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 .
Status of Application
This action is in reply to the amendments filed 11 September 2025.
Claims 1-14, 16-19 have been amended.
Claims 15 has been canceled.
Claims 1 - 14 & 16 - 20 are pending and elected for examination.
The Examiner respectfully rescinds the claim objection to claim 4 in view of the claimed amendments.
The Examiner respectfully rescinds the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection in view of the claimed amendments.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 USC §119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in the present application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 11, 2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 16-19, filed 11 September 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-14 & 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Shimomura US 2008/001269.
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.
Brandmaier + Shimomura
Claims 1, 13, 18, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,019,092 B1, hereinafter Brandmaier in view of Shimomura US 2008/0012693 A1.
Regarding Claim 19, Brandmaier teaches A system comprising: an electronic control unit (ECU) of a vehicle, the ECU adapted to perform an anti-theft function (see at least Brandmaier Claim 5: the disturbance event is a towing or theft of the vehicle) when mounted at or adjacent a roof in a passenger’s cabin of a vehicle (see at least Brandmaier Fig. 1 showing the transmitters of the system on the roof and C7 – C8 component 424, the communications equipment and ECU), the ECU comprising: at least one acceleration sensor (see at least Brandmaier Fig. 4 component 408 CAN (automatic collision notifier) the examiner interprets the ACN as an example of an ECU completing control processes); and a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions (see at least Brandmaier C1 Ln58: Aspects of the disclosure may be provided in non-transitory computer-readable media having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed, cause a processor of a computing device cause the processor to perform one or more of the processes described in this disclosure) that when executed by the ECU cause the ECU to: sense, by the at least one acceleration sensor, acceleration signals along three perpendicular axes (X, Y, Z) (see at least Brandmaier C7 Ln7: components may include, for example, one or more accelerometers 420 (e.g., triaxial accelerometers)); determine characteristics of the acceleration signals and the ultrasonic signal; and determine where damage on a vehicle has occurred by evaluating the characteristics of the acceleration signals and the ultrasonic signal (see at least Brandmaier C8 Ln8: Sensors 430 may also include sensors that can detect the status and condition of the vehicle wheels and tires as well as sensors that can detect damage to the panels of the vehicle body, e.g., deformations, dents, punctures, and so forth).
Brandmaier does not explicitly teach an ultrasonic sensor. However, Shimomura teaches and at least one ultrasonic sensor including a transmitter and a receiver, wherein the ECU and the at least one acceleration sensor and the at least one ultrasonic sensor are adapted to perform the anti-theft function, wherein the at least one ultrasonic sensor detects movements within the interior of the vehicle and the at least one acceleration sensor detects any changes of an inclination of the vehicle; (see at least Shimomura para. 0023: The theft detection device 15 detects the theft action of the vehicle 10, and includes a break-in (intrusion) sensor, a vibration sensor; an inclination sensor and a glass break sensor. The break-in sensor has a ultrasonic sensor or an electric wave sensor which is directed toward the interior of the vehicle, and detects a person who breaks in the interior of the vehicle by the ultrasonic sensor or the electric wave sensor. The vibration sensor has an acceleration sensor and detects the vibration of the vehicle by the acceleration sensor); determine characteristics of the acceleration signals and the ultrasonic signal see at least Shimomura para. 0023: The theft detection device 15 detects the theft action of the vehicle 10, and includes a break-in (intrusion) sensor, a vibration sensor; an inclination sensor and a glass break sensor. The break-in sensor has a ultrasonic sensor or an electric wave sensor which is directed toward the interior of the vehicle, and detects a person who breaks in the interior of the vehicle by the ultrasonic sensor or the electric wave sensor. The vibration sensor has an acceleration sensor and detects the vibration of the vehicle by the acceleration sensor); and determine where damage on a vehicle has occurred by evaluating the characteristics of the acceleration signals and the ultrasonic signal (see at least Shimomura para. 0023: The inclination sensor is formed of an inclination angle sensor, and detects that the posture of the vehicle rapidly changes, that is, is rapidly inclined by the inclination angle sensor. The glass break sensor has a device which detects that conductors which are embedded in the glass of the vehicle are disconnected due to shatter of the glass, and detects that the glass is broken. The theft detection device 15 (the break-in sensor, the vibration sensor, the inclination sensor, the glass break sensor) starts the detection operation on the basis of a control signal from the control unit 11.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brandmaier to incorporate the method of Shimomura to increase the security of the system such that the theft detection device 15 notifies the control unit 11 of a theft signal indicating that the theft is detected (Shimomura para. 0023). Therefore, the design incentives of increased security provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Brandmaier and Niemann teaches the limitations of claim 19 further comprising the vehicle (see at least Brandmaier Abstract: installed at a vehicle).
Regarding Claim 1, Brandmaier teaches The system of claim 19, wherein the instructions of the non- transitory computer readable medium, when executed by the ECU, further cause the ECU to: (see at least Brandmaier C1 Ln58: Aspects of the disclosure may be provided in non-transitory computer-readable media having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed, cause a processor of a computing device cause the processor to perform one or more of the processes described in this disclosure) sense, by the at least one acceleration sensor, acceleration signals along three perpendicular axes (X, Y, Z) (see at least Brandmaier C7 Ln7: components may include, for example, one or more accelerometers 420 (e.g., triaxial accelerometers)); sense, by the at least one ultrasonic sensor, an ultrasonic signal; determine characteristics of the acceleration signals and the ultrasonic signal; and determine where the damage on the vehicle has occurred by evaluating the characteristics of the acceleration signals and the ultrasonic signal. (see at least Brandmaier C8 Ln8: Sensors 430 may also include sensors that can detect the status and condition of the vehicle wheels and tires as well as sensors that can detect damage to the panels of the vehicle body, e.g., deformations, dents, punctures, and so forth).
Brandmaier does not explicitly teach an ultrasonic sensor. However, Shimomura teaches sense, by the at least one ultrasonic sensor, an ultrasonic signal; (see at least Shimomura para. 0023: The theft detection device 15 detects the theft action of the vehicle 10, and includes a break-in (intrusion) sensor, a vibration sensor; an inclination sensor and a glass break sensor. The break-in sensor has a ultrasonic sensor or an electric wave sensor which is directed toward the interior of the vehicle, and detects a person who breaks in the interior of the vehicle by the ultrasonic sensor or the electric wave sensor. The vibration sensor has an acceleration sensor and detects the vibration of the vehicle by the acceleration sensor); determine characteristics of the acceleration signals and the ultrasonic signal; (see at least Shimomura para. 0023: The theft detection device 15 detects the theft action of the vehicle 10, and includes a break-in (intrusion) sensor, a vibration sensor; an inclination sensor and a glass break sensor. The break-in sensor has a ultrasonic sensor or an electric wave sensor which is directed toward the interior of the vehicle, and detects a person who breaks in the interior of the vehicle by the ultrasonic sensor or the electric wave sensor. The vibration sensor has an acceleration sensor and detects the vibration of the vehicle by the acceleration sensor); and determine where the damage on the vehicle has occurred by evaluating the characteristics of the acceleration signals and the ultrasonic signal (see at least Shimomura para. 0023: The inclination sensor is formed of an inclination angle sensor, and detects that the posture of the vehicle rapidly changes, that is, is rapidly inclined by the inclination angle sensor. The glass break sensor has a device which detects that conductors which are embedded in the glass of the vehicle are disconnected due to shatter of the glass, and detects that the glass is broken. The theft detection device 15 (the break-in sensor, the vibration sensor, the inclination sensor, the glass break sensor) starts the detection operation on the basis of a control signal from the control unit 11.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brandmaier to incorporate the method of Shimomura to increase the security of the system such that the theft detection device 15 notifies the control unit 11 of a theft signal indicating that the theft is detected (Shimomura para. 0023). Therefore, the design incentives of increased security provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Regarding Claim 13, Brandmaier teaches the axes are oriented in parallel to a longitudinal (Y), a transverse (X) and a height (Z) axis of the vehicle (see at least Brandmaier C7 Ln7: components may include, for example, one or more accelerometers 420 (e.g., triaxial accelerometers)).
Regarding Claim 18 are directed toward a non-transitory computer readable medium that performs the steps recited in the systems of claims 19. The cited portions of the reference(s) used in the rejections of claims 19 teach the steps recited in claims 18. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale used in the rejections of claims 19.
Claims 2– 5, 9, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandmaier in view of Shimomura and in further view of patent publication US 2021/0048449 A1, hereinafter Kim.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Brandmaier & Shimomura teach the limitation of claim 1 and the characteristics comprise at least one of duration, amplitude, frequency, decay time, rise time, slew rate, envelope or prefix of a signal (see at least Kim P0011: a vector sum of the acceleration signals as the impact value and P0014: The effective impact determining device may compare the impact value with the impact detection reference value for each location of the vehicle, when the impact value is greater than a predetermined minimum reference value);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brandmaier & Shimomura to increase the security of the system by incorporate the method of Kim in the same field of invention to incorporate acceleration sensors for the advantage of incorporating multiple sensors which indicate and impact applied to the vehicle (see at least Kim P0033).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Brandmaier & Shimomura teaches the limitation of claim 1 and compare amplitudes of the acceleration signals sensed along each axis; and determine an axis that has a maximum acceleration amplitude (AMAX) (see at least Kim P0012: The impact location estimator may detect an impact direction corresponding to a maximum impact force point on a three-dimensional (3D) coordinate system for the acceleration signals).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brandmaier & Shimomura to increase the security of the system by incorporate the method of Kim in the same field of invention to incorporate acceleration sensors for the advantage of incorporating multiple sensors which indicate and impact applied to the vehicle (see at least Kim P0033).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Brandmaier & Shimomura teaches the limitation of claim 3 and determine a maximum ultrasonic amplitude (see at least Kim P0011: a vector sum of the acceleration signals as the impact value and P0014: The effective impact determining device may compare the impact value with the impact detection reference value for each location of the vehicle, when the impact value is greater than a predetermined minimum reference value);compare the maximum acceleration amplitude with an acceleration threshold and compare the maximum ultrasonic amplitude with an ultrasonic threshold (see at least Kim P0011: a vector sum of the acceleration signals as the impact value and P0014: The effective impact determining device may compare the impact value with the impact detection reference value for each location of the vehicle, when the impact value is greater than a predetermined minimum reference value);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brandmaier & Shimomura to increase the security of the system by incorporate the method of Kim in the same field of invention to incorporate acceleration sensors for the advantage of incorporating multiple sensors which indicate and impact applied to the vehicle (see at least Kim P0033).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Brandmaier & Shimomura teaches the limitation of claim 4 and it is determined by the ECU that a damage on a roof of the vehicle has occurred if the maximum acceleration amplitude exceeds the acceleration threshold (see at least Kim P0014: compare the impact value with the impact detection reference value) and the maximum ultrasonic amplitude exceeds the ultrasonic threshold (see at least Kim P0011: a vector sum of the acceleration signals as the impact value and P0014: The effective impact determining device may compare the impact value with the impact detection reference value for each location of the vehicle, when the impact value is greater than a predetermined minimum reference value);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brandmaier & Shimomura to increase the security of the system by incorporate the method of Kim in the same field of invention to incorporate acceleration sensors for the advantage of incorporating multiple sensors which indicate and impact applied to the vehicle (see at least Kim P0033).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Brandmaier & Shimomura teaches the limitation of claim 4 and at least one of the acceleration threshold or the ultrasonic threshold is a preset threshold (see at least Kim Fig. 4 step 420: does impact of minimum reference value or more occur? With the reference value being set preset before impact in step 410).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brandmaier & Shimomura to increase the security of the system by incorporate the method of Kim in the same field of invention to incorporate acceleration sensors for the advantage of incorporating multiple sensors which indicate and impact applied to the vehicle (see at least Kim P0033).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Brandmaier & Shimomura teaches the limitation of claim 1 and the at least one acceleration sensor comprises one acceleration sensor (see at least Brandmaier C7 Ln7: components may include, for example, one or more accelerometers 420 (e.g., triaxial accelerometers));and wherein the at least one ultrasonic sensor comprises one ultrasonic sensor (see at least Shimomura para. 0023: The break-in sensor has a ultrasonic sensor or an electric wave sensor which is directed toward the interior of the vehicle, and detects a person who breaks in the interior of the vehicle by the ultrasonic sensor or the electric wave sensor. The vibration sensor has an acceleration sensor and detects the vibration of the vehicle by the acceleration sensor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brandmaier to incorporate the method of Shimomura to increase the security of the system such that the theft detection device 15 notifies the control unit 11 of a theft signal indicating that the theft is detected (Shimomura para. 0023). Therefore, the design incentives of increased security provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Brandmaier & Shimomura teaches the limitation of claim 1 and the characteristics comprise at least one of duration, amplitude, frequency, decay time, rise time, slew rate, envelope or prefix of a signal, wherein the instructions of the non- transitory computer readable medium, when executed by the ECU, further cause the ECU to (see at least Kim P0033: an impact detector 30 may include various sensors ( e.g., a piezoelectric sensor, a vibration sensor, and the like), which are mounted in front and rear surfaces and a side surface of the vehicle, each of which outputs an electrical signal having electrical characteristics (e.g., a frequency, an amplitude, and the like) indicating an impact applied to the vehicle), the method further comprising: compare the amplitudes of the acceleration signals sensed along each axis; and determine an axis that has a maximum acceleration amplitude (see at least Kim P0012: The impact location estimator may detect an impact direction corresponding to a maximum impact force point on a three-dimensional (3D) coordinate system for the acceleration signals).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brandmaier & Shimomura to increase the security of the system by incorporate the method of Kim in the same field of invention to incorporate acceleration sensors for the advantage of incorporating multiple sensors which indicate and impact applied to the vehicle (see at least Kim P0033).
Neimann + Kim + Dobra
Claims 6 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandmaier & Shimomura in view of Kim in further view of US 9,592,765 B2, hereinafter Dobra.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Brandmaier & Shimomura teaches the limitation of claim 5 and evaluate the characteristics of the filtered acceleration signals to determine along what axis a peak of a filtered acceleration signal exceeds a threshold (see at least Kim P0012: The impact location estimator may detect an impact direction corresponding to a maximum impact force point on a three-dimensional (3D) coordinate system for the acceleration signals). The combination does not explicitly teach filtering specific signals. However, Dobra teaches filter out acceleration signals having a frequency in a range of 0 - 60 Hz after determining that a damage on the roof has not occurred (see at least Dobra C2 Ln47: The FIR filter or IIR filter preferably has a filter band or frequency pass range in the range 0.2 to 40 Hz, more preferably 0.5 to 20 Hz and particularly preferred 2.5 to 7.5 and C7 Ln1: The frequency range is selected to ensure major and minor crashes are detected); and evaluating the characteristics of the filtered acceleration signals to determine along what axis a peak of a filtered acceleration signal exceeds a threshold (see at least Dobra C9 Ln18: Parameters which are currently monitored as variants within the filters include… 5 Maximum speed loss in any one second; 6 Maximum acceleration amplitude; 7 Maximum acceleration amplitude in the z axis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Brandmaier & Shimomura and Kim to incorporate the method of Dobra in the same field of invention to filter the signals for specific frequencies for the advantage of ensuring specific crash types are detected (see at least Dobra C7 Ln1).
Although Dobra does not expressly disclose a 0-60 Hz filter, it does teach the functionality of filtering based on desired detection ranges. The Examiner notes, adjusting the filter values does not modify the operation of the detection and sensing method and system, and to have modified the method and system of Brandmaier & Shimomura and Kim to have included Brandmaier & Shimomura and Kim would have been obvious to the skilled artisan because the inclusion of such step would have been an obvious matter of design choice in light of the method and system already disclosed by Brandmaier & Shimomura, Kim, and Dobra. Such modification would not have otherwise affected the method and system of Brandmaier & Shimomura and Kim and would have merely represented one of numerous steps or elements that the skilled artisan would have found obvious for the purposes already disclosed by Dobra.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Brandmaier & Shimomura and Kim teaches the limitation of claim 6 and the filtered acceleration signals have a frequency in the range of about 30 - 50 Hz (see at least Dobra C2 Ln47: The FIR filter or IIR filter preferably has a filter band or frequency pass range in the range 0.2 to 40 Hz, more preferably 0.5 to 20 Hz and particularly preferred 2.5 to 7.5 and C7 Ln1: The frequency range is selected to ensure major and minor crashes are detected).
For the same reasons as described in claim 6, the choice of 30-50 Hz frequencies in claim 7 would have been an obvious design choice based on desired crash detection characteristics that would not have otherwise affected the disclosed system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Brandmaier & Shimomura and Kim to incorporate the method of Dobra in the same field of invention to filter the signals for specific frequencies for the advantage of ensuring specific crash types are detected (see at least Dobra C7 Ln1).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Brandmaier & Shimomura and Kim teaches the limitation of claim 7 and evaluating the characteristics of a filtered acceleration signal comprises: detecting a prefix of the peak; and using the prefix to determine a location of the damage (see at least Dobra C7 Ln48: by looking at the speed 10 seconds before and after the crash event, it is possible to derive more detailed information about the nature of the crash).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Brandmaier & Shimomura and Kim to incorporate the method of Dobra in the same field of invention to filter the signals for specific frequencies for the advantage of ensuring specific crash types are detected (see at least Dobra C7 Ln1).
Brandmaier + Shimomura + Kim + He
Claims 10, & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandmaier & Shimomura in view of Kim in further view of “Damage identification in welded structures using symmetric excitation of Lamb waves”, hereinafter He.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Brandmaier & Shimomura and Kim teaches the limitation of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach time decay evaluation. However, He teaches it is determined if a damage on metal or on another material has occurred by evaluating a time decay of at least one of the ultrasonic signal or the acceleration signals (see at least He Theory, Single-mode Lamb waves, Ellipse location method, Elliptic equation based on time delay: The propagation speed of the signal in the plate structure is related to the material properties and Abstract: According to the propagation characteristics and with the assistance of the ellipse localization method with MATLAB, the location of crack damage is simulated by the amplitude addition method and the crack damage location is determined).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Brandmaier & Shimomura and Kim to incorporate the method of He in the damage detection field of invention to use signal properties over time in the detection of damage in welded components for the advantage of monitoring metal and composite materials (see at least He Abstract).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Brandmaier & Shimomura and Kim teaches the limitation of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach signal symmetry detection. However, He teaches a symmetry of a signal is used to determine the location of a damage (see at least He Abstract: a symmetric excitation can simplify the received waves and recognize crack damage in plates in welded steel structures from an experimental perspective of this work).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Brandmaier & Shimomura and Kim to incorporate the method of He in the damage detection field of invention to use symmetric waves in the detection of damage in welded components for the advantage of actively monitoring damage (see at least He Section 4 regarding ultrasonic Lamb wave generation and usage).
Claims 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandmaier & Shimomura in view of Kim in further view of Niemann US 10,604,096, hereafter Niemann.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Brandmaier & Shimomura and Kim teaches the limitation of claim 1. Brandmaier & Shimomura and Kim and but does not explicitly teach ultrasonic signal is used to determine a damage on a bumper of the vehicle. However, Niemann teaches a maximum amplitude of the ultrasonic signal is used by the ECU to determine a damage on a bumper of the vehicle (see at least Niemann C2 Ln39: if only the structure-borne sound sensors associated with the bumpers and/or the lower door area are stimulated, the conclusion drawn is ramming damage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Brandmaier & Shimomura and Kim to incorporate the method of Niemann to better detect contact events on the outer shell of a vehicle (see at least Niemann C1 Ln44-45).
Claims 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandmaier & Shimomura in view of Kim in further view of Niemann US 10,604,096, hereafter Niemann and in further view of “Damage identification in welded structures using symmetric excitation of Lamb waves”, hereinafter He.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Brandmaier & Shimomura and Kim teaches the limitation of claim 1. Brandmaier & Shimomura and Kim and but does not explicitly teach the following. However, Niemann teach determining a maximum amplitude of the ultrasonic signal to determine a damage on a bumper of the vehicle (see at least Niemann C2 Ln39: if only the structure-borne sound sensors associated with the bumpers and/or the lower door area are stimulated, the conclusion drawn is ramming damage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Brandmaier & Shimomura and Kim to incorporate the method of Niemann to better detect contact events on the outer shell of a vehicle (see at least Niemann C1 Ln44-45).
The combination does not explicitly teach signal time decay or symmetry detection. However, He teaches evaluating a time decay of at least one of the ultrasonic signal or the acceleration signals to determine if a damage on metal or on another material has occurred (see at least He Theory, Single-mode Lamb waves, Ellipse location method, Elliptic equation based on time delay: The propagation speed of the signal in the plate structure is related to the material properties and Abstract: According to the propagation characteristics and with the assistance of the ellipse localization method with MATLAB, the location of crack damage is simulated by the amplitude addition method and the crack damage location is determined); and determining a symmetry of a signal to determine the location of a damage (see at least He Abstract: a symmetric excitation can simplify the received waves and recognize crack damage in plates in welded steel structures from an experimental perspective of this work).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Brandmaier & Shimomura and Kim to incorporate the method of He in the damage detection field of invention to use signal properties over time in the detection of damage in welded components for the advantage of monitoring metal and composite materials (see at least He Abstract) and symmetric waves in the detection of damage in welded components for the advantage of actively monitoring damage (see at least He Section 4 regarding ultrasonic Lamb wave generation and usage).
Conclusion
Related References
The related art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DE 102017106749 A1 by UENVER teaches a structure-borne ultrasound and acceleration vehicle monitor for determining damage with significant discussion of sound wave detection.
“Damages detection in a composite structure by vibration Analysis” by Lakhdar teaches damage detection in varying materials.
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 KITO R ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3921. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, James Trammell can be reached at (571) 272-6712. 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.
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664