DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Note
1. The application has three sets of claims, submitted on 10/27/2023 (one amended, one original) and 05/09/2024 (original). The Applicant’s representative Thomas Palisi confirmed that the amended claim submitted on 10/27/2023 is the correct claim that should be examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the figures 2-6 are missing the labels for x and y-axis. As an example, what do the x and y-axis represent? Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
6. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without being integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Utilizing the two step process adopted by the Supreme Court (Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l, US Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and the recent 101 guideline, Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan 2019)), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 USC 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong one), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then proceeding to the second part of Step 2A (Prong two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination, provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Looking at the claims, the claims satisfy the first part of the test 1A, namely the claims are directed to two of the four statutory classes, method. In Step 2A Prong one, we next identify any judicial exceptions in the claims. In Claim 1 (as a representative example), we recognize that the limitations “obtaining a sequence of at least one signal portion based on each measurement signal, for each pair associating two signal portions having one and the same position in their respective sequence, a distance between these signal portions of said pair is computed, said distance being computed using dynamic time warping, for each signal portion, determining at least one statistical indicator based on the distances of pairs involving said signal portion, the statistical indicator being associated with the component of said signal portion for each component, comparing at least one indicator of said component to indicators of other components, and as a function of the comparison, determining the soundness or unsoundness of the component,” are abstract ideas, as they involve a combination of mental process and usage of mathematical concept. Similar rejections are made for dependent claims. With the identification of abstract ideas, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong two, where with additional elements and taken as a whole, we evaluate whether the identified abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application.
In Step 2A, Prong two, the claims additionally recite “computer and non-transitory medium,” but said limitation is merely directed to general-purpose computer for implementing the abstract idea. The claims do not improve the functioning of computer and does not improve other technology. At most, the claims are an improvement in the abstract idea of determining the soundness or unsoundness of the component. However, improved or new abstract ideas, are nonetheless abstract ideas, and are not eligible. In short, the claims do not provide sufficient evidence to show that they are more than a drafting effort to monopolize the abstract idea. As such, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B and evaluate whether the additional elements provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Step 2B, the claims additionally recite “computer and non-transitory medium,” but said limitation is merely directed to general-purpose computer for implementing the abstract idea, that is well-understood, routine and conventional. As such, the claims do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Summary, the claims recite abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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.
Claims 1, 4-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsuduki, US-PGPUB 2022/0276130 (hereinafter Tsuduki).
Regarding Claims 1, 4-7 and 10. Tsuduki discloses a non-destructive testing of a plurality of components based on measurement signals, each of the measurement signals corresponding to a predetermined different component (Abstract; Figs. 1-10), comprising:
obtaining a sequence of at least one signal portion based on each measurement
signal, each of the measurement signals corresponding to a predetermined different component to be tested (Paragraphs [0040]-[0045])
for each pair associating two signal portions having one and the same position in
their respective sequence, a distance between these signal portions of said pair is
computed, said distance being computed using dynamic time warping (Paragraph [0179]-[180], DTW, or dynamic time warping; Paragraph [0114]),
for each signal portion, determining at least one statistical indicator based on
the distances of pairs involving said signal portion, the statistical indicator being associated with the component of said signal portion (Paragraphs [0181]-[0189], statistical processing on data processed by DTW)
for each component, comparing at least one indicator of said component to indicators of other components, and as a function of the comparison, determining (S05) the soundness or unsoundness of the component (Paragraph [0188], quality of the state of the facility)
Regarding Claim 4. Tsuduki discloses a statistical indicator is a central tendency indicator, such as the mean or the median (Paragraph [0185], average).
Regarding Claim 5. Tsuduki discloses a statistical indicator is a dispersion indicator measuring the variability of the distances, such as the standard deviation or the variance (Paragraph [0185], variance)
Regarding Claim 6. Tsuduki discloses at least two statistical indicators are determined, comprising a central tendency indicator and a dispersion indicator (Paragraph [0185], variance and average)
Regarding Claim 7. Tsuduki discloses the comparison of at least one indicator of said component to indicators of other components comprises the determination of a difference between said statistical indicator and another nearer statistical indicator of another component (Paragraphs [0184]-[0185], differences as compared to the limits set by good component)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuduki, US-PGPUB 2022/0276130.
Regarding Claim 3. Tsuduki obviously discloses the plurality of components comprises P components, P being a natural integer greater than 10, and each signal portion is involved in P-1 pairs (Paragraphs [0030]-[0033], facility with a plurality of pieces of equipment)
Regarding Claim 9. Tsuduki discloses each signal portion corresponds to a measurement distance at least equivalent to a typical size of sought defect (Paragraphs [0185]-[0188]). Note: the claims do not specify the typical size.)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuduki, US-PGPUB 2022/0276130 in view of Weekley et al., US Pat no. 6,735,550 (hereinafter Weekley)
Regarding Claim 2. Tsuduki does not explicitly disclose two signal portions that follow one another in a sequence obtained from one and the same measurement signal partially overlap.
Weekely discloses two signal portions that follow one another in a sequence obtained from one and the same measurement signal partially overlap (Figs. 3-4; Col. 2, lines 34-51)
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to combine the teaching of Tsuduki and Weekely, and properly determine the soundness or unsoundness of the component, even in cases when the two signal portions that follow one another in a sequence obtained from one and the same measurement signal partially overlap.
11. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuduki, US-PGPUB 2022/0276130 in view of Chen et al., US-PGPUB 2003/0186663 (hereinafter Chen) and alternately in view of Clifton et al., US-PGPUB 2014/0149325 (hereinafter Clifton)
Regarding Claim 8. Tsuduki discloses statistical process on data processed by DTW (Paragraphs [0181]-[0189])
Tsuduki does not disclose comparison of the indicator pair of one component to indicator pairs of other components comprises a statistical modelling of a probability density of the values taken by the pair of two statistical indicators of said component.
Chen discloses comparison of the indicator pair of one component to indicator pairs of other components comprises a statistical modelling of a probability density of the values taken by the pair of two statistical indicators of said component (Paragraph [0027]), including sensors system used for various applications, such as in maintenance (Paragraph [0003]; Fig. 2; Paragraphs [0007]-[0009])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordindary skill in the art to use the teaching of Chen in Tsuduki and perform comparison of the indicator pair of one component to indicator pairs of other components which comprises a statistical modelling of a probability density of the values taken by the pair of two statistical indicators of said component, so as to accurately determine the soundness or unsoundness of the component with minimized noise.
Alternately in view of Clifton
Tsuduki does not disclose comparison of the indicator pair of one component to indicator pairs of other components comprises a statistical modelling of a probability density of the values taken by the pair of two statistical indicators of said component.
Clifton discloses comparison of the indicator pair of one component to indicator pairs of other components comprises a statistical modelling of a probability density of the values taken by the pair of two statistical indicators of said component (Paragraphs [0002]; Paragraphs [0020]-[0023]; Figs. 4-7, 10)
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordindary skill in the art to use the teaching of Clifton in Tsuduki and perform comparison of the indicator pair of one component to indicator pairs of other components which comprises a statistical modelling of a probability density of the values taken by the pair of two statistical indicators of said component, so as to accurately determine the soundness or unsoundness of the component.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Song et al., US-PGPUB 2022/0156321
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/HYUN D PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857