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 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.
Claim 5 is 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 5 is unclear, because the feature of "a first processing element configured to calculate the auxiliary variables according to the corresponding step of a method according to claim 1" is unclear. It is not clear, if the processing elements are configured to perform all the calculating steps of claim 1. Therefore, all the corresponding steps have to be inserted literally in the wording of claim 5.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1-8 are directed to a method. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Regarding claim 1:
A method for determining the set of focal laws of a plurality of focal points located in a test object, the method comprising the steps of:
providing a bidimensional or three-dimensional arrangement of transducer elements in a coupling medium, wherein each transducer element is configured to emit and/or receive an ultrasonic wave;
defining at least a scan line by a set of focal points, each scan line being comprised in the test object, wherein, for each scan line, the method comprises performing the following sub-steps choosing a first preliminary focal point and a second preliminary focal point belonging to the set of focal points;
for each transducer element, calculating a first auxiliary time-of-flight corresponding to the time-of-flight of a wave emitted from the corresponding transducer element and received in the first preliminary focal point, and a second auxiliary time-of-flight corresponding to the time-of-flight of a wave emitted from the same transducer and received in the second preliminary focal point, wherein each time-of-flight is calculated by solving the following equation
PNG
media_image1.png
60
321
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein t(A,F) is the time-of-flight of a wave travelling from the corresponding transducer element to the corresponding preliminary focal point, d(A, E) is the distance between the corresponding transducer element and a corresponding interface point according to Fermat's principle, d(E, F) is the distance between the corresponding interface point and the corresponding preliminary focal point, c1 is the sound speed in the coupling medium and c2 is the sound speed in the test object;
for each transducer element, determining a constant time value (tK) and an intermediate variable (y) defined by
PNG
media_image2.png
132
559
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein r1 is the coordinate of the first preliminary focal point measured along the scan line with coordinate origin at the test object surface and r2 is the coordinate of the second preliminary focal point measured along the scan line with coordinate origin at the test object surface;
calculating, for the rest of the set of focal points of the scan line (4), the focal laws to each transducer (A) by using the formula
PNG
media_image3.png
133
642
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Step 2A Prong 1:
“providing a bidimensional or three-dimensional arrangement of transducer elements in a coupling medium, wherein each transducer element is configured to emit and/or receive an ultrasonic wave” is directed to mental step of data gathering.
“defining at least a scan line by a set of focal points, each scan line being comprised in the test object, wherein, for each scan line, the method comprises performing the following sub-steps choosing a first preliminary focal point and a second preliminary focal point belonging to the set of focal points” is directed to math, particularly in the field of image processing and computer graphics. In image processing, the relationship between focal points and scan lines is crucial for creating 2D images. The number of focal points and the number of pulses per scan line determine the number of lines in the image, which in turn affects the resolution and detail of the image. In computer graphics, the scan line algorithm is used to generate images by determining the order in which picture elements are generated, which is a mathematical function that relates to the scan line.
“for each transducer element, calculating a first auxiliary time-of-flight corresponding to the time-of-flight of a wave emitted from the corresponding transducer element and received in the first preliminary focal point, and a second auxiliary time-of-flight corresponding to the time-of-flight of a wave emitted from the same transducer and received in the second preliminary focal point, wherein each time-of-flight is calculated by solving the following equation
PNG
media_image1.png
60
321
media_image1.png
Greyscale
” is directed to math. This involves using mathematical principles to determine the time of flight, which is crucial for various applications, including navigation and signal processing. The calculations typically involve understanding the speed of the wave, the distance to the transducer, and the time of flight to accurately determine the position of the wave source.
“for each transducer element, determining a constant time value (tK) and an intermediate variable (y) defined by
PNG
media_image2.png
132
559
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein r1 is the coordinate of the first preliminary focal point measured along the scan line with coordinate origin at the test object surface and r2 is the coordinate of the second preliminary focal point measured along the scan line with coordinate origin at the test object surface;
calculating, for the rest of the set of focal points of the scan line (4), the focal laws to each transducer (A) by using the formula
PNG
media_image3.png
133
642
media_image3.png
Greyscale
” is directed to math.
Each limitation recites in the claim is a process that, under BRI covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic “transducer and measurement” which is a mere indication of the field of use. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Further, the claim recites the step of " defining at least a scan line by a set of focal points, each scan line being comprised in the test object, wherein, for each scan line, the method comprises performing the following sub-steps choosing a first preliminary focal point and a second preliminary focal point belonging to the set of focal points;
for each transducer element, calculating a first auxiliary time-of-flight corresponding to the time-of-flight of a wave emitted from the corresponding transducer element and received in the first preliminary focal point, and a second auxiliary time-of-flight corresponding to the time-of-flight of a wave emitted from the same transducer and received in the second preliminary focal point, wherein each time-of-flight is calculated by solving the following equation
PNG
media_image1.png
60
321
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein t(A,F) is the time-of-flight of a wave travelling from the corresponding transducer element to the corresponding preliminary focal point, d(A, E) is the distance between the corresponding transducer element and a corresponding interface point according to Fermat's principle, d(E, F) is the distance between the corresponding interface point and the corresponding preliminary focal point, c1 is the sound speed in the coupling medium and c2 is the sound speed in the test object;
for each transducer element, determining a constant time value (tK) and an intermediate variable (y) defined by
PNG
media_image2.png
132
559
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein r1 is the coordinate of the first preliminary focal point measured along the scan line with coordinate origin at the test object surface and r2 is the coordinate of the second preliminary focal point measured along the scan line with coordinate origin at the test object surface;
calculating, for the rest of the set of focal points of the scan line (4), the focal laws to each transducer (A) by using the formula
PNG
media_image3.png
133
642
media_image3.png
Greyscale
” which as drafted, under BRI recites a mathematical calculation. The grouping of "mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PED includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section |, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, the recited limitation falls into the "mathematical concept" grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889.
Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(i) and (iii).
Additional Elements:
Step 2A Prong 2:
“A method for determining the set of focal laws of a plurality of focal points located in a test object, the method comprising the steps of” recited in the preamble does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“providing a bidimensional or three-dimensional arrangement of transducer elements in a coupling medium, wherein each transducer element is configured to emit and/or receive an ultrasonic wave” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“defining at least a scan line by a set of focal points, each scan line being comprised in the test object, wherein, for each scan line, the method comprises performing the following sub-steps choosing a first preliminary focal point and a second preliminary focal point belonging to the set of focal points” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“for each transducer element, calculating a first auxiliary time-of-flight corresponding to the time-of-flight of a wave emitted from the corresponding transducer element and received in the first preliminary focal point, and a second auxiliary time-of-flight corresponding to the time-of-flight of a wave emitted from the same transducer and received in the second preliminary focal point, wherein each time-of-flight is calculated by solving the following equation
PNG
media_image1.png
60
321
media_image1.png
Greyscale
” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“for each transducer element, determining a constant time value (tK) and an intermediate variable (y) defined by
PNG
media_image2.png
132
559
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein r1 is the coordinate of the first preliminary focal point measured along the scan line with coordinate origin at the test object surface and r2 is the coordinate of the second preliminary focal point measured along the scan line with coordinate origin at the test object surface;
calculating, for the rest of the set of focal points of the scan line (4), the focal laws to each transducer (A) by using the formula
PNG
media_image3.png
133
642
media_image3.png
Greyscale
” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim is merely selecting data, manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process, and displaying the results.
This is similar to electric power: MPEP 2106.05(h) vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Step 2B:
“A method for determining the set of focal laws of a plurality of focal points located in a test object, the method comprising the steps of” recited in the preamble does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“providing a bidimensional or three-dimensional arrangement of transducer elements in a coupling medium, wherein each transducer element is configured to emit and/or receive an ultrasonic wave” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“defining at least a scan line by a set of focal points, each scan line being comprised in the test object, wherein, for each scan line, the method comprises performing the following sub-steps choosing a first preliminary focal point and a second preliminary focal point belonging to the set of focal points” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“for each transducer element, calculating a first auxiliary time-of-flight corresponding to the time-of-flight of a wave emitted from the corresponding transducer element and received in the first preliminary focal point, and a second auxiliary time-of-flight corresponding to the time-of-flight of a wave emitted from the same transducer and received in the second preliminary focal point, wherein each time-of-flight is calculated by solving the following equation
PNG
media_image1.png
60
321
media_image1.png
Greyscale
” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“for each transducer element, determining a constant time value (tK) and an intermediate variable (y) defined by
PNG
media_image2.png
132
559
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein r1 is the coordinate of the first preliminary focal point measured along the scan line with coordinate origin at the test object surface and r2 is the coordinate of the second preliminary focal point measured along the scan line with coordinate origin at the test object surface;
calculating, for the rest of the set of focal points of the scan line (4), the focal laws to each transducer (A) by using the formula
PNG
media_image3.png
133
642
media_image3.png
Greyscale
” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 2, “calculating a first auxiliary TOF and a second auxiliary time-of-flight are carried out using a Gradient Descent method” is directed to math.
Regarding claim 3, “calculating a first auxiliary TOF and a second auxiliary time-of-flight are carried out using a Multivariate Newton method.
Regarding claim 4, “before the sub-steps, the determination of the geometry of the interface between the coupling medium and the test object by the following steps: emitting a plurality of test ultrasonic waves by the plurality of transducer elements, receiving the first echoes of the test ultrasonic waves by the plurality of transducer elements, using the received first echoes to create a plurality of surface points, wherein the steps of emitting the waves, receiving and using the echoes are performed by one of the following techniques: pulse-echo, pitch-catch, or plane wave; and generating a function that fits the surface points, considering this function as the geometry of the interface” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 5, “An apparatus for generating ultrasound images of a test object, the apparatus comprising a bidimensional array of transducer elements; an electronic element configured to create ultrasound waves, receive ultrasound echoes and send information related to the ultrasound echoes, the electronic element being associated to the array of transducers; a first processing element configured to calculate the auxiliary variables according to the corresponding step of a method according to claim 1 by using information related to the ultrasound echoes provided by the electronic element; a second processing element configured to calculate the focal laws of each pixel of each scan line with respect to each transducer, by using the auxiliary variables provided by the first processing element; and a third processing element configured to calculate pixel values of a three-dimensional image using the information provided by the second processing element” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 6, “wherein the first processing element, the second processing element and the third processing element are comprised in a digital hardware element” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 7, “wherein the digital hardware element is a portion of the electronic element” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 8, “wherein the first processing element, the second processing element and the third processing element are implemented as computer software in an external computer” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Hence the claims 1-8 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Other Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Fetzer et al. (US 9,500,627) disclose a method for inspecting a radius of a part having non-parallel first and second planar members connected by the radius, comprising: (a) generating a cross-sectional model of a probe in contact with a part comprising first and second surfaces connected by a radius surface, said cross-sectional model comprising: (i) first and second lines representing respective cross sections of said first and second surfaces of the part, (ii) first through M-th curved line segments which span an expected total range of variation of a radius dimension of the radius surface of the part, each of said first through M-th curved line segments terminating at said first and second lines, wherein M is a positive integer greater than unity, and (iii) a multiplicity of points spaced at equal intervals along a curve indicative of the position of an array of transducer elements; (b) calculating first through M-th sets of transmission focal laws for controlling the transducer elements to transmit first through M-th pluralities of beams respectively directed normal to first through M-th pluralities of target locations, wherein each of said first through M-th pluralities of target locations includes N target locations spaced along a respective one of said first through M-th curved line segments, wherein N is a positive integer greater than unity and each of said first through M-th sets of transmission focal laws comprises N transmission focal laws; (c) calculating first through M-th sets of reception focal laws for forming first through M-th pluralities of return signals representing respective echoes returned to the transducer elements from said first through M-th pluralities of target locations, wherein each of said first through M-th sets of reception focal laws comprises N reception focal laws; (d) placing the probe in a first position relative to the part, wherein the position of the probe relative to the part in a cross-sectional plane conforms to the relative position represented by said cross-sectional model; (e) pulsing transducer elements of the array to respectively transmit said first through M-th pluralities of beams respectively directed normal to said first through M-th pluralities of target locations in accordance with said first through M-th sets of transmission focal laws; (f) processing transducer output signals from the transducer elements in accordance with said first through M-th sets of reception focal laws to derive first through M-th sets of parameter values respectively characterizing the strength of the respective echoes received from said first through M-th pluralities of target locations, each of said first through M-th sets of parameter values comprising N parameter values; (g) selecting one of said first through M-th sets of parameter values that satisfies a condition; and (h) displaying a column of N pixels having first through N-th pixel values, each of said first through N-th pixel values being a function of the respective N parameter values of the set selected in step (g).
Cruza et al. (“A new beamforming method and hardware architecture for real time two way dynamic depth focusing”) disclose Total Focusing Method (TFM) yields a focused image in emission and in reception while Phased Array (PA) imaging provides Dynamic Depth Focusing (DDF) in reception only. Besides, most NOE applications have two propagation media, where refraction at the interface complicates time-of-flight (TOF) and focal law computations. This affects especially TFM, which must compute the TOFs from all elements to image pixels and use them to select the data for imaging.
Cosarinsky et al. ("Matrix array inspections in NDT: 3D imaging with the Virtual Array method") disclose a refracting interface complicates the calculation of time-of-flight (TOF) needed to set the focal laws. When there is only one propagation medium, TOF is computed easily as the quotient between distance and speed, but in the case of two propagation mediums, an iterative search based on Fermat's principle or Snell's law is needed to compute TOF.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN H LE whose telephone number is (571)272-2275. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00am – 3:30pm Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. 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.
/JOHN H LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857