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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/06/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection
Applicant argues the claims are not directed towards an abstract idea, stating the claims do not recite any mathematical formula, equation or calculation; however the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The instant claim recites “to calculate a feature amount of a surface acoustic wave based on direction information of a light ray optically obtained”. As detailed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(I), a claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. In the instant specification, to calculate a feature amount using data obtained from a line or area sensor is based on gradient information; [0121]. When performing feature calculation using gradient information, the calculative process requires the calculation of spatial derivatives, magnitudes, and orientations of the wave’s intensity changes, likely utilizing techniques similar to Sobel or Prewitt operators. While the claimed invention aids performing calculations in a computer environment, these mathematical operations are performed by a general-purpose computer acting as a tool. Thus here, as in Electric Power, “the focus of the claims is not on … an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.” Elec. Power, 830 F.3d 1350, 2016 WL 4073318, at *4 [119 USPQ2d 1739]. Further, the examiner would like to point out the current scope of the claims is not directed towards the overall system, as seen in Fig. 1, but rather an information processing apparatus comprising a controller. As instantly claimed, this calculative process does nothing to improve the operation of that generically claimed controller; thereby failing to provide the argued improvement and merely amounting to a tool tasked to perform the identified abstract idea.
Applicant continues to argue claim 1 is rooted in a physical measurement of a real-world phenomenon; however under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed apparatus is merely composed on a controller configured to calculated data. The instant claim does not define the information processing apparatus as being composed of an object, sensor, or a surface acoustic wave. The claim only defines the information processing apparatus as a controller obtaining data outside the physical structure of the information processing apparatus and performing a calculation. Therefore, applicant’s arguments that these sensors, acoustic surface wave and object are part of the claimed combination and therefore describing a physical system, is not found persuasive.
Applicant goes on to further argue the surface acoustic wave…excited on the elastic body surface”, “out-of-plane displacement of the elastic body”, and “direction information of a light ray” as being part of the physical structure of the information processing apparatus. However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, these elements are not positively recited elements of the claimed apparatus. Therefore, these argued additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more; as they are currently not part of the claimed information processing apparatus and merely link the abstract idea to a field of use and/or data gathering.
In this instance, the examiner disagrees with applicant’s assertion the claims have been over simplified. Insofar as what is structurally recited defining an information processing apparatus, the argued “additional elements”, i.e. sensor, acoustic wave, elastic object surface of an inspection object, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, as not part of the claimed combination. Therefore, neither alone or in combination, do these additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. The argued improved does nothing to improve these additional elements. Further, during the calculative process, neither the result or performance of the abstract idea improves the information processing apparatus, as alleged by applicant.
Therefore, the examiner finds the claims not patent eligible.
102 Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed 05/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Keisuke does not disclose or even suggest exciting a surface acoustic wave of an object; page 22. The examiner does not disagree, however, the instant claims only positively require an information processing apparatus comprising a controller to obtain information from reflected light and does not positively recite any structure of that controller that excites an object or how the object itself is part of the information processing apparatus.
The claims merely define a controller receiving reflected light that represents the excitation of the object. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the controller of Keisuke is capable of obtaining reflected light from an excited object; as detailed below in the rejection of the claim. The examiner suggests further defining a complete system, i.e. Fig. 1 and its corresponding structure to overcome the current art rejection and to align with applicant’s arguments.
Further, insofar as what is structurally defined, the controller and line sensor of Keisuke reads on the claimed invention. The system of Keisuke is more than capable of detecting surface defects by using a single light source to detect changes in an object's surface when excited by an acoustic wave. Because the structure of generation and the object itself is not part of the claimed combination. The scope of the instant claims merely require the controller structure to be capable obtaining reflected light (via the sensor taught in Keisuke) from an object under testing and process that data to determine a defect.
Therefore, the examiner is not persuaded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 1, the newly amendment claim further defines “the surface acoustic wave being excited at a penetration amount from the elastic body surface to an inside of the elastic body surface depending on frequency, the gradient information including an out- of-plane displacement of the elastic body surface by the surface acoustic wave, the out- of-plane displacement including information of the elastic body surface and the inside of the elastic body surface”. The examiner is unsure how this limitation further defines an information processing apparatus, as the acoustic wave is not part of the claimed combination. At best the acoustic wave and its excitation describes elements outside the scope of the claimed “information processing apparatus”. How or what portion of the controller is creating this acoustic wave? How can a controller create an acoustic wave, as its merely a computer element tasked to process data. It appears from applicant’s filed specification, this excitation is created by an element outside the controller, which contradicts the instant claim. Clarification is required.
Claim 19 is rejected similarly, as there is no active step recited that defines how an information acquisition method creates an excitation of an acoustic wave. Similar to claim 1, applicant’s disclosure describes the claimed excitation is created outside an acquiring step, more specifically, by an element outside the acquisition method. Therefore, the instant claim contradicts the disclosed claimed invention. Clarification is required.
Claim 20 is rejected similarly, as there is no active step recited that defines how a computer executes the creation of an excitation of an acoustic wave. Similar to claim 1, applicant’s disclosure describes the claimed excitation to be outside an acquiring step, created by an element not part of the acquisition method. Therefore, the instant claim contradicts the disclosed invention. Clarification is required.
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites calculate a feature amount of a surface acoustic wave, based on direction information of a light ray that corresponds to gradient information of an elastic body surface of an inspection object that is obtained in a case where the surface acoustic wave is excited on the elastic body surface of the inspection object, which falls into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts. Applicant’s specification discloses utilizing elastic wave theory to calculate a feature amount; see paragraphs [0085-0093], thereby supporting the conclusion that the abstract idea falls into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically claimed controller merely acts as a tool for performing the identified abstract; as neither the operation or result of the abstract idea improves the controller itself. MPEP 2106.05(a)
The additional element of a line sensor or an area sensor is considered to be merely performing an insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering, as the sensor is solely collecting the needed data to perform the mathematical concepts. The sensor fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as neither the performance or result of the abstract idea improve the sensor or the data it gathers. MPEP 2106.05(a)
The additional element elastic body surface on an inspection object merely links the abstract idea to a field of use, as the neither the result or performance of the abstract idea improves the inspection object or its surface. Thereby, the elastic body surface on an inspection object fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(h)
Lastly, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the recited “the surface acoustic wave to an inside of the elastic body surface depending on frequency, the gradient information including an out- of-plane displacement of the elastic body surface by the surface acoustic wave, the out- of-plane displacement including information of the elastic body surface and the inside of the elastic body surface” does not further define the information processing apparatus itself, as the sensor is not defined to be part of the claimed combination of “an information processing apparatus”. When turning to applicant’s filed specification, paragraph [0003] defines how surface acoustic waves are used to detect flaws is a well-known concept. Further, the controller, seemingly the only structural element of the claim, is configured to calculated a feature amount from data inputted by the sensor while the sensor is not defined as being part of the apparatus. Therefore, the further defined additional element of the acoustic wave merely links the abstract idea a field of use, i.e. wave theory calculations, without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application; as there is no improved or technical improvement to the well-known sensor or acoustic wave outside its conventional use.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element controller is merely performing the abstract idea while the result of the mathematical operation does not improve the controller or the generically link inspection object. The claimed sensor or acoustic wave is not improved or bettered by the result or performance of the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more.
Claim 2 recites associate colors with the direction information of the light ray, and acquire the direction information of the light ray which falls into the abstract idea grouping of mental processes, as a human mind is capable of associating colors based on the results of the mathematical operation. Therefore, the claim fails to provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 3 further defines the calculated feature amount. The further defined result merely links the abstract idea to a field of use without providing significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claim 4 further defines to calculate at least one of a plate thickness, a propagation velocity, an elastic modulus, and a density of solid serving as an elastic body including the elastic body surface, based on a relationship between a frequency and a wavelength of the surface acoustic wave that is to be acquired from the gradient information of the elastic body surface which falls into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts; as applicant’s specification discloses utilizing elastic wave theory to calculate a feature amount; see paragraphs [0085-0093], supporting the conclusion the abstract idea falls into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts.
Claim 5 further defines the abstract idea by reciting to estimate at least one of existence or non-existence of damage to an elastic body including the elastic body surface, a position of damage, and a size of damage, based on the gradient information of the elastic body surface which falls into the abstract idea grouping of mental concepts. Therefore, the further defines abstract idea fails to provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; as the estimating fails to have a real-world effect to the additional element controller or inspection object.
Claim 6 further defines the abstract idea by reciting to calculate at least one of a density of liquid serving as an elastic body including the elastic body surface, a density of gas, gravitational force, surface tension, and a thickness of liquid, based on a relationship between a frequency and a wavelength of the surface acoustic wave that is to be acquired from the gradient information of the elastic body surface. Applicant’s specification discloses utilizing elastic wave theory to calculate the claimed elements; see paragraphs [0085-0093], thereby supporting the conclusion the abstract idea falls into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts.
Claim 7 defines the additional element control by reciting “an exposure control portion configured to control exposure of an image sensor configured to acquire the gradient information of the elastic body surface; and a synchronous control portion configured to output an excitation start signal and an exposure start signal, the excitation start signal being a signal for starting excitation of the surface acoustic wave in a surface acoustic wave excitation portion configured to excite the surface acoustic wave on the elastic body surface, and the exposure start signal being a signal for starting exposure of the image sensor, with a predetermined time lag that is based on a propagation velocity of the surface acoustic wave”. The recited controller is merely acting as a tool controlling the additional element image sensor while respective control portions create control signals used to gather information from the additional element object. The generically claimed image sensor is merely acting as a tool for gathering data needed to perform the abstract idea. Further, neither the performance or result of the abstract idea improves the image sensor or data gathering steps themselves. Therefore, the claim fails to provide significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claim 8 defines an additional element “a gradient information acquisition portion configured to optically acquire the direction information of the light ray that corresponds to the gradient information obtained in a case where the surface acoustic wave is excited on the elastic body surface of the inspection object”. The claimed additional element merely acts as a tool for performing the insignificant activity of gathering data. Further, neither the performance or result of the abstract idea improves the data gathering steps themselves. Therefore, the claim fails to provide significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claim 9 defines an additional element “the gradient information acquisition portion is configured to optically acquire second gradient information of the elastic body that is based on direction information of a light ray from the elastic body surface that is obtained in a case where the surface acoustic wave is not excited on the elastic body surface, and the controller is configured to acquire undersurface information of the elastic body surface based on the gradient information and the second gradient information”. The claimed additional element merely acts as a tool for performing the insignificant activity of gathering data. Further, neither the performance or result of the abstract idea improves the data gathering elements themselves. Therefore, the claim fails to provide significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claim 10 defines an additional element “an image sensor configured to set an image capturing range with a circular region having at least a diameter λ or more, on the elastic body surface in a case where a wavelength of the surface acoustic wave that is obtained in a case where the surface acoustic wave is excited on the elastic body surface of the inspection object is denoted by λ, and a cycle is denoted by T, the number of pixels in an image captured within the image capturing range of the image sensor is n × m (n and m are integers equal to or larger than 3), and the controller is configured to control the image sensor, and acquire the gradient information of the elastic body as an image by setting an exposure time of the image sensor to a time shorter than T/2”. The claimed additional element sensor and controller merely acts as a tool for performing the insignificant activity of mere data gathering. Further, neither the performance or result of the abstract idea improves these elements supporting the conclusion that these elements are merely feeding the abstract idea the needed data to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim fails to provide significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claim 11 defines an additional element “a light source portion configured to emit illumination light being parallel light, onto the elastic body surface, wherein: the gradient information acquisition portion comprises: a diaphragm including a first wavelength selection region; and an image sensor configured to capture an image of light passing through the first wavelength selection region at a deflection angle from the elastic body surface, and the controller is configured to calculate a deflection angle of a wavelength of the light based on a wavelength of light image-captured by the image sensor”. The claimed additional elements merely act as a tool used for gathering data fed to the abstract idea. Further, neither the performance or result of the abstract idea improves the data gathering steps, light, diaphragm, sensor or controller themselves. Therefore, the claim fails to provide significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(g)
In addition, the claim further defines the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 12 recites addition elements of an information aquation system and a surface acoustic wave excitation portion configured to excite the surface acoustic wave on the elastic body surface. These elements are merely used to perform the insignificantly activity of data gathering without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. As these elements are neither improved or bettered by the operation or result of the abstract idea.
Claim 13 recites an additional element “a signal generator to be controlled by the controller, and a surface acoustic wave excitation element configured to excite the surface acoustic wave based on a signal generated by the signal generator, and the surface acoustic wave excitation element is driven based on a signal repeating at a first frequency that is output from the signal generator while being controlled by the controller”. These elements are considered to be well-known in conventional and the inspection of objects, as they are merely performing the insignificant activity of data gathering. These tools merely gather the needed data to perform the abstract idea, as the neither the performance or result of the abstract idea improves these elements. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claim 14 further defines the additional element surface acoustic wave excitation element as comprises at least any of a piezoelectric element, a laser light source, a speaker, and an electromagnetic acoustic wave element, in a case where the elastic body is solid, and the surface acoustic wave excitation element is configured to excite a Rayleigh wave or a Lamb wave on the inspection object as the surface acoustic wave. These elements are considered to be well-known and conventional in the inspection of objects, as they are merely performing the insignificant activity of data gathering. These tools merely gather the needed data to perform the abstract idea, as the neither the performance or result of the abstract idea improves these elements. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claim 15 further defines the additional element surface acoustic wave excitation element as comprises an airborne ultrasound element, in a case where the elastic body is liquid, and the surface acoustic wave excitation element is configured to excite at least either one of a capillary wave or a gravitational wave on the inspection object as the surface acoustic wave. These elements are considered to be well-known and conventional in the inspection of objects, as they are merely performing the insignificant activity of data gathering. These tools merely gather the needed data to perform the abstract idea, as the neither the performance or result of the abstract idea improves these elements. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claim 16 further defines the additional element surface acoustic wave excitation portion as comprising: a signal generator to be controlled by the controller, and a surface acoustic wave excitation element configured to excite the surface acoustic wave based on a signal generated by the signal generator, and the surface acoustic wave excitation element is driven based on a signal obtained by amplitude-modulating a signal repeating at a first frequency f1 that is output from the signal generator while being controlled by the controller, at a second frequency f2 lower than the first frequency. These elements are considered to be well-known and conventional in the inspection of objects, as they are merely performing the insignificant activity of data gathering. These tools merely gather the needed data to perform the abstract idea, as the neither the performance or result of the abstract idea improves these elements. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claim 17 further defines the control variables of the signal driving the surface acoustic waved excitation element involves in the insignificant activity of data gathering without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claim 18 further defines the structure involved in the insignificant activity of data gathering without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claim 19 recites calculating a feature amount of the surface acoustic wave based on direction information of a light ray that corresponds to the gradient information of the elastic body surface, which falls into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts. Applicant’s specification discloses utilizing elastic wave theory to calculate a feature amount; see paragraphs [0085-0093], thereby supporting the conclusion the abstract idea falls into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the step of optically acquiring gradient information of an elastic body surface of an inspection object being obtained in a case where the surface acoustic wave is excited on the elastic body surface of the inspection object reads as an insignificantly step data gathering; as the result or performance of the abstract idea does not improve the data gathering steps. MPEP 2106.05(a)
The additional element of a line sensor or an area sensor is considered to be merely performing an insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering, as the sensor is solely collecting the needed data to perform the mathematical concepts. The sensor fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as neither the performance or result of the abstract idea improve the sensor or the data it gathers. MPEP 2106.05(a)
The additional element elastic body surface on an inspection object merely links the abstract idea to a field of use, as the neither the result or performance of the abstract idea improves the inspection object or its surface. Thereby, the elastic body surface on an inspection object fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(h)
Lastly, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the recited “the surface acoustic wave to an inside of the elastic body surface depending on frequency, the gradient information including an out- of-plane displacement of the elastic body surface by the surface acoustic wave, the out- of-plane displacement including information of the elastic body surface and the inside of the elastic body surface” does not further define the information processing apparatus itself, as the sensor is not defined to be part of the claimed combination of “an information processing apparatus”. When turning to applicant’s filed specification, paragraph [0003] defines how surface acoustic waves are used to detect flaws is a well-known concept. Further, the controller, seemingly the only structural element of the claim, is configured to calculated a feature amount from data inputted by the sensor while the sensor is not defined as being part of the apparatus. Therefore, the further defined additional element of the acoustic wave merely links the abstract idea a field of use, i.e. wave theory calculations, without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application; as there is no improved or technical improvement to the well-known sensor or acoustic wave outside its conventional use.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element controller is merely performing the abstract idea while the result of the mathematical operation does not improve the controller or the generically link inspection object. The claimed sensor or acoustic wave is not improved or bettered by the result or performance of the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element controller is merely performing the abstract idea while the result of the mathematical operation does not improve the controller or the generically link inspection object. The claimed sensor is not improved or bettered by the result or performance of the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more.
Claim 20 further defines the additional element step of acquiring information to include “setting, as an image capturing range, a region including a circular region having at least a diameter λ or more of the elastic body surface set by an image sensor in a case where a wavelength of the excited surface acoustic wave is denoted by λ, and a cycle is denoted by T; acquiring an image of the image capturing range as an image; setting the number of pixels in an image captured within the image capturing range of the image sensor to n × m (n and m are integers equal to or larger than 3); and acquiring the gradient information of the elastic body as an image by setting an exposure time of the image sensor to a time shorter than T/2”. The claimed additional element sensor and controller merely acts as a tool for performing the insignificant activity of mere data gathering. Further, neither the performance or result of the abstract idea improves these elements supporting the conclusion that these elements are merely feeding the abstract idea the needed data to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim fails to provide significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claim 21 further defines the insignificant activity of data gathering by reciting “adjusting: an excitation timing of the surface acoustic wave in a case of being excited on the elastic body surface; an exposure timing of an image sensor; and a light emission light onto the elastic body surface”. The limitation fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more because neither the result or performance of the abstract idea improves the adjustment steps, exposure time of the senor or light.
Claim 22 recites calculating a feature amount of the surface acoustic wave based on direction information of a light ray that corresponds to the gradient information of the elastic body surface which falls into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts. Applicant’s specification discloses utilizing elastic wave theory to calculate a feature amount; see paragraphs [0085-0093], thereby supporting the conclusion the abstract idea falls into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the step of optically acquiring gradient information of an elastic body surface of an inspection object being obtained in a case where the surface acoustic wave is excited on the elastic body surface of the inspection object reads as an insignificantly step data gathering; as the result or performance of the abstract idea does not improve the data gathering steps. MPEP 2106.05(a)
The additional element of a line sensor or an area sensor is considered to be merely performing an insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering, as the sensor is solely collecting the needed data to perform the mathematical concepts. The sensor fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as neither the performance or result of the abstract idea improve the sensor or the data it gathers. MPEP 2106.05(a)
The additional element elastic body surface on an inspection object merely links the abstract idea to a field of use, as the neither the result or performance of the abstract idea improves the inspection object or its surface. Thereby, the elastic body surface on an inspection object fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(h)
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the recited “the surface acoustic wave to an inside of the elastic body surface depending on frequency, the gradient information including an out- of-plane displacement of the elastic body surface by the surface acoustic wave, the out- of-plane displacement including information of the elastic body surface and the inside of the elastic body surface” does not further define the information processing apparatus itself, as the sensor is not defined to be part of the claimed combination of “an information processing apparatus”. When turning to applicant’s filed specification, paragraph [0003] defines how surface acoustic waves are used to detect flaws is a well-known concept. Further, the controller, seemingly the only structural element of the claim, is configured to calculated a feature amount from data inputted by the sensor while the sensor is not defined as being part of the apparatus. Therefore, the further defined additional element of the acoustic wave merely links the abstract idea a field of use, i.e. wave theory calculations, without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application; as there is no improved or technical improvement to the well-known sensor or acoustic wave outside its conventional use.
Lastly, the additional elements of a non-transitory storage medium storing an information acquisition program and a computer merely read as generic tools used to perform the abstract idea. As neither the performance or result of the abstract idea improves the generic computer elements. MPEP 2106.05(a)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element controller is merely performing the abstract idea while the result of the mathematical operation does not improve the controller or the generically link inspection object. The claimed sensor or acoustic wave is not improved or bettered by the result or performance of the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8, 9, 19 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Keisuke (JP 2021067588A).
With respect to claim 1, Keisuke teaches an information processing apparatus (i.e. personal computer; [0032]) comprising: a controller (i.e. a processor of the computer, as indirectly taught) configured to calculate a feature amount (from a reflected light wave) of a surface acoustic wave (insofar as how “a surface acoustic wave” further defines the information processing apparatus) based on direction information of a light ray (L2; Fig. 1) optically obtained by a line sensor (i.e. a color line scan camera 14), the direction information (as sensed by 14) corresponding to gradient information (i.e. spectral light reflected from the object reads on gradient information) of an elastic body surface of an inspection object (S; [0010]; note the information processing apparatus is capable of receiving light reflected from any surface of any object, including an elastic body surface, as the object and it’s surfaces does not further define the information processing apparatus itself over the prior art and reads like an intended use limitation) that is obtained (via 10) in a case where the surface acoustic wave is excited on the elastic body surface of the inspection object (note: the acoustic wave does not further define the information processing apparatus and insofar as what is structurally recited, the claimed controller is capable of calculating the feature amount if an intended use acoustic wave is applied to the object under inspection), the surface of acoustic wave excited at a penetration amount from the elastic body surface to an inside of the elastic body surface depending on frequency, the gradient information including an out-of-plane displacement of the elastic body surface by the surface acoustic wave, the out- of-plane displacement including information of the elastic body surface and the inside of the elastic body surface (Note: as described above, the recited excited at a penetration amount from the elastic body surface to an inside of the elastic body surface depending on frequency, the gradient information including an out-of-plane displacement of the elastic body surface by the surface acoustic wave, the out- of-plane displacement including information of the elastic body surface and the inside of the elastic body surface further defines limitations not current part of the claimed combination of “an information processing apparatus comprising a controller”; as best understood by the examiner, in light of applicant’s filed disclosure, these features are outside the claimed controller and describe features not currently as further defining the information processing apparatus; therefore, insofar as what is structurally reicted, the taught controller of Keisuke obtaining information using line sensor 14, where that information is capable of representing an object excited at a penetration amount from the elastic body surface to an inside of the elastic body surface depending on frequency, where the gradient information includes an out-of-plane displacement of the elastic body surface by the surface acoustic wave and the out- of-plane displacement includes information of the elastic body surface and the inside of the elastic body surface).
The method of claim 19 is performed during the operation of rejected claim 1.
With respect to claim 22, Keisuke teaches a non-transitory storage medium (as part of the computer [0032]) storing an information acquisition program (i.e. inspection instructions for controlling the system of claim 1) of an elastic body (S) that causes a computer [0032] to execute the recited steps during the operation of the rejected structure of claim 1.
With respect to claim 2, Keisuke teaches the information processing apparatus (i.e. personal computer; [0032]) wherein the controller (of the personal computer) is configured to: associate colors (i.e. the colors captured by sensor 14) with the direction information (angle of incident) of the light ray (L2), and acquire the direction information of the light ray (i.e. inclination angle information from the light ray, L2; [0011] [0035]).
With respect to claim 3, Keisuke teaches the information processing apparatus (i.e. personal computer; [0032]) wherein the feature amount of the surface acoustic wave includes at least one of a wavelength (as the light is composed of continuous wavelength components used for detecting defects and would be represent the intended use surface acoustic wave; [0013]).
With respect to claim 5, Keisuke teaches the information processing apparatus (i.e. personal computer; [0032]) wherein the controller (as indirectly taught in personal computer) is configured to estimate at least one of existence or non-existence of damage to an elastic body including the elastic body surface (i.e. defect; [0045]) based on the gradient information of the elastic body surface (as sensed and calculated).
With respect to claim 8, Keisuke teaches an information acquisition apparatus (seen in Fig. 1) of an elastic body (S), the information acquisition apparatus (as seen in Fig. 1) comprising: the information processing apparatus [0032] according to rejected claim 1; and a gradient information acquisition portion (i.e. an arithmetic unit; [0011]) configured to optically acquire the direction information of the light ray (L2) that corresponds to the gradient information obtained (via 14) in a case where the surface acoustic wave is excited on the elastic body surface of the inspection object (note: the acoustic wave does not further define the information acquisition apparatus and insofar as what is structurally recited, the claimed controller is capable of calculating the feature amount if an intended use acoustic wave is applied to the object under inspection).
With respect to claim 9, Keisuke teaches the information acquisition apparatus (seen in Fig. 1) of the elastic body (S) the gradient information acquisition portion (the arithmetic unit; [0011]) is configured to optically (via 14) acquire second gradient information (i.e. second information as reflected from the surface, insofar as how “second gradient information” is structurally recited) of the elastic body (S) that is based on direction information (i.e. incident angle) of a light ray (a reflected ray of light from L1) from the elastic body surface (i.e. the surface of S) that is obtained in a case where the surface acoustic wave is not excited on the elastic body surface (as the reflected light can be collected when the intended use surface acoustic wave is not excited on the body surface), and the controller (i.e. of the personal computer) is configured to acquire undersurface information of the elastic body surface (that represents a defect) based on the gradient information and the second gradient information (as collected).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keisuke (JP 2021067588A) in view of Lorraine et al. (5,760,904).
With respect to claim 4, Keisuke teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 1 but remains silent regarding the controller is configured to calculate at least one of a plate thickness, a propagation velocity, an elastic modulus, and a density of solid serving as an elastic body including the elastic body surface, based on a relationship between a frequency and a wavelength of the surface acoustic wave that is to be acquired from the gradient information of the elastic body surface.
Lorraine et al. teaches a similar system in Fig. 1 that calculates (via a processor) a plate thickness (Col. 4 lines 63-66) based on a relationship between a frequency and a wavelength of the surface acoustic wave (Col. 4 lines 54-67) that is to be acquired from the gradient information of an elastic body surface (airplane skin).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the controller of Keisuke et al. to include the control logic and mathematical operations as taught in Lorraine et al. because such a modification provides more accurate estimations of thickness in critical areas, Col. 6 lines 30-33.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keisuke (JP 2021067588A) in view of Sinha (6,053,041).
With respect to claim 6, Keisuke teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 1 but remains silent regarding the controller is configured to calculate at least one of a density of liquid serving as an elastic body including the elastic body surface, a density of gas, gravitational force, surface tension, and a thickness of liquid, based on a relationship between a frequency and a wavelength of the surface acoustic wave that is to be acquired from the gradient information of the elastic body surface.
Sinha teaches a similar system the controller is configured to calculate a density of liquid serving as an elastic body including the elastic body surface (using collected frequencies of acoustic waves to calculate a density of a liquid, Col. 3 lines 30-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the controller of Keisuke et al. to include the control logic and mathematical operations as taught in Sinha to calculate a density of liquid because such a modification provides more accurate estimations of density calculations, Col. 6 lines 30-33.
Claim(s) 7, 12-14, 16, 17 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keisuke (JP 2021067588A) in view of Kawasaki et al. (JP 2009025126A).
With respect to claim 7, Keisuke teaches the information processing apparatus (i.e. personal computer; [0032]) wherein the controller comprises: an exposure control portion (i.e. a portion of the controller) configured to control exposure of an image sensor (14) configured to acquire the gradient information of the elastic body surface (S) but remains silent regarding a synchronous control portion configured to output an excitation start signal and an exposure start signal, the excitation start signal being a signal for starting excitation of the surface acoustic wave in a surface acoustic wave excitation portion configured to excite the surface acoustic wave on the elastic body surface, and the exposure start signal being a signal for starting exposure of the image sensor, with a predetermined time lag that is based on a propagation velocity of the surface acoustic wave.
Kawasaki et al. teaches a similar apparatus that includes a synchronous control portion (17) configured to output an excitation start signal (for exciting vibration generation means 16) and an exposure start signal (i.e. an exposure signal starting light source 34), the excitation start signal (via 16) being a signal for starting excitation of the surface acoustic wave (by controlling vibration means 16) in a surface acoustic wave excitation portion (16) configured to excite the surface acoustic wave on an elastic body surface (24), and the exposure start signal (controlling 34) being a signal for starting exposure the sensor (42), with a predetermined time lag that is based on a propagation velocity of the surface acoustic wave (as during operation, the vibration signal starts prior to exposure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the apparatus of Keisuke to include the surface wave excitation portion and corresponding control logic such that the timing allows for the collection of data from the surface of the object, as taught by Kawasaki et al. because Kawasaki et al. teaches such a modification improves the detection of unevenness in an object inspection process, as read in the Tech-Problem section of Kawasaki et al, thereby improving the detection accuracy of Keisuke.
With respect to claim 12, Keisuke teaches in Fig. 1 an information acquisition system of an elastic body (S), the information acquisition system (Fig. 1) comprising: the information acquisition apparatus of the elastic body according to rejected claim 8 (as it is part of the same system) but remains silent regarding a surface acoustic wave excitation portion configured to excite the surface acoustic wave on the elastic body surface.
Kawasaki et al. teaches a similar system that includes a surface acoustic wave excitation portion (12) configured to excite a surface acoustic wave on an elastic body surface (24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the apparatus of Keisuke to include the surface wave excitation portion and corresponding control logic, as taught by Kawasaki et al. because Kawasaki et al. teaches such a modification improves the detection of unevenness in an object inspection process, as read in the Tech-Problem section of Kawasaki et al, thereby improving the detection accuracy of Keisuke.
With respect to claim 13, Keisuke as modified by Kawasaki et al. teaches in the information acquisition system wherein: the surface acoustic wave excitation portion (16 of Kawasaki et al.) comprises: a signal generator (i.e. a portion of 17) to be controlled by the controller (of Keisuke as modified), and a surface acoustic wave excitation element (16) configured to excite the surface acoustic wave (which generates the wave as seen in Fig. 2) based on a signal generated by the signal generator (i.e. the portion of 17 creating the vibrations), and the surface acoustic wave excitation element (16) is driven based on a signal (driving the vibrational means of Kawasaki et al.) repeating at a first frequency (i.e. a first frequency higher that a sampling frequency, as taught by Kawasaki et al. under the section <Micro Vibration generation means) that is output from the signal generator (i.e. the portion of 17) while being controlled by the modified controller (of Kawasaki et al.).
With respect to claim 14, Keisuke as modified by Kawasaki et al. teaches wherein: the surface acoustic wave excitation element (16 of Kawasaki et al.) comprises piezoelectric element (causing the vibrations), in a case where the elastic body is solid (i.e. as the object S is a solid sheet), and the surface acoustic wave excitation element (16) is configured to excite a Lamb wave on the inspection object (S) as the surface acoustic wave (as the acoustic wave excitation element creates a Lamb wave guided by the this sheet object S).
With respect to claim 16, Keisuke as modified by Kawasaki et al. teaches the surface acoustic wave excitation portion (16 of Kawasaki et al) comprises: a signal generator (i.e. a portion of the controller used to generate a signal to excite portion 16) to be controlled by the controller (as modified), and a surface acoustic wave excitation element (16 of Kawasaki et al.) configured to excite the surface acoustic wave based on a signal generated by the signal generator (of Kawasaki), and the surface acoustic wave excitation element (16 of Kawasaki et al.) is driven based on a signal obtained by amplitude-modulating a signal repeating at a first frequency f1 (i.e. a high frequency, as taught by Kawasaki) that is output from the signal generator (i.e. the portion of the controller used to generate the signal to excite portion 16) while being controlled by the controller (as modified), at a second frequency f2 (i.e. a low frequency) lower than the first frequency (of the signal).
With respect to claim 17, Keisuke as modified by Kawasaki et al. teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection but remains silent with respect to the first frequency f1 satisfies f1 ≥ 10 kHz, and the second frequency f2 satisfies f2 ≤ 1000 Hz.
It has been held that mere changes in size are not capable of patentably distinguishing an invention over the prior art, as set forth in MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
In this instance, the person having ordinary skill in the art having a degree in engineering, has the capability to perform the engineering calculations necessary to ensure the frequency ranges fall within their intended behaviors.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kawasaki to have the first frequency f1 satisfy f1 ≥ 10 kHz, and the second frequency f2 satisfy f2 ≤ 1000 Hz, because one having ordinary skill in the art could easily determine the optimal frequencies for testing and measuring a specific object based on that object’s physical characteristics.
With respect to claim 18, Keisuke as modified by Kawasaki et al. teaches the modified information acquisition system wherein: the surface acoustic wave excitation portion (16 of Kawasaki et al.) is configured to excite the surface acoustic wave with an excitation wavelength changed with time (as during operation, the wavelength starts and finishes, thereby reading on “change with time” insofar as how “changed” is structurally defined), and the controller (as modified) is configured to detect internal damage based on the gradient information of each of the excitation wavelengths (as the system of Keisuke inspects the object for defects, which could include internal damage of object S).
With respect to claim 21, Keisuke teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 19 but remains silent regarding acquiring the gradient information comprises, adjusting: an excitation timing of the surface acoustic wave in a case of being excited on the elastic body surface; an exposure timing of an image sensor; and a light emission light onto the elastic body surface.
Kawasaki et al. teaches a similar method that includes adjusting: an excitation timing of the surface acoustic wave (by controlling element 16) in a case of being excited on an elastic body surface (24); an exposure timing of an image sensor (42); and a light emission light (via 34) onto the elastic body surface (as Kawasaki et al, based on respective control signals within the system, control elements, 16, 42 and 34 to perform the inspection of the object, adjusting the timing of the operation of these elements based on a start of the inspection).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the apparatus of Keisuke to include the step of adjusting the timing of controlling the various elements as taught by Kawasaki et al. because Kawasaki et al. teaches such a modification improves the detection of unevenness in an object inspection process, as read in the Tech-Problem section of Kawasaki et al, by ensuring all the components are operating according to one another.
Claim(s) 10, 11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keisuke (JP 2021067588A) in view of Ohno (One-shot color mapping imaging system of light direction extracted from a surface BRDF).
With respect to claim 10, Keisuke teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 8 but remains silent regarding the gradient information acquisition portion comprises an image sensor configured to set an image capturing range with a circular region having at least a diameter λ or more, on the elastic body surface in a case where a wavelength of the surface acoustic wave that is obtained in a case where the surface acoustic wave is excited on the elastic body surface of the inspection object is denoted by λ, and a cycle is denoted by T, the number of pixels in an image captured within the image capturing range of the image sensor is n × m (n and m are integers equal to or larger than 3), and the controller is configured to control the image sensor, and acquire the gradient information of the elastic body as an image by setting an exposure time of the image sensor to a time shorter than T/2.
Ohno teaches a similar apparatus having an image sensor in Fig. 1 configured to set an image capturing range with a circular region (as seen in Fig. 1) having at least a diameter λ (as the circle inherently has a diameter), on an elastic body surface (material) in a case where a wavelength of an surface acoustic wave that is obtained in a case where the surface acoustic wave is excited on the elastic body surface of an inspection object (i.e. the surface of the material seen in Fig. 5) is denoted by λ, and a cycle is denoted by T, the number of pixels in an image captured within the image capturing range of the image sensor (as Ohno teaches a camera capturing the image, thereby having n x m pixels) is n × m (n and m are integers equal to or larger than 3), and a controller (as indirectly taught used to process the image collected) is configured to control the image sensor (image sensor seen in Fig. 1), and acquire the gradient information of the elastic body (i.e. material) as an image by setting an exposure time of the image sensor (Fig. 1) to a time shorter than T/2 (i.e. as indirectly taught, as during one shot structure light mapping, the exposure time must be less than the overall cycle time T, so as to ensure a strong signal to noise ratio without over exposure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the apparatus of Keisuke with the structure of Ohno because Ohno teaches such a modification improves capturing microstructures on an object, as read in section 5. Conclusion of Ohno, thereby improving the defect detection sensitivity of Keisuke.
The method steps of claim 20 are performed during the operation of the rejected structure of claim 10.
With respect to claim 11, Keisuke teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 8 but remains silent regarding the apparatus comprising a light source portion configured to emit illumination light being parallel light, onto the elastic body surface, wherein: the gradient information acquisition portion comprises: a diaphragm including a first wavelength selection region; and an image sensor configured to capture an image of light passing through the first wavelength selection region at a deflection angle from the elastic body surface, and the controller is configured to calculate a deflection angle of a wavelength of the light based on a wavelength of light image-captured by the image sensor.
Ohno teaches a similar apparatus having a light source portion (LED) configured to emit illumination light being parallel light (after being split by the beam splitter), onto an elastic body surface (i.e. the material; Fig. 1), wherein: the gradient information acquisition portion comprises: a diaphragm (i.e. a multicolor filter acting in a manner that only allows select wavelengths to pass through) including a first wavelength selection region (as there are concentric circles defining the regions which allow different colors to pass; as read in section 2. One-shot light direction color mapping imaging system, page 3344, first paragraph); and an image sensor (seen in Fig. 1) configured to capture an image of light passing through the first wavelength selection region at a deflection angle from the elastic body surface (as read in section 2. One-shot light direction color mapping imaging system, page 3344, first paragraph), and a controller (as indirectly taught) is configured to calculate a deflection angle of a wavelength of the light (as discussed in Fig. 2 using equations 1-3) based on a wavelength of light image-captured by the image sensor (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the apparatus of Keisuke with the structure of Ohno because Ohno teaches such a modification improves capturing microstructures on an object, as read in section 5. Conclusion of Ohno, thereby improving the defect detection sensitivity of Keisuke.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keisuke (JP 2021067588A) in view of Kawasaki et al. (JP 2009025126A), as applied to claim 13, further in view of Lorraine et al. (5,760,904).
With respect to claim 15, Keisuke as modified teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 1, but remains silent regarding the surface acoustic wave excitation element comprises an airborne ultrasound element, in a case where the elastic body is liquid, and the surface acoustic wave excitation element is configured to excite at least either one of a capillary wave or a gravitational wave on the inspection object as the surface acoustic wave.
Lorraine et al. teaches a similar system having an airborne ultrasound element (12), in a case where the elastic body is liquid, and the surface acoustic wave excitation element is configured to excite at least either one of a capillary wave or a gravitational wave on the inspection object as the surface acoustic wave (as the inspection body does not further define the system over the prior art, as the element 12 is capable of being used to inspect any object, including liquid, and if its liquid the resulting wave would be a capillary wave).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the surface acoustic wave excitation element of Keisuke to be the airborne ultrasound element of Lorraine et al. because Lorraine et al. teaches such a modification provides a non-destructive wave to inspect various engineering structures or materials, Col. 1 lines 29-54, thereby increasing the versatility of Keisuke et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yatsuda (2022/0404313) which teaches a sensor system for estimating aspects of a liquid sample.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW G MARINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/MATTHEW G MARINI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights