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 .
This action is responsive to communication filed on 10/06/2025. Claims 1-13, and 15-21 are pending. Claim 14 have been cancelled. Claim 21 is new. Claims 1, 13, 15, 16 and 20 have been amended. Entry of this amendment is accepted and made of record.
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.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) because it uses the word “means” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function. Such claimed limitations are: “a means for digitizing acoustic echo data…”, “a means for generating digital representations…”, “a means for reconstructing time-series representations…”; and “a means for processing the time-series representations…”.
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 § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1, belongs to a statutory category namely a method. Likely claims 15 and claim 20 , belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a system.
Under Step 2A, prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim(s) 1, 15 and 20 recite(s) concepts related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion for “reconstructing time-series representations of respective received acoustic echo signals including up-sampling the digital representations of the peak locations and applying a time-domain interpolation filter; and processing the time-series representations of the respective received acoustic echo signals to generate a visual representation of a result of the acoustic inspection operation, the visual representation comprising at least one A-scan plot from the time-series representations or an image generated using beamforming applied to the time-series representations; wherein the digital representations of the peak locations comprise a lesser volume of data than the reconstructed time-series representations; and wherein the up-sampling the digital representations of the peak locations includes establishing a time-series having peak locations corresponding to the digital representations and padding the time-series between the peak locations according to specified sample interval”. The concepts discussed above can be considered to describe mental processes, namely concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and/or mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers. Although, the claim does not spell out any particular equation or formula being used, the lack of specific equations for individual steps merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the steps. These steps recited by the claims, therefore amount to a series of mental or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device and because the “machine”, “system for processing”, “processing facility comprising at least one processor circuit” and “recommended operation-computing unit”, respectively recited by claims 1, 15 and 20, amounts to the recitation of a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea; the recitation of “receiving digital representations of peak locations”, “multi-element electroacoustic transducer array”, “receive, using first communication circuit”, which is mere gathering recited at high level of generality and the results of the algorithm are merely output/stored as part of insignificant post-solution activity (i.e. generate visual representation, memory circuit comprising instructions) and are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application.
Under Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general purpose computer “machine”, “system for processing”, “processing facility comprising at least one processor circuit” and “recommended operation-computing unit”, used to apply the abstract idea and mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, claims 1, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-13, 16-19 and 21 merely expand on the abstract idea by appending additional steps to the mathematical algorithm on their respective independent claims 1 and 15.
Dependent claims 2-14 and 21 merely expands on the abstract idea by reciting additional steps related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion and mere characterization of the data acquired and applied for performing the abstract idea i.e. digital representations of positive-going peaks relative to a reference level (claim 2), finite-impulse-response (FIR) discrete time filter (claim 3), digital representations of positive-going peaks and negative-going peaks relative to a reference level (claim 4), a discrete time wavelet filter (claim 5), a Gabor wavelet filter (claim 6), generate a real-valued time-series representation…generate an imaginary-valued time-series representation in phase quadrature with the real-valued time-series representation (claim 7), a combination of the real- valued time-series representation and the imaginary-valued time-series representation comprise an analytic signal representation (claim 8), digital representations of peak locations in acquired acoustic echo data encode a temporal location of respective peaks and amplitudes of respective peaks (claim 9), temporal locations of the respective peaks are encoded as a temporal offset from an adjacent peak location (claim 10), temporal offset comprises a count of samples (claim 11), the time-series representations of respective received acoustic echo signals comprise A-scan representations (claim 12), generating the image using a Total Focusing Method (TFM) using a matrix of A-scan representations corresponding to the time-series representations, where elements in the matrix correspond to specified transmit and receive aperture pairs (claim 13), digitizing acoustic echo data…generating digital representations of peak locations in acquired acoustic echo data corresponding to respective received acoustic echo signals… reconstructing the time-series representations… processing the time-series representations of the respective received acoustic echo signals to generate the visual representation (claim 21).
Dependent claims 16-19 merely expands on the abstract idea by reciting additional steps related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion and mere characterization of the data acquired and applied for performing the abstract idea i.e. digitize acoustic echo data acquired by the multi-element electroacoustic transducer array using an analog front-end circuit coupled with the multi-element electroacoustic transducer array; generate digital representations of peak locations in acquired acoustic echo data corresponding to respective received acoustic echo signals; and transmit, using the second communication circuit, the digital representations of peak locations to the first communication circuit (claim 16), digital representations of peak locations in acquired acoustic echo data encode a temporal location of respective peaks and amplitudes of respective peaks (claim 17), the time-series representations of respective received acoustic echo signals comprise A-scan representations (claim 18), process the time-series representations of the respective received acoustic echo signals to generate the visual representation of the result of the acoustic inspection operation comprise instructions to perform a Total Focusing Method (TFM) using a matrix of A-scan representations corresponding to the time-series representations, where elements in the matrix correspond to specified transmit and receive aperture pairs (claim 19).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application in claims 2-14, 16-19 and 21 because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device and because the “machine” recited in claims 2-14 and 21, “an analog front-end circuit” and “processing facility” recited by claim 21 and “second processor circuit” recited in claim 16, amounts to the recitation of a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea; and because the recitation of “multi-element electroacoustic transducer array” recited by claim 21, the “multi-element electroacoustic transducer” recited in claim 19 amounts to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, the limitations merely add further details as to the type of data, the means of collecting data being received/input/stored (memory) and used with the mental process and/or math steps recited in the independent claims, also further calculations and math, so they are properly viewed as part of the recited abstract idea; and the results of the algorithm are merely output/stored as part of insignificant post-solution activity (i.e. transmitting, using a communication circuit, the digital representation of peak locations to another separate processing facility) and are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application.
The claim(s) claims 2-13, 16-19 and 21 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea and mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Therefore claims 1-13, and 15-21 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to Rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 applicant argues that the claims 1, 15 and 20 do not recite a judicial exception under the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes outlined in MPEP 2106, and that the assertion that various claim recitations are mathematical algorithms/concepts”, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion” is not objectively reasonable, particularly with respect to recitations in the claims such as “receiving digital representations of peak locations in acquired acoustic echo data,” “reconstructing time-series representations of respective received acoustic echo signals including up-sampling the digital representations of the peak locations and applying a time-domain interpolation filter” and “processing the time-series representations of the respective received acoustic echo signals to generate a visual representation of a result of the acoustic inspection operating, the visual representation comparison at least one A-scan plot from the time-series representations or an image generated using beamforming applied to the time-series representations”. (see second paragraph of page 9 of the remarks). Applicant further argues that in claim 1, digital representations of peak locations in acquired acoustic echo data are received (operations that are clearly not performed mentally and not capable of being performed mentally), time-series representations of respective received acoustic echo signals are reconstructed including up-sampling the digital representations of the peak locations and applying a time-domain interpolation filter (also not performed mentally nor capable of being performed mentally), and the time-series representations of the respective received acoustic echo signals are processed to generate a visual representation of a result of the acoustic inspection operation, the visual representation comprising at least one A-scan plot from the time-series representations or an image generated using beamforming applied to time-series representations (see second paragraph of page 10 of the remarks), and further submits that “…such subject matter is not pre-emptive of basic mathematical operations, and, contrary to the assertions of the Office, claims 1, 15, and 20 recite far more than a "mathematical concepts" or "mental processes." (Office Action at pp. 5-6.)
In response the examiner disagrees an submits that as discussed above (see 35 USC 101 rejection section), it is noted that the argued limitations such as “receiving digital representations of peak locations in acquired acoustic echo data” recited by claims 1, 15 and 20 is being treated as an additional claim element which is mere data gathering in which the data acquired is being used to perform the abstract idea and because the data for performing the algorithm must be necessarily be obtained and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. With respect to the argued steps of “reconstructing time-series representations of respective received acoustic echo signals including up-sampling the digital representations of the peak locations and applying a time-domain interpolation filter” and “processing the time-series representations of the respective received acoustic echo signals to generate a visual representation of a result of the acoustic inspection operating, the visual representation comparison at least one A-scan plot from the time-series representations or an image generated using beamforming applied to the time-series representations”, the steps of “reconstructing” and “processing” are concepts related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion and are therefore part of the abstract idea.
The concepts discussed above can be considered to describe mental processes, namely concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and/or mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers. Although, the claim does not spell out any particular equation or formula being used, the lack of specific equations for individual steps merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the steps. These steps recited by the claims, therefore amount to a series of mental or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device and because the “machine”, “system for processing”, “processing facility comprising at least one processor circuit” and “recommended operation-computing unit”, respectively recited by claims 1, 15 and 20, amounts to the recitation of a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea; the recitation of “receiving digital representations of peak locations”, “multi-element electroacoustic transducer array”, “receive, using first communication circuit”, which is mere gathering recited at high level of generality and the results of the algorithm are merely output/stored as part of insignificant post-solution activity (i.e. generate visual representation, memory circuit comprising instructions) and are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general purpose computer “machine”, “system for processing”, “processing facility comprising at least one processor circuit” and “recommended operation-computing unit”, used to apply the abstract idea and mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, claims 1, 15 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Applicant argues that if for the sake of argument the subject matter of claims 1, 15 and 20 were somehow considered to recite a judicial exception (which Applicant does not concede_), the claims clearly and unambiguously recite elements that establish a practical application: decompression (through the reconstruction of time-series representations including up-sampling and applying a time-domain interpolation filter) and imaging (through the recited generation of a visual representation of a result of an acoustic inspection operation). Applicant further submits that the subject matter of claims 1, 15 and 20 when viewed as a whole, clearly articulate a specific and concrete process (as in claim 1) for processing compressed acoustic inspection data (which cannot reasonably be considered to be a “mental step”) and corresponding systems (as in claims 15 and 20) (see las paragraph of page 9 through line 4 of page 10 of the remarks).
In response, the examiner disagrees and submits that as discussed above, the argued limitations are part of the abstract idea and that this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device and because the “machine”, “system for processing”, “processing facility comprising at least one processor circuit” and “recommended operation-computing unit”, respectively recited by claims 1, 15 and 20, amounts to the recitation of a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea; the recitation of “receiving digital representations of peak locations”, “multi-element electroacoustic transducer array”, “receive, using first communication circuit”, which is mere gathering recited at high level of generality and the results of the algorithm are merely output/stored as part of insignificant post-solution activity (i.e. generate visual representation, memory circuit comprising instructions) and are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application.
Applicant further submits that “[e]ven if the subject matter of claims 1, 15, and 20 was somehow asserted to be "abstract" in the context of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes outlined in MPEP 2106, claims 1, 15, and 20 recite improvements to the technology of acoustic inspection. The MPEP states that, ([i]n determining patent eligibility, examiner should consider whether the claim "purport(s) to improve the functioning of the computer itself' or "any other technology or technical field." See MPEP at 2106.05(a) citing Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.V CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225 (2014) (emphasis added). A machine-implemented method for processing compressed acoustic inspection data and claims directed to corresponding inspection systems clearly fall under the umbrella of "any other technology or technical field." See id. The Application explicitly mentions such improvement in relation to the recited subject matter of claims 1, 15, and 20. For example, the Application mention that "[c]apturing time-series A-scan data either for PAUT or TFM beamforming applications can involve generating considerable volumes of data," and that "a compression technique can be used for processing or storage of acquired acoustic inspection data," where, "[f]or example, data indicative of peak values an A-scan time-series can be stored to provide a compressed representation," which can "dramatically reduce a volume of data associated [with] an acoustic acquisition." The claimed decompression approach can be used on such compressed data to provide A-scan plots or data for Total Focusing Method (TFM) beamforming. (See paras. [0004]-[0009] in the Application as filed.)”, (see third paragraph of page 10 through fourth paragraph on page 11 of the remarks).
In response, the examiner disagrees and submits that the claimed language do not reflect the alleged improvement to the operation of the computer and that the alleged improvements mentioned is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) and as such is not indicative of a practical application of abstract idea.
The examiner further submits that as discussed above (see 35 USC 101 rejection section), it is noted that the argued limitations such as “receiving digital representations of peak locations in acquired acoustic echo data” recited by claims 1, 15 and 20 is being treated as an additional claim element which is mere data gathering in which the data acquired is being used to perform the abstract idea and because the data for performing the algorithm must be necessarily be obtained and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. With respect to the argued steps of “reconstructing time-series representations of respective received acoustic echo signals including up-sampling the digital representations of the peak locations and applying a time-domain interpolation filter” and “processing the time-series representations of the respective received acoustic echo signals to generate a visual representation of a result of the acoustic inspection operating, the visual representation comparison at least one A-scan plot from the time-series representations or an image generated using beamforming applied to the time-series representations”, the steps of “reconstructing” and “processing” are concepts related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion and are therefore part of the abstract idea.
The concepts discussed above can be considered to describe mental processes, namely concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and/or mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers. Although, the claim does not spell out any particular equation or formula being used, the lack of specific equations for individual steps merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the steps. These steps recited by the claims, therefore amount to a series of mental or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device and because the “machine”, “system for processing”, “processing facility comprising at least one processor circuit” and “recommended operation-computing unit”, respectively recited by claims 1, 15 and 20, amounts to the recitation of a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea; the recitation of “receiving digital representations of peak locations”, “multi-element electroacoustic transducer array”, “receive, using first communication circuit”, which is mere gathering recited at high level of generality and the results of the algorithm are merely output/stored as part of insignificant post-solution activity (i.e. generate visual representation, memory circuit comprising instructions) and are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general purpose computer “machine”, “system for processing”, “processing facility comprising at least one processor circuit” and “recommended operation-computing unit”, used to apply the abstract idea and mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, claims 1, 15 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In response, to applicant arguments that the claimed decompression approach to facilitate acoustic imaging and is therefore analogous to Diehr in that it is sufficient to shown an improvement in the existing technology (see penultimate paragraph of page 11 of the remarks), the examiner disagrees.
The Examiner submits that the alleged improvement is in the abstract idea for processing the received data. The examiner submits that the claimed language do not reflect the alleged improvement to the operation of the computer or improvement in other technical field and that the alleged improvements mentioned is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) and as such is not indicative of a practical application of abstract idea. Instead the alleged improvement to the technology is part of the abstract idea since the decompression approach describes mathematical concepts without significantly more. Furthermore, the additional claim limitations recited by the instant application claims do not reflect an improvement to the functioning of the computer, improvement to any other technology or technical field, applying the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine or adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application as discussed above.
Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements
are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does
not recite a specific machine. The claim does not effect a real-world transformation or
reduction of any particular article to a different state or thing. The claim does not
contain additional elements which describe the functioning of a computer, or which
describe a particular technology or technical field, which is being improved by the use of
the abstract idea. This is understood in the sense of the claimed invention from
Diamond v Diehr, in which the claim as a whole recited a complete rubber-curing process including a rubber-molding press, a timer, a temperature sensor adjacent the
mold cavity, and the steps of closing and opening the press, in which the recited use of
a mathematical calculation served to improve that particular technology by providing a
better estimate of the time when curing was complete. Here, the claim does not recite
carrying out any comparable technological process. Instead the additional elements in
the claim appear to merely be generic computing elements and insignificant extra-
solution activity - merely gathering the relevant data necessary which is the input for the
mental process/math in the abstract idea, and then outputting a result of the abstract
idea. Based on these considerations, the additional elements in the claim do not appear
to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Instead, the claim would tend
to monopolize the abstract idea itself, across a wide variety of different practical
applications in the general field-of-use.
With respect to applicant arguments that no prima facie showing of subject matter non-eligibility has been established, and Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the 101 rejections of claims 1, 15, and 20 ad that the 101 rejection of dependent claims 2-13 or 16-19 appears to be conclusory and is deficient for reasons similar to those discussed in relation to claims 1 and 15, the examiner disagrees. The examiner submits that as discussed above following the subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth above (see 35 USC 101 rejections above). See MPEP 2106 on the PEG the examiner have presented detailed and complete reasons establishing non-eligibility subject matter under 101 for claims 1-13 and 14-21. As discussed above, Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1, belongs to a statutory category namely a method. Likely claims 15 and claim 20 , belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a system.
Under Step 2A, prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
As discussed above, claim(s) 1, 15 and 20 recite(s) concepts related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion for “reconstructing time-series representations of respective received acoustic echo signals including up-sampling the digital representations of the peak locations and applying a time-domain interpolation filter; and processing the time-series representations of the respective received acoustic echo signals to generate a visual representation of a result of the acoustic inspection operation, the visual representation comprising at least one A-scan plot from the time-series representations or an image generated using beamforming applied to the time-series representations; wherein the digital representations of the peak locations comprise a lesser volume of data than the reconstructed time-series representations; and wherein the up-sampling the digital representations of the peak locations includes establishing a time-series having peak locations corresponding to the digital representations and padding the time-series between the peak locations according to specified sample interval”. The concepts discussed above can be considered to describe mental processes, namely concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and/or mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers. Although, the claim does not spell out any particular equation or formula being used, the lack of specific equations for individual steps merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the steps. These steps recited by the claims, therefore amount to a series of mental or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device and because the “machine”, “system for processing”, “processing facility comprising at least one processor circuit” and “recommended operation-computing unit”, respectively recited by claims 1, 15 and 20, amounts to the recitation of a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea; the recitation of “receiving digital representations of peak locations”, “multi-element electroacoustic transducer array”, “receive, using first communication circuit”, which is mere gathering recited at high level of generality and the results of the algorithm are merely output/stored as part of insignificant post-solution activity (i.e. generate visual representation, memory circuit comprising instructions) and are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application.
Under Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general purpose computer “machine”, “system for processing”, “processing facility comprising at least one processor circuit” and “recommended operation-computing unit”, used to apply the abstract idea and mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, claims 1, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-13, 16-19 and 21 merely expand on the abstract idea by appending additional steps to the mathematical algorithm on their respective independent claims 1 and 15, and by reciting additional steps related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion and mere characterization of the data acquired and applied for performing the abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device and because the additional elements claimed amounts to the recitation of a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea, mere gathering recited at high level of generality and the results of the algorithm are merely output/stored as part of insignificant post-solution activity and are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application.
Under Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea and mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Therefore claims 1-13 and 15-21 stand rejected under 35 USC 101 for the reasons discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to claim rejections under 35 USC 103 made claims 1-9, 12-13, 15, 17-20 have been considered and in view of the amendments to the claims filed 10/06/2025 the previous 35 USC 103, the 35 USC rejections have been withdrawn.
Reasons for Overcoming the Prior Art
Regarding claims 1, 15 and 20, the closest prior art of made of record either in singularly or in combination fails to teach, disclose or suggest the features of “processing the time-series representations of the respective received acoustic echo signals to generate a visual representation of a result of the acoustic inspection operation, the visual representation comprising at least one A-scan plot from the time-series representations or an image generated using beamforming applied to the time-series representations; wherein the digital representations of the peak locations comprise a lesser volume of data than the reconstructed time-series representations; and wherein the up-sampling the digital representations of the peak locations includes establishing a time-series having peak locations corresponding to the digital representations and padding the time-series between the peak locations according to specified sample interval.”, in combination with the limitations set forth by the independent claims, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 YARITZA H PEREZ BERMUDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/YARITZA H. PEREZ BERMUDEZ/
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857