DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroshi et al. (JP-6723540-B2), in view of, Daiki et al., (Vibration-Based Detection of Loosened Bolts on Pipes Attached to Bridges, Materials Research Proceedings 18 (2021) 233-240)
Hiroshi teaches:
In regard to claim 1, Hiroshi teaches a monitoring system comprising a processor configured to execute operations comprising: (abstract; 10, 20-21, 23 fig 1, cable-stayed bridge’, vibration exciter’, vibration measuring device’, ‘information processing device (PC)’)
applying vibration on a tubular structure in each axis direction of a first axis direction of a first axis and (para [0037], The vibration measuring means 53 is not limited to an accelerometer, and a speedometer that measures speed and a displacement meter that measures displacement may be used. When an accelerometer is used as the vibration measuring means 53, a waveform of acceleration when the cable 12 vibrates up and down is obtained as a measurement result.‘) a second axis direction of a second axis, wherein the second axis direction is orthogonal to the first axis;
receiving a measured value of acceleration of the tubular structure when the tubular structure vibrates as caused by the applying vibration in said each axis direction of the first axis direction (para [0037], The vibration measuring means 53 is not limited to an accelerometer, and a speedometer that measures speed and a displacement meter that measures displacement may be used. When an accelerometer is used as the vibration measuring means 53, a waveform of acceleration when the cable 12 vibrates up and down is obtained as a measurement result.‘) and the second axis direction;
determining a vibration mode in said each axis direction of the first axis direction (para [0038], ‘To measure the natural frequencies of a single cable 12 from the first mode to the sixth mode, the vibration measurement system is placed at position A in the center of the cable 12 as shown in Figure 5(a) for the first mode, and at positions B and C when the cable 12 is evenly divided into three sections as shown in Figure 5(b) for the second mode. By generating vibrations and exciting the cable 12, the vibration of the cable 12 can be measured.’; fig. 5) and the second axis direction based on the measured value of acceleration; and
determining, based on the vibration mode, whether a U-bolt is detached or a supporting hardware is detached based on the vibration mode, as a result of remotely monitoring detachment of the U-bolt and the supporting hardware for maintaining the tubular structure in place.
Hiroshi discloses the basics of the invention implementing an vibration and utilizing backscattering to determine desired parameters such as position, velocity or acceleration and implementing methods such as FFT to visually see various frequency modes. Although Hiroshi discloses a movement of the bridge cable as up and down there is no mention of measurement of values in any other axial direction which would be obvious for one with ordinary skill utilizing accelerometers, piezo-electrometers and the like.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Hiroshi to provide a device and method to determine the deterioration and degradation of U-Bolts or clamps around a bridge cable structure in order to monitor structural stability.
Hiroshi does not teach:
a second axis direction of a second axis, wherein the second axis direction is orthogonal to the first axis;
the second axis direction;
the second axis direction based on the measured value of acceleration; and
determining, based on the vibration mode, whether a U-bolt is detached or a supporting hardware is detached based on the vibration mode, as a result of remotely monitoring detachment of the U-bolt and the supporting hardware for maintaining the tubular structure in place.
Daiki teaches:
a second axis direction of a second axis, wherein the second axis direction is orthogonal to the first axis; (abstract; 233-239, pages; fig. 2, accelerometer’, ridge U-bolts’; fig. 5, fig. 9, results of modal analysis by FEM X, Y, & Z directions of a U-bolt’)
the second axis direction. (abstract; 233-239, pages; fig. 2, accelerometer’, ridge U-bolts’; fig. 5, fig. 9, results of modal analysis by FEM X, Y, & Z directions of a U-bolt’)
the second axis direction based on the measured value of acceleration; and (abstract; 233-239, pages; fig. 2, accelerometer’, ridge U-bolts’; fig. 5, fig. 9, results of modal analysis by FEM X, Y, & Z directions of a U-bolt’)
determining, based on the vibration mode, whether a U-bolt is detached or a supporting hardware is detached based on the vibration mode, as a result of remotely monitoring detachment of the U-bolt and the supporting hardware for maintaining the tubular structure in place. (abstract; 233-239, ages; fig. 2, accelerometer’, ridge U-bolts’; fig. 5, fig. 9, results of modal analysis by FEM X, Y, & Z directions of a U-bolt’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Daiki to provide a device and method to monitor various axial positions of structural stability of a bridge structure and the like to determine the deterioration and degradation of U-Bolts or clamps around a bridge cable structure in order to monitor structural stability.
In regards to claim 6, Hiroshi & Daiki teach a monitoring system according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) Daiki teaches wherein the U-bolt attaches to the tubular structure, the supporting hardware attaches to the U-bolt and a bridge beam of a bridge. (Daiki: abstract; 233-239, pages; fig(s) 1-2, accelerometer’, ridge U-bolts’; fig. 5, fig. 9, results of modal analysis by FEM X, Y, & Z directions of a U-bolt’)
In regard to claim 7, Hiroshi & Daiki teach a monitoring system according to claim 1 (see claim rejection 1) further comprises: a triaxial accelerator, wherein the triaxial accelerator attaches to the tubular structure and measures a value of acceleration of movement of the tubular structure caused by the applied vibration. (Hiroshi: ‘The vibration measuring device 21 shows the frame member 50 and shows 3 accelerometers/vibration unit being implemented.’;)
In regards to claim 8, Hiroshi & Daiki teach a monitoring system according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein the vibration mode represents a vibration pattern of the tubular structure. (Daiki: abstract; 233-239, pages; fig(s) 1-2, accelerometer’, ridge U-bolts’; fig. 5, fig. 9, results of modal analysis by FEM X, Y, & Z directions of a U-bolt’; fig. 3, ‘acceleration versus frequency graph’)
In regards to claim 9, Hiroshi & Daiki teach a monitoring system according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) Daiki teaches wherein the vibration mode is based on operation deflection shapes (ODS) analysis. (Daiki: fig. 8; A, B, C, D fig. 9, ‘Results of modal analysis by FEM’; ‘w the relative deformations of the top four peaks above 100 Hz (A to D in Fig. 8). These deformations show complex modes such as multiple waves and cross-sectional deformation.’; page 236, ‘The analysis software was Ansys Mechanical 2020 R1.’)
In regards to claim 10, Hiroshi & Daiki teach a monitoring system according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein the vibration mode is based on a frequency response function. (Daiki: ‘The acquired data were analyzed with a fast Fourier transform (FFT). The window function of the FFT was the exponential one shown as Eq. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-4, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroshi et al. (JP-6723540-B2), in view of, Daiki et al., (Vibration-Based Detection of Loosened Bolts on Pipes Attached to Bridges, Materials Research Proceedings 18 (2021) 233-240)
Hiroshi teaches:
In regard to claim 2, Hiroshi teaches a computation device comprises a processor configured to execute operations comprising: (abstract; 10, 20-21, 23 fig 1, cable-stayed bridge’, vibration exciter’, vibration measuring device’, ‘information processing device (PC)’)
receiving a measurement value of acceleration when a tubular structure is vibrated in each axis direction of a first axis direction of a first axis and (para [0037], The vibration measuring means 53 is not limited to an accelerometer, and a speedometer that measures speed and a displacement meter that measures displacement may be used. When an accelerometer is used as the vibration measuring means 53, a waveform of acceleration when the cable 12 vibrates up and down is obtained as a measurement result.‘) a second axis direction of a second axis, wherein the second axis is orthogonal to the first axis;
determining a vibration mode based on the measurement value; (para [0038], ‘To measure the natural frequencies of a single cable 12 from the first mode to the sixth mode, the vibration measurement system is placed at position A in the center of the cable 12 as shown in Figure 5(a) for the first mode, and at positions B and C when the cable 12 is evenly divided into three sections as shown in Figure 5(b) for the second mode. By generating vibrations and exciting the cable 12, the vibration of the cable 12 can be measured.’; fig. 5)
displaying and visualizes the vibration mode. (para [0038], ‘To measure the natural frequencies of a single cable 12 from the first mode to the sixth mode, the vibration measurement system is placed at position A in the center of the cable 12 as shown in Figure 5(a) for the first mode, and at positions B and C when the cable 12 is evenly divided into three sections as shown in Figure 5(b) for the second mode. By generating vibrations and exciting the cable 12, the vibration of the cable 12 can be measured.’; fig. 5)
Hiroshi discloses the basics of the invention implementing an vibration and Hiroshi discloses the basics of the invention implementing an vibration and utilizing backscattering to determine desired parameters such as position, velocity or acceleration and implementing methods such as FFT to visually see various frequency modes. Although Hiroshi discloses a movement of the bridge cable as up and down there is no mention of measurement of values in any other axial direction which would be obvious for one with ordinary skill utilizing accelerometers, piezo-electrometers and the like.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Hiroshi to provide a device and method to determine the deterioration and degradation of U-Bolts or clamps around a bridge cable structure in order to monitor structural stability.
Hiroshi does not teach:
a second axis direction of a second axis, wherein the second axis is orthogonal to the first axis;
determining whether a U-bolt is detached or a supporting hardware is detached based on the vibration mode; and
Daiki teaches:
a second axis direction of a second axis, wherein the second axis is orthogonal to the first axis; (abstract; 233-239, pages; fig. 2, accelerometer’, ridge U-bolts’; fig. 5, fig. 9, results of modal analysis by FEM X, Y, & Z directions of a U-bolt’)
determining whether a U-bolt is detached or a supporting hardware is detached based on the vibration mode; and (abstract; 233-239, ages; fig. 2, accelerometer’, ridge U-bolts’; fig. 5, fig. 9, results of modal analysis by FEM X, Y, & Z directions of a U-bolt’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Daiki to provide a device and method to monitor various axial positions of structural stability of a bridge structure and the like to determine the deterioration and degradation of U-Bolts or clamps around a bridge cable structure in order to monitor structural stability.
In regards to claim 3, Hiroshi & Daiki teach a computation device according to claim 2, (see claim rejection 2) the processor further configured to execute operations comprising: (Hiroshi: abstract; 10, 20-21, 23 fig 1, cable-stayed bridge’, vibration exciter’, vibration measuring device’, information processing device (PC)’)
determining that the U-bolt is detached in a case where the vibration mode in the first axis direction is displayed as a convex curve which has an amplitude equal to or larger than a first threshold value and has a maximum value at an installation position of the U-bolt. (Daiki: page 235 figure 4; Results, ‘implements methods such as FFT to visually see various frequency modes which can be configured to determine maximum amplitudes against a threshold value.’; abstract; conclusion)
In regards to claim 4, Hiroshi & Daiki teach a computation device according to claim 2, (see claim rejection 2) the processor further configured to execute operations comprising: (Hiroshi: abstract; 10, 20-21, 23 fig 1, cable-stayed bridge’, vibration exciter’, vibration measuring device’, information processing device (PC)’)
determining that the U-bolt is detached in a case where a frequency response function derived based on the measurement value of the acceleration of the tubular structure which is vibrated in the first axis direction represents a vibration mode having an amplitude equal to or larger than a third threshold value in a specific frequency band. (abstract; 233-239, pages; fig. 2, accelerometer’, ridge U-bolts’; fig. 5, fig. 9, results of modal analysis by FEM X, Y, & Z directions of a U-bolt’; page 235 figure 4; Results, ‘implements methods such as FFT to visually see various frequency modes which can be configured to determine maximum amplitudes against any number of threshold values for different modes..’; abstract; conclusion)
In regards to claim 11, Hiroshi & Daiki teach a computation device according to claim 2, (see claim rejection 2) the processor further configured to execute operations comprising: (Hiroshi: abstract; 10, 20-21, 23 fig 1, cable-stayed bridge’, vibration exciter’, vibration measuring device’, information processing device (PC)’)
determining that the supporting hardware is detached in a case where the vibration mode in the second axis direction is displayed as a convex curve which has an amplitude equal to or larger than a second threshold value and has a maximum value at an installation position of the U-bolt. (Daiki: abstract; 233-239, pages; fig. 2, accelerometer’, ridge U-bolts’; fig. 5, fig. 9, results of modal analysis by FEM X, Y, & Z directions of a U-bolt’; page 235 figure 4; fig(s) 7-8, Results, ‘implements methods such as FFT to visually see various frequency modes which can be configured to determine maximum amplitudes against any number of threshold values for different modes..’; abstract; conclusion)
In regard to claim 12, Hiroshi & Daiki teach a computation device according to claim 2, (see claim rejection 2) the processor further configured to execute operations comprising: (Hiroshi: abstract; 10, 20-21, 23 fig 1, cable-stayed bridge’, vibration exciter’, vibration measuring device’, information processing device (PC)’)
determining that the supporting hardware is detached in a case where a frequency response function derived based on the measurement value of the acceleration of the tubular structure which is vibrated in the second axis direction represents a vibration mode having an amplitude equal to or larger than a fourth threshold value larger than a third threshold value in a specific frequency band. (Daiki: abstract; 233-239, pages; fig. 2, accelerometer’, ridge U-bolts’; fig. 5, fig. 9, results of modal analysis by FEM X, Y, & Z directions of a U-bolt’; page 235 figure 4; fig(s) 7-8, Results, ‘implements methods such as FFT to visually see various frequency modes which can be configured to determine maximum amplitudes against any number of threshold values for different modes..’; abstract; conclusion)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroshi et al. (JP-6723540-B2), in view of, Daiki et al., (Vibration-Based Detection of Loosened Bolts on Pipes Attached to Bridges, Materials Research Proceedings 18 (2021) 233-240)
Hiroshi teaches:
In regard to claim 5, Hiroshi teaches a monitoring method (abstract; 10, 20-21, 23 fig 1, cable-stayed bridge’, vibration exciter’, vibration measuring device’, ‘information processing device (PC)’) remotely monitoring detachment of a U-bolt and supporting hardware for fixing a tubular structure, the monitoring method comprising:
step of applying vibration on the tubular structure in each axis direction of a first axis direction of a first axis and a second axis direction of a second axis, wherein the second axis is orthogonal to the first axis;
a step of receiving measured acceleration of the tubular structure when the tubular structure vibrates as caused by the applying vibration in said each axis direction of the first axis direction (para [0037], The vibration measuring means 53 is not limited to an accelerometer, and a speedometer that measures speed and a displacement meter that measures displacement may be used. When an accelerometer is used as the vibration measuring means 53, a waveform of acceleration when the cable 12 vibrates up and down is obtained as a measurement result.‘) and the second axis direction;
a step of determining a vibration mode in said each axis direction of the first axis direction (para [0037], The vibration measuring means 53 is not limited to an accelerometer, and a speedometer that measures speed and a displacement meter that measures displacement may be used. When an accelerometer is used as the vibration measuring means 53, a waveform of acceleration when the cable 12 vibrates up and down is obtained as a measurement result.‘) and the second axis direction based on the measured acceleration; and
Hiroshi discloses the basics of the invention implementing an vibration and utilizing backscattering to determine desired parameters such as position, velocity or acceleration and implementing methods such as FFT to visually see various frequency modes. Although Hiroshi discloses a movement of the bridge cable as up and down there is no mention of measurement of values in any other axial direction which would be obvious for one with ordinary skill utilizing accelerometers, piezo-electrometers and the like.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Hiroshi to provide a device and method to determine the deterioration and degradation of U-Bolts or clamps around a bridge cable structure in order to monitor structural stability.
Hiroshi does not teach:
a second axis direction of a second axis, wherein the second axis is orthogonal to the first axis;
the second axis direction;
a step of determining whether the U-bolt is detached or the supporting hardware is detached based on the vibration mode.
Daiki teaches:
a second axis direction of a second axis, wherein the second axis is orthogonal to the first axis; (abstract; 233-239, pages; fig. 2, accelerometer’, ridge U-bolts’; fig. 5, fig. 9, results of modal analysis by FEM X, Y, & Z directions of a U-bolt’)
the second axis direction; (abstract; 233-239, pages; fig. 2, accelerometer’, ridge U-bolts’; fig. 5, fig. 9, results of modal analysis by FEM X, Y, & Z directions of a U-bolt’)
a step of determining whether the U-bolt is detached or the supporting hardware is detached based on the vibration mode. (abstract; 233-239, ages; fig. 2, accelerometer’, ridge U-bolts’; fig. 5, fig. 9, results of modal analysis by FEM X, Y, & Z directions of a U-bolt’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Daiki to provide a device and method to monitor various axial positions of structural stability of a bridge structure and the like to determine the deterioration and degradation of U-Bolts or clamps around a bridge cable structure in order to monitor structural stability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited Baqersad (US-11410324-B2), 大島 俊之 (JP-4069977-B2), Kumagai (EP-1992926-A2), Osborn (US-20110017880), Muller (US-4484425), Tsabatabai (US-6292967-B1), Chun et al., (‘A fundamental study on structural strength assessment of U-bolts for expanded application to shipbuilding and offshore piping systems, International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering 16 (2024) 100561’), and Kavars (US-9267862-B1) references further describe a method for diagnosing integrity of a structure as described by the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C BUTLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3973. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Stephanie E Bloss can be reached at (571)272-3555. 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.
/K.C.B/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights