DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 12-17 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.
Claim 12 recites “a human perception threshold,” but said limitation is indefinite as a human perception threshold is a subjective term.
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.
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 1, 3-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Machnicki et al., US-PGPUB 2015/0178850 (hereinafter Machnicki) in view of Caltrans, “Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual,” (2013) (cited by the Applicant) (hereinafter Caltrans) and Lingle et al., US Pat No. 10,516,981 (hereinafter Lingle)
Regarding Claims 1. Machnicki discloses analyzing vibration activity data to direct vibration-related data collection (Paragraph [0027], vibration event), comprising:
a data transceiver device, at least one interface generation device in communication with the data transceiver (Paragraph [0022], various routers, etc. and interfacing; Fig. 1), a computational server cluster communicatively coupled to the data transceiver device (Fig. 1; Paragraph [0025], servers coupled to the interface), the computational server cluster comprising a plurality of cooperative processing units, and the computational server cluster being in communication with the interface generation device (Paragraph [0025], servers; Paragraph [0050]); and
a computational logic data storage device in communication with the computational server cluster, the computational logic data storage device storing (i) a vibration analysis algorithm and (ii) at least one programmatic logic routine defining required survey data and sensor location data (Paragraph [0021], one or more sensors; Paragraph [0030], Paragraphs [0040], various processing related to vibratory damage event; [0044]-[0045]; Paragraph [0056]; Paragraph [0090]), wherein execution of the at least one programmatic logic routine by the computational server cluster (Paragraph [0129]), results in:
receiving, by the data transceiver device and from a remote user device via a first electronic network pathway (Fig. 12, 1214; Paragraph [0045], input by a user), initial input comprising data descriptive of a proposed vibration activity (Paragraph [0057], input into calculation to determine a level of risk) at a first location (Paragraph [0066]; Paragraph [0091]-[0092], first location such as a museum)
routing, by the data transceiver device and to the computational server cluster (Fig. 12, 1240), the data descriptive of the proposed vibration activity at the first location (Paragraph [0066], Paragraph [0091]-[0092], proposed insured activity),
identifying, by the computational server cluster and by executing the vibration analysis algorithm, at least one second location that has a likelihood of being affected by the proposed vibration activity at the first location (Paragraph [0091]-[0092], and the likelihood that a comparable activity will result in damage, from some distance from the museum) (Note: By Applicant’ statement, this limitation is well-known); and
outputting, by the at least one interface generation device, a graphical indication of the identified at least one second location that has the likelihood of being affected by the proposed vibration activity at the first location (Fig. 12, 1216; Fig. 4, 11s; Paragraph [0082], graphical representation output to a device; Paragraph [0093]-[0095]; Fig. 11C),
Machnicki also discloses determining the loss frequency distribution based on non-VED, including age of a building (Paragraph [0067]) and geologic characteristics at the location (Paragraph [0037], [0037], [0092], soil type, soil settling, [0052], flood zone and history, etc., Paragraph [0137])
Machnicki does not disclose computing by the computational server cluster and based at least in part on a) the identified at least second location, b) age of a structure at the identified at least one second location and geologic characteristics at the identified at least one second location, a plurality of suggested sensor locations, transmitting, to the at least one interface generation device, coordinate information descriptive of the plurality of suggested sensor locations, wherein the coordinate information comprises data defining a unique coordinate in a coordinate system for each of the plurality of suggested sensor locations, and outputting, by the at least one interface generation device and via the remote mobile user device, and prior to placement of any sensors, a graphical indication of the coordinate information descriptive of the plurality of suggested sensor locations.
CalTrans discloses a more simplified model of calculating the PPV with distance (section 2.2 discussion on PPV; entire Pg 16, Eqn. 7) and conducting vibration monitoring using a simple, single-location to a plurality of suggested sensor locations with respect to criteria (Note: CalTrans is a guidance manual that provides suggestion to be followed; page 21; page 48, section 9.1, suggestion of placing the sensors at the location of interest, page 51, suggesting number of sensors being used simultaneously, etc and distance; Section 9.2.7) (note that the Applicant had admitted this limitation to be well-known), including taking into consideration age of the structure (Table 9, relatively new, old structures, Table 14, historic and old buildings; Table 19, old to modern; Example 3, pages 39-40; section 11.4.3.3), geologic characteristics (page 15, soil type, moisture content, etc, Table 3)
Lingle discloses monitoring environmental factors, such as vibration (Col. 1, lines 31-37) by strategically placing the sensors the desired locations throughout the given area (Col. 4, lines 8-20; Figs. 1C, 11, 13), transmitting the location of the sensor nodes and allowing the client to view the data and analytic via user interface (Abstract; Col. 23, lines 19-37; Fig. 1B, interface 110; Col. 8, lines 32-36) and displaying the location of the sensor nodes (Col. 8, lines 5-27, Fig. 1C, 102, 104, sensor nodes; Col. 4, lines 28-32, displaying using graphs, maps, etc; Col. 4, lines 23-67; Col. 5, lines 1-67; Col. 6, lines 1-25)
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to use the teachings of Caltrans and Lingle in Machnicki and compute by the computational server cluster and based at least in part on a) the identified at least second location, b) age of a structure at the identified at least one second location and geologic characteristics at the identified at least one second location, a plurality of suggested sensor locations, transmitting, to the at least one interface generation device, coordinate information descriptive of the plurality of suggested sensor locations, wherein the coordinate information comprises data defining a unique coordinate in a coordinate system for each of the plurality of suggested sensor locations, and outputting, by the at least one interface generation device and via the remote mobile user device, and prior to placement of any sensors, a graphical indication of the coordinate information descriptive of the plurality of suggested sensor locations, so as to accurately identify the vibration and the vibration level at the locations of interest.
Regarding Claim 3. Machnicki discloses the initial input comprises data defining values for (i) a GIS coordinate of the proposed vibration activity at the first location, (ii) a type of the proposed vibration activity at the first location, and (iii) geologic data for the first location (Fig. 4; Claim 5-6; Paragraph [0037]; Paragraph [0045]; Paragraph [0090]-[0092])
Regarding Claim 4. Machnicki discloses the identifying of the at least one second location that has a likelihood of being affected by the proposed vibration activity at the first location, comprises: identifying a distance between the at least one second location that has a likelihood of being affected by the proposed vibration activity at the first location, and the first location (Paragraph [0091]-[0092], locations with distance from the museum; Figs. 4 and 11C);
calculating, utilizing the initial input and the identified distance, a peak particle velocity for the at least one second location associated with the proposed vibration activity at the first location and thresholds (Paragraph [0040], PPV; Fig. 4)
comparing the calculated peak particle velocity for the at least one second location to stored peak particle velocity threshold data (Paragraph [0040], thresholds; Paragraphs [0046]; [0086]-[0087]; Paragraph [0099]-[0100]); and
identifying that the calculated peak particle velocity for the at least one second location exceeds the at least one threshold defined by the stored peak particle velocity threshold data (Paragraph [0046], PPV value abovea certain threshold within a certain distance of a vibration target are highly likely to cause damage; Paragraph [0142], maximum PPV permitted)
(NOTE: Applicant admits the limitation of identifying by executing the vibration algorithm is well-known. In other words, the entire steps recited in Claims 3 and 15 are therefore well-known)
Regarding Claim 5 Machnicki discloses receiving, by the data transceiver device and from a sensor placed at one of the plurality of desired sensor locations, vibration activity data (Paragraph [0090]; [0142], sensor in proximity to the object)
Regarding Claim 7. Machnicki discloses the execution of the at least one programmatic logic routine by the computational server cluster, further results in: generating, by the at least one interface generation device and in response to the receiving of the alert, a graphical alert notification and outputting, via an output device, the graphical alert notification (Paragraph [0082], graphical representation output to a device)
Regarding Claim 8. Machnicki discloses the output device comprises an output device of a construction equipment object (Paragraph [0024], construction monitoring activity; Fig. 11s)
Regarding Claim 9. Machnicki discloses the execution of the at least one programmatic logic routine by the computational server cluster, further results in: identifying, by the computational server cluster and by querying one or more data storage devices, contact information for an entity associated with the at least one second location (Paragraph [0093], insurance premium quoted to potential customer via email, text message, etc)
Regarding Claim 10. Machnicki discloses the execution of the at least one programmatic logic routine by the computational server cluster, further results in: identifying, by the computational server cluster and by accessing at least one social media account associated with the at least one second location that has a likelihood of being affected by the proposed vibration activity at the first location, first imagery descriptive of the at least one second location (Paragraphs [0056], [0142], photographs)
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Machnicki, US-PGPUB 2015/0178850 in views of Caltrans, “Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual,” (2013) and Lingle, US Pat No. 10,516,981 as applied to Claim 10 above, and further in view of Howe et al., US-PGPUB 2017/0270612 (hereinafter Howe)
Regarding Claim 11. Machnicki discloses the execution of the at least one programmatic logic routine by the computational server cluster, further results in: receiving, by the data transceiver device and after an initiation of the proposed vibration activity at the first location, second imagery descriptive of the at least one second location (Paragraph [0056], photographs; Paragraphs [0092]-[0093])
The modified Machnicki does not explicitly comparing, by the computational server cluster, the first imagery and the second imagery; and determining, by the computational server cluster and based on the comparison of the first and second imagery, that no damage has occurred at the second location due to the initiation of the proposed vibration activity
Howe discloses comparing, by the computational server cluster, the first imagery and the second imagery; and determining, by the computational server cluster and based on the comparison of the first and second imagery, that no damage has occurred at the second location (Paragraph [0067]; Abstract; Paragraph [0004]; Paragraph [0006])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Howe in Machnicki and compare the first imagery and the second imagery, and determine based on the comparison of the first and second imagery, that no damage has occurred at the second location due to the initiation of the proposed vibration activity, so as to accurately assess the property damage with efficiency that is cost-effective.
7. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Machnicki et al., US-PGPUB 2015/0178850 in view of Caltrans, “Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual,” (2013) and Lingle, US Pat No. 10,516,981, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Zamorano et al., US-PGPUB 2003/0179308 (hereinafter Zamorano) and Langseth, US-PGPUB 2013/0178257 (hereinafter Langseth)
Regarding Claim 2: The modified Machnicki does not disclose an augmented reality interface that overlays a visual indication of each of the unique coordinates with a representation of an area within a field of view of a camera of the remote mobile user device.
Zamorano discloses augmented reality system that employes the mobile robotic positioning device to position a sensor in a desired sensor location relative to the object of interest and obtaining images of the object of interest using camera (Paragraphs [0014]-[0020]); Figs. 1-4; Paragraph [0005]; Abstract, precise position information)
Langseth discloses augmented reality interface using the mobile device (Paragraph [0006])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Zamorano and Langseth in the modified Machnicki and have an augmented reality interface that overlays a visual indication of each of the unique coordinates with a representation of an area within a field of view of a camera of the remote mobile user device, so as to generate the augmented reality image with precise position information.
8. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Machnicki et al., US-PGPUB 2015/0178850 in view of Caltrans, “Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual,” (2013) and Lingle et al., US Pat No. 10,516,981 as applied to Claim 5 above and further in view of Masayuki, JP-2013224869 (hereinafter Masayuki) (machine translated) (2013)
Regarding Claim 6. Machnicki discloses the execution of the at least one programmatic logic routine by the computational server cluster, further results in: comparing, by the computational server cluster, the received vibration activity data to at least one peak particle velocity threshold (Paragraphs [0046]; [0086]-[0087]; Paragraph [0099]-[0100]), and transmitting, to the at least one interface generation device and in the case that a value of the received vibration activity data exceeds the at least one peak particle velocity threshold (Paragraph [0093], insurance premium quoted to potential customer via email, text message, etc)
The modified Machnicki does not disclose an alert to stop the execution of the vibration activity.
Masayuki discloses vibration detection system, including alerting to stop the construction activity (Abstract; Paragraphs [0006]-[0014])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Masayuki in the modified Machnicki and provide an alert to stop the execution of the vibration activity, so as to reliably protect the structures.
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Machnicki et al., US-PGPUB 2015/0178850 (hereinafter Machnicki) in view of Caltrans, “Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual,” (2013) (cited by the Applicant), Lingle et al., US Pat No. 10,516,981 and Harton et al., US-PGPUB 2015/0170288 (hereinafter Harton)
Regarding Claim 12. Machnicki discloses analyzing vibration activity data to direct vibration-related data collection (Paragraph [0027], vibration event), comprising:
a data transceiver device, at least one interface generation device in communication with the data transceiver (Paragraph [0022], various routers, etc. and interfacing; Fig. 1), a computational server cluster communicatively coupled to the data transceiver device (Fig. 1; Paragraph [0025], servers coupled to the interface), the computational server cluster comprising a plurality of cooperative processing units, and the computational server cluster being in communication with the interface generation device (Paragraph [0025], servers; Paragraph [0050]); and
a computational logic data storage device in communication with the computational server cluster, the computational logic data storage device storing (ii) vibration threshold data, (iii) a vibration analysis algorithm and (ii) at least one programmatic logic routine defining required survey data and sensor location data (Paragraph [0021], one or more sensors; Paragraph [0030], Paragraphs [0040], various processing related to vibratory damage event; [0044]-[0045]; Paragraph [0056]; Paragraph [0032], Paragraph [0090]; Paragraph [0134]; [0141]-[0142], storing data; Fig. 10), wherein execution of the at least one programmatic logic routine by the computational server cluster (Paragraph [0129]), results in:
receiving, by the data transceiver device and from a remote user device via a first electronic network pathway (Fig. 12, 1214; Paragraph [0045], input by a user), initial input comprising data descriptive of a proposed vibration activity (Paragraph [0057], input into calculation to determine a level of risk) at a first location (Paragraph [0066]; Paragraph [0091]-[0092], first location such as a museum), comprising data defining values for Ii) a GIS coordinate of the proposed vibration activity at the first location, (ii) a type of the proposed vibration activity at the first location and (iii) geologic data for the first location (Fig. 4; Claim 5-6; Paragraph [0037]; Paragraph [0045]; Paragraph [0090]-[0092], GPS, soil types), routing, by the data transceiver device and to the computational server cluster (Fig. 12, 1240), the data descriptive of the proposed vibration activity at the first location (Paragraph [0066], Paragraph [0091]-[0092], proposed insured activity),
identifying, by the computational server cluster and based on the GIS coordinate of the proposed vibration activity at the first location and GIS map data, a plurality of structures within a predetermined proximity of the first location (Paragraphs [0038], [0091], historical structure, museum, etc), and by executing the vibration analysis algorithm, at least one second location that has a likelihood of being affected by the proposed vibration activity at the first location (Paragraph [0091]-[0092], and the likelihood that a comparable activity will result in damage, from some distance from the museum) (Note: By Applicant’ statement, this limitation is well-known); and
computing, by the computational server cluster and by executing the vibration analysis
algorithm utilizing the type of the proposed vibration activity and the geologic data for the first location, an estimated level of vibration that at the proposed vibration activity at the first location would cause to occur at each structure of the plurality of structures (Paragraph [0038], [0044]-[0046], [0087], [0090], [0099])
identifying, by the computational server cluster and based on the estimated vibration
levels and stored vibration threshold data, that an estimated vibration level at a first one of the structures exceeds a threshold (Figs. 4, 11C; Paragraph [0086]-[0087], [0099]-[0100], based on PPV);
outputting, by the at least one interface generation device, a graphical indication of a
spatial relationship between the identified first one of the structures and the first location (Fig. 11C); identifying, by the computational server cluster and by querying one or more data storage devices, contact information for an entity associated with the first one of the structures (Paragraph [0093], email, text message, etc);
outputting, by the at least one interface generation device, a graphical indication of the identified at least one second location that has the likelihood of being affected by the proposed vibration activity at the first location (Fig. 12, 1216; Fig. 4, 11s; Paragraph [0082], graphical representation output to a device; Paragraph [0093]-[0095]; Fig. 11C),
and transmitting, to the remote user device, (a) the contact information and (b) instructions to contact the entity in advance of initiating the proposed vibration activity at the first location (Paragraph [0093], insurance premium quoted to potential customer via email, text message, etc);
Machiniki does not disclose explicitly disclose storing (i) GIS map data and does not disclose identifying, by the computational server cluster and based on the estimated vibration levels and stored vibration threshold data, that an estimated vibration level at a first one of the structures exceeds a human perception threshold.
Harton discloses storing GIS map data (Paragraphs [0028], [0043], [0058])
CalTrans discloses identifying, by the computational server cluster and based on the estimated vibration levels and stored vibration threshold data, that an estimated vibration level at a first one of the structures exceeds a human perception threshold (Section 11.4.1, pages 74-75, human response, Table 21).
Lingle discloses monitoring environmental factors, such as vibration (Col. 1, lines 31-37) by strategically placing the sensors the desired locations throughout the given area (Col. 4, lines 8-20; Figs. 1C, 11, 13), transmitting the location of the sensor nodes and allowing the client to view the data and analytic via user interface (Abstract; Col. 23, lines 19-37; Fig. 1B, interface 110; Col. 8, lines 32-36) and displaying the location of the sensor nodes (Col. 8, lines 5-27, Fig. 1C, 102, 104, sensor nodes; Col. 4, lines 28-32, displaying using graphs, maps, etc; Col. 4, lines 23-67; Col. 5, lines 1-67; Col. 6, lines 1-25)
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Harton, CalTrans and Dingle in Machininki and store (i) GIS map data and identify, by the computational server cluster and based on the estimated vibration levels and stored vibration threshold data, that an estimated vibration level at a first one of the structures exceeds a human perception threshold, output, by the at least one interface generation device, a graphical indication of a
spatial relationship between the identified first one of the structures and the first location (Fig. 11C); identify, by the computational server cluster and by querying one or more data storage devices, contact information for an entity associated with the first one of the structures, output, by the at least one interface generation device, a graphical indication of the identified at least one second location that has the likelihood of being affected by the proposed vibration activity at the first location, and transmit, to the remote user device, (a) the contact information and (b) instructions to contact the entity in advance of initiating the proposed vibration activity at the first location, so as to accurately identify the vibration and the vibration level at the locations of interest, prior to initiating vibration activity.
Regarding Claim 13. Machinki discloses identifying, by the computational server cluster and based on the estimated vibration levels and the stored vibration threshold data, that the estimated vibration level at the first one of the structures does not exceed an expected damage threshold (Figs. 4, 11C; Paragraph [0086]-[0087], [0099]-[0100], based on PPV, user determines damage);
Regarding Claim 14. Machnicki discloses the contact information comprises a social media account (Paragraph [0094], example interfaces comprising a web page, web form, etc, which are social media account)
Regarding Claim 15. Machiniki discloses prior to initiating the proposed vibration activity at the first location and utilizing the social media account information, photos or videos of the first one of the structures (Paragraphs [0056], [0142], photographs)
Regarding Claim 16. Machniki discloses receiving, by the data transceiver device and from an application executed on a cell phone of the entity at the first one of the structures, vibration activity data due to an execution of the proposed
vibration activity at the first location (Paragraph [0090]). Harton also discloses receiving, by the data transceiver device and from an application executed on a cell phone of the entity at the first one of the structures, vibration activity data due to an execution of the damaged activity at the first location (Paragraph [0127])
10. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Machnicki et al., US-PGPUB 2015/0178850 in view of Caltrans, “Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual,” (2013), Lingle, US Pat No. 10,516,981 and Harton et al., US-PGPUB 2015/0170288 as applied to Claim 16 and further in view of Masayuki, JP-2013224869.
Regarding Claim 17. Machnicki discloses comparing, by the computational server cluster, the received vibration activity data to at least one peak particle velocity threshold (Paragraphs [0046]; [0086]-[0087]; Paragraph [0099]-[0100]), and transmitting, to the at least one interface generation device and in the case that a value of the received vibration activity data exceeds the at least one peak particle velocity threshold (Paragraph [0093], insurance premium quoted to potential customer via email, text message, etc)
The modified Machnicki does not disclose an alert to stop the execution of the vibration activity.
Masayuki discloses vibration detection system, including alerting to stop the construction activity (Abstract; Paragraphs [0006]-[0014])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Masayuki in the modified Machnicki and provide an alert to stop the execution of the vibration activity, so as to reliably protect the structures.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Porter, US-PGPUB 2006/0041406
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/HYUN D PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights