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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings are difficult to see. There is a greyed out section to the side of the drawings, seemingly of comments to a word document that was submitted with the drawings. Drawings also feature text that is difficult to read. Further, the figures should be on their own. The comment on figure 6 is unnecessary. 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
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract of the disclosure is two paragraphs rather than one paragraph. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph 46, “e day lights” should be “day lights”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
For claims 1-2 and 10, daylight light sources is being interpreted as “artificial light sources that produce light similar to daylight” for prior art rejections.
For claims 7 and 18, “day” is being interpreted as “artificial light sources that produce light similar to daylight” for prior art rejections. This definition is chosen to keep it in line with other claims.
For claims 8 and 19, it is being interpreted as written in the claims. However, the BRI of the claim is, “multiple people can use the device”, which does not meaningfully limit the device as this device could be used multiple people sequentially or touched by multiple people at once..
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for “fluorescent or LED lights”, does not reasonably provide enablement for “daylight light sources”. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. The BRI of “daylight light sources” is identified in the specification as being lights that produce a spectrum similar to daylight. This is largely in line with the BRI of the term as being light sources that produce light similar to daylight or daylight. However, applicant’s phrasing allows for all sources of daylight to be included which would include celestial bodies such as stars like the Sun. The breadth of the claims is extremely broad allowing for any and all light sources that produce in a spectrum that is similar to daylight which would include many kinds of natural light sources. The nature of the invention is a camera system joined with multiple light sources that can be controlled remotely. The light sources, as claimed, are extremely broad and would include natural phenomena that would not be able to reasonably be controlled by a controller disclosed in the specification. The state of the prior art while camera systems and light sources are well known, the methods of controlling natural light sources such as celestial bodies is not quite well-known especially by remote control. The predictability in the art for controlling natural light sources such as stars is unpredictable or unknown due to the lack of study in such an area. The inventor provides no direction in the specification, claims, or drawings for the controller to allow for the Sun, other celestial bodies, or natural light sources to be controlled remotely. There are no current existing examples for a remote control that controls the sun, stars, or natural light sources. The quantity of experimentation that would be need to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure would be astronomical as a remote control that controls the Sun, other celestial bodies, or natural light sources could not be reasonably ascertained from applicant’s disclosure. Claims 3-9 and 11-20 inherit this deficiency, and they are similarly rejected.
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for “artificial daylight sources”, does not reasonably provide enablement for “day”. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Similar to the rejections for claims 1-20, applicant claims “controlling said mirrorless camera and day and UV lights” while applicant likely intended for this to mean “artificial daylight sources”, applicant used the term, “day” to designate it. The term “day” has a different scope as it means daytime or the cycle of day and night. The breadth of the claims is extremely broad allowing for any and all light sources that produce in a spectrum that is similar to daylight which would include many kinds of natural light sources. The nature of the invention is a camera system joined with multiple light sources that can be controlled remotely. Day, as claimed, are extremely broad and would include natural phenomena that would not be able to reasonably be controlled by a controller disclosed in the specification. The state of the prior art while camera systems and light sources are well known, the methods of controlling natural light sources such as celestial bodies is not quite well-known especially by remote control. The predictability in the art for controlling natural light sources such as stars is unpredictable or unknown due to the lack of study in such an area. The inventor provides no direction in the specification, claims, or drawings for the controller to allow for the Sun, other celestial bodies, or daytime to be controlled remotely. There are no current existing examples for a remote control that controls the sun, stars, or daytime. The quantity of experimentation that would be need to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure would be astronomical as a remote control that controls the Sun, other celestial bodies, or day could not be reasonably ascertained from applicant’s disclosure.
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 12 claims the to analyze the images for the presence of “color signatures”. The specification discusses “color signatures” or “signatures” more broadly in paragraphs 11, 31, and 47. However, these paragraphs never identify what these signatures are. Looking at prior art, the terminology, “color signature” was not apparent in ASR related literature found. The claims are very broad as “color signature” is not defined. The nature of the invention is a camera system joined with multiple light sources that can be controlled remotely. The prior art does not readily identify a color signature or signature for the ASR process. The level of one of ordinary skill in the art would be a person with knowledge of ASR, but they would not know what the claimed color signature is as it is not noted in prior art. Inventor has not provided much direction as to what a color signature is. There are no working existing examples of an ASR detection device that detects “color signatures”. The quantity of experimentation would be significant as the term, “color signature” is not readily defined. Claim 20 inherits the issues of claim 12, and it is similarly rejected.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “short-range UV light sources” in claims 1-2 and 10 is used by the claim to mean “short-wave UV light sources,” while the accepted meaning is “UV lights with a limited range in distance.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Claims 3-9 and 11-20 inherit this deficiency.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: acquiring images of the concrete after placing the image acquisition device on the concrete. Claim 10 as currently written only requires one step for the method of inspecting, and that step is to simply place the device. The claim does not require an individual to operate the device in any capacity or to use it for inspection. Using the device for inspection is critical to the method of inspecting as the device is designed to facilitate inspection, and simply placing the device does not perform any of the critical inspection or detection capabilities. The method as claimed, is a method of inspection that fundamentally lacks any actual inspection. There is no determination of ASR levels in the concrete in the claim as recited. It is unclear what degree of “inspection” would be required. Further incorporating claim 11 would likely overcome this rejection. Claims 12-20 inherit this issue, and they are similarly rejected.
Claims 3, 13, and 15 recite the limitation "said image acquisition device" in the first paragraph of the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis as both the claimed image acquisition device and the mirrorless camera are image acquisition devices. As such, each claim is rendered indefinite since it is unclear if it is referring to the camera, a component of the overall device, or to the image acquisition device as a whole.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "said image" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 depends upon claim 10 where no image is captured or taken. So, there has been no disclosure of “said image”. Claim 20 inherits the issues of claim 12, and it is similarly rejected.
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 10, 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it tries to generally link the mental process to a particular . The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are trying to limit the mental process to a particular technological environment, the disclosed imaging apparatus is comprised of several specific objects, and it is intended to be used to inspect ASR in concrete. However, the method disclosed fails to amount to significantly more due to the general nature of the recitation.
In regards to claim 10, a method of inspecting in situ the level of ASR present in concrete, comprising placing an image acquisition device capable of excluding ambient light on the surface of said concrete (The crux of the claim is here, it requires that a person merely place the device on the surface of concrete. A person of ordinary skill in the art can place an image acquisition device on top of concrete), said image acquisition device comprising a mirrorless camera and daylight and short-range UV light sources wherein said light sources and mirrorless camera are capable of being controlled remotely (The additional elements of what the image acquisition device, while specific, they merely try to limit the device to a particular technological environment).
In regards to claim 12, further comprising analyzing said images for the presence of the color signatures of ASR (As color signature is indefinite, it is being interpreted as a specific color. A person of ordinary skill in the art can analyze an image and find a particular color, and further limiting it to ASR is merely trying to limit it to the field of use of ASR identification but does not provide significantly more).
In regards to claim 13, wherein said image acquisition device further comprises a radio receiver that is capable of receiving communications to control said mirrorless camera and light sources (The method as disclosed is simply placing the imaging device. The additional elements of what the image acquisition device, while specific, they merely try to limit the device to a particular technological environment).
In regards to claim 14, further comprising a remote controller device capable of controlling said mirrorless camera and light sources (The method as disclosed is simply placing the imaging device. The additional elements of what the image acquisition device, while specific, they merely try to limit the device to a particular technological environment).
In regards to claim 15, wherein the image acquisition device further comprises a motorized, wireless controlled camera slider, wherein said mirrorless camera is capable of moving along said motorized camera slider to image different parts of the concrete after said image acquisition device is placed on the concrete surface (The method as disclosed is simply placing the imaging device. The additional elements of what the image acquisition device, while specific, they merely try to limit the device to a particular technological environment).
In regards to claim 16, wherein the mirrorless camera is a high-definition camera and is capable of being attached to additional lenses or camera mounts (The method as disclosed is simply placing the imaging device. The additional elements of what the image acquisition device, while specific, they merely try to limit the device to a particular technological environment).
In regards to claim 17, wherein the bottom of the image acquisition device further comprises a gasket capable of molding itself to the concrete surface to block ambient light (The method as disclosed is simply placing the imaging device. The additional elements of what the image acquisition device, while specific, they merely try to limit the device to a particular technological environment).
In regards to claim 18, wherein said remote controller device further comprises a display capable of viewing images and/or controlling said mirrorless camera and day and UV lights (The method as disclosed is simply placing the imaging device. The additional elements of what the image acquisition device, while specific, they merely try to limit the device to a particular technological environment).
In regards to claim 19, wherein the remote controller and image acquisition device are capable of each being used by different users during analysis of concrete surfaces (The method as disclosed is simply placing the imaging device. The additional elements of what the image acquisition device, while specific, they merely try to limit the device to a particular technological environment).
In regards to claim 20, wherein said analyzing said images for the presence of the color signatures of ASR uses a post-processing system capable of helping to diagnose the level of ASR present in an image of said concrete surface (The disclosed post-processing system is trying to limit the claim to a specific technological field, but the claim itself is directed to merely being capable of helping in the process. A person of ordinary skill can perform some process to assist or help in this process).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 7-8, 10-14, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igarashi et al. (Image Analysis of Alkali-aggregate gel in concrete prism test with alkali wrapping), hereinafter referred to as Igarashi, Natesaiyer et al. (Insitu Identification Of Asr Products In Concrete), hereinafter referred to as Natesaiyer, and Anthony et al. (WO 2021242392 A2), hereinafter referred to as Anthony.
In regards to claim 1, Igarashi discloses A remote inspection system for detecting and assessing the alkali-silica reaction (ASR) in concrete (Abstract, Discloses a method to measure the alkali-silica reaction in concrete via a highly sensitive camera) comprising a mirrorless camera (Paragraph 2 under section 2.2 entitled “photographing technique, Discloses that the systems used makes use of mirrorless cameras), and short-range UV light sources (Paragraph 4 under section 2.2 entitled “Fluorescence observation experiment (1) – influence of curing temperature and alkali content”, Paragraph 4 of Igarashi discloses that they use short wave UV light sources to achieve the fluorescence).
Igarashi does not explicitly disclose comprising: an image acquisition device capable of excluding ambient light from a concrete surface and being placed against and imaging said concrete surface, and daylight light sources wherein said light sources and mirrorless camera are capable of being controlled remotely.
However, Natesaiyer does disclose comprising: an image acquisition device capable of excluding ambient light from a concrete surface and being placed against and imaging said concrete surface (Title and page 457, third new paragraph, The title discloses that it is an in-situ method or on site which cover the being placed against requirement along with the paragraph disclosing that the specimens were exposed to the light in a darkened room).
It would be prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of Natesaiyer with the teachings of Igarashi. Natesaiyer’s method of utilizing a darkened room would allow for a predictable increase in visibility for the fluorescence. Allowing for ambient light to come into the sample could cause the more dim light of the fluorescence to be less visible and not as obvious. This would cause a loss in accuracy for measuring and detecting the fluorescence as it would be difficult to spot and measure. As such, it would be prima facie obvious.
Neither Natesaiyer nor Igarashi explicitly disclose and daylight light sources wherein said light sources and mirrorless camera are capable of being controlled remotely.
However, Anthony does disclose and daylight light sources wherein said light sources and mirrorless camera are capable of being controlled remotely (Paragraphs 43-44, 47, and 50, Discloses that the gantry may be controlled remotely in paragraph 44 with paragraph 43 discloses that a camera can be operated from it with paragraphs 47 and 50 detailing that the lights can similarly be controlled remotely and be made of LEDs which would read on the daylight light sources).
It would be prima facie obvious to combine these prior arts as it would predictably increase ease of access. Anthony is directed to a scanning system that focus on processors and hardware rather than concrete. However, Anthony’s usage of remote control is something that can be combined with the cameras and light systems disclosed by Igarashi and Natesaiyer, and it would allow for a predictable increase in ease of access as allowing for remote controls to handle the process can allow a user to simply set the device down and perform scanning at a further distance. This allows a user to more easily access the device from further away and renders it prima facie obvious.
In regards to claim 2, Anthony discloses further comprising: a remote controller device capable of operating said mirrorless camera and said daylight and short-range UV light sources (Paragraph 44, The computer disclosed in paragraph 44 would be within the BRI of a controller).
In regards to claim 7, Anthony discloses wherein the remote controller device further comprises a display capable of viewing images and/or controlling said mirrorless camera and day and UV lights (Paragraphs 56 and 59, Discloses a display on the computing device with paragraph 59 further detailing that the display may be a touchscreen which can receive user input and output).
In regards to claim 8, Igarashi discloses wherein the remote controller and image acquisition device are capable of each being used by different users during analysis of concrete surfaces (Paragraph 2 under section 2.2 entitled “photographing technique, while Igarashi does not explicitly say that multiple users used the cameras, it is inherent that multiple people can use the same device such as cameras sequentially at different times).
In regards to claim 10, it is similar to claim 1, and it is similarly rejected.
In regards to claim 11, Natesaiyer discloses acquiring at least one image of said concrete surface prior to treatment with uranyl acetate to assess natural fluorescence in the concretes and acquiring at least one image of said concrete surface after treatment with uranyl acetate (Section entitled reactive aggregates from pages 458-460, Discloses that photographs are taken of the various aggregates used that are analogous to concrete include those that have been treated with uranyl acetate and those left untreated or before being treated by uranyl acetate).
In regards to claim 12, Igarashi discloses further comprising analyzing said images for the presence of the color signatures of ASR (First new paragraph of page 2, Discloses that depending on the chemicals used to stain the ASR, different colors can appear. As color signature is indefinite, this is within a BRI of the claims).
In regards to claim 13, Anthony discloses wherein said image acquisition device further comprises a radio receiver that is capable of receiving communications to control said mirrorless camera and light sources (Paragraph 58, Anthony discloses that the wireless connect via cellular radio which would imply a cellular radio receiver that is used to receive the signals).
In regards to claim 14, it is similar to claim 2, and it is similarly rejected.
In regards to claim 18, it is similar to claim 7, and it is similarly rejected.
In regards to claim 19, it is similar to claim 8, and it is similarly rejected.
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igarashi et al. (Image Analysis of Alkali-aggregate gel in concrete prism test with alkali wrapping), hereinafter referred to as Igarashi, Natesaiyer et al. (Insitu identification of ASR products in concrete), hereinafter referred to as Natesaiyer, and Anthony et al. (WO 2021242392 A2), hereinafter referred to as Anthony as applied to claims 1-2, 7-8, 10-14, and 18-19 above, and further in view of Matthews et al. (US 20180023755 A1), hereinafter referred to as Matthews.
In regards to claim 3, Igarashi, Natesaiyer, and Anthony do not explicitly disclose wherein the image acquisition device further comprises a motorized, wireless controlled camera slider, wherein said mirrorless camera is capable of moving along said motorized camera slider to image different parts of the concrete after said image acquisition device is placed on the concrete surface.
However, Matthews does disclose wherein the image acquisition device further comprises a motorized, wireless controlled camera slider (Abstract and paragraph 44, Discloses a camera slider device that allows a camera to be repositioned and works for a wide variety of cameras with paragraph 44 disclosing that it can operate wirelessly), wherein said mirrorless camera is capable of moving along said motorized camera slider to image different parts of the concrete after said image acquisition device is placed on the concrete surface (Abstract, Discloses that the camera is moved along the tracks of the slider to image different parts of an object).
It would be prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of these arts as it would lead to a predictable increase in the amount of data to be used. Utilizing a tracked system that allows the camera to move across an area would allow for more of the concrete to be imaged and for more of it to be analyzed. This would lead to an increase in the overall data, and would help to determine the overall state of the concrete structure more easily.
In regards to claim 15, it is similar to claim 3, and it is similarly rejected.
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igarashi et al. (Image Analysis of Alkali-aggregate gel in concrete prism test with alkali wrapping), hereinafter referred to as Igarashi, Natesaiyer et al. (Insitu identification of ASR products in concrete), hereinafter referred to as Natesaiyer, and Anthony et al. (WO 2021242392 A2), hereinafter referred to as Anthony as applied to claims 1-2, 7-8, 10-14, and 18-19 above, and further in view of Sarkar et al. (US 20180052088 A1), hereinafter referred to as Sarkar.
In regards to claim 4, Igarashi, Natesaiyer, and Anthony do not explicitly disclose the elements of claim 4.
However, Sarkar does disclose wherein said mirrorless camera is a high-definition camera and is capable of being attached to additional lenses or camera mounts (Paragraph 25, Discloses that a mirrorless high definition camera can be used and with multiple kinds of lenses).
It would be prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of these arts as it would lead to a predictable increase in accuracy while also being simple substitution. Igarashi already discloses the usage of a mirrorless camera, and replacing the mirrorless camera of Igarashi with a better mirrorless camera or a different mirrorless camera would be simply substituting one part for an interchangeable one. Further, Igarashi does not explicitly disclose that their camera is a high definition camera, and as such, using a high definition camera would lead to an increase in image clarity and accuracy. As such, it would be prima facie obvious to combine these arts.
In regards to claim 16, it is similar to claim 4, and it is similarly rejected.
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igarashi et al. (Image Analysis of Alkali-aggregate gel in concrete prism test with alkali wrapping), hereinafter referred to as Igarashi, Natesaiyer et al. (Insitu identification of ASR products in concrete), hereinafter referred to as Natesaiyer, and Anthony et al. (WO 2021242392 A2), hereinafter referred to as Anthony as applied to claims 1-2, 7-8, 10-14, and 18-19 above, and further in view of Hendren et al. (US 20220214724 A1), hereinafter referred to as Hendren.
In regards to claim 5, Igarashi, Natesaiyer, and Anthony do not explicitly disclose the elements of claim 5.
However, Hendren discloses wherein the bottom of the image acquisition device further comprises a gasket capable of molding itself to the concrete surface to block ambient light (Paragraph 88, Discloses the use of a gasket to block out light).
It would be prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of Hendren with Igarashi. While Hendren is directed to an electronic device display rather than to an in-situ concrete analysis, the cited paragraph discloses the use of a foam gasket to reduce backlight. It was known in the prior art as shown in Natesaiyer that darkening the room was beneficial for identifying ASR reactions. As such, applying a similar foam gasket as disclosed by Hendren would provide similar result by darkening the area around the camera. Applying the foam gasket of Hendren would allow for a predictable increase in portability. Natesaiyer relies on the entire room to be darkened which would limit the function to an indoor setting where lighting is controlled, but by incorporating the foam gasket of Hendren, the portability of the device would be greatly increased.
In regards to claim 17, it is similar to claim 5, and it is similarly rejected.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igarashi et al. (Image Analysis of Alkali-aggregate gel in concrete prism test with alkali wrapping), hereinafter referred to as Igarashi, Natesaiyer et al. (Insitu identification of ASR products in concrete), hereinafter referred to as Natesaiyer, and Anthony et al. (WO 2021242392 A2), hereinafter referred to as Anthony as applied to claims 1-2, 7-8, 10-14, and 18-19 above, and further in view of Klose (US 20220057333 A1).
In regards to claim 6, Igarashi, Natesaiyer, and Anthony do not explicitly disclose the elements of claim 6.
Klose does disclose wherein the image acquisition device further comprises handles to aid a user in manipulating the device (Paragraph 59, Klose discloses the use of a handle region to allow for his device that similarly examines concrete to be more easily handled).
It would be prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of these two arts as it would lead to a predictable increase in portability. Handles have long been used to make items more portable and easier to grasp. Klose uses handles on a device that is used to inspect concrete, so it would be prima facie obvious to combine with these prior arts.
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igarashi et al. (Image Analysis of Alkali-aggregate gel in concrete prism test with alkali wrapping), hereinafter referred to as Igarashi, Natesaiyer et al. (Insitu identification of ASR products in concrete), hereinafter referred to as Natesaiyer, and Anthony et al. (WO 2021242392 A2), hereinafter referred to as Anthony, as applied to claims 1-2, 7-8, 10-14, and 18-19 above, and further in view of Ziehl et al. (US 20160209372 A1), hereinafter referred to as Ziehl.
In regards to claim 9, Igarashi, Natesaiyer, and Anthony do not explicitly disclose the elements of claim 9.
Ziehl does disclose further comprising- a post-processing system capable of helping to diagnose the level of ASR present in an image of said concrete surface (Paragraph 144, Discloses that a chart is obtained that plots the severity and gives intensity analysis results of ASR).
The combination of these arts would be prima facie obvious as the addition of a further post-processing system would lead to a predictable increase in accuracy. The further addition of charts being produced of a process would be an additional system that would help in the visualization of the ASR levels in the concrete. As such, it would allow for an increase in accuracy in the ability to diagnose which areas are most affected. As such, it would be prima facie obvious to combine.
In regards to claim 20, it is similar to claim 9, and it is similarly rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Natesaiyer et al. (Further Study Of An In-Situ Identification Method For Alkallsilica Reaction Products In Concrete) is a further exploration of the ASR reaction done by Natesaiyer in 1988 which covers related topics to ASR.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONOR AIDAN O'MALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0226. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am. - 5:00 pm. EST.
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, Andrew Moyer can be reached at 5722729523. 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.
CONOR AIDAN. O'MALLEY
Examiner
Art Unit 2675
/CONOR A O'MALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2675
/GREGORY A MORSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2698
