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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Amendments filed on 02/26/2026, wherein Claims 1, 8, 10, and 13 have been amended. Claims 1-16 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Examiner’s objections: Applicant's arguments, see Remarks (p.6), filed on 02/26/2026, with respect to the objections to the Claims have been fully considered. In view of the amendments to the Claims addressing the informalities raised in the previous office action, the objections to the Claims have been withdrawn.
Regarding 35 USC 101 rejection: Applicant's arguments filed on 08/26/2025, with respect to 35 USC 101 rejection, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The claims have not improved eligibility. Applicant recites particular sensors to gather data. However, according to the MPEP: "Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated" is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP2106.05(g))”. Determining geometry or burst pressure based on data from particular sensors and using particular measurements methods and calculations refers to a particular way of calculating something (i.e., geometry or burst pressure) and as described in the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence: “Even if the judicial exception is narrow ( e.g., a particular mathematical formula or detailed mental process), the Court has held that a claim may not preempt that judicial exception” (see “III. Update on Certain Areas of the USPTO’s Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance Applicable to AI Inventions”, section “A. Evaluation of Whether a Claim Is Directed to a Judicial Exception (Step 2A)”).
Examiner also notes that practical application must be shown using meaningful additional elements. The additional elements, cited by the Applicant, are recited in generality and do not recite particular machines applying or being used by the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05, specifically about the particular machine: see part I, The particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus; Part II, Whether the machine or apparatus implements the steps of the method, and Part III, Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of use). Prior art cited in the rejection, shows claimed additional elements are well-known in the art, routine and conventional.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea as discussed below. This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the reasons discussed below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims are to one of the statutory categories of invention. Applied to the present application, the claims belong to one of the statutory classes of a process/product. The below claim is considered to be a statutory category (process).
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two Prongs. Prong 1 requires the
examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that
the abstract idea belongs to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Independent Claim 1 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea highlighted in bold; the remaining limitations are ‘’additional elements’’.
A method for determining a geometry of one or more real defects of a metallic object, the method comprising:
generating at least two reference data sets of the metallic object using at least two sensors collectively configured to perform a plurality of non-destructive measurement methods and including at least two of a magnetic flux leakage (MFL) sensor, an eddy current sensor, a electromagnetic acoustic (EMAT) sensor, and an ultrasonic sensor,
wherein the metallic object is at least partially represented on or by an at least two-dimensional object grid, in an electronic data processing (EDP) unit,
wherein the plurality of non-destructive measurement methods include at least two of MFL measurement method, an eddy current measurement method, an EMAT measurement method, and an ultrasound measurement method,
generating an output defect geometry by inversion of at least parts of the at least two reference data sets;
calculating a respective prediction data set for each method of the plurality of non-destructive measurement methods used in the generation of the at least two reference data sets on the basis of the output defect geometry by a simulation routine,
comparing at least parts of the prediction data sets with at least parts of the at least two reference data sets,
depending on at least one accuracy measure, selectively terminating the method or performing an iterative adjustment of the output defect geometry to the geometry of the one or more real defects, and
calculating a burst pressure based on the output defect geometry.
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the specification, it recites limitations that fall into abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that when recited as such in a claim limitation covers mathematical processes (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations), and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion).
For example, the limitations of “determining a geometry of one or more real defects of a metallic object”, “generating at least two reference data sets of the metallic object using at least two sensors collectively configured to perform a plurality of non-destructive measurement methods and including at least two of a magnetic flux leakage (MFL) sensor, an eddy current sensor, a electromagnetic acoustic (EMAT) sensor, and an ultrasonic sensor”, “calculating a respective prediction data set for each method of the plurality of non-destructive measurement methods used in the generation of the at least two reference data sets on the basis of the output defect geometry by a simulation routine”, “performing an iterative adjustment of the output defect geometry to the geometry of the one or more real defects”, and “calculating a burst pressure based on the output defect geometry”, are treated by the Examiner as belonging to mathematical process grouping, and the limitation of “comparing at least parts of the prediction data sets with at least parts of the at least two reference data sets” is treated by the examiner as belonging to mental processes – concept performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
With regards to the mental steps, according to the 2019 PEG: “If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes category unless the claim cannot practically be performed in the mind. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.”); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d. 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for ‘‘anonymous loan shopping” was an abstract idea because it could be ‘‘performed by humans without a computer”); Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (‘‘Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person's mind.”).”
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The additional elements: “geometry”, “real defect”, “a metallic object”, “reference data sets”, “non-destructive measurement methods”, “object”, “two-dimensional object grid”, “EDP unit”, “the plurality of non-destructive measurement methods include at least two of a MFL measurement method, an eddy current measurement method, an EMAT measurement method, and an ultrasound measurement method”, “output defect geometry”, “respective prediction data set”, “defect”, “simulation routine”, “accuracy measure”, “depending on at least one accuracy measure, selectively terminating the method or performing an iterative adjustment of the output defect geometry to the geometry of the one or more real defects”, and “burst pressure” add extra-solution activities (i.e., mere data gathering, source/type of data to be manipulated) using elements recited at a high level of generality (see MPEP 2106.05(g)); generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)); and add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Step 2B of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The considerations for this particular claim are essentially the same as the considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2A, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Essentially, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because they are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art of US20160187523 by Sanmartin et al. (hereinafter Sanmartin) and US20160245779 to Amineh et al. (hereinafter Amineh).
Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, Claims 2-16 provide additional features/steps which are either part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims and/or adding additional elements/steps that are not meaningful as they are recited in generality and/or not qualified as particular machine and/or eligible transformation and, therefore, do not reflect a practical application as well as not qualified for “significantly more” based on prior art of record.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Claims 1-16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
In regards to independent Claim 1, the teachings of Sanmartin, Lorentzen, Amineh, Simek, Frenkel, Lesage, and Liu combined show all the elements of the claims except “wherein the plurality of non-destructive measurement methods include at least two of a magnetic flux leakage (MFWL) measurement method, an eddy current measurement method, an electromagnetic-acoustic (EMAT) measurement method, and an ultrasound measurement method, generating an output defect geometry by inversion of at least parts of the at least two reference data sets; calculating a respective prediction data set for each method of the plurality of non-destructive measurement methods used in the generation of the at least two reference data sets on the basis of the output defect geometry by a simulation routine, comparing at least parts of the prediction data sets with at least parts of the at least two reference data sets”, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the applicant.
If the 101 issues are resolved, dependent claims 2-16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101, set forth in this Office Action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lyudmila Zaykova-Feldman whose telephone number is (469)295-9269. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am CT - 5:30pm CT, Monday through Friday.
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, Arleen Vazquez, can be reached on 571-272-2619. 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.
/LYUDMILA ZAYKOVA-FELDMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/LINA CORDERO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights