1,9,10, the last 3 lines read as if the deterioration is determined based only upon vehicle information, but the vehicle only serves to provide a source of waves. How is vehicle information defined?
As to claim 10, Tak teaches a structure evaluation apparatus comprising: a vehicle number estimator configured to estimate the number of vehicles passing through a structure on the basis of a plurality of elastic waves detected by each of a plurality of sensors that detect elastic waves generated inside the structure (Para 47); and an evaluator configured to evaluate a state of deterioration the structure using vehicle information relating to the estimated number of vehicles (Para 100).
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT R RAEVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2204. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon to Fri from 8am to 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina DeHerrera, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/ROBERT R RAEVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855