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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 20, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: This claim recites “The system according to any of the claim 2, …”. The language “any of the” appears to have been accidentally left in and should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: This claim recites “an out-of-phase output value” in page 5, line 2. The limitation appears to referring back to the original recitation of the limitation found in claim 10, page 5, line 1. The limitation of claim 12 should be amended to “the out-of-phase output value”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: This claim recites “an external device” in page 5, line 4. The limitation appears to referring back to the original recitation of the limitation found in claim 1, page 3, line 15. The limitation of claim 13 should be amended to “the external device”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: This claim recites “communicating by an interface” in page 6, line 13. The limitation “an interface” appears to referring back to the original recitation of the limitation found in claim 15, page 6, line 1. The limitation of line 13 should be amended to “the interface”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: This claim recites “an external device” in page 6, line 3. The limitation appears to referring back to the original recitation of the limitation found in claim 1, page 3, line 15. The limitation of claim 17 should be amended to “the external device”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: This claim recites “an external device” in page 7, line 3. The limitation appears to referring back to the original recitation of the limitation found in claim 1, page 3, line 15. The limitation of claim 18 should be amended to “the external device”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “… into a resulting electromechanical impedance representation of the metal structure, and communicating by an interface said electromechanical impedance representation or voltage representation to the external device,” on page 6, lines 11-14. The limitation “or voltage representation” is confusing since there is no previous limitations requiring a voltage representation of the metal structure to be made, only a electromechanical impedance representation of the metal structure is performed. Either the “or voltage representation” of line 14 should be removed or “or voltage representation” is added to line 11, in a similar manner as presented in claim 1.
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) 1-3, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hire et al.; “Optimum PZT Patch Size for Corrosion Detection in Reinforced Concrete Using the Electromechanical Impedance Technique”; Sensors’ Vol. 21; 2021 (called Hire hereinafter and applicant disclosed art) in view of Petersen et al. US2014/0155708 (called Petersen hereinafter).
Regarding independent claim 1, Hire teaches a system for detecting corrosion or cracks (pg. 1; Abstract) in a metal structure (pgs. 3 and 11; Figures 1 and 7; steel) embedded in concrete (Abstract; pg. 11; Figure 7a), the system comprising:
at least one piezoelectric transducer (pg. 3; Figure 1; PZT patch) arranged for contact with the metal structure (pgs. 3 and 11; Figures 1 and 7),
an electronic circuit (pgs. 3 and 11; Figures 1 and 7; Impedance Analyzer) arranged for electric connection to the at least one piezoelectric transducer (pgs. 3 and 11; Figures 1 and 7), the electronic circuit comprising
a signal generator arranged to generate an electric test signal (Vp) to the at least one piezoelectric transducer (pgs. 3-5 and 11; Figures 1 and 7; Section 2.1 Background; sinusoidal voltage transmitted to the PZT patch),
an analysis circuit arranged to receive an electric return signal (IDUT) from the at least one piezoelectric transducer in response to the electric test signal (Vp) (pgs. 3-5; Figure 1; Section 2.1 Background; a analysis circuit in the Impedance Analyzer to measure the mechanical vibrations in the PZT patch and then reflected in the electrical impedance spectrum of the Impedance Analyzer), and to electrically transform said electric return signal from the piezoelectric transducer into a resulting electromechanical impedance representation or voltage representation of the metal structure (pgs. 3-5; Figure 1; Section 2.1 Background; measure the mechanical vibrations in the PZT patch and is then reflected in the electrical impedance spectrum of the Impedance Analyzer),
an interface arranged to communicate said electromechanical impedance representation or voltage representation to an external device (pgs. 3-5 and 11; Figures 1 and 7; Section 2.1 Background; outputting the electrical impedance spectrum to be displayed by the Impedance Analyzer).
Hire fails to teach by means of a dual-phase lock-in amplifier circuit.
Petersen teaches by means of a dual-phase lock-in amplifier circuit (Fig. 4; para [0088]; dual-phase lockin-amplifier used on the response signal of the piezoelectric pressure sensor 410); an interface arranged to communicate said electromechanical impedance representation or voltage representation to an external device (Fig. 1; block 109; para [0038]; sending data to other devices).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Hire with the dual-phase lockin-amplifier as described by Petersen for the purpose of extracting known carrier wave signals from a noisy environment.
Regarding claim 2, Hire and Petersen teach the system according to claim 1, Hire further teaches wherein the signal generator is arranged to receive an excitation signal (Vin) from a frequency generator (pg. 5; 2.2 Optimal Frequency and Patch Sizing Selection; operation frequencies output to the PZT patch from 30 kHz to 400 kHz).
Regarding claim 3, Hire and Petersen teach the system according to claim 2, Hire further teaches wherein the frequency generator is arranged to generate sine waves from 30-400 kHz for the excitation signal (Vin) (pg. 5; 2.2 Optimal Frequency and Patch Sizing Selection; operation frequencies output to the PZT patch from 30 kHz to 400 kHz).
Regarding claim 14, Hire and Petersen teach the system according to claim 1, Hire further teaches wherein said electromechanical impedance representation or voltage representation represents a frequency range up to at least an upper frequency of 400 KHz (pgs. 5 and 14-15; Figures 13-15; 2.2 Optimal Frequency and Patch Sizing Selection; operation frequencies output to the PZT patch from 30 kHz to 400 kHz).
Regarding independent claim 15, Hire teaches a method for detecting corrosion or cracks (pg. 1; Abstract) in a metal structure (pgs. 3 and 11; Figures 1 and 7; steel) embedded in concrete (Abstract; pg. 11; Figure 7a), the method comprising:
with a system (pgs. 3 and 11; Figures 1 and 7) that comprises (i) at least one piezoelectric transducer (pg. 3; Figure 1; PZT patch) arranged for contact with the metal structure (pgs. 3 and 11; Figures 1 and 7), and (ii)
an electronic circuit (pgs. 3 and 11; Figures 1 and 7; Impedance Analyzer) arranged for electric connection to the at least one piezoelectric transducer (pgs. 3 and 11; Figures 1 and 7), the electronic circuit comprising a signal generator (pgs. 3-5 and 11; Figures 1 and 7; Section 2.1 Background; sinusoidal voltage transmitted to the PZT patch), an analysis circuit (pgs. 3-5; Figure 1; Section 2.1 Background; a analysis circuit in the Impedance Analyzer to measure the mechanical vibrations in the PZT patch and then reflected in the electrical impedance spectrum of the Impedance Analyzer), and an interface arranged to communicate to an external device (pgs. 3-5 and 11; Figures 1 and 7; Section 2.1 Background; outputting the electrical impedance spectrum to be displayed by the Impedance Analyzer),
generating an electric test signal (Vp) to the at least one piezoelectric transducer, the electric test signal (Vp) is generated by the signal generator (pgs. 3-5 and 11; Figures 1 and 7; Section 2.1 Background; sinusoidal voltage transmitted to the PZT patch),
receiving an electric return signal (IDUT) from the at least one piezoelectric transducer in response to the electric test signal (Vp), the electric return signal (IDUT) is received by the analysis circuit (pgs. 3-5; Figure 1; Section 2.1 Background; a analysis circuit in the Impedance Analyzer to measure the mechanical vibrations in the PZT patch and then reflected in the electrical impedance spectrum of the Impedance Analyzer),
electrically transforming by the analysis circuit said electric return signal from the piezoelectric transducer into a resulting electromechanical impedance representation of the metal structure (pgs. 3-5; Figure 1; Section 2.1 Background; measure the mechanical vibrations in the PZT patch and is then reflected in the electrical impedance spectrum of the Impedance Analyzer), and
communicating by an interface said electromechanical impedance representation or voltage representation to the external device (pgs. 3-5 and 11; Figures 1 and 7; Section 2.1 Background; outputting the electrical impedance spectrum to be displayed by the Impedance Analyzer).
Hire fails to teach by means of a dual-phase lock-in amplifier circuit.
Petersen teaches by means of a dual-phase lock-in amplifier circuit (Fig. 4; para [0088]; dual-phase lockin-amplifier used on the response signal of the piezoelectric pressure sensor 410); an interface arranged to communicate to an external device (Fig. 1; block 109; para [0038]; sending data to other devices); communicating by an interface said electromechanical impedance representation or voltage representation to the external device (Fig. 1; block 109; para [0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Hire with the dual-phase lockin-amplifier as described by Petersen for the purpose of extracting known carrier wave signals from a noisy environment.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hire, in view of Petersen and further in view of Yamashita US2007/0103032.
Regarding claim 4, Hire and Petersen teaches the system according to any of the claim 2, but fail to teach wherein the signal generator is arranged to generate the electric test signal (Vp) to the at least one piezoelectric transducer by applying the excitation signal (Vin) via an all-pass phase filter.
Yamashita teaches wherein the signal generator is arranged to generate the electric test signal (Vp) to the at least one piezoelectric transducer by applying the excitation signal (Vin) via an all-pass phase filter (Fig. 2; output of all-pass filter 162 is input to the piezoelectric vibrators Sa and Sb).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Hire and Petersen with the all-pass filter as described by Yamashita for the purpose of maintaining the phase difference of the feedback voltage signal applied to the two piezoelectric vibrators (para [0031]).
Regarding claim 5, Hire, Petersen and Yamashita teach the system according to claim 4, Petersen further teaches wherein the dual-phase lock-in amplifier circuit comprises an in-phase lock-in chip (para [0092]; in-phase component of the lock-in amplified response signal) and an out-phase lock-in chip (para [0092]; out-of-phase component of the lock-in amplified response signal), and wherein the signal generator is arranged to apply the electric test signal (Vp) to the in-phase lock-in chip and to apply an 90° phase-shifted version (Vn) of the electric test signal to the out-phase lock-in chip (Fig. 4A; para [0088, 0090 and 0092]; 90 degree phase shift applied to one of the two response signals which proceeds through a dual-phase lockin-amplifier).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-13 and 16-18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, the prior arts of record taken alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest:
“wherein the analysis circuit comprises a trans-impedance amplifier (TIA) arranged to receive the electric return signal (IDUT) from the piezoelectric transducer and to convert the electric return signal (IDUT) to a voltage signal (VDUT) for the in-phase lock-in chip and the out-phase lock-in chip.”
Claims 7-13 and 16-18 are indicated as allowable subject matter for depending on claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Braunling et al. discloses “Method for detecting multiple types of corrosion” (see US2002/0078752)
Apblett et al. discloses “Embedded wireless corrosion sensor” (see US2012/0007579)
Chiang et al. discloses “Corrosion monitoring of concrete reinforcement bars (or other buried corrodible structures) using distributed node electrodes” (see US2012/0043981)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID B FREDERIKSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy Phan can be reached at (571)272-7924. 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 B FREDERIKSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights