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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed 01/14/2026 have overcome the previous rejections under 112a and 112b.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 and the arguments presented therewith have overcome the previous 103 rejections of claim 1 and its dependent claims. However, these amendments are not included in independent claims 21 and 24 and there are no further arguments for the prior art rejections on these claims. Therefore the previous prior art rejections for claims 21 and 24 and their dependent claims are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rezanezhad Gatabi (US 2015/0231153; “Gatabi”) in view Birdwell et al. (US 2013/0054603; “Birdwell”).
Regarding claim 21, Gatabi discloses in figure 1-10 an apparatus comprising and a processor (¶ [0019] describes software that carries out the functions of the invention) configurable to cause a transducer to transmit a first signal (¶ [0016]), receive a second signal from the transducer (¶ [0016]), and determine a vibration characteristic responsive to the first and second signals (¶¶ [0017], [0020]).
While one would presume Gatabi’s apparatus has a memory, it is not explicitly stated.
Gatabi generally discloses characterizing an object based on vibration characteristics (¶¶ [0017], [0020], [0034]) but is silent specifically to reference characteristics.
However, determining vibration characteristics and comparing them to reference characteristics is well-known in the art.
In the same field of endeavor, Birdwell teaches determining whether a type and a value of the vibration characteristic matches a type and a value of a reference vibration characteristic (¶¶ [0123], [0244]) and responsive to the determining, perform at least one of providing an output related to the vibration characteristic or updating the data in the memory (¶¶ [0244]-[0246]).
Birdwell further teaches a memory configurable to store values of multiple reference vibration characteristics of multiple types (Birdwell discloses a memory configured to store databases, therefore it is configurable, or capable of being configured, to store the claimed types of data, see e.g. ¶ [0068])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to use Birdwell’s method steps of comparing vibration characteristics to reference characteristics and then updating memory data in Gatabi’s apparatus for the purpose of building an object classification database for others to use in classifying objects and their characteristics (¶ [0122]).
Regarding claim 22, Birdwell teaches the types of the reference vibration characteristics include at least one of: a frequency of vibration, a displacement, a velocity, or an acceleration (¶ [0009]).
The reasons and motivation for combining are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 21 above.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Gatabi and Birdwell discloses all the limitations of claim 21 on which this claim depends.
Birdwell teaches a processor controller which is configured to determine whether a type and a value of the vibration characteristic matches a type and a value of any of the reference vibration characteristic stored in the memory.
Given the teachings of Birdwell for making these determinations, one having ordinary skill in the art would readily understand and appreciate that Birdwell’s processor would also be configurable (capable of being configured) for determining whether a type and a value of the vibration characteristic matches a type and a value of any of the reference vibration characteristic stored in the memory for at least a threshold number of times and wherein the output indicates whether the type and the value of the vibration characteristic matches a type and a value of any of the reference vibration characteristic stored in the memory for at least the threshold number of times.
Regarding claim 24, Gatabi discloses in figure 1-10 a system comprising a transducer (¶ [0016]) and a processor (¶ [0019] describes software that carries out the functions of the invention) configurable to cause a transducer to transmit a first signal (¶ [0016]), receive a second signal from the transducer (¶ [0016]), and determine a vibration characteristic responsive to the first and second signals (¶¶ [0017], [0020]).
While one would presume Gatabi’s apparatus has a memory, it is not explicitly stated.
Gatabi generally discloses characterizing an object based on vibration characteristics (¶¶ [0017], [0020], [0034]) but is silent specifically to reference characteristics.
However, determining vibration characteristics and comparing them to reference characteristics is well-known in the art.
In the same field of endeavor, Birdwell teaches determining whether a type and a value of the vibration characteristic matches a type and a value of a reference vibration characteristic (¶¶ [0123], [0244]) and responsive to the determining, perform at least one of providing an output related to the vibration characteristic or updating the data in the memory (¶¶ [0244]-[0246]).
Birdwell further teaches a memory configurable to store values of multiple reference vibration characteristics of multiple types (Birdwell discloses a memory configured to store databases, therefore it is configurable, or capable of being configured, to store the claimed types of data, see e.g. ¶ [0068])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to use Birdwell’s method steps of comparing vibration characteristics to reference characteristics and then updating memory data in Gatabi’s apparatus for the purpose of building an object classification database for others to use in classifying objects and their characteristics (¶ [0122]).
Regarding claim 25, Birdwell teaches the types of the reference vibration characteristics include at least one of: a frequency of vibration, a displacement, a velocity, or an acceleration (¶ [0009]).
The reasons and motivation for combining are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 23 above.
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Gatabi and Birdwell discloses all the limitations of claim 24 on which this claim depends.
Birdwell teaches a processor which is configured to determine whether a type and a value of the vibration characteristic matches a type and a value of any of the reference vibration characteristic stored in the memory.
Given the teachings of Birdwell for making these determinations, one having ordinary skill in the art would readily understand and appreciate that Birdwell’s processor would also be configurable (capable of being configured) for determining whether a type and a value of the vibration characteristic matches a type and a value of any of the reference vibration characteristic stored in the memory for at least a threshold number of times and wherein the output indicates whether the type and the value of the vibration characteristic matches a type and a value of any of the reference vibration characteristic stored in the memory for at least the threshold number of times.
Regarding claim 27, Gatabi discloses the transducer is an ultrasonic transducer (¶ [0016]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-16 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, none of the prior art either alone or in combination discloses or renders obvious a method or apparatus as claimed comprising the step and functionality respectively of determining whether a type and a value of the vibration characteristic matches a type and a value of any reference vibration characteristics stored in a database in which the database stores values of reference vibration characteristics of multiple types in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Claims 3-16 are allowed based on their dependence on claim 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATALIE HULS whose telephone number is (571)270-5914. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Breene can be reached at (571) 272-4107. 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.
/NATALIE HULS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855