DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not entirely persuasive.
The applicant first argues that at least fig. 7 provides sufficient support for the "prior" language added to claim 13 in the previous amendments. However, fig. 7 is a flowchart explaining a calibration process itself, and the orbital motions at step 406 are not, as best understood, based on at least one parameter obtained during a prior calibration. No other explanation has been provided by the applicant as to how a there is support for the questioned "prior" language, and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 13-14 and 22 is being maintained.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 13, the applicant argues that because Kiyama is not finding the true/actual ultrasound axis of the probe itself, it does not teach "storing on a 'record' that comprises 'at least one parameter that was obtained during a prior calibration of the ultrasound probe and is indicative of an ultrasound axis of the ultrasound probe at which an optimum signal was received by the ultrasound probe during the calibration' and then 'control[ling] movement of the ultrasound probe based on the at least one parameter included in the record,' as required by claim 13." However, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., finding the true/actual ultrasound axis of the probe itself) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In the instant case, as explained in the previous action and again below, Kiyama teaches each and every limitation of claim 13 as presented, and thus the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 13, and its dependent claims, is being maintained.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims, the applicant's arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Particularly, the argument that that Reed does not teach the claimed solution, because is a fundamental requirement of Reed that the point of interaction of the ultrasonic beam 24 on the surface of the target 36 is not the same, which is in stark contrast to the invention of pending claim 1. So if the person of ordinary skill in the art were to have merely incorporated the teachings of Reed into Hall, that skilled person would not have arrived at the invention claimed. These rejections are accordingly withdrawn.
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 13-14 and 22 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 recites "a record which comprises at least one parameter that was obtained during a prior calibration." The amendments of 29 April 2025 introduce the word "prior" therein. No explanation of this change was given in the accompanying remarks, and no similar usage of "prior calibration" in relation to "at least one parameter," "record," or "recording" is discussed anywhere in the as-filed specification. There appears to be no support for the claimed record storing at least one parameter obtained during a prior calibration. Accordingly, this content is seen to be new matter not described in the specification at the time of filing in a manner demonstrating possession thereof. Claims 14 and 22 depend from claim 13, and are similarly deficient under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 13 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP S60-70063 U to Kiyama et al. (hereinafter referred to as Kiyama; previously cited).
With regards to claim 13, Kiyama discloses an inspection apparatus (see the embodiments of fig. 2-5, fig. 2 is reproduced below) comprising:
an ultrasound probe (variable angle probe 20); and
a record (storage circuit 43 within control unit 14; see fig. 3) which comprises at least one parameter (echo values and angles) that was obtained during a prior calibration (prior calibration is broadly interpreted as corresponding to the measurement of echoes in blocks 54-58 of fig. 4, with "prior" being with respect to the controlling of block 59) of the ultrasound probe and is indicative of an ultrasound axis of the ultrasound probe (i.e., the wave incidence angle of the probe, which is broadly an "ultrasound axis" thereof) at which an optimum signal was received by the ultrasound probe during the calibration (in the operation method for this apparatus depicted in fig. 4, storage circuit 43 stores echo values received from probe together with corresponding incidence angles, and an optimum echo value is selected therefrom by optimum value detection circuit 45 to detect the incident angle θX at which a maximum echo level is obtained; see pp. 8 and 11-12 of the translation),
wherein the inspection apparatus is configured to control movement of the ultrasound probe relative to an object to be inspected based on the at least one parameter included in the record (in step 59 in fig. 4, a motor moves variable angle probe 20 with respect to an object to be inspected to change the incidence angle of the probe to angle θX, this movement is based on the at least one parameter included in the record as per pp. 11-12 of the translation).
PNG
media_image1.png
545
710
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 22, Kiyama discloses the inspection apparatus as claimed in claim 13. Kiyama further discloses the ultrasound probe having a coupling element (liquid 24 and tire 25) for engaging a surface of the object (see fig. 2).
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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyama as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of US 6,182,494 to Reed et al. (hereinafter referred to as Reed; previously cited).
With regards to claim 14, Kiyama teaches the inspection apparatus as claimed in claim 13. However, Kiyama does not teach the at least one parameter defining a longitudinal wave axis of the ultrasound probe.
Reed teaches an inspection apparatus wherein a probe held in a holder or manipulator emits waves normally into an object to be inspected. Reed teaches that, in such ultrasonic systems, there may be unaccounted-for small position and/or angle offsets between the probe and the holder that result in beam position errors (col. 1, ll. 36-67). To address such position and/or angle offsets between the probe and the holder that result in beam position errors, Reed teaches a method of using an ultrasound probe (the ultrasonic probe comprising transducer 22 at the end of manipulator 18 in fig. 3) wherein manipulator 18 is set at a first position 40 at which pointing direction 20 is aligned with target 36 at recess 38, the direction of manipulator 18 is then scanned through a range of angular positions, at each position a signal is received that is reflected by the calibration body 34 (see col. 3, l. 56 to col. 4, l. 46). The angles are scanned through until the beam axis is aligned with target 36 at recess 38, i.e., at the second position at which an optimum signal is received, at which point any offset is compensated for (see col. 3, l. 56 to col. 4, l. 46). Once this point is reached, it is used as a starting point for subsequent scanning to remove offset therefrom (see col. 4, ll. 42-46, col. 5, ll. 10-11, etc.).
The systems of Kiyama and Reed both sweep a positionable probe through a range of angles and try to select the angle at which an optimum return is received (indicating proper alignment and/or a maximum echo), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the sweeping technique of Kiyama could also be applied to the apparatus of Hall. Specifically, such that the apparatus of Hall comprises a record (e.g., memory) comprising at least one parameter (echo values and angles) that was obtained during a prior calibration (corresponding to a sweep of angles and echo measurements around a first position) of the ultrasound probe and is indicative of an ultrasound axis of the ultrasound probe at which an optimum signal was received by the ultrasound probe during the calibration (a signal indicating proper beam alignment with a surface normal of a calibration artefact), and wherein the inspection apparatus is configured to control movement of the ultrasound probe relative to an object to be inspected based on the at least one parameter included in the record like in Kiyama. In this combination, the at least one parameter (i.e., the angle and echo best capturing the location of feature 38 in the calibration artefact of Reed) would define a longitudinal wave axis of the ultrasound probe. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the teachings of Kiyama and Reed in this manner in order to ensure that best alignment of a probe is captured. For example, consider the case where in a sweep a first angle's echo shows the clear presence of feature 38 in a calibration artefact. As best understood, Reed would normally stop scanning when feature 38 has been detected. However, a second angle beyond the first angle could show feature 38 even more strongly. This second angle would have better alignment, yet would be missed unless a scanning technique as in Kiyama were employed in which the best angle is selected in the end, not just the first angle at which a calibration feature is detected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-12, 15, 21, and 23 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
With regards to claim 1, the prior art considered to be most pertinent was not found to teach, alone or in combination:
"a position of the coupling element of the ultrasound probe on a surface of the calibration artefact is substantially the same for each of the plurality of different relative orientations"
in combination with all other elements in claim 1.
Claims 2, 4-12, 15, 21, and 23 depend from claim 1 and are allowed for the same reason.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Split whose telephone number is (571)270-1524. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 to 3:30.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-2258. 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.
/JS/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/JUDY NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights