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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed January 6, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-24 are currently pending in this application. Claims 1-6, 9-14, and 17-22 have been amended. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome all objections to the claims set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed October 16, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Busse and Case fail to teach wherein the single spatial location is a component of a curved surface or a point cloud with nonuniform roll, pitch, and yaw, with the reasoning that they teach the collection of data on a plane and not on a curved surface or point cloud.
Examiner disagrees, and asserts that Case teaches wherein the single spatial location is a component of a curved surface or a point cloud, citing
Case; para. 33, “For example, the first method [RT2] is a Fourier integration, which is a fast rudimentary [e.g., direct] spectral estimation technique and not a reconstruction technique. Each sample may optionally be weighted according to the partial area of the sample on the aperture. The partial area corresponding to every sample may be found from the polygons of a Voronoi diagram. Polygons exceeding the aperture are cropped precisely to the aperture. The data [d'] is sampled discretely and nonuniformly at Nxy points weighted by this partial area, an, when performing the nonuniform discrete Fourier transform [NDFT].”, and
Case; Fig. 1, where scanned object 105 contains a curved surface.
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 1, 9, and 17 are 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.
Claim 1 lines 5-6, claim 9 lines 6-7, and claim 17 lines 8-9 recite,
“[…] wherein the single spatial location is a component of a curved surface or a point cloud with nonuniform roll, pitch, and yaw; […]” and
claim 1 line 16, claim 9 line 17, and claim 17 line 9 recite,
“[…] wherein boundaries for each layer are the curved surfaces.”
These claims establish that the claimed single spatial location is a component of possibly a curved surface or a point cloud, wherein the possibility that the single spatial location is a component of a point cloud but not a curved surface, the statement “wherein boundaries for each layer are the curved surfaces” is rendered indefinite. Furthermore, there is a lack of antecedent basis for the limitation “the curved surfaces”.
For the sake of examination, Examiner has interpreted claims 1, 9 ,and 17 to read as such:
In claim 1 lines 5-6, claim 9 lines 6-7, and claim 17 lines 8-9,
“[…] wherein the single spatial location is a component of a curved surface
in claim 1 line 16, claim 9 line 17, and claim 17 line 9,
“[…] wherein a boundary for each layer is the curved surface.”
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 1, 8-9, 16-17, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busse (Three-Dimensional Imaging Using a Frequency-Domain Synthetic Aperture Focusing Technique [1992]) in view of Case et al. (US 20140111374 A1), hereinafter Case.
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 17, Busse teaches a method for performing scanning imaging, a computer program embodied on a non-transitory computer-readable medium for performing freehand scanning imaging, and a system for performing freehand scanning imaging respectively, comprising:
memory comprising a set of instructions (pg. 176 right column, “Depending on memory requirements, different compilers were used […]”), and
at least one processor (pg. 174, “The FD-SAFT algorithm makes use of both temporal and spatial Fourier transforms to efficiently perform the correlations required for SAFT imaging in the frequency domain. Because the algorithm relies heavily on Fourier transforms, it can be efficiently implemented using more commonly available computer hardware such as array processors, accelerator cards, or DSP chips.”), wherein the set of instructions is configured to cause at least one processor to execute:
transforming, by at least one processor, a single spatial location with nonuniform input data using Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT) for one spatial location to a singular spectral estimation, translating, by the at least one processor, the singular spectral estimation to zl, wherein zl is a common value of z for which to later recombine data for layer l, where l begins at zero (pg. 175 right column, “A pulsed or broadband version of this imaging procedure can be developed by applying the above imaging procedure to each frequency component of the pulsed waveform. Let u(x, y: 0, t) represent the set of complex waveforms recorded by a point receiver as it is scanned in the plane located at z = 0. A Fourier transform with respect to time can then be used to break these waveforms into a set of complex pressure fields, each representing a discrete frequency w [...]”),
performing, by the at least one processor, Inverse Spatial Fourier Transform on the translated spectrum to produce a translated data in a x- and y- spatial domain at z = zl, outputting, by the at least one processor, three dimension (3D) translated data to an N-dimensional regularization from all measured locations, where all measured locations are regularized data resulting from a combined sum of all measured contributions (pg. 175 right column, “The first method to be considered is to simply invert the processes that were used to form A. A series of inverse 2-D Fourier transforms can be applied [...] to form a series of single frequency images. The images can then be integrated [...] to form the equivalent broadband image at the plane z.”; inverse Fourier transforms involve integrating signals; pg. 176 right column, “Each reconstruction was performed for a series of 21 planes located at normalized ranges from 1.6 to 2.4.”; Fig. 1, 3D reconstruction of multiple 2D images), and
outputting, by the at least one processor, the regularized data to a SAFT algorithm to produce images layer-by-layer, whereby the process is repeated, by the at least one processor, for subsequent layers layer-by-layer, wherein a boundary for each layer is the curved surface (pg. 176 right column, “Fig. 4 shows the results of the FD-SAFT algorithm in terms of axial resolution. The results of four different reconstruction procedures are summarized in this figure. Each reconstruction was performed for a series of 21 planes located at normalized ranges from 1.6 to 2.4.”; Fig. 1, 3D reconstruction of multiple 2D images; in view of Case para. 43 and Fig. 1, the boundaries for each segment/layer along the z-axis would implicitly be part of a curved surface), but fails to teach
freehand scanning imaging, and
transforming, by at least one processor, a single spatial location with nonuniform input data using Nonuniform Discrete Fourier Transform (NDFT) for one spatial location to a singular spectral estimation.
However, Case teaches
freehand scanning imaging (para. 21, “In a first part of the imaging process, a two-dimensional [2-D] positioning system is utilized to monitor the movements of an imaging probe as the imaging probe performs a scan in a plane. A processor tracks the position of a probe as the probe scans and collects data. The scanning process is performed free-hand by a user [who is holding and using the imaging probe] and utilizes user feed-back from the real-time SAR image formation as to whether to continue or terminate the scanning process.”), and
transforming, by at least one processor, a single spatial location with nonuniform input data using Nonuniform Discrete Fourier Transform (NDFT) for one spatial location to a singular spectral estimation, wherein the single spatial location is a component of a curved surface (para. 33, “For example, the first method [RT2] is a Fourier integration, which is a fast rudimentary [e.g., direct] spectral estimation technique and not a reconstruction technique. Each sample may optionally be weighted according to the partial area of the sample on the aperture. The partial area corresponding to every sample may be found from the polygons of a Voronoi diagram. Polygons exceeding the aperture are cropped precisely to the aperture. The data [d'] is sampled discretely and nonuniformly at Nxy points weighted by this partial area, an, when performing the nonuniform discrete Fourier transform [NDFT].”; Fig. 1, scanned object 105 is curved).
Busse and Case are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of synthetic aperture scanning and imaging. Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Busse with the teachings of Case with the motivation of allowing a user to freely scan an area and being able to process the resulting nonuniform sensing data.
Regarding claims 8, 16, and 24, Busse in view of Case teaches the method of claim 1, the computer program of claim 9, and the system of claim 17 respectively,
wherein the regularized data is a sum of a translated partial data (Busse; pg. 175 right column, “The first method to be considered is to simply invert the processes that were used to form A. A series of inverse 2-D Fourier transforms can be applied [...] to form a series of single frequency images. The images can then be integrated [...] to form the equivalent broadband image at the plane z.”; inverse Fourier transforms involve integrating signals; pg. 176 right column, “Each reconstruction was performed for a series of 21 planes located at normalized ranges from 1.6 to 2.4.”; Fig. 1, 3D reconstruction of multiple 2D images).
Claims 7, 15, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busse in view of Case and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20180106765 A1), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claims 7, 15, and 23, Busse in view of Case teaches the method of claim 1, the computer program of claim 9, and the system of claim 17 respectively, further comprising:
performing, by the at least one processor, piecewise image formation by performing the same translation, regularization, and image formation process for each subsequent layer (Busse; pg. 175 right column, “A pulsed or broadband version of this imaging procedure can be developed by applying the above imaging procedure to each frequency component of the pulsed waveform. Let u(x, y: 0, t) represent the set of complex waveforms recorded by a point receiver as it is scanned in the plane located at z = 0. A Fourier transform with respect to time can then be used to break these waveforms into a set of complex pressure fields, each representing a discrete frequency w […] The first method to be considered is to simply invert the processes that were used to form A. A series of inverse 2-D Fourier transforms can be applied [...] to form a series of single frequency images. The images can then be integrated [...] to form the equivalent broadband image at the plane z.”; inverse Fourier transforms involve integrating signals; pg. 176 right column, “Each reconstruction was performed for a series of 21 planes located at normalized ranges from 1.6 to 2.4.”; Fig. 1, 3D reconstruction of multiple 2D images), but fails to teach
piecewise image formation in laminar materials.
However, Kim teaches further comprising:
performing, by the at least one processor, piecewise image formation in laminar materials (Fig. 1, scanned material is made of layers bonded to one another; para. 9, “In another embodiment, a process includes using a transducer to emit an incident wave, resulting in a return of a bondline echo from a bondline and a backwall echo from a backwall of a composite. The process further includes generating a waveform from the bondline echo and the backwall echo, and performing additional processing techniques to generate an image of a bond between a TPS material and the composite, showing a quality of the bond.”; para. 99, “The result is a volume image such that each volumetric pixel [i.e., voxel] is a result of the mathematical [i.e., synthetic] focusing of multiple measurement locations. Moreover, the algorithm may implement ‘Stolt interpolation’ by using nonuniform fast Fourier transform [NFFT] to provide fast and accurate results without the need to compute the SAFT image for the entire unambiguous range.”; para. 102, “With that being said, subsequent Fourier transforms on nonuniform data may use the NFFT instead of the FFT. Finally, the inverse Fourier transform may be performed on all three spatial dimensions to obtain the final volume image[s], as defined by s[x,y,z]=FFTxy −1{NFFTz −1{S[kx,ky,kz]}}”).
Busse, Case, and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of synthetic aperture scanning and imaging. Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Busse in view of Case with the teachings of Kim with the motivation of being able to visually assess the physical bonds between layers of a laminar material.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 10-14, and 18-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if the objections detailed above are overcome, and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC K HODAC whose telephone number is (571) 270-0123. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6.
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, VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/ERIC K HODAC/ Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648