DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/25/2023 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuyuki JP 2009036623 (as seen in the IDS) in view of Ushijima US 20200003735.
As to claim 1, Yasuyuki teaches “A detection device ([0001]; Figure 13) comprising: a detector (Figure 13, 1 is an ultrasonic output unit); a first propagation member attached to the detector and configured to propagate the ultrasonic wave (Figure 13, 21 is the first acoustic impedance matching layer); and a fixture (Figure 13, 23; [0065] teaches the attachment and detachment of roller 22 held in place by the fixture 23) configured to detachably fix a second propagation member to the first propagation member (Figure 13, 22 is the second propagation member also known as the second impedance matching layer), the second propagation member being configured to propagate the ultrasonic wave and being softer than the first propagation member ([0042] teaches various materials for this member; [0011] also teaches various materials, coating types and thicknesses for the impedance matching layers. Based on this, one of ordinary skill in the art could choose the appropriate material to optimize the function of the detection device).” Yasuyuki does not explicitly teach a plurality of detection elements
Ushijima teaches “including a plurality of detection elements configured to transmit an ultrasonic wave and detect a reflected wave ([0030]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Ushijima with Yasuyuki. Using an array type transducer is known in the art since it aids in increasing the accuracy of the measurement since more data points are utilized.
As to claim 6, Yasuyuki teaches “wherein the second propagation member has an acoustic impedance larger than 1.0 × 105 (Pa⋅s/m) and smaller than 1.0 × 108 (Pa⋅s/m) ([0043] to [0046] teaches the criticality of certain impedances. Based on this, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified or chosen materials with ideal impedance values).”
As to claim 7, Yasuyuki teaches “and a processing device configured to determine whether the second propagation member is abnormal based on intensity data indicating an intensity of the reflected wave detected by the plurality of detection elements ([0031]).”
As to claim 8, Ushijima teaches “and a robot including a manipulator, the detection device being provided at a distal end of the manipulator (Figure 1).”
As to claim 9, Yasuyuki teaches “a replacement device configured to remove the second propagation member from the fixture and supply another second propagation member ([0034] teaches that parts are detachable. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of a replacement device, the user itself can replace the second propagation member as needed).”
As to claim 11, Yasuyuki teaches “A detection system ([0001]; Figure 13) comprising: a detection device including a detector (Figure 13, 1 is an ultrasonic output unit), a first propagation member attached to the detector and configured to propagate the ultrasonic wave (Figure 13, 21 is the first acoustic impedance matching layer), and a second propagation member attached to the first propagation member (Figure 13, 22 is the second propagation member also known as the second impedance matching layer), the second propagation member being configured to propagate the ultrasonic wave and being softer than the first propagation member ([0042] teaches various materials for this member; [0011] also teaches various materials, coating types and thicknesses for the impedance matching layers. Based on this, one of ordinary skill in the art could choose the appropriate material to optimize the function of the detection device); and a replacement device configured to replace the second propagation member ([0034] teaches that parts are detachable. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of a replacement device, the user itself can replace the second propagation member as needed).” Yasuyuki does not explicitly teach a plurality of detection elements
Ushijima teaches “including a plurality of detection elements configured to transmit an ultrasonic wave and detect a reflected wave ([0030]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Ushijima with Yasuyuki. Using an array type transducer is known in the art since it aids in increasing the accuracy of the measurement since more data points are utilized.
As to claim 12, Yasuyuki teaches “a processing device configured to determine whether the second propagation member is abnormal based on intensity data, the intensity data indicating an intensity of the reflected waves detected by the plurality of detection elements ([0031]).”
As to claim 13, Yasuyuki teaches “wherein the detection device includes a fixture configured to detachably fix the second propagation member to the first propagation member (Figure 13, 23; [0065] teaches the attachment and detachment of roller 22 held in place by the fixture 23).”
Claim(s) 2, 3, 4, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuyuki JP 2009036623 (as seen in the IDS) in view of Ushijima US 20200003735 and in further view of Yoko JP 2018110712.
As to claim 2, the prior arts teach the second propagation member but do not explicitly teach the claimed embodiment. The concept is the same, however the construction of the apparatus differs.
Yoko teaches “herein the second propagation member includes a first portion configured to be pressed against the fixture (Figure 2, 14 is frame that can be attached to main body 10), and a second portion surrounded by the first portion (Figure 2, 22), the second portion protruding from the first portion and being configured to come into contact with an object (Figure 2, 22 is the second portion that protrudes from the first portion and comes into contact with an object).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Yoko with Ushijima and Yasuyuki. This prior art teaches a detachable attachment that aids in the measurement. The detachable portion has an impedance matching portion aiding in signal propagation from the transducer into the object. All the prior arts teach this, The combination teaches a fixture in Yoko, 14, which is similar to that fixture in Yasuyuki (axle) because both connect an element that interacts with the object under test to a first impedance matching element adjacent to the transducer head. The concept of using impedance matching members to improve signal propagation is known, the based on the structural differences in the claimed invention and prior art, one of ordinary skill in the art could have made these structural differences that obtain the same experimental results.
As to claim 3, Yoko teaches “wherein when the second propagation member comes into contact with the object, the second portion is deformed such that the fixture comes into contact with the object ([0033]).”
As to claim 4, Yasutuki teaches “the first propagation member includes a second contact surface configured to come into contact with the second propagation member, and the first contact surface is parallel to the second contact surface (Figure 4b, 21 is the first propagation member and has a contact surface 21b that is parallel to 22a. This is a different embodiment seen in Yasutuki which does not involves the roller element, however in that embodiment seen in Figure 12, element 21 still has a contact surface that is parallel to the surface of 22a. These elements do come into contact via the body and roller element 23).” Yasutuki does not explicitly teach the claimed structural configuration, however teaches the same concept of impedance matched elements as seen in the claimed invention.
Yoko teaches “wherein the fixture (Figure 2 represents a fixture where 14 meets 10) includes a first contact surface configured to come into contact with an object (Figure 2, 22 has a bottom surface which comes into contact with the object).”
As to claim 5, Yasutuki teaches ““wherein the detector includes a housing that houses (Figure 13, 9; [0047]).” Yasuyuki does not explicitly teach a plurality of detection elements
Ushijima teaches “the plurality of detection elements ([[0030]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Ushijima with Yasuyuki. Using an array type transducer is known in the art since it aids in increasing the accuracy of the measurement since more data points are utilized.
The prior arts do not teach the specifics of the fixing member and propagation member arrangements.
Yoko teaches “the fixture includes a pressing member having one end fixed to the housing (Figure 2, 14 attaches to 10 via a pressing member) and the other end pressing the second propagation member toward the first propagation member (Figure 2, 14 surrounds 22 at 33).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Yoko with Ushijima and Yasuyuki. This prior art teaches a detachable attachment that aids in the measurement. The detachable portion has an impedance matching portion aiding in signal propagation from the transducer into the object. All the prior arts teach this, The combination teaches a fixture in Yoko, 14, which is similar to that fixture in Yasuyuki (axle) because both connect an element that interacts with the object under test to a first impedance matching element adjacent to the transducer head.
Claim(s) 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuyuki JP 2009036623 (as seen in the IDS) in view of Yoko JP 2018110712.
As to claim 15, Yasuyuki teaches “A gelled propagation member ([0034]) configured to propagate an ultrasonic wave (Figure 13, 1), the propagation member comprising: a first portion provided on an outer periphery of the propagation member (Figure 13, 21).” Yasuyuki does not teach a protruding part.
Yoko teaches “and a second portion surrounded by the first portion (Figure 2, 22), protruding from the first portion, and being configured to come into contact with an object (Figure 2, 22 comes into contact with an object and protrudes from first portion 14).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Yoko with Yasuyuki. This configuration allows for both impedance matching elements to aid in signal propagation from the transducer to the object, thereby increasing the accuracy of the measurement.
As to claim 16, Yasuyuki teaches “wherein the member has an acoustic impedance larger than 1.0 × 105 (Pa⋅s/m) and smaller than 1.0 × 108 (Pa⋅s/m) ([0043] to [0046] teaches the criticality of certain impedances. Based on this, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified or chosen materials with ideal impedance values).”
As to claim 17, Yasuyuki teaches “wherein the member has a hardness measured by an ASKER Durometer type F that is more than 40 and less than 60 ([0042] teaches that various materials can be used depending on the object under test. Based on this, one of ordinary skill in the art could choose one material with certain qualities over another based on the application and use of the measuring device. Choosing material or known characteristic over another only requires routine skill in the art).”
As to claim 18, Yasuyuki teaches “a first propagation member (Figure 13, 21), a second propagation member (Figure 2, 22) configured to transmit and receive an ultrasonic wave (Figure 13, 1).” Yasuyuki does not explicitly teach the claimed elements of this embodiment of the fixture.
Yoko teaches “A fixture comprising: a pressing member (Figure 2, 14 is attached to 10 at a fixing point, which appears to be a clip), one end of the pressing member being attached to a detector (Figure 2, one end of 14 is attached to 10), the other end of the pressing member detachably fixing a second propagation member to a first propagation member attached to the detector (Figure 2, 14 presses 22 to a distal end of 10), and the other end pressing the second propagation member such that a portion of the second propagation member protrudes from another portion of the second propagation member (Figure 14, 22 protrudes from the distal end of 10 and is wedged between the ends of 14).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Yoko with Yasuyuki. This configuration allows for both impedance matching elements to aid in signal propagation from the transducer to the object, thereby increasing the accuracy of the measurement.
As to claim 19, Yasuyuki teaches “wherein the pressing member includes a plate spring ([0065[ teaches the use of a spring to hold or compress together multiple elements of the measuring device. This teaches the use of one type of connector that one of ordinary skill in the art could use to connect multiple elements together. It can be seen in both prior arts that connection elements are used to place the second propagation member in a certain location relative to the first propagation member).”
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuyuki JP 2009036623 (as seen in the IDS).
As to claim 20, Yasuyuki teaches “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores a program for causing a computer ([0031]) to execute: receiving, from a detection device that transmits ultrasonic wave and detects a reflected wave ([0031]), intensity data indicating an intensity of the reflected wave ([0031]); determining whether a propagation member provided at a distal end of the detection device is abnormal based on the intensity data; and replacing the propagation member when the propagation member is determined to be abnormal ([0006[ teaches the needs to members to be replaced, specifically the member that interacts with the object under test; [0010] teaches that the 2nd impedance matching layer can be damaged and needs to be replaced. If the matching layer was damaged, the transmission data and reception data, or characteristics of the vibration data would be abnormal. Therefore it is implied that abnormal vibration data can be caused by a faulty propagation member, therefore the faulty member would be replaced; [0035] teaches how the member is detachable and replaceable..”) Yasuyuki does not explicitly teach detecting abnormality based on intensity data but rather implies it.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at the claimed invention from the prior art because [0010] teaches that the 2nd impedance matching layer can be damaged and needs to be replaced. If the matching layer was damaged, the transmission data and reception data, or characteristics of the vibration data would be abnormal. Therefore it is implied that abnormal vibration data can be caused by a faulty propagation member, therefore the faulty member would be replaced. Replacing a faulty element is known in the element. Furthermore, it states in the filed specification “In addition to the foreign matter F, when a scratch exists on the surface, the ultrasonic waves US are also scattered by the scratch. If an abnormality such as a foreign matter or a scratch exists on the surface, the intensity of the detected reflected waves decreases.” Since the prior art teaches the issue of a scratch and also measured the intensity of the vibration data, it too could determine faults in the propagation members from the same acquired data.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 10 and 14 pertain to the specifics of the claimed replacement device, which includes a release unit, an extrusion unit and transport unit. These elements can be seen in filed Figure 18 as a part of element 30. This separate replacement unit is not anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior arts. The advantage is that this replacement unit aids in efficiently replacing the second propagation member from the probe body.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARUN SINHA whose telephone number is (571)270-3993. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10AM-6PM EST.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571)270-0349. 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.
/TARUN SINHA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863