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 .
This Office Action is in response to the application filed 26 December 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined. Claims 21-27 have been withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 26 December 2025 is acknowledged.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. When considering claims 1-20 as a whole and all claim elements both individually and in combination, these claim(s) 1-20 are directed to the abstract idea of performing non-destructive evaluation without significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 1
Regarding Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes (from the MPEP 2106.05(a)), claim(s) (1-10 and 11-13) is/are directed to a method, claim(s) (14-20) is/ are directed to a system and therefore the claims are viewed as falling in statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1
The claimed invention recites a judicial exception, specifically an abstract idea. The claim(s) recite(s) mental process. Specifically, the independent claims 1-20 recite a mental process: as drafted, the claim recites the limitation of performing non-destructive evaluation which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a processor server nothing in the claim precludes the determining step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the a processor language, the claim encompasses the user manually:
receiving project data from a project owner, the project data comprising digital data for non-destructive evaluation (NDE) acquired by non-destructive means.
providing to the project owner a selection of experts from a database of experts.
indicating availability of the project to an expert from the selection of experts.
providing project data to the expert;
establishing a secure communication between the expert and the project owner for exchange of information.
providing utility software to the expert for non-destructive evaluation; receiving from the expert, non-destructive evaluation results of the project.
transmitting non-destructive evaluation results of the project to the project owner via the secure communication channel.
The mere nominal recitation of a generic server does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. It has been established by ongoing guidance that claims that contain a generic processor are still viewed as mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, however this is different for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations (network monitoring, data encryption for communication, and rendering images). Therefore, these limitations are viewed a mental process.
The performing non-destructive evaluation would clearly be to a mental activity that a company would go through in order to decide how to perform non-destructive evaluation. The specification makes it clear that the claimed invention is directed to the mental activity data gathering and data analysis to determine how to perform non-destructive evaluations:
Step 2A Prong 2
Specifically the determined judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a server and additionally the data receiving, providing, indicating, providing, establishing, and transmitting steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity (including post solution activity).
The claim recites the additional element(s): that a server is used to perform the non-destructive evaluation; The server in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic server performing a generic server function of processing data (generating workflows). This generic server limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic server component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
The claim recites the additional element(s): receiving project data, providing a selection of experts, indicating availability, providing project data, establishing a secure communication, providing utility software, receiving form the expert, and transmitting non-destructive evaluation results performs the performing step. The receiving, providing, indicating providing, establishing, providing, receiving, and transmitting steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering managing data for use in the performing step), and amounts to mere data management, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The server that performs the performing step is also recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the performing step. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the server).
The Examiner has further determined that the claims as a whole does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application in order to provide an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. It has been determined that based on the disclosure does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. It has not been provided clearly in the disclosure that the alleged improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, but is instead in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore does not improve the technology. Second, in the instance, where it is not clear that the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must reflect the disclosed improvement (the claims must include components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification).
For further clarification the Examiner points out that the claim(s) 1-20 recite(s) receiving project data, providing a selection of experts, indicating availability, providing project data, establishing a secure communication, providing utility software, receiving form the expert, transmitting non-destructive evaluation and performing the non-destructive evaluation results performs which are viewed as an abstract idea in the form of a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the use of a computer for receiving, providing, indicating, providing, establishing, and transmitting which is the abstract idea steps of valuing an idea (performing non-destructive evaluation) in the manner of “apply it”.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea directed to a mental process (i.e. to tracking and status analysis of electronic devices). Using a computer to receiving, providing, indicating, providing, establishing, and transmitting the data resulting from this kind of mental process merely implements the abstract idea in the manner of “apply it”.
The dependent claims recite elements that narrow the metes and bounds of the abstract idea but do not provide ‘something more’.
The dependent claims do not remedy these deficiencies.
Claims 4, 6, and 12 recite limitations which further limit the claimed analysis of data.
Claims 3, 13, 17, 19, and 20 recites limitations directed to claim language viewed insignificantly extra solution activity.
Using a computer to perform the data processing as claimed is merely implementing the abstract idea in the manner of “apply it” and does not provide significantly more. Additionally with respect to the Berkheimer the Examiner points out that the steps of the claim are viewed to be to nothing more than spell out what it means to apply it on a computer and cannot confer patent-eligibility as there are no additional limitations beyond applying an abstract idea, restricted to a computer. As the claims are merely implementing the abstract idea in the manner of “Apply It” the need for a Berkheimer analysis does not apply and is not required. With respect to the currently filed claims the implementing steps can be found in Cella which discloses how the claims alone and in combination are viewed to be well understood, routine and conventional based on point 3 of the Berkheimer memo and subsequent evidence, complying with and providing evidence.
Claims 2, 5, 7-10, and 15-17 recites limitations directed to claim language viewed non-functional data labels.
Thus, the problem the claimed invention is directed to answering the question based on gathered and analyzed information about the non-destructive evaluation. This is not a technical or technological problem but is rather in the realm of machine testing and therefore an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. This is the case because in order for the claims to be viewed as significantly more the claims must incorporate the integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not provide significantly more in order for a machine to add significantly more, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly. Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful e limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more. Additionally, another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more is whether the claim effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. "[T]ransformation and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or thing’ is the clue to patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines. All together the above analysis shows there is not improvement in computer functionality, or improvement to any other technology or technical field. The claim is ineligible.
Additionally, with respect to the Berkheimer as noted above the same analysis applies to the 2B where the claims are viewed as applying it and as such no further analysis is required. However, with respect to the current claims receiving, providing, indicating, establishing, and transmitting that are viewed as extra solution or post solution activity the Examiner notes that the claims are viewed as well-understood, routine, and conventional because a citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s). An appropriate publication such as the currently cited prior art “Cella et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0339687 A1)”. provides those extra solution activities and is viewed as a form of publication which also includes a book, manual, review article, or other source that describes the state of the art and discusses what is well-known and in common use in the relevant industry. The claim is ineligible.
The dependent claims recite elements that narrow the metes and bounds of the abstract idea but do not provide ‘something more’. Specifically, the dependent claims do not remedy these deficiencies of the independent claims.
With respect to the legal concept of prima facie case being a procedural tool of patent examination, which allocates the burdens going forward between the examiner and the applicant. MPEP § 2106.07 discusses the requirements of a prima facie case of ineligibility. In particular, the initial burden was on the Examiner and believed to be properly provided as to explain why the claim(s) are ineligible for patenting because of the above provided rejection which clearly and specifically points out in accordance with properly providing the requirement satisfying the initial burden of proof based on the Guidance from the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the burden now shifts to the applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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) 1-20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cella et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0339687 A1) (hereafter Cella).
Referring to Claim 1, Cella teaches a method for enabling remotely located expert to perform non-destructive evaluation (NDE) comprising:
receiving project data from a project owner, the project data comprising digital data for non-destructive evaluation (NDE) acquired by non-destructive means (see; par. [0622] of Cella teaches receiving data from sensors (i.e. the equipment the owner owns… project owner) and then forwarding the data on to the data collector, par. [4290]-[4291] and includes data regarding non-destructive evaluation).
providing to the project owner a selection of experts from a database of experts (see; par. [4221] of Cella teaches a list of refined workers (i.e. experts) stored in a file (i.e. database)).
indicating availability of the project to an expert from the selection of experts (see; par. [4221] of Cella teaches a list of workers with correct experiences (i.e. experts) to perform tasks (i.e. available)).
providing project data to the expert (see; par. [4222] of Cella teaches providing a list of procedures related to the project, and par. [4221] a list of workers with correct experiences (i.e. experts) to perform tasks (i.e. available)).
establishing a secure communication between the expert and the project owner for exchange of information (see; par. [0283] of Cella teaches a secure temporal network for communication of the collection, monitoring, and control system to be used by par. [4221] a list of workers with correct experiences (i.e. experts) to perform tasks (i.e. available)).
providing utility software to the expert for non-destructive evaluation (see; par. [4289] of Cella teaches an example of utilizing software to perform non-destructive testing (i.e. evaluation)).
receiving from the expert, non-destructive evaluation results of the project (see; par. [4290]-[4291] of Cella teaches non-destructive testing is conducted, par. [0429] performed by experts and [4290]-[4291] the results are captured and presented).
transmitting non-destructive evaluation results of the project to the project owner via the secure communication channel (see; par. [0283] of Cella teaches a secure temporal network for communication of the collection, monitoring, and control system to be used by par. [4221] a list of workers with correct experiences (i.e. experts) to perform tasks (i.e. available), [4290]-[4291] non-destructive testing is conducted, par. [0429] performed by experts and [4290]-[4291] the results are captured and presented (i.e. transmitted to the owner)).
Referring to Claim 2, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Cella teaches the method above, Cella further disclose a method having the limitations of:
the experts are selected by artificial intelligence techniques based on any of qualification, experience, availability, and recommendations (see; par. [4225] of Cella teaches qualification, referrals (i.e. recommendations), work status (i.e. availability), [4222] experience, par. [4277] where selection is processed using AI).
Referring to Claim 3, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Cella teaches the method above, Cella further disclose a method having the limitations of:
the experts from the database of experts submit bids for the non-destructive evaluation of the project (see; par. [4216] of Cella teaches asking for bids to provide service actions including, par. [4289] for non-destructive testing, performed by [4221] a list of workers with correct experiences (i.e. experts in a database) to perform tasks (i.e. available)).
Referring to Claim 4, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Cella teaches the method above, Cella further disclose a method having the limitations of:
qualifying the expert, wherein the expert from the database of experts is evaluated before enrolling in the database (see; par. [4221] of Cella teaches qualified workers are identified to be used for specific activities).
Referring to Claim 5, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Cella teaches the method above, Cella further disclose a method having the limitations of:
the expert from the database of experts is trained on a anyone of simulator or remote means (see; par. [0394] of Cella teaches training personnel, par. [0397] associating the industrial environment into the training data set).
Referring to Claim 6, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Cella teaches the method above, Cella further disclose a method having the limitations of:
a performance of the expert is compared against a database of performance of other experts (see; par. [0042] and par. [0321] of Cella teaches a database that contains functional equivalents and is used to compare to monitoring data points, par. [0327] and then provide an opportunity for an expert to learn).
Referring to Claim 7, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Cella teaches the method above, Cella further disclose a method having the limitations of:
digital data comprises anyone of material type, thresholds for flaw, test type, description of an object for evaluation and image of the object (see; par. [0723]-[0724] of Cella teaches a threshold for a flaw measured on a particular material).
Referring to Claim 8, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Cella teaches the method above, Cella further disclose a method having the limitations of:
the evaluation results comprise anyone of flaws, thresholds exceeded, and annotated image data (see; par. [0724] of Cella teaches the measuring of flaws, par. [0723] and determining if the measured data exceeds an expected threshold value).
Referring to Claim 9, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Cella teaches the method above, Cella further disclose a method having the limitations of:
software developed through machine learning techniques provide assistance to the expert (see; par. [0289] of Cella teaches an example of the development of software that is developed from machine learning to provide assistance to workers (i.e. experts)).
Referring to Claim 10, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Cella teaches the method above, Cella further disclose a method having the limitations of:
artificial intelligence software is the expert (see; par. [0022] of Cella teaches a neural net in conjunction with par. [0015] an AI for, par. [4221] qualified workers are identified to be used for specific activities (i.e. experts)).
Referring to Claim 11, Cella teaches a method of expert evaluation workflow. Claim 11 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 1, Claim 11 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claim 1, except for the following noted exception.
sending by the expert, to the NDE platform accepting the project (see; par. [1809] of Cellat teaches accepting a request to provide a new communication connection, par. [4289] for non-destructive testing,
Referring to Claim 12, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Cella teaches the method above, Cella further disclose a method having the limitations of:
evaluating the expert before adding to a database in the NDE platform (see; par. [4216] of Cella teaches asking for bids to provide service actions including, par. [4289] for non-destructive testing, performed by [4221] a list of workers with correct experiences (i.e. qualified) experts in a database) to perform tasks (i.e. available)).
Referring to Claim 13, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Cella teaches the method above, Cella further disclose a method having the limitations of:
the expert is trained on any one of a simulator or remote means (see; par. [0016] and par. [0430] of Cella teaches simulation training using AR/VR).
Referring to Claim 14, Cella teaches a method for enabling remotely located expert to perform non-destructive evaluation (NDE) comprising:
a first user device and a second user device configured to communicate with a cloud-based server (see; par. [0013] of Cella teaches an example of multiple devices connected through the cloud that performs the testing).
the first user device is configured to acquire digital information associated with an object for NDE (see; par. [0074] of Cella teaches a computer vision system used for acquiring non-destructive evaluation data).
wherein an inspection module running on the cloud-based server is configured to enable non-destructive inspection of the object utilizing the digital information (see; par. [4289] of Cella teaches a non-destructive inspection data gathered (i.e. digital), utilizing par. [0013] an example of multiple devices connected through the cloud that performs the testing).
wherein the first user device is configured to receive a report of the non-destructive inspection acquired by a second user device (see; par. [0013]-[0014] of Cella teaches an example of non-destructive testing and sending the data to the cloud computing environment using multiple devices).
Referring to Claim 15, see discussion of claim 14 above, while Cella teaches the method above, Cella further disclose a method having the limitations of:
a user of a second device is a qualified non-destructive evaluation expert (see; par. [4290] of Cella teaches multiple available second devices, par. [0015] which can be a vibration device, heat measuring device, par. [0074] vision, or multiple devices can be used by a user to perform different non-destructive testing, ar. [0429] performed by experts).
Referring to Claim 16, see discussion of claim 14 above, while Cella teaches the method above, Cella further disclose a method having the limitations of:
the inspection module further comprises software developed through machine learning techniques (see; par. [0289] of Cella teaches an example of the development of software that is developed from machine learning to provide assistance to workers (i.e. experts)).
Referring to Claim 17, see discussion of claim 14 above, while Cella teaches the method above, Cella further disclose a method having the limitations of:
a training module, wherein the training module runs on the cloud-based server, configured to provide training for the non- destructive inspection (see; par. [0014] of Cella teaches providing a training set in the cloud).
Referring to Claim 18, see discussion of claim 17 above, while Cella teaches the method above, Cella further disclose a method having the limitations of:
the training module further comprises a simulator configured to provide hands-on training for the non-destructive inspection (see; par. [0016] and par. [0430] of Cella teaches an example of simulation training using AR/VR).
Referring to Claim 19, see discussion of claim 14 above, while Cella teaches the method above, Cella further disclose a method having the limitations of:
an audit module configured to facilitate monitoring of the non-destructive inspection (see; par. [4258] of Cella teaches an auditing authorization, par. [4217] to provide auditing of report information).
Referring to Claim 20, see discussion of claim 14 above, while Cella teaches the method above, Cella further disclose a method having the limitations of:
an audit module configured to facilitate audit of the digital information (see; par. [4217] of Cella teaches to provide auditing of report information).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
MCDONALD et al. WO 2022/056640 A1 discloses system for performing computer-assisted image analysis of welds and related methods.
Sun et al. KR 20130082527 discloses a method for managing experts.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN S SWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7789. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 - 6:00.
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, Boswell Beth can be reached at 571 272-6737. 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.
/S.S.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625