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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14 depends on itself. For examination purposes, it will be assumed to depend on claim 8. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a machine-storage medium embodying instructions…in claims 8-14; and
memory storing instructions that…in claims 15-21. See MPEP 2181(V).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 8-13, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Jack et al. (US 2021/0364472).
Jack shows a method for visualizing foreign objects within a material as follows:
1. A method comprising:
receiving acoustic echo data comprising time-series representations of acoustic echo signals from insonifying a structure in an object (Para. [0107]: "A-scans typically show a signal amplitude as a function of time,"; Para. [0162]:"However, the difference in amplitudes over time in the A-scan image 102 is useful for characterizing different layers" The A, B, C scans are time-series. Structures are layers, defects, pores, cracks, foreign objects, gaps);
obtaining one or more Amplitude Influence Maps (AIMs) corresponding to a structure type of the structure from a pre-generated database (Para. [0167]:"a material database containing a list of materials with acoustic impedance values for each material."); Para. [0169]: "As shown in FIG. 43, each material demonstrated a different set of amplitude values in a characteristic region");
based on the one or more AIMs, converting amplitude values in the received acoustic echo data into one or more corresponding size values, wherein the size values are diameter size of the structure (Para. [0161]:"the present invention is directed to a system able to detect and …report the diameters of the objects ")and
generating an image having voxels (Para. [212]: "3-D graphical representation 144" is made of voxels) representing values of the structure as colors based on the converted size values (Para. [0164]:"a foreign object 130 is represented as an area of color substantially different from the color of the surrounding area."; Para. [0212]: "the system further assigns coloration to sections of the 3-D graphical representation 144, with different colors corresponding to different depths of the layer."; Para. [0220]: "The system indicates the pore using a visible outline, shading, or any other visual indication method. The system is able to automatically provide the effective diameter").
As cited above, Jack shows the system provides the effective diameter pertaining to the pore by using shading. Shading is taken be different colors, e.g. light gray, dark gray, black, white. In the alternative, Jack does not explicitly use the term "color" to be a visual indication of the effective diameter of the pores. However, Jack states "any other visual indication method" can be used. Jack shows using different colors to be a visual indication method (See para. [0212]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have the system indicate the diameters of the pores using colors for the expectation of providing a visual indication.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein an identification of the structure type is received from a user (Para. [0098]: "As the waves propagate through the thickness of the test material, discontinuities within the test material (due to material changes, cracks, delaminations, foreign objects, etc.) cause reflections of the wave, which are then detected by the transducer and displayed or characterized.").
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
applying a scaling factor to an acoustic image generated from the acoustic echo data based on system configuration of an acoustic transducer array used to obtain the acoustic echo data, wherein the scaling factor is a correction factor between the acoustic image and the AIM (Para. [0110]) .
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining an effect of noise on converting amplitude values into corresponding size values; and
determining a sizing tolerance estimate based on the determined effect of noise (Paras. [0180], signal to noise ratio at para. at [0244]).
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying a region of interest based on a minimum size of the structure (See paras. [0159], 0161]; Para. [0151]:"the user is able to select …a range of X, Y, and Z positions... In one embodiment, the range of X, Y, and Z positions is selected by manually entering data points for each coordinate through the coordinate selection module 31."; Para. [0213]:"a portion of the surface of the lamina is able to be manually selected"); and
cropping the image to focus on the region of interest (Para. [0213]: "a portion of the surface of the lamina is able to be manually selected and excised to be shown independently of the non-selected portion ").
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
defining an inspection mode per voxel in the acoustic echo data, wherein at least two different inspection modes are used (Para. [0174]: "Measurements were performed analyzing the size of the foreign objects…both with and without filtering of the C-scan data")
With respect to claims 8-13 and 15-20, please see their corresponding claims above and Jack shows a machine-storage medium, processor and instructions (para. [0256]).
Claim(s) 7, 14, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jack as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 respectively above.
Jack teaches all the limitations of claims 7, 14, and 21 except Jack teaches that the amplitudes are compared, not the size.
Jack shows:
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
comparing the amplitudes of the structure to a threshold (Para. [0171]: "In one embodiment, the histogram analysis includes a comparison of the mean value and the median value of the amplitudes at a chosen depth. By way of example, and not of limitation, the system automatically determines the presence of a foreign object if the median and mean differ by greater than about 5%");
based on comparing of the amplitudes to the threshold, generating an alarm (Para. [0122]: "a display…allows results to be displayed to the user …without the operator needing to step away to check the computer.").
However, Jack teaches that there is a correlation between the amplitude and the size as discussed for claim 1 above, " The present system is capable of displaying information… including the location, depth, and size" Para. [0123]; "a material database containing a list of materials with acoustic impedance values for each material."; Para. [0169]: "As shown in FIG. 43, each material demonstrated a different set of amplitude values in a characteristic region") Para. [0220]: "The system is able to automatically provide the effective diameter" and also "thickness" at para. [0112]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize comparing amplitudes is mathematically equivalent to comparing size since Jack teaches amplitudes are converted to size. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to compare size of the structures rather than amplitudes of the structures for nothing more than the expected result of determining the presence of a structure such as a foreign object.
With respect to claims 14 and 21, Jack shows a machine-storage medium, processor and instructions (para. [0256]).
Response to Arguments
Claim Objection
The objection to claim 14 has been maintain due to the typographical error of the amendment.
Claim Rejection under 102 and 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hwa Andrew S Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5:30pm.
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, Michelle Iacolleti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/Hwa Andrew Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877