DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-3 are pending.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
4. Figures 1 and 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- or --Related Art--because only that which is old is illustrated (see paragraphs 5, 11, and 12 of the specification). See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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
5. The specification is objected to due to the following informality.
Paragraph 22 references the air-calibrated curve of Figure 4. However, it appears that Figure 7 shows the air-calibrated curve (see paragraph 29). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kumar et al. (US 6,586,930 – hereinafter “Kumar”) in view of Stierli (US 2015/0355121).
Per claim 1, Kumar teaches a system for assessing deformation, comprising:
an emitting coil and at least one receiving coil, wherein the emitting coil forms a pair of coils with each of the at least one receiving coil (A thickness monitoring system 10 comprises a magnetic sensor 42, which could include an inductive coil, and a target excitation coil 16 that are on opposite sides of an article 18 (Fig 2B; col. 5, lines 22 and 48-55));
a signal generator configured to emit a signal emitted to the emitting coil (A digital waveform generator 22 is configured to generate an excitation waveform (Fig. 2A; col. 4, line 32-34)); and
a signal receiver configured to receive a resulting signal from the at least one receiving coil (Sensor electronics 28, an A/D converter 30, and a digital demodulator 26 are configured to receive a response signal (Fig. 2A; col. 4, lines 45-49));
wherein the signal receiver is configured to determine a coupling between the pair of coils, the coupling being an indicator of the distance between the pair of coils (The digital demodulator 26 is configured to compare a reference excitation waveform to a digital response signal to determine the thickness of the article 18 (col. 4, lines 45-59)).
However, Kumar does not teach a system for assessing pavement deformation, comprising: an emitting PCB and at least one receiving PCB, each of the emitting PCB and the at least one receiving PCB comprising three coils installed therein. In contrast, Stierli teaches a device for the impedance-based probing of a sample material, such as concrete, comprising a two-dimensional array of coils 1 arranged on a printed circuit board 30. Based on current pulses applied to a coil, a measurement unit 4 is able to determine a response of the sample material at the coil location (Abstract; Fig. 4; ¶18, 33, and 36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kumar such that an emitting PCB and at least one receiving PCB are provided, wherein each of the emitting PCB and the at least one receiving PCB comprises three coils installed therein. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of determining a property of a sample material at different measurement locations (Stierli; ¶18 and 33).
Per claim 2, Kumar in view of Sterli teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the signal generator has a signal splitter so that the emitted signal is also supplied to the signal receiver (The excitation waveform is simultaneously transmitted through an output port (OUT) to an amplifier 24 and through a reference port (REF) to the digital demodulator 26 (Kumar; Fig. 2A; col. 4, lines 37-40)).
Claim Objections
8. Claim 3 is 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.
Per claim 3, the prior art of record is silent on a method of using the system to assess pavement deformation defined in claim 1, comprising, in particular, the steps of: positioning the at least one receiving PCB in a layer of a pavement; performing tests on the pavement after it is completed; and positioning the emitting PCB on the pavement surface so as to align the pair of PCBs in the height direction.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAS A. SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-4787. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, alt. Fri, 8-5 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, WALTER LINDSAY can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/JAS A SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights