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 .
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 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.
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.
1. Claim 1-8 is 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 significantly more.
2. Claim 1 is directed to “using the detected response to determine whether the ship structure is acceptable or unacceptable”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a processor. The additional elements “A method of analyzing a ship structure of a ship, comprising: transmitting a transmit signal from a transmit antenna to or into the ship structure, the transmit signal is in a radio or microwave frequency range of the electromagnetic spectrum; at a receive antenna, detecting a response that results from transmission of the transmit signal to or into the ship structure” are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Dependent claim 1 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
3.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 1 is directed to a method of analyzing a ship structure of a ship, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a process (Step 1: YES).
3.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 1 recites: “using the detected response to determine whether the ship structure is acceptable or unacceptable”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
3.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): claim 1 does not claim a particular machine, and do not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, it does not provide any particular context, thus, do not belong to a particular technological environment, industry or field of use. Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in a variety of technologies including but not limited to as automobile, MRI, NRI, all different industries related to structural monitoring, etc. (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO, because there is no integration of the abstract idea into a practical application).
3.3. Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 1 recites the additional element(s) “A method of analyzing a ship structure of a ship, comprising: transmitting a transmit signal from a transmit antenna to or into the ship structure, the transmit signal is in a radio or microwave frequency range of the electromagnetic spectrum; at a receive antenna, detecting a response that results from transmission of the transmit signal to or into the ship structure”, which are/is simply routine and conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), sensors, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the prior art references made of record below). Therefore, the claim does not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
4. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 2 is further recites the element(s) “wherein using the detected response comprises comparing the detected response with a stored signal”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
5. Claim 3 depends on claim 2 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 3 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the stored signal comprises a signal indicative of an acceptable ship structure”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 3 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
6. Claim 4 depends on claim 2 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 4 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the stored signal comprises a signal indicative of an unacceptable ship structure”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 4 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
7. Claim 5 depends on claim 2 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 5 is further recites the element(s) “wherein comparing the detected response with the stored signal comprises converting the detected response from an analog signal into a digital signal by an AD converter, and comparing the digital signal with the stored signal”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
8. Claim 6 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s) “wherein transmitting the transmit signal from the transmit antenna to or into the ship structure occurs while the ship structure is located on the ship”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 6 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
9. Claim 7 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 7 is further recites the element(s) “wherein transmitting the transmit signal from the transmit antenna to or into the ship structure occurs while the ship structure is removed the ship”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
10. Claim 8 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 8 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the ship structure comprises a hull or a portion thereof, a propeller blade or a portion thereof, a superstructure or a portion thereof, a rudder or a portion thereof, a hydrofoil or a portion thereof, an anchor or a portion thereof, an anchor chain or a portion thereof, or a part of a propulsion system”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Examiner’s Note
11. All the words in the language of the claims of which the specifications do not provide a definition in the form stated in the MPEP, the examiner has interpreted them by their plain meanings, pursuant to the MPEP 2111.01 “Plain Meaning” and MPEP 2173.01.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
12. Claim(s) 1-6 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by BRANT et al. (Pub. No.: US 2018/0313877 hereinafter mentioned “Brant”).
As per claim 1, Brant in the embodiment of Fig. 1, which includes the hardware of Fig. 5 and the method with the software and hardware of Fig. 6 (see [0016]-[0017] and [0255]), discloses:
A method of analyzing a ship structure of a ship (See MPEP 2111.02, Effect of Preamble, and II. Preamble Statements Reciting Purpose or Intended Use), comprising:
transmitting a transmit signal from a transmit antenna (Fig. 1, the radiating antenna of the device bien tested, inspected and/or interrogated DUT 110. Also see [0238] and [0253] and/or claim-1) to or into the ship structure (Fig. 1, see the instrument-panel 102 with its the DUT 110 that is found on a ship. Also see [0253]), the transmit signal is in a radio or microwave frequency range of the electromagnetic spectrum (see [0238]);
at a receive antenna, detecting a response (Fig. 1, see the antenna of the apparatus 104 that detects/receives emissions 106 that are generated by the radiating antennas. Also see [0253] and/or claim-1) that results from transmission of the transmit signal to or into the ship structure (see [0238] and [0253]);
using the detected response to determine whether the ship structure is acceptable or unacceptable (see [0252], abstract, [0253] and/or claim-1. The detection of the condition of the device as acceptable-unaged-devices and unacceptable-aged/degraded devices).
As per claim 2, Brant discloses the method of claim 1 as described above.
Brant further discloses:
wherein using the detected response comprises comparing the detected response with a stored signal (see [0252]-[0253], [0276]-[0277] and/or claim-1. The detection of the condition of the device as acceptable-unaged-devices and unacceptable-aged/degraded devices).
As per claim 3, Brant discloses the method of claim 2 as described above.
Brant further discloses:
wherein the stored signal comprises a signal indicative of an acceptable ship structure (see [0252]-[0253], [0276]-[0277] and/or claim-1. The detection of the condition of the device as acceptable-unaged-devices).
As per claim 4, Brant discloses the method of claim 2 as described above.
Brant further discloses:
wherein the stored signal (Fig. 5, see the non-volatile memory block 538 that stores historical records of degradation values. Also see [0274] and/or claim-1) comprises a signal indicative of an unacceptable ship structure (see [0252]-[0253], [0276]-[0277] and/or claim-1. The detection of the condition of the device as unacceptable-aged/degraded devices).
As per claim 5, Brant discloses the method of claim 2 as described above.
Brant further discloses:
wherein comparing the detected response with the stored signal comprises converting the detected response from an analog signal into a digital signal by an AD converter (Fig. 6, see the analog-to-digital converter 608. Also see [0279] and/or claim-1), and comparing the digital signal with the stored signal (see [0252]-[0253], [0276]-[0277] and/or claim-1. The detection of the condition of the device as acceptable-unaged-devices and unacceptable-aged/degraded devices).
As per claim 6, Brant discloses the method of claim 1 as described above.
Brant further discloses:
wherein transmitting the transmit signal from the transmit antenna (Fig. 1, the radiating antenna of the device bien tested, inspected and/or interrogated DUT 110. Also see [0238] and [0253] and/or claim-1) to or into the ship structure occurs while the ship structure is located on the ship (Fig. 1, see the instrument-panel 102 with its the DUT 110 that is found on a ship. Also see [0253]).
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 of this title, 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.
13. Claim(s) 7 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brant.
As per claim 7, Brant discloses the method of claim 1 with the transmitting the transmit signal from the transmit antenna to or into the ship structure as described above but does not explicitly disclose that said signal transmission occurs while the ship structure is removed the ship.
However, the only three choice scenarios to send the signal to the ship structure for testing/inspection/etc., which are while the ship and removed from ship that implies before mounting it to the ship, or, removing it after was mounted to the ship.
Therefore, one ordinary skilled in the art would have determined the removal scenario as an obvious choice to try the transmission of the signal “while the ship structure is removed the ship” with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving testing/inspecting of the ship structure before mounting it in order to verify said structure has no manufacturing defects, and/or, improving the accuracy of the testing/inspecting by removing the ship structure in order to prevent external signal noise from other ship structures not being tested such as signal unwanted emissions (Brant, Paragraph [0253]).
14. Claim(s) 8 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brant in view of MANN et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0336323 hereinafter mentioned as “Mann”).
As per claim 8, Brant discloses the method of claim 1 with the ship structure as described above but does not explicitly disclose that it comprises a hull or a portion thereof, a propeller blade or a portion thereof, a superstructure or a portion thereof, a rudder or a portion thereof, a hydrofoil or a portion thereof, an anchor or a portion thereof, an anchor chain or a portion thereof, or a part of a propulsion system.
However, Mann further discloses:
wherein the ship structure comprises a hull or a portion thereof (see [0042]), a propeller blade or a portion thereof, a superstructure or a portion thereof, a rudder or a portion thereof, a hydrofoil or a portion thereof, an anchor or a portion thereof, an anchor chain or a portion thereof, or a part of a propulsion system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to the “a hull or a portion thereof, a propeller blade or a portion thereof, a superstructure or a portion thereof, a rudder or a portion thereof, a hydrofoil or a portion thereof, an anchor or a portion thereof, an anchor chain or a portion thereof, or a part of a propulsion system” disclosed by Mann into Brant, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system, method and measurements by expanding them to a wide variety applicable in evaluation systems to infrastructure in general, including support cables and bridges (Mann, Paragraph [0042]), thus, not limiting the invention (Brant, Paragraph [0501]).
Furthermore, Abrahamson states that “It is therefore intended that all matters in the foregoing description and shown in the accompanying drawings be interpreted as illustrative and not in a limiting sense. It will be understood that variations, modifications, equivalents and substitutions for components of the specifically described exemplary embodiments of the subject matter may be made by those skilled in the art without departing from the spirit and scope of the subject matter as set forth in the appended claims” (Abrahamson, Paragraph [0105]).
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Houston (Pub. No.: US 2004/0021564) teaches:
transmitting a transmit signal to or into the ship structure, the transmit signal is in a radio or microwave frequency range of the electromagnetic spectrum (Fig. 1 and [0020]-[0021] and claim-1);
at a receive antenna, detecting a response that results from transmission of the transmit signal (Figs. 1-2, sensor 102 and [0023]-[0024]).
b) Alfano (Pub. No.: US 2005/0098728) teaches “systems and methods for non-destructively detecting material abnormalities beneath a coated surface. A terahertz (1Hz) illumination unit illuminates an area of the coated surface. A detection unit detects light reflected from the illuminated area of the coated surface, and a processing unit images the illuminated area of the coated surface from optical characteristics received from the detection unit” (Abstract).
c) Gerdin (Pub. No.: US 2016/0359507) teaches that “microwave radio transmitter apparatus comprising an antenna arrangement and a precoder module connected to the antenna arrangement. The precoder module comprises an estimation module. The precoder module is configured to receive a number N of signals s1, ... , sN and to generate N phase-adjusted transmit signals TX1, ... , TXN. The antenna arrangement comprises N antenna elements a,, i=l, 2, ... , N. Each antenna element a, is configured to obtain a respective phase-adjusted transmit signal TX, from the pre-coder and to transmit the respective phase-adjusted transmit signal TX,. The precoder module is configured to obtain an observation receive signal RX, the observation receive signal comprising signals transmitted from the N antenna elements. The estimation module is configured to estimate for each antenna element a, a phase difference between the corresponding transmit signal TX, and the observation receive signal RX. The precoder module is configured to adjust each transmit signal based on the estimated phase difference” (Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVARO E. FORTICH whose telephone number is (571) 272-0944. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday from 8:30am to 5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Huy Phan, can be reached on (571)272-7924. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALVARO E FORTICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858