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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claims status: amended claim: 1; canceled claim: 4; the rest is unchanged.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/20/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. A new secondary reference is currently being used in the present rejection.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Louis et al. (LU 100945; pub. Ma. 3, 2020) in view of De Beenhouwer et al. (US 2021/0270755 A1; pub. Sep. 2, 2021) and further in view of Pourkazemi et al. (US 2020/0249153 A1; pub. Aug. 6, 2020).
Regarding claim 1, Louis et al. disclose: A method for determining the temperature of at least one layer of a multilayer polymer product (pg.2 L1-11, pg.3 L5-6), the method comprising the following steps:
- positioning the product to be measured on a transport (pg.6 L1-7),
- advancing the product under a frame comprising at least one terahertz sensor (pg.5 L9-11),
- emitting incident terahertz radiation in the direction of the product (pg.5 L9-11),
- detecting the signal corresponding to a series of pulses reflected by the interfaces encountered by the incident ray (pg.5 L9-11),
- processing the signal corresponding to the series of pulses reflected by the interfaces encountered by the incident ray (pg.3 L11-13, pg.5 L9-11),
- after processing the signal, analyzing the signal to determine various peaks corresponding to the various interfaces encountered (pg.5 L9-11).
Louis et al. are silent about: the processing comprising reducing noise while preserving peak amplitude fidelity, - positioning the product to be measured on a transport table,
- determining, on the basis of the amplitude of each peak and at least one calibration chart, the temperature of each layer of material through which the incident ray passes.
In a similar field of endeavor, De Beenhouwer et al. disclose: the processing comprising reducing noise while preserving peak amplitude fidelity (para. [0149]), - positioning the product to be measured on a transport table (para. [0125]) motivated by the benefits for an inspection that has a good speed and a good accuracy can be achieved in item inspection, e.g. for an offline, an online, an inline or an at-line non-destructive testing, quality control, fault detection, and/or other industrial inspection process (De Beenhouwer et al. para. [0009]).
In light of the benefits for an inspection that has a good speed and a good accuracy can be achieved in item inspection, e.g. for an offline, an online, an inline or an at-line non-destructive testing, quality control, fault detection, and/or other industrial inspection process as taught by De Beenhouwer et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Louis et al. with the teachings of De Beenhouwer et al.
De Beenhouwer et al. are silent about: - determining, on the basis of the amplitude of each peak and at least one calibration chart, the temperature of each layer of material through which the incident ray passes.
In a similar field of endeavor, Pourkazemi et al. disclose: - determining, on the basis of the amplitude of each peak and at least one calibration (para. [0139]), the temperature of each layer of material through which the incident ray passes (para. [0199]) motivated by the benefits for determining characteristics of a layer-based structure (Pourkazemi et al. para. [0008]).
In light of the benefits for determining characteristics of a layer-based structure as taught by Pourkazemi et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Louis et al. and De Beenhouwer et al. using the teachings of Pourkazemi et al.; determining, on the basis of the amplitude of each peak, the temperature of each layer of material through which the incident ray passes.
Pourkazemi et al. are silent about: at least one calibration chart. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use the teachings of para. [0139] of Pourkazemi et al. to generate at least one calibration chart with the benefits for faster testing.
Regarding claim 2, Louis et al. disclose: the multilayer polymer product is a product made up of several layers of rubber material, before or after curing (pg.3 L7-10).
Regarding claim 3, Louis et al. disclose: the product is a tire, a caterpillar track or a conveyor belt (pg.3 L5-6).
Regarding claim 5, Louis et al., De Beenhouwer et al. and Pourkazemi et al. disclose: the speed at which the product advances is between 0 and 70 meters per minute (obvious in view of the teachings of De Beenhouwer et al.).
Regarding claim 6, Pourkazemi et al. disclose: the acquisition rate of the terahertz sensor is greater than 100 Hz (claim 7) motivated by the benefits for determining characteristics of a layer-based structure (Pourkazemi et al. para. [0008]).
Regarding claim 7, Louis et al. disclose: a step of determining, as a function of the difference between two peaks of the signal, the thickness of each layer of material through which the incident ray passes (claim8 & fig.2).
Regarding claim 8, Louis et al., De Beenhouwer et al. and Pourkazemi et al. disclose: A system for determining the characteristics of at least one layer of a multilayer polymer product, comprising:
- a support table for advancing a multilayer polymer product,
- a terahertz sensor,
- a means for acquisition and analysis of a signal reflected by the polymer product, and
- a means for implementing a method for determining the temperature of a layer of the multilayer material according to the method of Claim 1 (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, Louis et al. disclose: a means configured to determine a thickness of each layer of material through which the incident ray passes as a function of a difference between two peaks of the signal (claim8 & fig.2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9AM-6PM.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884