DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 10/06/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Applicant does not provide a legible copy of non-paten literature with Cite No. 6 “Extended European Search Report dated 03/15/2024 as received in Application No. 23202066.9”.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 4 of claim 1, “the surface of the structure” should be changed to
“a surface of the concrete building structure”.
In line 12 of claim 1, “the model” should be changed to “the AI model”.
In last line of claim 4, “the position increment size” should be changed to
“a position increment size”.
In line 3 of claim 5, “the building structure” should be changed to
“the concrete building structure”.
In line 1 of claim 8, “the detection” should be changed to “a detection”.
In line 4 of claim 11, “the surface of the structure” should be changed to
“a surface of the concrete building structure”.
In line 9 of claim 11, “a system’s” should be changed to “the system’s”.
In line 5 of claim 14, “(movement” should be changed to “. Appropriate correction is required.
In last two lines of claim 14, “a system’s” should be changed to “the system’s”.
In line 2 of claim 15, “the automatic” should be changed to “a automatic”.
In last line of claim 15, “the steps” should be changed to “
Claim 16 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 15. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 1:
1. A method for detection and measurement of metallic objects or rebars, embedded in a concrete building structure, comprising:
emitting an electro-magnetic sensor signal and measuring an inductive response signal at different sensing positions at the surface of the structure, thereby measuring the respective sensing position in such a way that the response signal is position determined,
algorithmically extracting from the response signal features by signal filtering and/or determining of signal derivatives and
detecting objects as well as determining objects' diameters and/or depths with respect to the surface based on an artificial intelligence (AI) model with the response signal and the extracted features combined in a feature vector as input to the AI model
whereby:
the feature vector is used as input to the model comprises data discretized by discrete sensing position increments of predefined size and
objects are detected and their positions as well as their depth and/or diameter determined with respect to the position increments.
Analysis Steps for claim 1:
Step 1: Is claim 1 claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, claim 1 recites a method which is within one of the 4 statutory categories the process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Step 2a) Prong One: Does claim 1 recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, claim 1 recites “algorithmically extracting from the response signal features by signal filtering and/or determining of signal derivatives” may be done by human mental activities based on mathematical operations (plotting the response signal on paper, filtering out outliers or taking derivatives) through pen and paper; therefore, human mental activities based on mathematical operations is abstract idea.
Yes, claim 1 recites “detecting objects as well as determining objects' diameters and/or depths with respect to the surface based on an artificial intelligence (AI) model with the response signal and the extracted features combined in a feature vector as input to the AI model” may be done by human mental activities based on mathematical operations (i.e., the artificial intelligence (AI) model is implemented by mathematical operations, the feature vector is created by mathematical operations, and detecting the objects are represented as output result of the AI model which is the result of mathematical operations) through pen and paper; therefore, human mental activities based on mathematical operations is abstract idea.
Yes, claim 1 recites “the feature vector is used as input to the model comprises data discretized by discrete sensing position increments of predefined size” may be done by human mental activities based on mathematical operations (i.e., the feature vector is created by mathematical operations (discrete transformations)) through pen and paper; therefore, human mental activities based on mathematical operations is abstract idea.
Yes, claim 1 recites “objects are detected and their positions as well as their depth and/or diameter determined with respect to the position increments” may be done by human mental activities based on mathematical operations (i.e., detecting the objects are represented as output result of the AI model which is the result of mathematical operations) through pen and paper; therefore, human mental activities based on mathematical operations is abstract idea.
Step 2a) Prong Two: Does claim 1 recite additional element that integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application?
No, claim 1 recites additional elements “emitting an electro-magnetic sensor signal and measuring an inductive response signal at different sensing positions at the surface of the structure, thereby measuring the respective sensing position in such a way that the response signal is position determined” that is a general extra-solution activity, a merely data collection step, which does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application because the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
No, claim 1 recites additional elements “for detection and measurement of metallic objects or rebars, embedded in a concrete building structure” that is intended field of use which does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application because the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
Step 2b): Does claim 1 recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception?
No, when considering claim 1 as a whole, using the method in the intended field of metallic objects or rebars detection and measurement, the emitting the electro-magnetic sensor signal and measuring the inductive response signal to collect data measurement which does not amount to significantly more than judicial exception. There are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract ideas.
Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
PNG
media_image1.png
949
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
690
768
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2-3 and 10, claims 2-3 and 10 are analogously rejected as in claim 1 where claims 2-3 and 10 are directed to neural networks which are implemented by mathematical operations, claims 2-3 and 10 are analogously rejected as in claim 1, where the mathematical operations are abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 4-6, claims 4-6 are analogously rejected as in claim 1 where claims 4-6 are directed to data preparing for the AI model which are extra-solution activities where they do not recite additional elements that integrate the claimed abstract ideas into a practical application.
Regarding claims 7-9, claims 7-9 are analogously rejected as in claim 1 where they may be done through mental activities based on mathematical operations by using pen and paper, and mental activities based on mathematical operations are abstract ideas.
Regarding claim 11:
11. A system for detection and measurement of objects or rebars, embedded in a concrete building structure, the system comprising:
an eddy current sensor for emitting an electro-magnetic sensor signal and measuring an inductive response signal at different sensing positions at the surface of the structure,
a position sensor for measuring the respective sensing position in such a way that the response signal is position determined,
a control and evaluation unit,
wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to detect objects and determine their positions as well as objects' diameters and/or depths based on a system's AI model with the response signal providing a first input of the AI model,
whereby the control and evaluation unit is further configured to:
algorithmically extract features from the response signal by signal filtering and/or determining of signal derivatives,
combine the response signal and the extracted features in a feature vector,
discretize the feature vector with regard to the sensing position by discrete sensing position increments of predefined size and detect objects and
determine their positions as well as their depths and/or diameters with respect to the position increments.
Analysis Steps for claim 11:
Step 1: Is claim 11 claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, claim 11 recites a system which is within one of the 4 statutory categories the process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Step 2a) Prong One: Does claim 11 recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, claim 11 recites “algorithmically extract features from the response signal by signal filtering and/or determining of signal derivatives” may be done by human mental activities based on mathematical operations (plotting the response signal on paper, filtering out outliers or taking derivatives) through pen and paper; therefore, human mental activities based on mathematical operations is abstract idea.
Yes, claim 11 recites “detect objects and determine their positions as well as objects' diameters and/or depths based on a system's AI model with the response signal providing a first input of the AI model” may be done by human mental activities based on mathematical operations (i.e., the artificial intelligence (AI) model is implemented by mathematical operations, the feature vector is created by mathematical operations, and detecting the objects are represented as output result of the AI model which is the result of mathematical operations) through pen and paper; therefore, human mental activities based on mathematical operations is abstract idea.
Yes, claim 11 recites “combine the response signal and the extracted features in a feature vector, discretize the feature vector with regard to the sensing position by discrete sensing position increments of predefined size” may be done by human mental activities based on mathematical operations (i.e., the feature vector is created by mathematical operations (discrete transformations)) through pen and paper; therefore, human mental activities based on mathematical operations is abstract idea.
Yes, claim 11 recites “detect objects and determine their positions as well as their depths and/or diameters with respect to the position increments” may be done by human mental activities based on mathematical operations (i.e., detecting the objects are represented as output result of the AI model which is the result of mathematical operations) through pen and paper; therefore, human mental activities based on mathematical operations is abstract idea.
Step 2a) Prong Two: Does claim 11 recite additional element that integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application?
No, claim 11 recites additional elements “an eddy current sensor for emitting an electro-magnetic sensor signal and measuring an inductive response signal at different sensing positions at the surface of the structure” that is a general extra-solution activity, a merely data collection step, which does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application because the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
No, claim 11 recites additional elements “position sensor for measuring the respective sensing position in such a way that the response signal is position determined” that is a general extra-solution activity, a merely data collection step, which does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application because the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
No, claim 11 recites additional elements “for detection and measurement of metallic objects or rebars, embedded in a concrete building structure” that is intended field of use which does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application because the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
No, claim 11 recites additional elements “a control and evaluation unit” may be a component of a general-purpose computer which does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application because the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
Step 2b): Does claim 11 recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception?
No, when consider claim 11 as whole, the control and evaluation unit, the eddy current sensor and the position sensor which do not amount to significantly more than judicial exception.
No, when considering claim 11 as a whole, using the method in the intended field of metallic objects or rebars detection and measurement, the emitting the electro-magnetic sensor signal and measuring the inductive response signal to collect data measurement which do not amount to significantly more than judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 11 is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
PNG
media_image1.png
949
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
690
768
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is analogously rejected as in in claim 1 where the additional user interface is merely used as tool to provide user input to re-train the AI model which does not integrate the claimed abstract ideas into a practical application.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is analogously rejected as in in claim 1 where it is general extra-solution activities that is merely used in collection measurement data which does not integrate the claimed abstract ideas into a practical application.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is analogously rejected as in in claim 1 the control and evaluation unit is merely used a tool to processor signals, and the memory is a general component of a general computer system which do not integrate the claimed abstract ideas into a practical application.
Regarding claims 15-16, each of claim 15-16 is directed to computer program that is computer software, as a result, computer software is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Meile et al. (US 2020/0150087) teaches “an eddy current line sensor 8 as an example of a line sensor of the AM-apparatus of FIG. 1. The sensor 8 comprises a dense array of sensor coils 1a extending in direction of the line x, the sensor coils being lined-up such that the sensor line is gapless, for example embodied as described with respect to FIG. 1 or 2. In this simplified example, the array 1a comprises n=3 sensor coils 2a, 2b and 2c, however, such a sensor might typically comprise hundreds of sensor coils or more arranged in line. Compared to an area or 2D-sensor with sensor coils arranged over a whole plain, a line sensor is easier to manufacture and repair and thus more cost effective. Above that it requires less space and is easier to built-in and drive” (e.g. fig. 5, [0088]).
Buerger et al. (US 2008/0186017) teaches “A measuring device for angle and/or path measurement comprises a moving element. The moving element has connected therewith a magnetic field generator. Further, a magnetic field sensor is provided which picks up the magnetic field generated by the magnetic field generator. For evaluating the picked-up magnetic field, the magnetic field sensor is connected with an evaluator. For providing as space-saving and inexpensive a measuring device as possible, the magnetic field generator comprises at least two stud magnets” (e.g. figs. 1-2, abstract).
Tian (CN 105787558 A) teaches “The invention claims a ADS knowledge-based neural network microstrip filter design method, the method on the basis of the knowledge network, claims a method for the ADS as prior knowledge to overcome the current neural network structure is complex and the prior knowledge acquisition difficult. The invention adopts the neural network method for combining with the simulation software ADS and HFSS simulation results as the priori knowledge and teacher signal and uses the particle swarm algorithm to train the neural network, constructing the corresponding neural network model, which effectively reduces the complexity of the neural network structure. using the network of the design for low impedance low-pass filter and the micro card bandpass filter for optimal design, the designed filter meets the design index, not only avoids a complicated formula further simplifies the structure of the neural network, reduces the number of the hidden layer and hidden layer neurons, which effectively reduces the cost” (e.g. fig. 1, abstract).
Pei (CN 113093289 A) teaches “The invention claims a high resolution non-destructive detection device of embedded structure internal metal parameter, comprising: a signal generating module, a power amplifying module, a transmitting coil, a magneto-electric sensor array, a signal conditioning module, a multi-channel data collecting module, an FPGA processing and control module and an upper computer; the emitting coil is used for generating excitation magnetic field; the magneto-electric sensor array is used for receiving the signal of the secondary induction magnetic field; the signal conditioning module is used for processing the signal output by the magneto-electric sensor array; the multi-channel data collecting module is used for collecting the conditioned signal; the analogue signal is converted into digital signal by A/D conversion; the FPGA processing and control module is used for controlling the emitting waveform to generate; A/D collecting and signal detecting; the upper computer using algorithm to perform inversion calculation to the collected data, and real-time displaying the detection result. The invention uses the magneto-electric sensor to realize the direct measurement of the secondary magnetic field signal; it can obtain higher signal-to-noise ratio and improve the detection precision” (e.g. fig. 1, abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, but would be allowable if the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-16 are properly overcome without broadening the scopes of claims 1-16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIDONG ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5815. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy Phan can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAIDONG ZHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/RAUL J RIOS RUSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
