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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Drawings The drawings are objected to because Regarding figs. 5b, 12a, 12b, 13, and 14 require axis labels : (d) Graphic forms in drawings. Chemical or mathematical formulae, tables, and waveforms may be submitted as drawings, and are subject to the same requirements as drawings. Each chemical or mathematical formula must be labeled as a separate figure, using brackets when necessary, to show that information is properly integrated. Each group of waveforms must be presented as a single figure, using a common vertical axis with time extending along the horizontal axis. Each individual waveform discussed in the specification must be identified with a separate letter designation adjacent to the vertical axis Regarding fig s . 19 , 21, 22a, 22b, and 22c, are shaded image s : (a) Drawings. There are two acceptable categories for presenting drawings in utility and design patent applications. (1) Black ink. Black and white drawings are normally required. India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings; or (2) Color. Color drawings are permitted in design applications. Where a design application contains color drawings, the application must include the number of sets of color drawings required by paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section and the specification must contain the reference required by paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section. On rare occasions, color drawings may be necessary as the only practical medium by which to disclose the subject matter sought to be patented in a utility patent application. The color drawings must be of sufficient quality such that all details in the drawings are reproducible in black and white in the printed patent. Color drawings are not permitted in international applications (see PCT Rule 11.13). The Office will accept color drawings in utility patent applications only after granting a petition filed under this paragraph explaining why the color drawings are necessary. Any such petition must include the following: (i) The fee set forth in § 1.17(h) ; (ii) One (1) set of color drawings if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three (3) sets of color drawings if not submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system; and (iii) An amendment to the specification to insert (unless the specification contains or has been previously amended to contain) the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings: The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee. (m) Shading. The use of shading in views is encouraged if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility. Shading is used to indicate the surface or shape of spherical, cylindrical, and conical elements of an object. Flat parts may also be lightly shaded. Such shading is preferred in the case of parts shown in perspective, but not for cross sections. See paragraph (h)(3) of this section. Spaced lines for shading are preferred. These lines must be thin, as few in number as practicable, and they must contrast with the rest of the drawings. As a substitute for shading, heavy lines on the shade side of objects can be used except where they superimpose on each other or obscure reference characters. Light should come from the upper left corner at an angle of 45°. Surface delineations should preferably be shown by proper shading. Solid black shading areas are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color . (o) Legends. Suitable descriptive legends may be used subject to approval by the Office, or may be required by the examiner where necessary for understanding of the drawing. They should contain as few words as possible 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. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “ the detector including a plurality of detection elements arranged in a first direction and a second direction, the first direction and the second direction crossing each other” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. 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. 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 1-6, 13-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of Claims 1-6, 13-15, and 17-19 have been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions. Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a) Each of Claims 1, 13, and 17 recites at least one step or instruction for detecting , which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) or a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The claimed limitations involve managing interactions between people, namely, humans following rules, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) as Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) . Accordingly, each of Claims 1, 13, and 17 recites an abstract idea. Specifically, Claim 1 recites A processing system, comprising: a processing device that receives a detection result of a reflected wave from a detector, the detector including a plurality of detection elements arranged in a first direction and a second direction, the first direction and the second direction crossing each other, the detector performing a probe that includes transmitting an ultrasonic wave toward a welding object and detecting the reflected wave, performs a first determination of determining a joint and a non-joint at a plurality of points along the first and second directions of the welding object based on the detection result, and performs a second determination of determining an appropriateness of a result of the first determination by using a circularness of a first region based on the points determined to be joints . Specifically, Claim 1 3 recites A processing method, comprising: receiving a detection result of a reflected wave from a detector, the detector including a plurality of detection elements arranged in a first direction and a second direction, the first direction and the second direction crossing each other, the detector performing a probe that includes transmitting an ultrasonic wave toward a welding object and detecting the reflected wave; performing a first determination of determining a joint and a non-joint at a plurality of points along the first and second directions of the welding object based on the detection result; and performing a second determination of determining an appropriateness of a result of the first determination by using a circularness of a first region based on the points determined to be joints . Specifically, Claim 1 7 recites A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program, the program causing a computer to: receive a detection result of a reflected wave from a detector, the detector including a plurality of detection elements arranged in a first direction and a second direction, the first direction and the second direction crossing each other, the detector performing a probe that includes transmitting an ultrasonic wave toward a welding object and detecting the reflected wave; perform a first determination of determining a joint and a non-joint at a plurality of points along the first and second directions of the welding object based on the detection result; and perform a second determination of determining an appropriateness of a result of the first determination by using a circularness of a first region based on the points determined to be joints. Where an observation, judgment or evaluation, is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) ) ; Further, dependent Claims 2-6, 14-15, and 18-19 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the claimed functions/steps are performed . Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea as in MPEP 2106.04(a). Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d) The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent c laims 1, 13, and 17 (and their respective dependent c laims 2-6, 14-15, and 18-19) are not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 2-6, 14-15, and 18-19 ), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h) or represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). More specifically, the additional elements of: a processing device , a detector, a plurality of detection elements as recited in independent Claim 1 and its dependent claims; a detector, a plurality of detection elements, ultrasonic wave, and a welding object as recited in independent Claim 13 and its dependent claims ; and A non-transitory computer readable storage medium, a computer, a reflected wave, a detector, and a plurality of detection elements as recited in independent Claim 1 7 and its dependent claims are generically recited elements in independent Claims 1, 13, and 17 (and their respective dependent claims 2-6, 14-15, and 18-19) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 13, and 17 (and their respective dependent claims 2-6, 14-15, and 18-19) are not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d). Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., _ a processing device, a detector, a plurality of detection elements as recited in independent Claim 1 and its dependent claims; a detector, a plurality of detection elements, ultrasonic wave, and a welding object as recited in independent Claim 13 and its dependent claims; and A non-transitory computer readable storage medium, a computer, a reflected wave, a detector, and a plurality of detection elements as recited in independent Claim 17 and its dependent claims as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer according to MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims according to MPEP 2106.05(a). That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 13, and 17 (and their respective dependent claims 2-6, 14-15, and 18-19) are not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). Accordingly, independent Claims 1, 13, and 17 (and their respective dependent claims 2-6, 14-15, and 18-19) are each directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d). Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05 None of Claims 1, 13, and 17 (and their respective dependent claims 2-6, 14-15, and 18-19) include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 for at least the following reasons. These claims require the additional elements of: a processing device, a detector, a plurality of detection elements as recited in independent Claim 1 and its dependent claims; a detector, a plurality of detection elements, ultrasonic wave, and a welding object as recited in independent Claim 13 and its dependent claims; and A non-transitory computer readable storage medium, a computer, a reflected wave, a detector, and a plurality of detection elements as recited in independent Claim 17 and its dependent claims . The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) along with Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am. , Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs. , 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Per Applicant’s specification, par. 46, 51, 89, 168-170, the above recited elements are generic. Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term s a processing device, a detector, a plurality of detection elements as recited in independent Claim 1 and its dependent claims; a detector, a plurality of detection elements, ultrasonic wave, and a welding object as recited in independent Claim 13 and its dependent claims; and A non-transitory computer readable storage medium, a computer, a reflected wave, a detector, and a plurality of detection elements as recited in independent Claim 17 and its dependent claims are reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic , LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available technology, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the a processing device, a detector, a plurality of detection elements as recited in independent Claim 1 and its dependent claims; a detector, a plurality of detection elements, ultrasonic wave, and a welding object as recited in independent Claim 13 and its dependent claims; and A non-transitory computer readable storage medium, a computer, a reflected wave, a detector, and a plurality of detection elements as recited in independent Claim 17 and its dependent claims . This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)). Adding hardware that performs “ ‘well understood, routine, conventional activit [ ies ]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible ( TLI Communications along with MPEP 2106.05(d)(I) ). The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1, 13, and 17 (and their respective dependent claims 2-6, 14-15, and 18-19) amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks ( e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea ( e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) along with Affinity Labs v. DirecTV , 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto , LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(a) along with McRO , Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc. , 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish , LLC v. Microsoft Corp. , 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, per MPEP 2106.05(a), the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016) , the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. For at least the above reasons, the apparatuses and methods of c laims 1, 13, and 17 (and their respective dependent claims 2-6, 14-15, and 18-19) are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself or providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field according to MPEP 2106.05(a), or (ii) providing meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1, 13, and 17 (and their respective dependent claims 2-6, 14-15, and 18-19) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). W hen viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Moreover, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application as required by MPEP 2106.05. Therefore, for at least the above reasons, none of the Claims 1, 13, and 17 (and their respective dependent claims 2-6, 14-15, and 18-19) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1, 13, and 17 (and their respective dependent claims 2-6, 14-15, and 18-19) are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Specification The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: figs. 4a, 4b, 4c , 5a, 5b, 9a, 9b, 9c, 12a, 12b, 16a, 16b, 16c, 22a, 22b, and 22c are not discussed in the section “ Brief description of the drawings ” of the specification of the instant application . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “ a processing device that ( receives , performs, uses, calculates , derives, employs, and determines) ” in claims 1, 2 , 3, 4, 5, and 7 is being interpreted as a processing device for receiving, performing, using, calculating, deriving, employing, and determining which is item 110 which are per par. 168 and 171 is a computer memory “ a coating device coating ” in claims 10 is being interpreted as a coating device for coating item 162 which is subject to 112( b ) and is broadly interpreted to be a device that applies a coating . “ a control device controlling ” in claims 11 and 12 is being interpreted as a control device for controlling item 164 which is subject to 112( b ) and is broadly interpreted to be a device that applies a controller. “ imaging device acquiring ” in claims 12 is being interpreted as imaging device for acquiring item 161 which is subject to 112( b ) and is broadly interpreted to be a camera. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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. 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 10-12 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. Regarding claims 10-12, each claim includes a limitation that is being reviewed under 112(f) (coating device, control device, and imaging device) whose structure is not sufficiently disclosed in the specification to determine what applicant had possession of at the time of filing. Therefore, the aforementioned subject matter fails the written description requirement. Claim 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation " the reflected wave ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation " the detection result ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Regarding claim 1, the recitation of “ performs a first determination” is unclear what structure is performing a first determination due to the way the sentence is written . Regarding claims 1, 13, and 17, the recitation of “ the detector including a plurality of detection elements arranged in a first direction and a second direction, the first direction and the second direction crossing each other” is unclear in what direction the applicant intends the first and second directions to be such that they cross. The interpretation is that the applicant is referring to the propagation direction of the waves in that the waves are propagated towards the workpiece in a first direction and the reflected wave is received in a second direction. Regarding claims 1, 13, and 17 , the recitation of “ an appropriateness of a result” is unclear what level of appropriateness is required to be considered appropriate therefore, one skilled in the art would not be apprised of what specific structure meets the claimed structure/elements. Claims 2-12, 14-16, and 18-20 are also rejected due to their dependence to one or more of the above rejected independent claims. Regarding claims 3 and 4, the examiner is unclear how the processing device is using the circularness as disclose din claim 3 before it is calculated as disclosed in claim 4. Regarding claim 5, the recitation of “ the result of the first determination is determined to be appropriate” is unclear what level of appropriateness is required to be considered appropriate therefore, one skilled in the art would not be apprised of what specific structure meets the claimed structure/elements. Regarding claim 6, the recitation of “ a determination result of a goodness of a weld” is unclear what level of goodness is required to be considered good enough, therefore, one skilled in the art would not be apprised of what specific structure meets the claimed structure/elements. Regarding claim 7, the recitation of “ a detector” is unclear if the applicant is intending to introduce a new detector or if the applicant is referring to the detectors previously disclosed in claim1 of which claim 7 depends. Regarding claim 7, the recitation of “ the detector re-performing the probe of the welding object when the processing device determines the result of the first determination to be inappropriate” is unclear how the detector reperforms the probing, the expectation is that it is commanded to reperform the probing by the processing device of claim 1 of which claim 7 depends. The detector is recited in such a way that it is incapable of performing actions of re-probing on its own. Claim s 8 and 9 recit e the limitation " the re-probing ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Regarding claim 9, the recitation of “ wherein an angle of the detector with respect to the welding object in the re-probing is set to a same value as an angle of the detector with respect to the welding object in a directly-previous probe ” is unclear if the angle is simply set in software or if the applicant intends to change a tilt angle of the detector. Claim 12 recites the limitation " the detected position ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Regarding claim 13, the examiner is unclear how one receives a detection result before calculating a detection result. Regarding claim s 16 and 20, the recitation of “ the first determination is determined to be inappropriate” is unclear what level of inappropriateness is required to be considered inappropriate, therefore, one skilled in the art would not be apprised of what specific structure meets the claimed structure/elements. The Claim limitation of claim 10 “ a coating device coating ” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The limitation is not disclosed in the specification in such a way to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably understand the limitations of the claimed device. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. The Claim limitation of claims 11 and 12 “ a control device controlling ” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The limitation is not disclosed in the specification in such a way to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably understand the limitations of the claimed device. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. The Claim limitation of claim 12 “ imaging device acquiring ” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The limitation is not disclosed in the specification in such a way to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably understand the limitations of the claimed device. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US20160231291A1 Booulware . Regarding claim 1 , Booulware teaches, A processing system (spot weld inspection system 10) , comprising: a processing device ( computer data/image processing 300) that receives a detection result of a reflected wave from a detector ( curved array of ultrasonic elements 106)(par. 36) , the detector including a plurality of detection elements arranged in a first direction and a second direction (A curved array of ultrasonic elements 106 are inherent to have a first and second direction because it is curved, see fig. 1) , the first direction and the second direction crossing each other, the detector performing a probe that includes transmitting an ultrasonic wave toward a welding object and detecting the reflected wave (see fig. 1, ultrasonic beams 108 and reflections 110 show that ultrasonic elements 106 are positioned in a first direction parallel to 108 and 110 and a second direction perpendicular to 108 and 110 such that the ultrasonic elements 106 face the desired parts of the upper sheet 16 and lower sheet 18) , performs a first determination of determining a joint and a non-joint at a plurality of points along the first and second directions of the welding object based on the detection result (par. 8 teaches “acquiring a sequence of A-scans from the phased array, wherein the A-scans describe individual portions of a field of view of the phased array” where the A-scan detects joint and non joint parts and obtains “a maximum amplitude of a first front wall interface for each individual A-scan within an inner portion of the phased array field of view” to determine which parts of a weld ; par. 43 -45 step 1 ) , and performs a second determination of determining an appropriateness of a result of the first determination by using a circularness of a first region based on the points determined to be joints (par. 46 to 48 teaches using the A-scans to look at the maximum amplitude of front and back wall reflections to determine high metrics to measure fusion characteristics for good or bad fusion for a circular spot weld which is compared to a threshold defined by image 13 ) . It has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. Regarding claim 2 , Booulware teaches, The system according to claim 1 (as discussed above), wherein the processing device performs the second determination by comparing a first value of the circularness to a first threshold, and the first threshold is preset (par. 47 to 49) . It has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. Regarding claim 3 , Booulware teaches, The system according to claim 1 (as discussed above), wherein the processing device uses at least one of a roundness, a circularity, an ellipticity, or a ratio of a diameter of the first region to an equivalent circle diameter of the first region as the circularness (par. 8 teaches “acquiring a sequence of A-scans from the phased array, wherein the A-scans describe individual portions of a field of view of the phased array” where the A-scan detects joint and non joint parts and obtains “a maximum amplitude of a first front wall interface for each individual A-scan within an inner portion of the phased array field of view” to determine which parts of a weld; par. 43-45 step 1 and par. 46 to 48 teaches using the A-scans to look at the maximum amplitude of front and back wall reflections to determine high metrics to measure fusion characteristics for good or bad fusion for a circular spot weld which is compared to a threshold defined by image 13) . It has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. Regarding claim 4 , Booulware teaches, t he system according to claim 3 (as discussed above) , wherein the processing device calculates, as the circularness : a first value of one selected from the roundness, the circularity, the ellipticity, or the ratio (par. 8 teaches “acquiring a sequence of A-scans from the phased array, wherein the A-scans describe individual portions of a field of view of the phased array” where the A-scan detects joint and non joint parts and obtains “a maximum amplitude of a first front wall interface for each individual A-scan within an inner portion of the phased array field of view” to determine which parts of a weld; par. 43-45 step 1 and par. 46 to 48 teaches using the A-scans to look at the maximum amplitude of front and back wall reflections to determine high metrics to measure fusion characteristics for good or bad fusion for a circular spot weld which is compared to a threshold defined by image 13) ; and a second value of another one selected from the roundness, the circularity, the ellipticity, or the ratio, (par. 8 teaches “acquiring a sequence of A-scans from the phased array, wherein the A-scans describe individual portions of a field of view of the phased array” where the A-scan detects joint and non joint parts and obtains “a maximum amplitude of a first front wall interface for each individual A-scan within an inner portion of the phased array field of view” to determine which parts of a weld; par. 43-45 step 1 and par. 46 to 48 teaches using the A-scans to look at the maximum amplitude of front and back wall reflections to determine high metrics to measure fusion characteristics for good or bad fusion for a circular spot weld which is compared to a threshold defined by image 13 also see fig. 9 ) the processing device performs the second determination by comparing the first value to a first threshold and comparing the second value to a second threshold, the first threshold is preset, and the second threshold is preset (fig. 8 teaches calculating a ratio of surface max and interface max and par. 48 step 3) . It has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. Regarding claim 5 , Booulware teaches, the system according to claim 1 (as discussed above) , wherein the processing device derives data related to the welding object based on the result of the first determination, and the processing device employs the data when the result of the first determination is determined to be appropriate (par. 48 teaches the calculation of a good or bad fusion while par. 49 teaches using that data) . It has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. Regarding claim 6 , Booulware teaches, the system according to claim 5 (as discussed above) , wherein the data includes at least one of a surface area of a weld portion corresponding to the first region, a diameter of the weld portion, or a determination result of a goodness of a weld of the welding object (par. 48 teaches calculating a diameter of a fusion region by walking around, or taking points around, the perimeter of the agglomeration to find the largest diameter and shortest diamete