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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 02, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on the date: December 02, 2025.
Claims 1, 4-10, 12-14 and 17-20 are currently pending. Claims 1, 6, 8, 13-14 and 17-20 have been amended. Claims 2-3, 11 and 15-16 have been cancelled. No claims are new.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS page 6, with respect to the objection of claims 6, 13, and 19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claims 6, 13 and 19 has been withdrawn.
The Rejection of Claims Under §§ 102, 103
The applicant has argued that the applied prior arts fail to teach the claim limitations of independent claims 1, 8 and 14. In particular, that the applied prior arts fail to teach the amended claim limitations of claims 1, 8 and 14 (see REMARKS pages 6-10). The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s arguments. The examiner believes that the prior art Nishimizu teaches the argued claim limitations. Nishimizu teaches using a eddy current testing device to determine defects or cracks on a surface of an object. Nishimizu teaches “the input value used as the threshold value is compared with the representative value (the data on the output voltage distribution corresponding to the defect) of each of the channels, the representative values being stored in the memory 100,” (see para [0084]) which corresponds to the “comparing the composite to stored pattern information” of the claims. Nishimizu further teaches that a person who performs the evaluation is notified on computer 104 when the representative value meets a threshold to indicate a defect (see para [0084]), which corresponds to the “based on comparing the composite, generating a notification of a match” of the claims. Nishimizu further teaches that the defect is a crack on the surface of the object since every measurement is about a defect/crack (see para [0054 and 0085]), which corresponds to the “wherein the notification includes information of a type of the abnormality matched with the composite” of the claims. Therefore, in view of the examiner’s argument above, the rejection of independent claims 1, 8 and 14 are maintained.
The Rejection of Claims Under § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS page 10, with respect to the rejection of claims 14-20 for being directed to non-statutory subject matter have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 14-20 has been withdrawn.
The applicant has argued that the claims do not recite an abstract idea and amounts to “significantly more” (see REMARKS pages 10-12). The applicant has argued that, based on their specification, that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and amounts to significantly more. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s arguments. The determination of an abstract idea is based solely on the claims, and in this case, the claim limitations may be performed mentally without additional claim elements that amount to significantly more when viewed individually and as a whole (see the abstract idea analysis below). The addition of the amended claim limitations to the independent claims provides further steps that may be performed mentally. In view of the abstract idea analysis below, the rejection of the claims for being an abstract idea without significantly more is maintained.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
814
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
902
510
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 4-10, 12-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1)
Independent claim 1 recite(s) a method (a process).
Independent claim 8 recite(s) an inspection system (a machine).
Independent claim 14 recite(s) a machine readable medium (not patent eligible subject matter, but the abstract idea analysis will proceed as if the claim is patent eligible subject matter).
(Step 2A: Prong 1)
The limitations of claims 1 and 14 of performing the steps of receiving, combining, generating, comparing, and generating a notification of a match with information of a type of abnormality matched (claim 1 lines 7-13 and claim 14 lines 8-14) and the limitations of claim 8 of performing the steps of combining, generating, comparing, and generating a notification of a match with information of a type of abnormality matched (claim 8 lines 7-15), as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a processor” for claim 8, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a processor” language, “receiving” encompasses a user to mentally (or with aid of pen and paper) to receive a first set of eddy-current inspection data in a first orientation relative to a first sensitivity axis and a second set of eddy-current inspection data in a second orientation relative to a second sensitivity axis. The “combining” encompasses the user to mentally (or with aid of pen and paper) to combine the two sets of data while preserving the disturbance indication data. The “generating” encompasses the user to mentally (or with aid of pen and paper) to generate a composite of an abnormality. The “comparing” encompasses the user to mentally (or with aid of pen and paper) to compare the composite to a stored pattern information. The “generating a notification of a match” with the notification includes information of a type of abnormality matched with the composite encompasses the user to mentally (or with aid of pen and paper) create a notification of a match with information of a type of abnormality matched. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 1, 8 and 14 recite an abstract idea.
(Step 2A: Prong 2)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claims 1, 8 and 14 do not contain any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 1 and 14 have no additional elements. Claim 8 recites the additional elements of a first probe, a second probe and a processor. The first probe and the second probe are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering eddy-current inspection data for use in the combining and generating steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor/computer performing generic computer functions of the combining and generating limitations) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claims 1, 8 and 14 are directed to an abstract idea.
(Step 2B)
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 14 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above (see Step 2A), claims 1 and 14 do not contain any additional elements. Claim 8 recites the additional element of a processor to perform the limitations of combining and generating which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot proved an inventive concept. Claim 8 further recites the additional elements of a first probe and a second probe, and there is no indication that the first probe and the second probe are anything other than a generic computer component used in a well-understood, routine, and convention function, recognized by one skilled in the art, when claimed in a generic manner. Accordingly, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1, 8 and 14 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, this claim has additional elements of a first directional probe and a second directional probe. This claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity with a well-understood, routine, and convention function (see claim 8 analysis for first probe and second probe in Step 2A: Prongs 1 and 2 and Step 2B above).
Regarding claim 5, this claim further adds to the limitations of claim 4. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 6, this claim further adds to the receiving steps of claim 1. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 7, this claim has additional element of a eddy current array (ECA) probes. This claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity with a well-understood, routine, and convention function (see claim 8 analysis for first probe and second probe in Step 2A: Prongs 1 and 2 and Step 2B above).
Regarding claim 9, this claim has additional element of eddy current arrays. This claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 8 above) and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity with a well-understood, routine, and convention function (see claim 8 analysis for first probe and second probe in Step 2A: Prongs 1 and 2 and Step 2B above).
Regarding claim 10, this claim has additional elements of directional probes. This claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 8 above) and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity with a well-understood, routine, and convention function (see claim 8 analysis for first probe and second probe in Step 2A: Prongs 1 and 2 and Step 2B above).
Regarding claim 12, this claim further adds encoding performed by the processor. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 8 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 13, this claim further adds to the data collected by the first probe and second probe of claim 8. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 8 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 17, this claim has additional elements of a first directional probe and a second directional probe. This claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 14 above) and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity with a well-understood, routine, and convention function (see claim 8 analysis for first probe and second probe in Step 2A: Prongs 1 and 2 and Step 2B above).
Regarding claim 18, this claim further adds to the limitations of claim 17. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 14 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 19, this claim further adds to the receiving steps of claim 14. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 14 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 20, this claim has additional element of a eddy current array (ECA) probes. This claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 14 above) and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity with a well-understood, routine, and convention function (see claim 8 analysis for first probe and second probe in Step 2A: Prongs 1 and 2 and Step 2B above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8, 10, 12-14 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lepage US2012/0025816 (applicant disclosed art) in view of Nishimizu et al. 2008/0004817 (called Nishimizu hereinafter and previously cited).
Regarding independent claim 1, Lepage teaches a method (Abstract) comprising:
receiving a first set of eddy-current inspection data (Fig. 3; para [0036] and/or Fig. 9; 1a) providing disturbance indication data obtained in a first orientation (Fig. 3; para [0036]) relative to a first sensitivity axis (Fig. 3; para [0036]);
receiving a second set of eddy-current inspection data (Fig. 4a; para [0037] and/or Fig. 9, 1b) providing disturbance indication information in a second orientation (Fig. 4a; para [0037]) relative to a second sensitivity axis (Fig. 4a; para [0037]), the second orientation being different from the first orientation (Figs. 3 and 4a; para [0036-0037]; different coils at different times are used to measure the eddy currents to determine a crack/flaw at various orientations);
combining the first and second sets of inspection data to generate a combined data set preserving the disturbance indication data in the first and second orientations (para [0034]; “The resulting and collective effect of the three channels allows for an inspection to cover any flaws with an orientation for 0 to 360 degrees”); and
based on the combined data set, generating a composite of an abnormality (Figs. 6 and 7; para [0049-0050]).
Lepage fails to teach comparing the composite to stored pattern information; based on comparing the composite, generating a notification of a match, wherein the notification includes information of a type of the abnormality matched with the composite.
Nishimizu teaches comparing the composite to stored pattern information (para [0084]; “the input value used as the threshold value is compared with the representative value (the data on the output voltage distribution corresponding to the defect) of each of the channels, the representative values being stored in the memory 100.”); based on comparing the composite, generating a notification of a match (para [0084]; person who performs the evaluation is notified on computer 104), wherein the notification includes information of a type of the abnormality matched with the composite (para [0054 and 0085]; the defect being a crack detected).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Lepage with the defect determination method as described by Nishimizu for the purpose of indicating when a potential defect has appeared and passes a threshold value and notifying a person on a computer performing the evaluation.
Regarding claim 6, Lapage and Nishimizu teach the method of claim 1, Lapage further teaches wherein the first set of eddy-current inspection data further provides disturbance indication data obtained in a third orientation (Figs. 3 and 9; para [0036]; probe 1a with sensitivity direction 40 or 41) and second set of eddy-current inspection data providing disturbance indication data obtained in a fourth orientation (Figs. 3 and 9; para [0036]; probe 1b with sensitivity direction 40 or 41), wherein the first and third orientation are orthogonal to each other and the second and fourth orientation are orthogonal to each other (Figs. 3 and 9; para [0036]; probes 1a and 1b with sensitivity direction 40 and 41).
Regarding independent claim 8, Lepage teaches an inspection system (Fig. 11) comprising:
a first probe (Fig. 3; para [0036 and 0040], coils 10 and 11 as current source and coil 12 as receiver and/or Fig. 9; 1a) configured to obtain a first set of eddy-current inspection data (Fig. 3; para [0036] and/or Fig. 9; 1a) from an object (Fig. 1; para [0032], test surface 2 of a test object), providing indication information in a first orientation relative to a first sensitivity axis (Fig. 3; para [0036]);
a second probe (Fig. 4a; para [0037 and 0040], coils 11 and 12 as current source and coil 10 as receiver and/or Fig. 9; 1b) configured to obtain a second set of eddy-current inspection data from the object (Fig. 4a; para [0037] and/or Fig. 9; 1b), providing indication information in a second orientation relative to a second sensitivity axis (Fig. 4a; para [0037]); and
a processor (Fig. 11; Data acquisition and analysis unit 1112) configured to combine to the first and second sets of eddy-current inspection data to generate a combined data set preserving the indication information in the first and second orientations (para [0034]; “The resulting and collective effect of the three channels allows for an inspection to cover any flaws with an orientation for 0 to 360 degrees”) and to merge indication information in the combined data set to generate a composite of an abnormality (Figs. 6 and 7; para [0049-0050]).
Lepage fails to teach wherein the processor is further configured to: compare the composite to stored pattern information; based on comparing the composite, generate a notification of a match, wherein the notification includes information of a type of the abnormality matched with the composite.
Nishimizu teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: compare the composite to stored pattern information (para [0084]; “the input value used as the threshold value is compared with the representative value (the data on the output voltage distribution corresponding to the defect) of each of the channels, the representative values being stored in the memory 100.”); based on comparing the composite, generate a notification of a match (para [0084]; person who performs the evaluation is notified on computer 104), wherein the notification includes information of a type of the abnormality matched with the composite (para [0054 and 0085]; the defect being a crack detected).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Lepage with the defect determination method as described by Nishimizu for the purpose of indicating when a potential defect has appeared and passes a threshold value and notifying a person on a computer performing the evaluation.
Regarding claim 10, Lapage and Nishimizu teach the inspection system of claim 8, Lapage further teaches wherein the first and second probes are directional probes (Figs. 3 and 4a; para [0036-0037 and 0040], the coils activated in T1 and T2 are considered direction probes since they have their own orientations).
Regarding claim 12, Lapage and Nishimizu teach the inspection system of claim 8, Lapage further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to encode position information of sensors in the first and second probes (Fig. 9; multiple probes used to in the scan direction to detect flaws 111 with the position of the flaws determined by the probes that detect the flaws).
Regarding claim 13, Lapage and Nishimizu teach the inspection system of claim 8, Lapage further teaches wherein the first set of eddy-current inspection data further provides indication information in a third orientation (Figs. 3 and 9; para [0036]; probe 1a with sensitivity direction 40 or 41) and second set of eddy-current inspection data providing indication information in a fourth orientation (Figs. 3 and 9; para [0036]; probe 1b with sensitivity direction 40 or 41), wherein the first and third orientation are orthogonal to each other and the second and fourth orientation are orthogonal to each other (Figs. 3 and 9; para [0036]; probes 1a and 1b with sensitivity direction 40 and 41).
Regarding independent claim 14, Lepage teaches a machine readable medium embodying instructions that, when executed by a machine (Fig. 11; Data acquisition and analysis unit 1112), cause the machine to perform operations comprising:
receiving a first set of eddy-current inspection data (Fig. 3; para [0036] and/or Fig. 9; 1a) providing disturbance indication data obtained in a first orientation relative to a first sensitivity axis (Fig. 3; para [0036]);
receiving a second set of eddy-current inspection data (Fig. 4a; para [0037] and/or Fig. 9; 1b) providing disturbance indication information in a second orientation relative to a second sensitivity axis (Fig. 4a; para [0037]), the second orientation being different from the first orientation (Figs. 3 and 4a; para [0036-0037]; different coils at different times are used to measure the eddy currents to determine a crack/flaw at various orientations);
combining the first and second sets of inspection data to generate a combined data set preserving the disturbance indication data in the first and second orientations (para [0034]; “The resulting and collective effect of the three channels allows for an inspection to cover any flaws with an orientation for 0 to 360 degrees”); and
based on the combined data set, generating a composite of an abnormality (Figs. 6 and 7; para [0049-0050]).
Lepage fails to teach comparing the composite to stored pattern information; based on comparing the composite, generating a notification of a match, wherein the notification includes information of a type of the abnormality matched with the composite.
Nishimizu teaches comparing the composite to stored pattern information (para [0084]; “the input value used as the threshold value is compared with the representative value (the data on the output voltage distribution corresponding to the defect) of each of the channels, the representative values being stored in the memory 100.”); based on comparing the composite, generating a notification of a match (para [0084]; person who performs the evaluation is notified on computer 104), wherein the notification includes information of a type of the abnormality matched with the composite (para [0054 and 0085]; the defect being a crack detected).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Lepage with the defect determination method as described by Nishimizu for the purpose of indicating when a potential defect has appeared and passes a threshold value and notifying a person on a computer performing the evaluation.
Regarding claim 19, Lapage and Nishimizu teach the non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 14, Lapage further teaches wherein the first set of eddy-current inspection data further provides disturbance indication data obtained in a third orientation (Figs. 3 and 9; para [0036]; probe 1a with sensitivity direction 40 or 41) and second set of eddy-current inspection data providing disturbance indication data obtained in a fourth orientation (Figs. 3 and 9; para [0036]; probe 1b with sensitivity direction 40 or 41), wherein the first and third orientation are orthogonal to each other and the second and fourth orientation are orthogonal to each other (Figs. 3 and 9; para [0036]; probes 1a and 1b with sensitivity direction 40 and 41).
Claim(s) 4-5, 7, 9, 17-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lepage, in view of Nishimizu and further in view of Sun et al. US2009/0115411 (called Sun hereinafter and previously cited).
Regarding claim 4, Lapage and Nishimizu teach the method of claim 1, but fail to teach wherein the first set of eddy-current inspection data is obtained using a first directional probe and the second set of eddy-current inspection data is obtained using a second directional probe, and wherein the first and second sets of eddy-current inspection data includes c-scan data.
Sun teaches wherein the first set of eddy-current inspection data is obtained using a first directional probe (Fig. 12; eddy current probe 302) and the second set of eddy-current inspection data is obtained using a second directional probe (Fig. 12; eddy current probe 304), and wherein the first and second sets of eddy-current inspection data includes c-scan data (Fig. 1; para [0033]; recording device 84 is a C-scan, which is part of the eddy current measurements).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Lapage and Nishimizu with the individual eddy current probes as described by Sun for the purpose of improving the detection of defects along corners and cusps while maintaining high sensitivity and high spatial resolution (para [0006]).
Regarding claim 5, Lepage, Nishimizu and Sun teach the method of claim 4, Sun further teaches further comprising: encoding position information of sensors in the first and second directional probes (para [0055]; position of the probe along an axis is measured to determine the location of the imperfection).
Regarding claim 7, Lapage and Nishimizu teach the method of claim 1, but fail to teach wherein the first and second sets of eddy-current inspection data are obtained using eddy current array (ECA) probes.
Sun teaches wherein the first and second sets of eddy-current inspection data are obtained using eddy current array (ECA) probes (Fig. 12; eddy current array probe 300).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Lapage and Nishimizu with the eddy current array probe as described by Sun for the purpose of improving the detection of defects along corners and cusps while maintaining high sensitivity and high spatial resolution (para [0006]).
Regarding claim 9, Lapage and Nishimizu teach the inspection system of claim 8, but fail to teach wherein the first and second probes include eddy current arrays.
Sun teaches wherein the first and second probes include eddy current arrays (Fig. 12; eddy current array probe 300).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Lapage and Nishimizu with the eddy current array probe as described by Sun for the purpose of improving the detection of defects along corners and cusps while maintaining high sensitivity and high spatial resolution (para [0006]).
Regarding claim 17, Lapage and Nishimizu teach the non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 14, but fail to teach wherein the first set of eddy-current inspection data is obtained using a first directional probe and the second set of eddy-current inspection data is obtained using a second directional probe, and wherein the first and second sets of eddy-current inspection data includes c-scan data.
Sun teaches wherein the first set of eddy-current inspection data is obtained using a first directional probe (Fig. 12; eddy current probe 302) and the second set of eddy-current inspection data is obtained using a second directional probe (Fig. 12; eddy current probe 304), and wherein the first and second sets of eddy-current inspection data includes c-scan data (Fig. 1; para [0033]; recording device 84 is a C-scan, which is part of the eddy current measurements).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Lapage and Nishimizu with the individual eddy current probes as described by Sun for the purpose of improving the detection of defects along corners and cusps while maintaining high sensitivity and high spatial resolution (para [0006]).
Regarding claim 18, Lepage, Nishimizu and Sun teach the non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 17, Sun further teaches the operations further comprising: encoding position information of sensors in the first and second directional probes (para [0055]; position of the probe along an axis is measured to determine the location of the imperfection).
Regarding claim 20, Lapage and Nishimizu teach the non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 14, but fail to teach wherein the first and second sets of eddy-current inspection data are obtained using eddy current array (ECA) probes.
Sun teaches wherein the first and second sets of eddy-current inspection data are obtained using eddy current array (ECA) probes (Fig. 12; eddy current array probe 300).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Lapage and Nishimizu with the eddy current array probe as described by Sun for the purpose of improving the detection of defects along corners and cusps while maintaining high sensitivity and high spatial resolution (para [0006]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Junker et al. discloses “Eddy current data interpolation/extrapolation” (see US2009/0150093)
Wu et al. discloses “Method and system for integrating eddy current inspection with a coordinate measuring device” (see US2010/0207619)
Morrey, Jr. discloses “Method and apparatus for providing compensation for variations in probe-surface separation in non-contact eddy current inspection systems” (see US5130651)
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 DAVID B FREDERIKSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571)272-7924. 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.
/DAVID B FREDERIKSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858