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 .
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection
Applicant argues the identified abstract idea is integrated into a practical application, as now the claim more definitely defines a physical structure; however, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
While the claim recites automatically detecting a defect in a physical structure by classifying acoustic signals into classes of acoustic sources, the claimed method merely analyzes and categorized data to determined whether a defect may be present. The result of this analysis is the generation of more information merely identifying a potential defect, as the claim does not recite any action that affects or modifies the physical structure itself based on the result or performance of the abstract idea.
Although the claim defines a physical structure and acoustic signals, these additional elements are only used as inputs to the data analysis and classification process. The output of the claimed method is merely data describing the detected condition, which does not result in any technological improvement or change to the physical structure.
Applicant reliance on the PTAB decision regarding improvements to computer functionality is not applicable here. The claim does not recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology. At best, the indirectly claimed computer is merely acting as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. The specification’s statement that the classification is more robust and reliable does not, by itself, establish the claim recites a technological improvement.
Therefore, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a Fourier transform of the ultrasonic signal measured in the time domain; c) automatically classifying the acoustic source into a class of acoustic sources chosen from among multiple possible classes of acoustic sources, wherein the method also comprises, between steps b) and c), a step d) reconstructing the acoustic signal produced during the occurrence or the evolution of the defect, the reconstruction step reconstructing comprising constructing an estimate Se(w) of the signal produced at the position of the defect based on the ultrasonic signal Fj(t) measured by the sensor and using an estimate or a measurement of a product Rj(w)G(w) that relates, in the frequency domain, the measured ultrasonic signal Fj(w) to the produced acoustic signal S(w), and the automatic classification is carried out based on the estimate of the acoustic signal as obtained at an end of step d) which has been identified as an abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts. The claimed Fourier transform is a well-known mathematical operation. In applicant’s filed specification, page 8 line 21 to page 10 line 9 and page 10 line 20 to page 11 line 13, applicant discloses using blind reconstruction to understand how the signals are mixed. As known, the blind reconstruction method involves mathematic models, statistical principles and various mathematic algorithms to separate and reconstruct the signals. On pages 9 and 10, applicant discloses the construction relationship as mathematical functions used during the construction and reconstruction. Further, backpropagation of the signals is performed, consisting of multiplying the signal by the conjugate of the complex propagation function. The claimed classification involves known unsupervised classification methods, which involves linear algebra, probability and statistics, k-means clustering algorithms and distance metrics. Therefore, the identified abstract idea was determined to fall into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because a physical defect in a physical structure is considered to be an additional element that merely links these mathematical principles to a field of use; as neither the performance or result of the abstract idea improves the structure or defect. MPEP 2106.05(h)
The claim further recites “a) fitting out the structure by fastening at least one ultrasonic sensor to the structure, and then b) using the at least one ultrasonic sensor to measure an ultrasonic signal Fj(t) caused by the acoustic signal produced by the occurrence or the evolution of the defect in the physical structure, the measured ultrasonic signal being related, in the frequency domain, to the produced acoustic signal by the following relationship: Fe(w) = Rj(w)Gj(w)S(w), where: j is an index identifying the at least one ultrasonic sensor, w is an angular frequency in radians, S(w) is the Fourier transform of the acoustic signal S(t) produced by the occurrence or the evolution of the defect in the physical structure, R(w) is a response, in the frequency domain, of the at least one ultrasonic sensor j, Gj(w) is a propagation function, in the frequency domain, of the acoustic signal in the physical structure between a position of the defect and a location of the sensor j”. These identified additional elements revolve around collecting the needed data to preform the abstract idea. The claimed ultrasonic sensors are considered to be generic ultrasonic sensors employed on the physical structure to perform the insignificant pre-solution activity of mere data gathering, as neither the performance or result of the abstract idea improves the sensors or the data collected; evidence by the cited reference in the Conclusion section below and applicant’s filed specification on page 2. Therefore, these recited additional elements are merely directed towards data gathering while the data relationship to the physical structure itself does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(g)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, neither alone or in combination, are bettered or improved by the identified abstract idea. The physical structure and physical defect merely link the abstract idea to field of use while the ultrasonic sensors, respective locations and signals, are additional element structure used to gather the needed data to perform the abstract idea, without being improved or bettered by the result or operation of the mathematical operations. Therefore, the claim fails to amount to significantly more.
Claim 2 further defines the step of fitting out the ultrasonic sensors to the physical structure at known positions and using the ultrasonic sensors to measure respective ultrasonic signal. This step merely describes how the sensors are attached to the physical structure for sensing data in a conventional manner; as detailed in applicant’s specification on page 2. The sensors are neither improved or bettered during the operation of the abstract idea and therefore only perform the insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(g)
The claim further defines the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping by reciting locating the position of the physical defect using the mathematical operation of triangulation, page 7 line 23-32. The further defined abstract idea falls into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 3-4 further define the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea of mathematical concepts, as the claim recites the explicit the mathematical function used to perform the construction without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application; as the ultrasonic sensor is merely performing the insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claim 5 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 6 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; as a Green Function, as disclosed, is a mathematical operation involving linear differential equations.
Claim 7 further defines the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts. The claim details learning the product of the claimed functions using numerical simulations by the relationship defined within the claim. Further the relationship details a Fast Fourier Transformation of the measured or simulated signals from a known acoustic signal. The learning also performs selecting the products of the recited functions (seen within the claim) closest to the physical defect and determining the estimates of the signal in terms of the claimed functions. Therefore, the claim fails to provide significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application; as the recited sensors are merely collecting the needed data to perform the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.5(g)
Claim 8 further defines the abstract idea by reciting a step of applying an inverse Fourier transformation of estimate when constructing the estimate which is a mathematic operation. The claim fails to provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 9 further defines extracting data from the estimated signal and then classifying based on the extracted data. The limitations of claim 9 were found to recite mathematical concepts, as extracting data from a signal and classifying that extract data involve methods like mean, standard deviation and peak values, which are known mathematical approaches when analyzing data. The claim, therefore, fails to provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 10 recites a non-transitory information recording medium and a processor. These limitations are considered to be additional elements that describe generic computer elements acting as tools for performing the identified abstract idea; as neither are improved or bettered during operation or result of the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(a)
Claim 11 recites a Fourier transform of the ultrasonic signal in the time domain; c) automatically classifying the acoustic source into a class of acoustic sources chosen from among multiple possible classes of acoustic sources, wherein reconstruct the acoustic signal produced during the occurrence or the evolution of the physical defect, the reconstruction comprising constructing an estimate Se(w) of the signal produced at the position of the defect based on the ultrasonic signal Fj(t) measured by the at least one ultrasonic sensor and using an estimate or a measurement of a product Rj(w)G(w) that relates, in the frequency domain, the measured ultrasonic signal Fj(w) to the produced acoustic signal S(w), and carry out the automatic classification is carried out based on the estimate of the acoustic signal as obtained at an end of step d) which has been identified as an abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts. The claimed Fourier transform is a well-known mathematic operation. Further, in applicant’s filed specification, page 8 line 21 to page 10 line 9 and page 10 line 20 to page 11 line 13, applicant discloses using a blind reconstruction method to understand how the signals are mixed. As known, blind reconstruction involves mathematic models, statistical principles and various mathematic algorithms to separate and reconstruct the signals. On pages 9 and 10, applicant discloses the construction relationship as mathematical functions used during the construction and reconstruction operations. Further, backpropagation of the signals is performed, consisting of multiplying the signal by the conjugate of the complex propagation function. Lastly, the claimed classification involves known unsupervised classification methods, which is known to involve linear algebra, probability and statistics, k-means clustering algorithms and distance metrics. Therefore, the identified abstract idea was determined to fall into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because a physical defect in a physical structure is considered to be an additional element that merely links these mathematical principles to a field of use; as neither the performance or result of the abstract idea improves the structure or defect. MPEP 2106.05(h)
The claim further recites “at least one ultrasonic sensor fastened to the physical structure, the ultrasonic sensor being able configured to measure an ultrasonic signal Fj(t) caused by the acoustic signal produced by the occurrence or the evolution of the physical defect in the physical structure, the measured ultrasonic signal being related, in the frequency domain, to the produced acoustic signal by the following relationship: Fj(w) = R3(w)Gj(w)S(w), where: j is an index identifying the ultrasonic sensor, w is an angular frequency in radians, S(w) is the Fourier transform of the acoustic signal S(t) produced by the occurrence or the evolution of the physical defect in the physical structure, R(w) is a response, in the frequency domain, of the at least one ultrasonic sensor j, G(w) is a propagation function, in the frequency domain, of the acoustic signal in the structure between the position where the physical defect occurs and a location of the sensor j” which has been identified as additional elements. These additional elements revolve around collecting the needed data to perform the abstract idea. The claimed sensors are considered to be generic acoustic sensors employed on the structure to perform the insignificant pre-solution activity of mere data gathering, as neither the performance or result of the abstract idea improves the sensors or the data collected; as evidenced by the reference cited in the Conclusion section and applicant’s filed specification of page 2. Therefore, the recited additional elements directed towards data gathering and the data relationship to the structure does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(g)
The recites “an electronic computer” has been identified as an additional element. This generically claimed computer merely acts as a tool for performing the abstract idea, as neither the performance or result of the abstract idea improves the operation of the electronic computer. Therefore, the recited electronic computer fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. 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 elements, neither alone or in combination, are bettered or improved by the identified abstract idea. The physical structure and physical defect merely link the abstract idea to field of use while the sensors, respective locations and signals, are additional element structure used to gather the needed data to perform the abstract idea; as they are not improved or bettered by the result or operation of the mathematical operations. Lastly, the claimed computer is merely performing the abstract idea without being improved by the performance. Therefore, the claim fails to amount to significantly more.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Donskoy et al. (2021/0156759) teaches using vibro-acoustic modulation to evaluate the evolution of a defect in a structure. However, the disclosed invention in Donskoy et al. fails to implement the specific mathematic algorithmic process to detect a defect.
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.
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.
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