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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more (See 2019 Update: Eligibility Guidance).
Independent Claim(s) 1, 10, 19 recites
determine a corresponding peak intensity for a corresponding signal of the plurality of signals;
normalize the corresponding signal based at least on the corresponding peak intensity to yield a corresponding normalized signal;
and
apply a time-shift to the normalized signal
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation].
In combination with Independent Claim(s) 1, 10, 19, Claim(s) 2-9, 11-18, 20 recite(s)
wherein
completing the determining, the normalizing and the applying steps for each of the plurality of channels, reduces a variation in signal intensity across the plurality of channels to be within a threshold.
wherein
determining the corresponding peak intensity, normalizing the corresponding signal, and applying the time-shift for each of the plurality of channels, results in reducing a variation in signal intensity across the plurality of channels to be within a threshold.
normalize the corresponding signal based on the peak intensity and a scalar factor.
apply the scalar factor to the corresponding peak intensity of each of the plurality of channels to obtain the same peak intensity across the plurality of channels.
apply the time-shift by:
determining a timestamp of a corresponding first dip of the corresponding normalized signal,
the time-shift being equal to a difference between measured time of the first dip and an expected value of the time of the first dip.
perform calibration of the plurality of transducers in a time domain.
determining a state of health, a state of charge of batteries.
determining a state of health and a state of charge of batteries.
wherein
the calibration method is a digital calibration method.
digitally calibrate the plurality of transducers.
wherein
the calibration method is performed periodically upon detecting a triggering condition.
periodically calibrate the plurality of transducers upon detecting a triggering condition
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation].
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (i.e. one or more memories having computer-readable instructions stored therein; and one or more processors configured to execute the computer-readable instructions to:; performed remotely relative to the testing device);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) (i.e. capture a plurality of signals for a plurality of channels; performed remotely relative to the testing device); or
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)) (i.e. each of the plurality of channels being associated with a pair of transducers formed of a transmitting transducer and a receiving transducer; wherein the calibration method is performed for a plurality of pairs of transducers utilized in a testing device; wherein the plurality of transducers are utilized in a testing device; performed remotely relative to the testing device).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The additional elements simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) (i.e. See Alice Corp. and cited references for evidence of additional elements (i.e., generic computer structure)).
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, 8-15, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SMITH ET AL. (US 20130333441 A1) (hereinafter “SMITH”) in view of SUCHY ET AL. (US 20210352412 A1) (hereinafter “SUCHY”).
With respect to Claim(s) 1, 10, 19, SMITH teaches correcting for temperature variation in ultrasonic testing systems…an offset is determined for correcting a time of flight measurement, wherein the offset is based on the pulse delays at first and second calibration temperatures…a factor is determined for correcting a time of flight measurement, wherein the factor is based on clock signal errors at first and second calibration temperatures and the BRI of:
calibrate a plurality of transducers (See, e.g., ABSTRACT),
…
one or more memories having computer-readable instructions stored therein (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1);
and
one or more processors (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1)
configured to
execute the computer-readable instructions to:
capture a signal for a channel (See, e.g., ¶ 0026-0031; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 3, 6),
the channel being associated with a pair of transducers formed of a transmitting transducer and a receiving transducer (See, e.g., ¶ 0026-0031; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 3, 6);
determine a corresponding peak intensity for a corresponding signal of the signal (See, e.g., ¶ 0026-0031; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 3, 6);
normalize the corresponding signal based at least on the corresponding peak intensity to yield a corresponding normalized signal (See, e.g., ¶ 0026-0031; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 3, 6);
and
apply a time-shift to the normalized signal (See, e.g., ¶ 0026-0031; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 3, 6).
However, SMITH is lacking the explicit language of:
a plurality of signals for a plurality of channels.
SUCHY teaches a sensing method includes: correlating a receive signal with a first channel waveform template to obtain a first channel correlation signal in which first channel echoes would be represented as peaks; correlating the receive signal with a second channel waveform template to obtain a second channel correlation signal in which second channel echoes would be represented as peaks; and varying the first channel waveform template and the second channel waveform template based on time elapsed from a measurement start time. A sensor array implementation includes: multiple acoustic transducers that operate concurrently to send acoustic bursts in different frequency channels, each of the multiple acoustic transducers configured to use the foregoing method and the BRI of:
a plurality of signals for a plurality of channels (See, e.g., ¶ 0004-0005; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 2-3, 8).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify SMITH to include a plurality of signals for a plurality of channels.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify SMITH because it would be beneficial to correlate their receive signals with multiple channel waveform templates that vary based on time elapsed from a measurement start time to provide, for each of the different frequency channels, a correlation signal. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 2, SMITH, SUCHY teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
SMITH further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
completing the determining, the normalizing and the applying steps for each of the plurality of channels, reduces a variation in signal intensity across the plurality of channels to be within a threshold (See, e.g., ¶ 0026-0031; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 3, 6).
With respect to Claim(s) 11, 20, SMITH, SUCHY teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
SMITH further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
determining the corresponding peak intensity, normalizing the corresponding signal, and applying the time-shift for each of the plurality of channels, results in reducing a variation in signal intensity across the plurality of channels to be within a threshold (See, e.g., ¶ 0026-0031; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 3, 6).
With respect to Claim(s) 3, 12, SMITH, SUCHY teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
SMITH further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the one or more processors are configured to
normalize the corresponding signal based on the peak intensity and a scalar factor (See, e.g., ¶ 0026-0031; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 3, 6).
With respect to Claim(s) 4, 13, SMITH, SUCHY teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
SMITH further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the one or more processors are configured to
apply the scalar factor to the corresponding peak intensity of each of the plurality of channels to obtain the same peak intensity across the plurality of channels (See, e.g., ¶ 0026-0031; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 3, 6).
With respect to Claim(s) 5, 14, SMITH, SUCHY teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
SMITH further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the one or more processors are configured to
apply the time-shift by:
determining a timestamp of a corresponding first dip of the corresponding normalized signal, the time-shift being equal to a difference between measured time of the first dip and an expected value of the time of the first dip (See, e.g., ¶ 0026-0031; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 3, 6).
With respect to Claim(s) 6, 15, SMITH, SUCHY teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
SMITH further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the one or more processors are configured to
perform calibration of the plurality of transducers in a time domain (See, e.g., ¶ 0026-0031; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 3, 6).
With respect to Claim(s) 8, SMITH, SUCHY teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
SMITH further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the calibration method is
a digital calibration method performed remotely relative to the testing device (See, e.g., ¶ 0026-0031; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 3, 6).
With respect to Claim(s) 17, SMITH, SUCHY teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
SMITH further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the one or more processors are configured to
digitally calibrate the plurality of transducers (See, e.g., ¶ 0026-0031; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 3, 6).
With respect to Claim(s) 9, SMITH, SUCHY teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
SMITH further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the calibration method is performed periodically upon detecting a triggering condition (See, e.g., ¶ 0026-0031; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 3, 6).
With respect to Claim(s) 18, SMITH, SUCHY teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
SMITH further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the one or more processors are configured to
periodically calibrate the plurality of transducers upon detecting a triggering condition (See, e.g., ¶ 0026-0031; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 3, 6).
Claim(s) 7, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the cited references of the parent claim(s) in view of VAN TASSELL ET AL. (US 20210175553 A1) (hereinafter “VAN TASSELL”).
With respect to Claim(s) 7, SMITH, SUCHY teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
SMITH, SUCHY further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the calibration method is performed for a plurality of pairs of transducers.
However, SMITH, SUCHY is lacking the explicit language of:
a testing device for determining a state of health, a state of charge of batteries.
VAN TESSEL teaches acoustic signal based analysis of batteries and the BRI of:
a testing device for determining a state of health, a state of charge of batteries (See, e.g., ¶ 0023; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1A-8).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify SMITH to include a testing device for determining a state of health, a state of charge of batteries.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify SMITH because it would be beneficial to analyze battery data. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 16, SMITH, SUCHY teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
SMITH, SUCHY further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the plurality of transducers.
However, SMITH, SUCHY is lacking the explicit language of:
a testing device for determining a state of health and a state of charge of batteries.
VAN TESSEL teaches acoustic signal based analysis of batteries and the BRI of:
a testing device for determining a state of health and a state of charge of batteries (See, e.g., ¶ 0023; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1A-8).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify SMITH to include a testing device for determining a state of health and a state of charge of batteries.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify SMITH because it would be beneficial to analyze battery data. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND NIMOX whose telephone number is (469)295-9226. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 10am-8pm CT.
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, ANDREW SCHECHTER can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
RAYMOND NIMOX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/RAYMOND L NIMOX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit