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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 20–23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 11, the claimed, “the high voltage signal” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claims 20–23 depend on claim 16, but should depend on method claim 19. (going forward, claims 20–23 will treated as though they depend from method claim 19.)
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a main module”, “an adapter module”, “an adapter controller”, and “a signal processing component” in claim 1 and its related dependent claims.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suita et al. (US Pub. # 20090260443), hereinafter referred to as Suita.
Regarding claim 19, Suita teaches, “A method of testing an acoustic transducer, the method comprising: transmitting an impact signal to one or more transducing elements of the acoustic transducer (Fig. 1, ref. # 1, 11, 13; para. [0031, 0040]); receiving an impact response signal (via 18; [0043]) from the one or more transducing elements in response to the impact signal (para. [0040]) and a reflected signal (para. [0042]) from a reflector (ref. # 12; para. [0035–0036]) in response to the impact signal; and evaluating the impact response signal and the reflected signal to determine an operation state of the acoustic transducer (ref. # 14, 18 w/ 15, 19; ‘s3’, ‘s4’, ‘s5’; see para. [0080–0082]).”
Regarding claim 21, Suita teaches, “wherein evaluating the impact response signal and the reflected signal to determine the operation state of the acoustic transducer comprises evaluating the operation state of each transducing element (see para. [0019, 0031, 0080–0082]).”
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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suita (US Pub. # 20090260443) in view of Moore et al. (US Pub. # 20110030448), hereinafter referred to as Moore.
Regarding claim 20, Suita does not appear to teach, “wherein the impact signal comprises a high voltage signal.” However, Moore teaches the deficiencies of Suita (Fig. 5, ref. # 505; para. [0064–0065]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Suita’s invention to include wherein the impact signal comprises a high voltage signal.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Suita’s invention for at least the purpose of testing the acoustic system over a wide range of signal values, ensuring capture of all signal values over the entire array of available options.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suita (US Pub. # 20090260443) in view of Anand (US Pub. # 20200000435).
Regarding claim 22, Suita does not appear to teach, “wherein evaluating the impact response signal and the reflected signal to determine the operation state of the acoustic transducer comprises evaluating the operation state of a transducer cable.” However, Anand teaches the deficiencies of Suita (see para. [0004]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Suita’s invention to include wherein evaluating the impact response signal and the reflected signal to determine the operation state of the acoustic transducer comprises evaluating the operation state of a transducer cable.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Suita’s invention for at least the purpose of ensuring proper functioning of all available connections to the probe.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suita (US Pub. # 20090260443) in view of Thattari Kandiyil et al. (US Pub. # 20140241115), hereinafter referred to as Thattari.
Regarding claim 23, Suita does not appear to teach, “predicting a failure likelihood of the acoustic transducer based on the impact response signal, the reflected signal, and the operation state of the acoustic transducer.” However, Thattari teaches the deficiencies of Suita (see para. [0034]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Suita’s invention to include predicting a failure likelihood of the acoustic transducer based on the impact response signal, the reflected signal, and the operation state of the acoustic transducer.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Suita’s invention for at least the purpose of ensuring efficient notification or alerting that a critical component may degrading or failing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1–18 are allowed (claim 11 objected to above).
Regarding claims 1–18, the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed, “an adapter controller programmable to be compatible with a plurality of different acoustic transducers, the adapter controller operable to: receive the test signal from the main module; adapt the test signal based on one or more operating parameters of the acoustic transducer; and transmit the test signal to the acoustic transducer; and a signal processing component for receiving one or more reflected signals from one or more respective transducing elements of the acoustic transducer in response to the test signal and converting the one or more reflected signals to a transducer data signal representative of an operation state of the acoustic transducer.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO–892 form. The references cited herewith teach acoustic transducers and systems with similar operation as compared to the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:30pm.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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.
/RYAN D WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852