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
.
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 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.
Priority
US National Stage of PCT
Acknowledgment is made that this application is the US national phase of international application PCT/IL2022/051300 filed 12/08/2022 which designated the U.S.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s)
(IDS) submitted on 12/10/2024 is/are in compliance
with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
37 CFR 1.83(a) states (bold added for emphasis):
The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation ( e.g., a labeled rectangular box). In addition, tables that are included in the specification and sequences that are included in sequence listings should not be duplicated in the drawings.
37 CFR 1.84(n) states (bold added for emphasis):
Symbols. Graphical drawing symbols may be used for conventional elements when appropriate. The elements for which such symbols and labeled representations are used must be adequately identified in the specification. Known devices should be illustrated by symbols which have a universally recognized conventional meaning and are generally accepted in the art. Other symbols which are not universally recognized may be used, subject to approval by the Office, if they are not likely to be confused with existing conventional symbols, and if they are readily identifiable.
MPEP § 608.02(IX) states-in-part (bold added for emphasis):
37 CFR 1.84(n) indicates that graphic drawing symbols and other labeled representations may be used for conventional elements where appropriate, subject to approval by the Office. Also, suitable legends may be used, or may be required, in proper cases. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) (www.ansi.org ) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (www.iso.org ) are organizations whose numerous publications include some that pertain to graphical symbols; the symbols therein are considered to be generally acceptable in patent drawings. Although ANSI and ISO documents and other published sources may be used as guides during the selection of graphic symbols for patent drawings, the Office will not "approve" any published collection of symbols as a group because their use and clarity must be decided on a case-by-case basis. Overly specific symbols should be avoided. Symbols with unclear meanings should be labeled for clarification.
37 CFR 1.84(o) states (bold added for emphasis):
Legends. Suitable descriptive legends may be used subject to approval by the Office, or may be required by the examiner where necessary for understanding of the drawing. They should contain as few words as possible.
Unlabeled Non-Descriptive Representations:
The drawings are objected to because:
unlabeled non-descriptive representations are impermissible under 37 CFR 1.83(a); specific illustrated symbols do not yet have a universally recognized conventional meaning nor are those symbols generally accepted in the art in accordance with 37 CFR 1.84(n); and the Examiner has determined suitable descriptive legends comprising a (few) word(s) are required as necessary for understanding of the drawings in accordance with 37 CFR 1.84(o). The drawings are correspondingly objected to for failing to comply with PCT Rule 11 as catchwords are indispensable to the understanding of the unlabeled non-descriptive representations, wherein PCT Rule 11.11 Words in Drawings states (bold for emphasis):
(a) The drawings shall not contain text matter, except a single word or words, when absolutely indispensable, such as "water," "steam," "open," "closed," "section on AB," and, in the case of electric circuits and block schematic or flow sheet diagrams, a few short catchwords indispensable for understanding.
(b) Any words used shall be so placed that, if translated, they may be pasted over without interfering with any lines of the drawings.
Non-descriptive representation(s)
130, 120, 140, 150 in fig(s). 2 and
110a & 110b in fig(s). 4 (Examiner notes that singular instances of labeling in fig. 4A alone is sufficient, as each of fig. 4A-4C are on the same page)
need (an) appropriate legend(s) in the form of descriptive text label(s) and/or use conventionally acceptable or at least universally recognizable symbols in addition to any reference character(s) already present. Empty or not labeled rectangular boxes and/or non-descriptive representations of features are not descriptive (i.e., symbols with unclear meanings), and therefore incomplete. The Examiner emphasizes that the requested text label(s) is/are indispensable for proper understanding. The descriptive text label(s) should contain as few words as possible. See also 37 CFR 1.84(p) pertaining to standards for the text labels, see exemplary publications by the American National Standards Institute and/or the International Organization for Standardization which include exemplary conventional/understandable graphical symbols which the Examiner will carefully consider on case-by-case basis as the Examiner Determines Completeness and Consistency of Drawings, and see also MPEP Appendix T Rule 11.11. Appropriate Correction is required.
Unsatisfactorily Reproducible:
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(l) and corresponding PCT rule 11.13(a),
fig(s). 8A
requiring correction.
All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action.
The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content, language, and/or format for an abstract of the disclosure:
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Additionally the Examiner notes that 37 CFR 1.438 is summarized as:
Preferably 50-150 words. Should contain:
(A) Indication of field of invention.
(B) Clear indication of the technical problem.
(C) Summary of invention’s solution of the problem.
(D) Principal use or uses of the invention.
(E) Reference numbers of the main technical features placed between parentheses.
(F) Where applicable, chemical formula which best characterizes the invention.
Should not contain:
(A) Superfluous language.
(B) Legal phraseology such as “said” and “means.”
(C) Statements of alleged merit or speculative application.
(D) Prohibited items as defined in PCT Rule 9.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
superfluous language that can be implied (“There is provided”); and
insufficient assistance to the reader in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details including lacking a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the improvement/solution of the technical problem as well as specific preferred modifications/alternatives (e.g., further inclusion of exemplary electromechanical impedance, pH, electrical conductivity, humidity, temperature, etc. for sensing, multi-variate modeling/correcting).
Appropriate correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The title of the invention is not sufficiently descriptive.
A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. This may result in slightly longer titles, but the loss in brevity of title will be more than offset by the gain in its informative value in indexing, classifying, searching, etc. If a satisfactory title is not supplied by the applicant, the Examiner may, at the time of allowance, change the title by an Examiner’s amendment. See MPEP § 1302.04(a) and PCT Rule 4.3.
The Examiner suggests further inclusion of “ultrasound” or similar term pertaining to acoustics in the title (see Technological Field “based on an ultrasound pulse frequency domain spectrum of the concrete” as well as claims pertaining to “ultrasound”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Applicant cited Bellotti et al (US 20200049687 A1; hereafter “Bellotti”).
Regarding independent claim 1,
Bellotti teaches (see figs. 1-10) a method of determining a compressive strength of concrete (fig. 1a, concrete 12) (Title “APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR NON-DESTRUCTIVE TESTING OF CONCRETE”; Abstract “determining characteristics of a concrete sample includes the use of multiple transducers. The transducers may couple to the concrete surface so that they can impart or receive mechanical waves from the sample”; [0006] “compressive strength”; [0015] “The American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 318 recommends a model to predict the modulus of elasticity for a wide range of concrete compressive strengths”; [0041] “Compressive strength may also be determined”), comprising:
measuring, using a piezoelectric sensor (fig. 2, transducer array unit assembly 16; see also fig. 3, transducer 42 comprising piezoelectric element 90), an ultrasound pulse response in the concrete (fig. 1a, concrete 12) and calculating an ultrasound pulse frequency domain spectrum therefrom ([0043] “utilize an impulse reflected off of the opposing surface of the concrete sample”; [0046] “correlation is determined by sending impulses at various frequencies and analyzing the frequency response”; [0054] “transmitting an ultrasonic impulse into the sample and receiving an echo”; [0093] “pulse into the concrete”; [0050] “captures the output as a time domain waveform. The computer obtains a frequency domain signal through a windowing function and execution of a Fast Fourier transform”; [0143] “Fast Fourier transform to convert the time domain signal to a frequency domain signal”; see frequency domain signal in fig. 9);
determining, using a processor (processing portion comprising microprocessor 110; see data acquisition unit 18 & printed circuit board 64 in fig. 2 as well as processing portion of fig. 4) and a multivariable model, the compressive strength of the concrete (fig. 1a, concrete 12) using the ultrasound pulse frequency domain spectrum ([0100] “Data Acquisition Unit 18 includes a printed circuit board 100 that houses a main microprocessor that controls the operation of device 10”; [0041] “Compressive strength may also be determined by acoustic attenuation or relative amplitude, which measures the attenuation of an acoustic wave by observing the ratio of the wave amplitudes”; [0119] “application software relates these three variables to concrete compressive strength, based on the following model”; [0120]-[0125] further model details); and
outputting the compressive strength of the concrete (fig. 1a, concrete 12) or an indication thereof ([0077] “FIGS. 10A-10E are screen displays of a graphical user interface operated by the device illustrated in FIG. 1A”; see figs. 10 showing “Strength”; [0101] “Device 20 also includes a display driven through the operating system by a graphical user interface”; [0136] “display” and “compressive strength”; [0137] “display” and “strength results”).
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1,
Bellotti teaches wherein at least two metrics from the ultrasound pulse response and/or the ultrasound pulse frequency domain spectrum are used in the multivariable model ([0041] “Compressive strength may also be determined by acoustic attenuation or relative amplitude, which measures the attenuation of an acoustic wave by observing the ratio of the wave amplitudes” and “where f is the wave frequency, λ is the wavelength”; [0045] “Since the relative amplitude method sends an impulse through the concrete, it might also be used to correlate the size, type, and stiffness of any reinforcing fibers. This correlation is determined by sending impulses at various frequencies and analyzing the frequency response”; [0106] “parameters sufficient to establish the amplitude, frequency, and time duration of a pulse”; [0115] “peak to peak”; [0143] “executes a Fast Fourier transform to convert the time domain signal to a frequency domain signal (as indicated in the lower portion of FIG. 9). The resonant frequency appears as the highest or first (i.e. lowest frequency) peak in this waveform”; [0128] “the receiving p-wave transducers 42 do carry information in amplitude” and “looking for peaks in the amplitude”; [0130] “peak amplitude”; [0134] “p-wave velocity” and “s-wave velocity”; [0056] “slope of the data”; [0041] “relative amplitude, which measures the attenuation of an acoustic wave by observing the ratio of the wave amplitudes”) .
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 2,
Bellotti teaches wherein the at least two metrics include two or more of:
an ultrasound pulse velocity, a harmonic onset time, a peak frequency, a peak amplitude, a peak area, a peak slope and a peak-to-peak ratio ([0115] “peak to peak”; [0143] “executes a Fast Fourier transform to convert the time domain signal to a frequency domain signal (as indicated in the lower portion of FIG. 9). The resonant frequency appears as the highest or first (i.e. lowest frequency) peak in this waveform”; [0128] “the receiving p-wave transducers 42 do carry information in amplitude” and “looking for peaks in the amplitude”; [0130] “peak amplitude”; [0134] “p-wave velocity” and “s-wave velocity”; [0056] “slope of the data”; [0041] “relative amplitude, which measures the attenuation of an acoustic wave by observing the ratio of the wave amplitudes”).
Regarding claim 10, which depends on claim 1,
Bellotti teaches:
(silent) wherein the piezoelectric sensor (fig. 2, transducer array unit assembly 16 of device 10; see also fig. 3, transducer 42 comprising piezoelectric element 90) is at least partially embedded (silent hereto) in the concrete (fig. 1a, concrete 12); and/or
(taught) wherein the piezoelectric sensor (fig. 2, transducer array unit assembly 16 of device 10; see also fig. 3, transducer 42 comprising piezoelectric element 90) is disposed on an external surface of the concrete (fig. 1a, concrete 12), optionally, a piezoelectric transducer of the piezoelectric sensor (fig. 2, transducer array unit assembly 16 of device 10; see also fig. 3, transducer 42 comprising piezoelectric element 90) is disposed outside of the concrete (fig. 1a, concrete 12) ([0058] “at least one broadband transducer is disposed in contact with a surface of a concrete sample”; [0084] “device 10 is placed on a generally planar concrete surface so that transducers 38, 40, and 42 operatively engage the concrete surface”).
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.
Claim(s) 4-7, 11, 14-16, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant cited Bellotti in view of newly cited Kim et al (NPL “Artificial Neural Network-Based Early-Age Concrete Strength Monitoring Using Dynamic Response Signals”; hereafter “Kim”).
Regarding claim 4 and claim 5 and claim 6 and claim 7, where claim 4 depends on claim 1 and where claim 5 depends on claim 4 and where claim 6 depends on claim 4, and where claim 7 depends on clam 6,
Bellotti teaches wherein determining, using the processor (processing portion comprising microprocessor 110; see data acquisition unit 18 & printed circuit board 64 in fig. 2 as well as processing portion of fig. 4) and the multivariable model, the compressive strength of the concrete (fig. 1a, concrete 12) comprises using the ultrasound pulse frequency domain spectrum, wherein the piezoelectric sensor (fig. 2, transducer array unit assembly 16 of device 10; see also fig. 3, transducer 42 comprising piezoelectric element 90) is used to measure a response in the concrete (fig. 1a, concrete 12), wherein at least one metric is used in the multivariable model, and wherein at least one metric includes one or more of: a peak frequency, a peak amplitude, a peak area, a peak slope and a peak-to-peak ratio ([0041]; [0045]; [0106]; [0115]; [0143]; [0128]; [0130]; [0134]; [0056]; [0041]).
Bellotti does not teach electromechanical impedance, including not teaching: (claim 4 limitation) further comprising measuring an electromechanical impedance response in the concrete and calculating an electromechanical impedance frequency domain spectrum therefrom, wherein determining, using the processor and the multivariable model, the compressive strength of the concrete comprises using the ultrasound pulse frequency domain spectrum and the electromechanical impedance frequency domain spectrum; (claim 5 limitation) wherein the piezoelectric sensor is used to measure the electromechanical impedance frequency response in the concrete; and (claim 6 limitation) wherein at least one metric from the electromechanical impedance frequency domain spectrum is used in the multivariable model; and (claim 7 limitation) wherein at least one metric includes one or more of: a peak frequency, a peak amplitude, a peak area, a peak slope and a peak-to-peak ratio.
Kim teaches (pertaining to claim 1) a method of determining a compressive strength of concrete (Title “Artificial Neural Network-Based Early-Age Concrete Strength Monitoring Using Dynamic Response Signals”; Abstract “predict the compressive strength of concrete” and “piezoelectric sensor”), comprising: measuring, using a piezoelectric sensor (piezoelectric sensor; see fig. 1 showing sensor; see figs. 3-5 showing use in concrete), an ultrasound response in the concrete (concrete; shown in figs. 3-5) and calculating ultrasound dynamic response features therefrom; determining, using a processor (not shown; processor hosting neural network) and a multivariable model (neural network-based model), the compressive strength of the concrete (concrete; shown in figs. 3-5) using the ultrasound dynamic response features (Abstract “The dynamic response signals of the concrete, including both electromechanical impedances and guided ultrasonic waves” and “amplitude of the guided ultrasonic wave signals are selected to quantify the variation in dynamic responses according to the strength of the concrete”); and outputting the compressive strength of the concrete (concrete; shown in figs. 3-5) or an indication thereof (page 2, first paragraph “the strength of concrete can be estimated by measuring the thermal history of concrete through thermocouples, fiber optic sensors, or other thermal sensors [2,3]. The physical property-based concrete strength estimation methods are based on the change of mechanical properties. Ultrasonic-based methods are general NDT methods used for the early-age monitoring of concrete. The properties of ultrasonic wave propagation, such as velocity or attenuation, are affected by the change of physical properties [4–8]. Thus, the strength of concrete can be monitored by tracking the changes in ultrasonic wave propagation. Also, an electromechanical impedance method using piezoelectric sensors could use to estimate the strength of concrete. The strength of concrete can be estimated by measuring the resonant frequency of impedance [9,10], calculating the RMSD (root mean square deviation) of impedance signals [11], or impedance spectrum analysis [12]. Furthermore, a range of methods based on the acoustical, electrical, magnetic, optical, radiographic, and other mechanical properties of concrete have been studied [13]”; page 2, second paragraph “the neural network was used to estimate the strength of concrete” and “The main benefits in using a neural network are that all of the behavior of a material can be represented within the unified environment of a neural network. Also, the neural network-based model is built directly from experimental data using the learning capabilities of the neural network”; page 2, third paragraph “The dynamic response signals of the concrete, including both electromechanical impedances and guided ultrasonic waves” and “artificial neural network algorithm is used to verify a relationship between the variations in dynamic response signals and concrete strength”; Conclusion “estimate the strength of concrete material”), (pertaining to claim 4) further comprising measuring an electromechanical impedance response in the concrete (concrete; shown in figs. 3-5) and calculating an electromechanical impedance frequency domain spectrum therefrom (Abstract “electromechanical impedances”; page 2, first paragraph “The strength of concrete can be estimated by measuring the resonant frequency of impedance [9,10], calculating the RMSD (root mean square deviation) of impedance signals [11], or impedance spectrum analysis”; section 3.2. Result of EMI Measurement); see figs. 6-7), wherein determining, using the processor (not shown; processor hosting neural network) and the multivariable model (neural network-based model), the compressive strength of the concrete (concrete; shown in figs. 3-5) comprises using the ultrasound dynamic response features and the electromechanical impedance frequency domain spectrum (page 2, first paragraph “The physical property-based concrete strength estimation methods” and “based on the acoustical, electrical, magnetic, optical, radiographic, and other mechanical properties of concrete have been studied [13]”; page 2, second paragraph “neural network-based model is built directly from experimental data using the learning capabilities of the neural network”; page 2, third paragraph “estimate the strength of concrete at the early-age stage by integrating an artificial neural network algorithm with dynamic response signals of the concrete material. The dynamic response signals of the concrete, including both electromechanical impedances and guided ultrasonic waves”), (pertaining to claim 5) wherein the piezoelectric sensor (piezoelectric sensor; see fig. 1 showing sensor; see figs. 3-5 showing use in concrete) is used to measure the electromechanical impedance frequency response in the concrete (concrete; shown in figs. 3-5) (page 2, first paragraph “electromechanical impedance method using piezoelectric sensors could use to estimate the strength of concrete. The strength of concrete can be estimated by measuring the resonant frequency of impedance [9,10], calculating the RMSD (root mean square deviation) of impedance signals [11], or impedance spectrum analysis [12]”; page 2, third paragraph “The dynamic response signals of the concrete, including both electromechanical impedances and guided ultrasonic waves, are obtained from an embedded piezoelectric sensor module”), (pertaining to claim 6) wherein at least one metric from the electromechanical impedance frequency domain spectrum is used in the multivariable model (neural network-based model) (page 2, first paragraph “electromechanical impedance method using piezoelectric sensors could use to estimate the strength of concrete. The strength of concrete can be estimated by measuring the resonant frequency of impedance [9,10], calculating the RMSD (root mean square deviation) of impedance signals [11], or impedance spectrum analysis [12]”; page 2, third paragraph “The dynamic response signals of the concrete, including both electromechanical impedances and guided ultrasonic waves, are obtained from an embedded piezoelectric sensor module”), (pertaining to claim 7) wherein at least one metric includes one or more of: a peak frequency (resonant frequency), a peak amplitude, a peak area, a peak slope and a peak-to-peak ratio (page 2, first paragraph “electromechanical impedance method using piezoelectric sensors could use to estimate the strength of concrete. The strength of concrete can be estimated by measuring the resonant frequency of impedance [9,10], calculating the RMSD (root mean square deviation) of impedance signals [11], or impedance spectrum analysis [12]”). Kim is silent to measuring ultrasound pulse.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kim’s neural network-based concrete compressive strength monitoring using dynamic response signals including electromechanical impedance (EMI) with Bellotti’s concrete compressive strength monitoring, thereby providing the advantages of being inclusive of early-age curing, being robust to the specific concrete &/or water mix, and further being advantageous by the concrete material being representable within the unified environment of a neural network model that does not require formal equations model and which can be built from multi-variate experimental data. The Examiner further notes that additional measurements of compressive strength through the added EMI increase the information available to be modeled and therefore statistically increase accuracy/precision including the across the aforementioned age and type/mix, while also allowing for the additional measurements to be performed by the same piezoelectric device if so desired and therefore not relying on additional separate sensing hardware. Complementarily, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bellotti’s pulsed ultrasonic wave multivariate testing and analysis for concrete compressive strength with Kim’s neural network-based concrete compressive strength monitoring for substantially similar reasons of increasing the information available to be modeled and therefore statistically increase accuracy/precision, the Examiner additionally noting that Bellotti can further account for non-homogeneity as well as determine p-wave velocity, s-wave velocity, rebar location, as well as being useful for thickness measurements and thus providing a more complete analysis of the concrete. The Examiner additionally notes that the Courts have ruled an obviousness analysis based on the collective teachings of the references does not depend on the order in which the references are listed in the statement of the rejection. See In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961): “In a case of this type where a rejection is predicated on two references each containing pertinent disclosure which has been pointed out to the applicant, we deem it to be of no significance, but merely a matter of exposition, that the rejection is stated to be on A in view of B instead of on B in view of A, or to term one reference primary and the other secondary.”
Regarding claim 11, which depends on claim 1,
Bellotti teaches determining compressive strength of the concrete (fig. 1a, concrete 12) and considering experimental data inclusive of the amount by which concrete fig. 1a, concrete 12) has set ([0129] “curing history”).
Bellotti does not teach wherein the output of the compressive strength of the concrete is used to determine an amount by which the concrete has set.
However:
PNG
media_image1.png
355
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
352
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kim teaches correlating compressive strength and curing age (see figs. 9 and 13; further details about Kim previously provided for claims 4-7 and considered part of the thrust hereof and omitted to prevent redundancy instead for brevity).
Furthermore, the Examiner takes Official Notice that only trivial skill in the art is required to determine curing age from compressive strength when the regression model is known therebetween.
In view of the above, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kim’s neural network-based concrete compressive strength monitoring and curing age regression modeling with Bellotti’s concrete compressive strength monitoring, thereby providing the advantages of being inclusive of early-age curing, being robust to the specific concrete &/or water mix, and further being advantageous by the concrete material being representable within the unified environment of a neural network model that does not require formal equations model and which can be built from multi-variate experimental data, as well as a convenient and trivial means for statistically determining the amount by which the concrete has set useful for time construction schedules, ensuring structural integrity, and preventing damage to finish. Complementarily, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bellotti’s pulsed ultrasonic wave multivariate testing and analysis for concrete compressive strength with Kim’s neural network-based concrete compressive strength monitoring for substantially similar reasons of increasing the information available to be modeled and therefore statistically increase accuracy/precision, the Examiner additionally noting that Bellotti can further account for non-homogeneity as well as determine p-wave velocity, s-wave velocity, rebar location, as well as being useful for thickness measurements and thus providing a more complete analysis of the concrete.
Regarding independent claim 14,
Kim teaches a sensor (see fig. 1 showing sensor; see figs. 3-5 showing use in concrete for determining the compressive strength of concrete (concrete; shown in figs. 3-5) (Title “Artificial Neural Network-Based Early-Age Concrete Strength Monitoring Using Dynamic Response Signals”; Abstract “predict the compressive strength of concrete” and “piezoelectric sensor” and “The dynamic response signals of the concrete, including both electromechanical impedances and guided ultrasonic waves” and “amplitude of the guided ultrasonic wave signals are selected to quantify the variation in dynamic responses according to the strength of the concrete”; page 2, first paragraph “the strength of concrete can be estimated by measuring the thermal history of concrete through thermocouples, fiber optic sensors, or other thermal sensors [2,3]. The physical property-based concrete strength estimation methods are based on the change of mechanical properties. Ultrasonic-based methods are general NDT methods used for the early-age monitoring of concrete. The properties of ultrasonic wave propagation, such as velocity or attenuation, are affected by the change of physical properties [4–8]. Thus, the strength of concrete can be monitored by tracking the changes in ultrasonic wave propagation. Also, an electromechanical impedance method using piezoelectric sensors could use to estimate the strength of concrete. The strength of concrete can be estimated by measuring the resonant frequency of impedance [9,10], calculating the RMSD (root mean square deviation) of impedance signals [11], or impedance spectrum analysis [12]. Furthermore, a range of methods based on the acoustical, electrical, magnetic, optical, radiographic, and other mechanical properties of concrete have been studied [13]”; page 2, second paragraph “the neural network was used to estimate the strength of concrete” and “The main benefits in using a neural network are that all of the behavior of a material can be represented within the unified environment of a neural network. Also, the neural network-based model is built directly from experimental data using the learning capabilities of the neural network”; page 2, third paragraph “The dynamic response signals of the concrete, including both electromechanical impedances and guided ultrasonic waves” and “artificial neural network algorithm is used to verify a relationship between the variations in dynamic response signals and concrete strength”; Conclusion “estimate the strength of concrete material”), the sensor comprising:
a piezoelectric transmitter (piezoelectric actuator, see especially fig. 4 which has labels); and
a piezoelectric receiver (piezoelectric sensor, see especially fig. 4 which has labels),
wherein the piezoelectric transmitter (piezoelectric actuator, see especially fig. 4 which has labels) and the piezoelectric receiver (piezoelectric sensor, see especially fig. 4 which has labels) are configured to act together to measure an ultrasound response in the concrete (concrete; shown in figs. 3-5) and an electromechanical impedance response in the concrete (concrete; shown in figs. 3-5) (section 3.2. Result of EMI Measurement; see figs. 6-7; section 2.1 “piezoelectric sensor can be used simultaneously as both an actuator and a sensor. This study employs a lead zirconate titanate (PZT) patch to generate vibration and waves to the concrete structure, and measure the dynamic responses of the concrete”).
Kim is silent to measuring ultrasound pulse.
Bellotti teaches a sensor (apparatus comprising device 10 of fig. 1 and control device best shown in fig. 4) for determining the compressive strength of concrete (fig. 1a, concrete 12) (Title “APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR NON-DESTRUCTIVE TESTING OF CONCRETE”; Abstract “determining characteristics of a concrete sample includes the use of multiple transducers. The transducers may couple to the concrete surface so that they can impart or receive mechanical waves from the sample”; [0006] “compressive strength”; [0015] “The American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 318 recommends a model to predict the modulus of elasticity for a wide range of concrete compressive strengths”; [0041] “Compressive strength may also be determined”; [0119] “application software relates these three variables to concrete compressive strength, based on the following model”; [0120]-[0125] further model details; [0077] “FIGS. 10A-10E are screen displays of a graphical user interface operated by the device illustrated in FIG. 1A”; see figs. 10 showing “Strength”; [0101] “Device 20 also includes a display driven through the operating system by a graphical user interface”; [0136] “display” and “compressive strength”; [0137] “display” and “strength results”), the sensor comprising: a piezoelectric transmitter (fig. 2, transducer array unit assembly 16; see also fig. 3, transducer 42 comprising piezoelectric element 90; examiner denotes piezoelectric element being utilized as transmitter); and a piezoelectric receiver (fig. 2, transducer array unit assembly 16; see also fig. 3, transducer 42 comprising piezoelectric element 90; examiner denotes another piezoelectric element being utilized as receiver), wherein the piezoelectric transmitter (fig. 2, transducer array unit assembly 16; see also fig. 3, transducer 42 comprising piezoelectric element 90; examiner denotes piezoelectric element being utilized as transmitter) and the piezoelectric receiver (fig. 2, transducer array unit assembly 16; see also fig. 3, transducer 42 comprising piezoelectric element 90; examiner denotes another piezoelectric element being utilized as receiver) are configured to act together to measure an ultrasound pulse response in the concrete (fig. 1a, concrete 12) ([0056] “transmitting and receiving transducers, actuating the transmitting transducer and receiving the electrical signal from the receiving transducer”; [0084] “transducer can transmit or receive mechanical waves into or from the concrete sample at its operative frequency range, depending on its mode of operation in the system”; [0043] “utilize an impulse reflected off of the opposing surface of the concrete sample”; [0046] “correlation is determined by sending impulses at various frequencies and analyzing the frequency response”; [0054] “transmitting an ultrasonic impulse into the sample and receiving an echo”; [0093] “pulse into the concrete”; [0050] “captures the output as a time domain waveform. The computer obtains a frequency domain signal through a windowing function and execution of a Fast Fourier transform”; [0143] “Fast Fourier transform to convert the time domain signal to a frequency domain signal”; see frequency domain signal in fig. 9; [100] “Data Acquisition Unit 18 includes a printed circuit board 100 that houses a main microprocessor that controls the operation of device 10”; [0041] “Compressive strength may also be determined by acoustic attenuation or relative amplitude, which measures the attenuation of an acoustic wave by observing the ratio of the wave amplitudes”), wherein the piezoelectric transmitter (fig. 2, transducer array unit assembly 16; see also fig. 3, transducer 42 comprising piezoelectric element 90; examiner denotes piezoelectric element being utilized as transmitter) and the piezoelectric receiver (fig. 2, transducer array unit assembly 16; see also fig. 3, transducer 42 comprising piezoelectric element 90; examiner denotes another piezoelectric element being utilized as receiver) are implemented in a piezoelectric transducer acting both as the piezoelectric transmitter (fig. 2, transducer array unit assembly 16; see also fig. 3, transducer 42 comprising piezoelectric element 90; examiner denotes piezoelectric element being utilized as transmitter) and receiver ([0084] “transducer can transmit or receive mechanical waves into or from the concrete sample at its operative frequency range, depending on its mode of operation in the system”), wherein the piezoelectric transmitter (fig. 2, transducer array unit assembly 16; see also fig. 3, transducer 42 comprising piezoelectric element 90; examiner denotes piezoelectric element being utilized as transmitter) and/or the piezoelectric receiver (fig. 2, transducer array unit assembly 16; see also fig. 3, transducer 42 comprising piezoelectric element 90; examiner denotes another piezoelectric element being utilized as receiver) comprises an acoustic coupling layer (fig. 3, front face 94 comprising coupling surface 96) configured to come into contact with the concrete (fig. 1a, concrete 12 ([0098] “front face 94 is disposed at the forward end of piezoelectric element 90 and defines the coupling surface 96. Front face 94, in this example, is made of a glass ceramic, for example sold under the name MACOR available from Corning, Inc., of Corning, N.Y., that has an acoustic impedance of 11.7 MRayls. Front face 94 acts as a buffer plate that protects piezoelectric element 90 from the rough concrete surface and that is stable at high temperatures without significant thermal expansion. The front face reduces the impedance mismatch between the piezoelectric element and the concrete surface”). Bellotti does not teach measuring an electromechanical impedance response in the concrete.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bellotti’s pulsed ultrasonic wave multivariate testing and analysis for concrete compressive strength with Kim’s neural network-based concrete compressive strength monitoring for substantially similar reasons of increasing the information available to be modeled and therefore statistically increase accuracy/precision, the Examiner additionally noting that Bellotti can further account for non-homogeneity as well as determine p-wave velocity, s-wave velocity, rebar location, as well as being useful for thickness measurements and thus providing a more complete analysis of the concrete. Complementarily, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kim’s neural network-based concrete compressive strength monitoring using dynamic response signals including electromechanical impedance (EMI) with Bellotti’s concrete compressive strength monitoring, thereby providing the advantages of being inclusive of early-age curing, being robust to the specific concrete &/or water mix, and further being advantageous by the concrete material being representable within the unified environment of a neural network model that does not require formal equations model and which can be built from multi-variate experimental data. The Examiner further notes that additional measurements of compressive strength through the added EMI increase the information available to be modeled and therefore statistically increase accuracy/precision including the across the aforementioned age and type/mix, while also allowing for the additional measurements to be performed by the same piezoelectric device if so desired and therefore not relying on additional separate sensing hardware. The Examiner additionally notes that the Courts have ruled an obviousness analysis based on the collective teachings of the references does not depend on the order in which the references are listed in the statement of the rejection. See In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961): “In a case of this type where a rejection is predicated on two references each containing pertinent disclosure which has been pointed out to the applicant, we deem it to be of no significance, but merely a matter of exposition, that the rejection is stated to be on A in view of B instead of on B in view of A, or to term one reference primary and the other secondary.”
Regarding claim 15, which depends on claim 14,
Kim teaches wherein the piezoelectric transmitter (piezoelectric actuator, see especially fig. 4 which has labels) and the piezoelectric receiver (piezoelectric sensor, see especially fig. 4 which has labels) are spaced apart to define a gap (gap between actuator and sensor), and
wherein the gap (gap between actuator and sensor) is configured to receive a portion of the concrete (concrete; shown in figs. 3-5).
The Examiner additionally notes with respect to non-embedded implementations, that Bellotti teaches that it is conventional known for the piezoelectric transmitter and the piezoelectric receiver to be spaced apart to define a gap, wherein the gap is configured to receive a portion of the concrete ([0007] [0007] “ASTM C 597 describes a standard test method for utilizing pulse velocity through concrete. In one example of such method, respective transducers are disposed on opposite or adjacent sides of a concrete sample, such as a wall. Each transducer includes a piezoelectric element, as should be understood in this art”; [0043] “Techniques for determining ultrasonic attenuation include placement of receiving and transmitting transducers on opposite or adjacent sides of a concrete sample”), and therefore, in the alternative to embedding where either impractical logistically or financially, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a conventional transmitter-gap-receiver setup—as factually supported by Bellotti—in place of the arrangement of either of Kim and/or Bellotti thereby providing a well-known transducer arrangement, with the caveat that this conventional technique may be limited by the accessibility of the sides of the concrete.
Regarding claim 16, which depends on claim 14,
Kim teaches wherein the piezoelectric transmitter (piezoelectric actuator, see especially fig. 4 which has labels) and the piezoelectric receiver (piezoelectric sensor, see especially fig. 4 which has labels) are implemented in a piezoelectric transducer acting both as the piezoelectric transmitter (piezoelectric actuator, see especially fig. 4 which has labels) and receiver (section 2.1 “Piezoelectric sensors can interconvert mechanical energy and electrical energy. Due to this piezoelectric effect, a piezoelectric sensor can be used simultaneously as both an actuator and a sensor”).
Furthermore, Bellotti likewise teaches wherein the piezoelectric transmitter (fig. 2, transducer array unit assembly 16; see also fig. 3, transducer 42 comprising piezoelectric element 90; examiner denotes piezoelectric element being utilized as transmitter) and the piezoelectric receiver (fig. 2, transducer array unit assembly 16; see also fig. 3, transducer 42 comprising piezoelectric element 90; examiner denotes another piezoelectric element being utilized as receiver) are implemented in a piezoelectric transducer acting both as the piezoelectric transmitter (fig. 2, transducer array unit assembly 16; see also fig. 3, transducer 42 comprising piezoelectric element 90; examiner denotes piezoelectric element being utilized as transmitter) and receiver ([0084] “transducer can transmit or receive mechanical waves into or from the concrete sample at its operative frequency range, depending on its mode of operation in the system”).
The Examiner additionally notes that it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.04(V)(B), Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893), and In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). In the present case, it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to integrate together a piezoelectric transmit function & associated circuitry with a piezoelectric receive function & associated circuity into a single piezoelectric transceiver and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to so do so, thereby making each piezoelectric element a functional transceiver and therefore enabling bidirectional transceiving which provides increased measurements and thus increased accuracy/precision as well as providing additional redundancy for robustness and/or simplifying construction and placement by only requiring a single type of transceiver rather than differentiated transmitter and receiver.
Regarding claim 18, which depends on claim 14,
Kim teaches wherein the sensor is configured to perform multiple measurements of both the ultrasound response and the electromechanical impedance response, and wherein the multiple measurements are at time intervals (bottom of page 6 “response signals were measured every hour after casting, up to 100 h.”).
Furthermore:
The Examiner takes Official Notice that taking multiple measurements is a conventional activity in the art.
The Examiner further notes that it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B), St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (7th Cir. 1977), and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Similarly, it is the Examiner's position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to duplicate method measurement steps.
Additionally, it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.04(III) and In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). In the present case it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill is required to automate time intervals of measurements.
In view of the above, either the combination of Kim and Bellotti reasonably suggests (or is at once envisaged to so suggest) wherein the sensor is configured to perform multiple measurements of both the ultrasound pulse response and the electromechanical impedance response, and wherein the multiple measurements are at time intervals (bottom of page 6 “response signals were measured every hour after casting, up to 100 h”), or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to trivially duplicate the measurements of the combination of Bellotti’s ultrasound pulse response and Kim’s electromechanical impedance response and therefore providing the expected benefits of regularity and repeatability of measurements in a dependable manner that can be conveniently compared against experimental data at similar repetitions and which provides smoother data plots with less gaps of omission requiring interpolation. The Examiner additionally notes that multiple measurements can be commonsensically used both for measuring expected changes over time and/or after expected changes halt providing statistically increased accuracy and/or precision (e.g., averaging).
Regarding claim 20, which depends on claim 14,
Kim teaches wherein the piezoelectric transmitter (piezoelectric actuator, see especially fig. 4 which has labels) and/or the piezoelectric receiver (piezoelectric sensor, see especially fig. 4 which has labels) are configured to come into contact with the concrete (concrete; shown in figs. 3-5).
Kim is silent to an acoustic coupling layer.
Bellotti teaches wherein the piezoelectric transmitter (fig. 2, transducer array unit assembly 16; see also fig. 3, transducer 42 comprising piezoelectric element 90; examiner denotes piezoelectric element being utilized as transmitter) and/or the piezoelectric receiver (fig. 2, transducer array unit assembly 16; see also fig. 3, transducer 42 comprising piezoelectric element 90; examiner denotes another piezoelectric element being utilized as receiver) comprises an acoustic coupling layer (fig. 3, front face 94 comprising coupling surface 96) configured to come into contact with the concrete (fig. 1a, concrete 12 ([0098] “front face 94 is disposed at the forward end of piezoelectric element 90 and defines the coupling surface 96. Front face 94, in this example, is made of a glass ceramic, for example sold under the name MACOR available from Corning, Inc., of Corning, N.Y., that has an acoustic impedance of 11.7 MRayls. Front face 94 acts as a buffer plate that protects piezoelectric element 90 from the rough concrete surface and that is stable at high temperatures without significant thermal expansion. The front face reduces the impedance mismatch between the piezoelectric element and the concrete surface”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bellotti’s piezoelectric acoustic coupling layer with Kim’s piezoelectric(s) for the expected purpose of reducing mismatch between the piezoelectric element and the concrete and therefore providing more optimal wave propagation and less noise and therefore increasing signal-to-noise ratio and leading to improved accuracy and/or precision.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant cited Bellotti in view of newly cited Kim and in further view of newly cited Percin et al (US 20030005771 A1; hereafter “Percin”).
Regarding claim 17, which depends on claim 14,
The combination of Bellotti and Kim is silent to wherein the sensor is configured to measure the ultrasound pulse response and the electromechanical impedance response with a dwell time of a length to prevent cross talk between the measured ultrasound pulse response and the measured electromechanical impedance response.
However:
The Examiner takes Official Notice that cross-talk is a commonly known problem in acoustic measurements that is routinely prevented in the art by adjusting timing.
Furthermore, and as supporting factual evidence of the aforementioned assertion, Percin teaches preventing cross talk in piezoelectric sensors ([0004] “ to avoid cross-talk between the ultrasonic waves generated in each piezoelectric transducer, it is important that the shear or longitudinal ultrasonic waves are generated in a time-multiplexed manner by having time delays for each of the piezoelectric transducers”; [0030] “Each piezoelectric transducer in the two-dimensional micro-sensor array of the present invention is capable of generating and detecting shear or longitudinal ultrasonic waves. Furthermore, in order to avoid cross-talk among the ultrasonic waves generated in each piezoelectric transducer with other ultrasonic waves generated by other piezoelectric transducers in the two-dimensional micro-sensor array, means 170 generates and receives the ultrasonic waves in a time-multiplexed manner. Time multiplexing could, for instance, be accomplished by having time delays for each of piezoelectric transducers”).
It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the present case, it is the Examiner's position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to optimize the timing of piezoelectric transceiving elements to prevent unwanted cross-talk.
Finally, the Examiner notes that MPEP § 2145(III)(X)(B) states “An “obvious to try” rationale may support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious where one skilled in the art is choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. “[A] person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 538, 421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).” It is the Examiner’s position that adjusting timing of piezoelectric elements—including specifically dwell time—to avoid unwanted cross-talk merely requires common sense, is a predictable problem-solution, and has reasonable expectation of success if tried.
Therefore, in view of the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try adjusting the dwell time in the combination of Bellotti and Kim for the expected and routine purpose of avoiding cross-talk which is known in the art to be important to avoid as factually supported by Percin.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant cited Bellotti in view of newly cited Druet* et al (WO 2021122774 A1; hereafter “Druet”) with newly cited Radjy et al (US 20170370898 A1; hereafter “Radjy”).
*machine translation provided by Examiner with foreign document and utilized for English citations
Regarding claim 8 and claim 9, where claim 8 depends on claim 1 and where claim 9 depends on claim 8,
Bellotti teaches measuring an ultrasound pulse response in the concrete (fig. 1a, concrete 12).
Bellotti does not teach: (claim 8 limitation) further comprising measuring a temperature in the concrete using a temperature sensor; and (claim 9 limitation) wherein the temperature is used in the multivariable model as a correction factor.
However:
The Examiner takes Official Notice that temperature sensors are conventional and further that an ordinary artisan would be knowledgeable that temperature affects both acoustic wave speed in a material as well as concrete curing properties.
As factual evidence of the aforementioned assertion pertaining to acoustic wave speed, Druet teaches (pertaining to claim 8 limitation) further comprising measuring a temperature using a temperature sensor (thermocouple); and (pertaining to claim 9 limitation) wherein the temperature is used as a correction factor (Title; Abstract; [0142] “the temperature of the structure is measured and a variation in time of flight induced by a change in temperature is compensated for. The temperature can indeed influence the flight times and it is appreciable to be able to correct or compensate for the thermal effects. Concretely, a thermocouple can be used but other measurement methods are possible”).
As factual evidence of the aforementioned assertion pertaining to temperature as an input specifically to concrete properties, Radjy teaches comprising measuring a temperature in the concrete using a temperature sensor (fig. 11, sensing device 1100 comprising temperature sensor 1110); and (claim 9 limitation) wherein the temperature is used in the multivariable model as a correction factor (Title “Sensing Device, And Systems And Methods For Obtaining Data Relating To Concrete Mixtures And Concrete Structures”; Abstract “plurality of sensing devices are inserted into a concrete mixture”; [0005] “compression strength”; [0059] “characteristic includes one of concrete strength and slump”; [0066] “characteristic of the section of concrete based on the measurement. For example, the second characteristic may include strength, sump, age, maturity, etc., of the concrete”; [0068] “the plurality of sensing devices includes one of a temperature sensor, an accelerometer, a pH sensor, an inductance sensor, an impedance or resistivity sensor, a sonic sensor, a pressure sensor, a conductivity sensor, a salinity sensor, a humidity sensor, and an elevation sensor”; [0070] “One or more sensing devices are placed within concrete. Measurement data is received from the one or more sensing devices. A specified temperature and a desired measure of strength are received. A predicted time when the concrete is expected to have the desired measure of strength is determined, based on the specified temperature and the measurement data”; [0138] “Concrete's temperature measured by the temperature sensor can be converted to maturity and real time concrete setting and strength estimation in combination with real time data relating to mixture proportions, and materials items batched, and by reference to calibration data in a central database”; [0173] “estimating concrete setting behavior”; [0267] “real-time model to project setting behavior and strength for the entire batch of concrete”; [0276] “prediction manager 2540 may receive temperature, humidity, and/or location data from sensing device 2550-A and, based on the measurement data, generate predictions regarding the water-to-cementitious ratio, durability, strength, slump, maturity, etc., of the concrete mixture in which sensing device 2550-A is located. In one embodiment, the measurement data received by master database module 2535 is provided to a real-time model to project setting behavior and strength for the entire batch of concrete. In another embodiment, the measurement data is continually subject to statistical analysis to generate real-time projections, control charts, etc.”).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a conventional temperature sensor—as factually supported by both of Druet and Radjy—with Bellotti’s apparatus and associated method for the expected purpose of providing repeated temperature sensing of Bellotti’s concrete. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the conventional activity of correcting/compensating for acoustic time of flight—as factually supported by Druet—with Bellotti’s apparatus and associated method thereby compensating for thermal effects on variation in time of flight induced by a change in temperature and thus providing for more accurate acoustic measurements including especially for Bellotti’s acoustic wave speed determinations. Even further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Radjy’s concrete modelling based on additional sensing devices inclusive of temperature thereby providing better model prediction of when the concrete is expected to have the desired compression strength as well as predicting real time concrete setting &/or maturity.
Claim(s) 19 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant cited Bellotti in view of newly cited Kim and in further view of newly cited Druet with newly cited Radjy.
Regarding claim 19, which depends on claim 14,
Neither Kim nor Belloti teaches a temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature of the concrete.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that temperature sensors are conventional and further that an ordinary artisan would be knowledgeable that temperature affects both acoustic wave speed in a material as well as concrete curing properties.
As factual evidence of the aforementioned assertion pertaining to acoustic wave speed, Druet teaches further comprising measuring a temperature using a temperature sensor (thermocouple); and wherein the temperature is used as a correction factor (Title; Abstract; [0142] “the temperature of the structure is measured and a variation in time of flight induced by a change in temperature is compensated for. The temperature can indeed influence the flight times and it is appreciable to be able to correct or compensate for the thermal effects. Concretely, a thermocouple can be used but other measurement methods are possible”).
As factual evidence of the aforementioned assertion pertaining to temperature as an input specifically to concrete properties, Radjy teaches comprising measuring a temperature in the concrete using a temperature sensor (fig. 11, sensing device 1100 comprising temperature sensor 1110); and wherein the temperature is used in the multivariable model as a correction factor (Title “Sensing Device, And Systems And Methods For Obtaining Data Relating To Concrete Mixtures And Concrete Structures”; Abstract “plurality of sensing devices are inserted into a concrete mixture”; [0005] “compression strength”; [0059] “characteristic includes one of concrete strength and slump”; [0066] “characteristic of the section of concrete based on the measurement. For example, the second characteristic may include strength, sump, age, maturity, etc., of the concrete”; [0068] “the plurality of sensing devices includes one of a temperature sensor, an accelerometer, a pH sensor, an inductance sensor, an impedance or resistivity sensor, a sonic sensor, a pressure sensor, a conductivity sensor, a salinity sensor, a humidity sensor, and an elevation sensor”; [0070] “One or more sensing devices are placed within concrete. Measurement data is received from the one or more sensing devices. A specified temperature and a desired measure of strength are received. A predicted time when the concrete is expected to have the desired measure of strength is determined, based on the specified temperature and the measurement data”; [0138] “Concrete's temperature measured by the temperature sensor can be converted to maturity and real time concrete setting and strength estimation in combination with real time data relating to mixture proportions, and materials items batched, and by reference to calibration data in a central database”; [0173] “estimating concrete setting behavior”; [0267] “real-time model to project setting behavior and strength for the entire batch of concrete”; [0276] “prediction manager 2540 may receive temperature, humidity, and/or location data from sensing device 2550-A and, based on the measurement data, generate predictions regarding the water-to-cementitious ratio, durability, strength, slump, maturity, etc., of the concrete mixture in which sensing device 2550-A is located. In one embodiment, the measurement data received by master database module 2535 is provided to a real-time model to project setting behavior and strength for the entire batch of concrete. In another embodiment, the measurement data is continually subject to statistical analysis to generate real-time projections, control charts, etc.”).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a conventional temperature sensor—as factually supported by both of Druet and Radjy—with Kim & Bellotti previously combined apparatus & associated method for the expected purpose of providing repeated temperature sensing of Bellotti’s concrete. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the conventional activity of correcting/compensating for acoustic time of flight—as factually supported by Druet—with Kim & Bellotti previously combined apparatus & associated method thereby compensating for thermal effects on variation in time of flight induced by a change in temperature and thus providing for more accurate acoustic measurements including especially for Bellotti’s acoustic wave speed determinations. Even further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Radjy’s concrete modelling based on additional sensing devices inclusive of temperature thereby providing better model prediction of when the concrete is expected to have the desired compression strength as well as predicting real time concrete setting &/or maturity.
Regarding independent claim 12,
Bellotti teaches (see figs. 1-10) a method of determining a compressive strength of concrete (fig. 1a, concrete 12) (Title “APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR NON-DESTRUCTIVE TESTING OF CONCRETE”; Abstract “determining characteristics of a concrete sample includes the use of multiple transducers. The transducers may couple to the concrete surface so that they can impart or receive mechanical waves from the sample”; [0006] “compressive strength”; [0015] “The American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 318 recommends a model to predict the modulus of elasticity for a wide range of concrete compressive strengths”; [0041] “Compressive strength may also be determined”), comprising:
measuring, using a piezoelectric sensor (fig. 2, transducer array unit assembly 16 of device 10; see also fig. 3, transducer 42 comprising piezoelectric element 90), an ultrasound pulse response in the concrete (fig. 1a, concrete 12) and calculating, using a processor (processing portion comprising microprocessor 110; see data acquisition unit 18 & printed circuit board 64 in fig. 2 as well as processing portion of fig. 4), an ultrasound pulse frequency domain spectrum therefrom ([0043] “utilize an impulse reflected off of the opposing surface of the concrete sample”; [0046] “correlation is determined by sending impulses at various frequencies and analyzing the frequency response”; [0054] “transmitting an ultrasonic impulse into the sample and receiving an echo”; [0093] “pulse into the concrete”; [0050] “captures the output as a time domain waveform. The computer obtains a frequency domain signal through a windowing function and execution of a Fast Fourier transform”; [0143] “Fast Fourier transform to convert the time domain signal to a frequency domain signal”; see frequency domain signal in fig. 9);
repeating the measurements of the ultrasound pulse response on the concrete (fig. 1a, concrete 12) ([0117] “At completion of this data acquisition, and after a settling period, microprocessor 110 repeats the sequence with the same transmitting transducer 40c, but now utilizing transducer 40b as the receiving transducer”; [0127] “Microprocessor 110 then repeats the process, using the previous receiving transducer to transmit and using the next adjacent narrowband transducer 42 to receive. The microprocessor executes the same sequence with respect to this new transducer transmitting/receiving pair. This process repeats”; [0008[ “programmable data acquisition has a sampling period”; [0050] “sampling period” and “The computer displays 1024 samples in the time domain”), and
calculating, using the processor (processing portion comprising microprocessor 110; see data acquisition unit 18 & printed circuit board 64 in fig. 2 as well as processing portion of fig. 4), corresponding ultrasound pulse frequency domain spectrums therefrom ([0100] “Data Acquisition Unit 18 includes a printed circuit board 100 that houses a main microprocessor that controls the operation of device 10”); and
determining, using the processor (processing portion comprising microprocessor 110; see data acquisition unit 18 & printed circuit board 64 in fig. 2 as well as processing portion of fig. 4) and a multivariable model, the compressive strength of the concrete (fig. 1a, concrete 12) using the multiple ultrasound pulse frequency domain spectrums ([0119] “application software relates these three variables to concrete compressive strength, based on the following model”; [0120]-[0125] further model details; [0041] “Compressive strength may also be determined by acoustic attenuation or relative amplitude, which measures the attenuation of an acoustic wave by observing the ratio of the wave amplitudes” and “where f is the wave frequency, λ is the wavelength”; [0045] “Since the relative amplitude method sends an impulse through the concrete, it might also be used to correlate the size, type, and stiffness of any reinforcing fibers. This correlation is determined by sending impulses at various frequencies and analyzing the frequency response”; [0106] “parameters sufficient to establish the amplitude, frequency, and time duration of a pulse”; [0115] “peak to peak”; [0143] “executes a Fast Fourier transform to convert the time domain signal to a frequency domain signal (as indicated in the lower portion of FIG. 9). The resonant frequency appears as the highest or first (i.e. lowest frequency) peak in this waveform”; [0128] “the receiving p-wave transducers 42 do carry information in amplitude” and “looking for peaks in the amplitude”; [0130] “peak amplitude”; [0134] “p-wave velocity” and “s-wave velocity”; [0056] “slope of the data”; [0041] “relative amplitude, which measures the attenuation of an acoustic wave by observing the ratio of the wave amplitudes”),
outputting a compressive strength of the concrete (fig. 1a, concrete 12) or an indication thereof ([0077] “FIGS. 10A-10E are screen displays of a graphical user interface operated by the device illustrated in FIG. 1A”; see figs. 10 showing “Strength”; [0101] “Device 20 also includes a display driven through the operating system by a graphical user interface”; [0136] “display” and “compressive strength”; [0137] “display” and “strength results”).
Bellotti does not teach items: 1a) measuring, using the piezoelectric sensor, an electromechanical impedance response in the concrete and calculating, using the processor, an electromechanical impedance frequency domain spectrum therefrom and 1b) using the multiple electromechanical impedance frequency domain spectrums to determine the compressive strength of the concrete; 2a) measuring, using a temperature sensor, a temperature of the concrete, 2b) wherein the multivariable model includes using the temperature as a correction factor; and 3) repeating the measurements as the concrete sets.
Regarding items 1) & 3), Kim teaches a method of determining a compressive strength of concrete (concrete; shown in figs. 3-5) (Title “Artificial Neural Network-Based Early-Age Concrete Strength Monitoring Using Dynamic Response Signals”; Abstract “predict the compressive strength of concrete” and “piezoelectric sensor” and “The dynamic response signals of the concrete, including both electromechanical impedances and guided ultrasonic waves” and “amplitude of the guided ultrasonic wave signals are selected to quantify the variation in dynamic responses according to the strength of the concrete”; page 2, first paragraph “the strength of concrete can be estimated by measuring the thermal history of concrete through thermocouples, fiber optic sensors, or other thermal sensors [2,3]. The physical property-based concrete strength estimation methods are based on the change of mechanical properties. Ultrasonic-based methods are general NDT methods used for the early-age monitoring of concrete. The properties of ultrasonic wave propagation, such as velocity or attenuation, are affected by the change of physical properties [4–8]. Thus, the strength of concrete can be monitored by tracking the changes in ultrasonic wave propagation. Also, an electromechanical impedance method using piezoelectric sensors could use to estimate the strength of concrete. The strength of concrete can be estimated by measuring the resonant frequency of impedance [9,10], calculating the RMSD (root mean square deviation) of impedance signals [11], or impedance spectrum analysis [12]. Furthermore, a range of methods based on the acoustical, electrical, magnetic, optical, radiographic, and other mechanical properties of concrete have been studied [13]”; page 2, second paragraph “the neural network was used to estimate the strength of concrete” and “The main benefits in using a neural network are that all of the behavior of a material can be represented within the unified environment of a neural network. Also, the neural network-based model is built directly from experimental data using the learning capabilities of the neural network”; page 2, third paragraph “The dynamic response signals of the concrete, including both electromechanical impedances and guided ultrasonic waves” and “artificial neural network algorithm is used to verify a relationship between the variations in dynamic response signals and concrete strength”; Conclusion “estimate the strength of concrete material”), comprising: measuring, using a piezoelectric sensor (piezoelectric sensor; see fig. 1 showing sensor; see figs. 3-5 showing use in concrete), an ultrasound response in the concrete (concrete; shown in figs. 3-5) and calculating, using a processor (not shown; processor hosting neural network), ultrasound dynamic response features therefrom; measuring, using the piezoelectric sensor (piezoelectric sensor; see fig. 1 showing sensor; see figs. 3-5 showing use in concrete), an electromechanical impedance response in the concrete (concrete; shown in figs. 3-5) and calculating, using the processor (not shown; processor hosting neural network), an electromechanical impedance frequency domain spectrum therefrom (Abstract “The dynamic response signals of the concrete, including both electromechanical impedances and guided ultrasonic waves” and “amplitude of the guided ultrasonic wave signals are selected to quantify the variation in dynamic responses according to the strength of the concrete”; section 3.2. Result of EMI Measurement; see figs. 6-7; section 2.1 “piezoelectric sensor can be used simultaneously as both an actuator and a sensor. This study employs a lead zirconate titanate (PZT) patch to generate vibration and waves to the concrete structure, and measure the dynamic responses of the concrete”); repeating the measurements of the ultrasound response and the electromechanical impedance response as the concrete (concrete; shown in figs. 3-5) sets (bottom of page 6 “response signals were measured every hour after casting, up to 100 h”), and calculating, using the processor (not shown; processor hosting neural network), corresponding ultrasound dynamic response features and electromechanical impedance frequency domain spectrums therefrom; and determining, using the processor (not shown; processor hosting neural network) and a multivariable model (neural network-based model), the compressive strength of the concrete (concrete; shown in figs. 3-5) using the multiple ultrasound dynamic response features and the multiple electromechanical impedance frequency domain spectrums, outputting a compressive strength of the concrete (concrete; shown in figs. 3-5) or an indication thereof (page 2, first paragraph “the strength of concrete can be estimated by measuring the thermal history of concrete through thermocouples, fiber optic sensors, or other thermal sensors [2,3]. The physical property-based concrete strength estimation methods are based on the change of mechanical properties. Ultrasonic-based methods are general NDT methods used for the early-age monitoring of concrete. The properties of ultrasonic wave propagation, such as velocity or attenuation, are affected by the change of physical properties [4–8]. Thus, the strength of concrete can be monitored by tracking the changes in ultrasonic wave propagation. Also, an electromechanical impedance method using piezoelectric sensors could use to estimate the strength of concrete. The strength of concrete can be estimated by measuring the resonant frequency of impedance [9,10], calculating the RMSD (root mean square deviation) of impedance signals [11], or impedance spectrum analysis [12]. Furthermore, a range of methods based on the acoustical, electrical, magnetic, optical, radiographic, and other mechanical properties of concrete have been studied [13]”; page 2, second paragraph “the neural network was used to estimate the strength of concrete” and “The main benefits in using a neural network are that all of the behavior of a material can be represented within the unified environment of a neural network. Also, the neural network-based model is built directly from experimental data using the learning capabilities of the neural network”; page 2, third paragraph “The dynamic response signals of the concrete, including both electromechanical impedances and guided ultrasonic waves” and “artificial neural network algorithm is used to verify a relationship between the variations in dynamic response signals and concrete strength”; Conclusion “estimate the strength of concrete material”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kim’s neural network-based concrete compressive strength monitoring using dynamic response signals including electromechanical impedance (EMI) with Bellotti’s concrete compressive strength monitoring, thereby providing the advantages of being inclusive of early-age curing, being robust to the specific concrete &/or water mix, and further being advantageous by the concrete material being representable within the unified environment of a neural network model that does not require formal equations model and which can be built from multi-variate experimental data. The Examiner further notes that additional measurements of compressive strength through the added EMI increase the information available to be modeled and therefore statistically increase accuracy/precision including the across the aforementioned age and type/mix, while also allowing for the additional measurements to be performed by the same piezoelectric device if so desired and therefore not relying on additional separate sensing hardware. Complementarily, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bellotti’s pulsed ultrasonic wave multivariate testing and analysis for concrete compressive strength with Kim’s neural network-based concrete compressive strength monitoring for substantially similar reasons of increasing the information available to be modeled and therefore statistically increase accuracy/precision, the Examiner additionally noting that Bellotti can further account for non-homogeneity as well as determine p-wave velocity, s-wave velocity, rebar location, as well as being useful for thickness measurements and thus providing a more complete analysis of the concrete. The Examiner additionally notes that the Courts have ruled an obviousness analysis based on the collective teachings of the references does not depend on the order in which the references are listed in the statement of the rejection. See In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961): “In a case of this type where a rejection is predicated on two references each containing pertinent disclosure which has been pointed out to the applicant, we deem it to be of no significance, but merely a matter of exposition, that the rejection is stated to be on A in view of B instead of on B in view of A, or to term one reference primary and the other secondary.”
Regarding item 2):
The Examiner takes Official Notice that temperature sensors are conventional and further that an ordinary artisan would be knowledgeable that temperature affects both acoustic wave speed in a material as well as concrete curing properties.
As factual evidence of the aforementioned assertion pertaining to acoustic wave speed, Druet teaches (pertaining to claim 8 limitation) further comprising measuring a temperature using a temperature sensor (thermocouple); and (pertaining to claim 9 limitation) wherein the temperature is used as a correction factor (Title; Abstract; [0142] “the temperature of the structure is measured and a variation in time of flight induced by a change in temperature is compensated for. The temperature can indeed influence the flight times and it is appreciable to be able to correct or compensate for the thermal effects. Concretely, a thermocouple can be used but other measurement methods are possible”).
As factual evidence of the aforementioned assertion pertaining to temperature as an input specifically to concrete properties, Radjy teaches comprising measuring a temperature in the concrete using a temperature sensor (fig. 11, sensing device 1100 comprising temperature sensor 1110); and (claim 9 limitation) wherein the temperature is used in the multivariable model as a correction factor (Title “Sensing Device, And Systems And Methods For Obtaining Data Relating To Concrete Mixtures And Concrete Structures”; Abstract “plurality of sensing devices are inserted into a concrete mixture”; [0005] “compression strength”; [0059] “characteristic includes one of concrete strength and slump”; [0066] “characteristic of the section of concrete based on the measurement. For example, the second characteristic may include strength, sump, age, maturity, etc., of the concrete”; [0068] “the plurality of sensing devices includes one of a temperature sensor, an accelerometer, a pH sensor, an inductance sensor, an impedance or resistivity sensor, a sonic sensor, a pressure sensor, a conductivity sensor, a salinity sensor, a humidity sensor, and an elevation sensor”; [0070] “One or more sensing devices are placed within concrete. Measurement data is received from the one or more sensing devices. A specified temperature and a desired measure of strength are received. A predicted time when the concrete is expected to have the desired measure of strength is determined, based on the specified temperature and the measurement data”; [0138] “Concrete's temperature measured by the temperature sensor can be converted to maturity and real time concrete setting and strength estimation in combination with real time data relating to mixture proportions, and materials items batched, and by reference to calibration data in a central database”; [0173] “estimating concrete setting behavior”; [0267] “real-time model to project setting behavior and strength for the entire batch of concrete”; [0276] “prediction manager 2540 may receive temperature, humidity, and/or location data from sensing device 2550-A and, based on the measurement data, generate predictions regarding the water-to-cementitious ratio, durability, strength, slump, maturity, etc., of the concrete mixture in which sensing device 2550-A is located. In one embodiment, the measurement data received by master database module 2535 is provided to a real-time model to project setting behavior and strength for the entire batch of concrete. In another embodiment, the measurement data is continually subject to statistical analysis to generate real-time projections, control charts, etc.”).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a conventional temperature sensor—as factually supported by both of Druet and Radjy—with Bellotti’s apparatus and associated method for the expected purpose of providing repeated temperature sensing of Bellotti’s concrete. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the conventional activity of correcting/compensating for acoustic time of flight—as factually supported by Druet—with Bellotti’s apparatus and associated method thereby compensating for thermal effects on variation in time of flight induced by a change in temperature and thus providing for more accurate acoustic measurements including especially for Bellotti’s acoustic wave speed determinations. Even further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Radjy’s concrete modelling based on additional sensing devices inclusive of temperature thereby providing better model prediction of when the concrete is expected to have the desired compression strength as well as predicting real time concrete setting &/or maturity.
With further regards to the multiple repeating measurements:
The Examiner takes Official Notice that taking multiple measurements is a conventional activity in the art.
The Examiner further notes that it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B), St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (7th Cir. 1977), and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Similarly, it is the Examiner's position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to duplicate method measurement steps.
Additionally, it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.04(III) and In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). In the present case it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill is required to automate time intervals of measurements.
In view of the above, either the combination of references already reasonably suggests (or is at once envisaged to so suggest) wherein the sensor is configured to perform multiple corresponding measurements of the ultrasound pulse response and the electromechanical impedance response as well as temperature measurements for compensation of the ultrasound, and wherein the multiple measurements are at time intervals during curing (bottom of page 6 “response signals were measured every hour after casting, up to 100 h”), or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to trivially duplicate the measurements of the combination of Bellotti’s ultrasound pulse response and Kim’s electromechanical impedance response and therefore providing the expected benefits of regularity and repeatability of measurements in a dependable manner that can be conveniently compared against experimental data at similar repetitions and which provides smoother data plots with less gaps of omission requiring interpolation, and for which are properly calibrated for temperature (especially for any deviations from standard room temperature such as when performed under practical field conditions instead of controlled lab conditions). The Examiner additionally notes that multiple measurements can be commonsensically used both for measuring expected changes over time and/or after expected changes halt providing statistically increased accuracy and/or precision (e.g., averaging).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 13 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
When this application is finally acted upon and allowed (i.e., the Notice of Allowance), the Examiner will determine, at the same time, whether the reasons why the application is being allowed are sufficiently evident from the record; see MPEP § 1302.14(I). The Examiner notes for now that the Applicant provided PCT opinions with respect to the limitation of claim 13 were improperly conclusionary without proper evidence, the present Examiner noting that reference “D2” of the PCT opinions contrarily teaches (purely) electrical impedance, not electromechanical impedance and, while teaching the conventional understanding of temperature dependence, further fails to teach determining correction factors explicitly utilizing temperature as a differentiating variable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Applicant is invited to review PTO form 892 accompanying this Office Action listing Prior Art relevant to the instant invention cited by the Examiner.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DAVID L SINGER whose telephone number is 303-297-4317. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 6:00pm CT, EXCEPT alternating Friday.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Breene can be reached on 571-272-4107. 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 L SINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 10AUG2026
Prosecution Insights