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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the ultrasonic flaw detection device of Hajime differs from the ultrasonic inspection device of claim 1 at least in that the ultrasonic beam is not transmitted "in air" to the inspection target plate, and in that the ultrasonic beam that passes through the inspection target plate is not received "via an interface of air and the reception surface" by the ultrasonic receiver.
Newly found reference Sanabria et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20140216158) teaches the transmitter configured to transmit in air, and receivers receive via an interface of air and the reception surface (Paragraph 61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to transmit and receive Hajime’s ultrasonic beam via air instead of water because air does not require physical contact between transmitter/receiver and the subject, therefore prevent scratch or damage to the subject.
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 1-4, 6-10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hajime et al. (JPH07260747, see attached English translation) in view of Sanabria et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20140216158).
Regarding claim 1, Hajime teaches an ultrasonic inspection device comprising: a transmitter configured to transmit an ultrasonic beam to a subject, and a plurality of receivers that each have a reception surface configured to receive the ultrasonic beam having transmitted through the subject (Paragraphs 9-10), wherein an area of the reception surface of each of the plurality of receivers is equal to or less than (10x λ)2, where λ is a wavelength of the ultrasonic beam (Paragraph 14 teaches “the ultrasonic receiver 25 is a one-dimensional array ultrasonic sensor composed of an array of square ultrasonic vibrators with dimensions of 0.5 x 0.50 mm”, therefore the area of the reception surface of each of the plurality of receivers is 0.25mm2, also paragraph 14 teaches “ultrasonic sensor with a frequency of 25 MHz” and paragraph 9 teaches “water 40 is interposed as an ultrasonic propagation medium”, according to a well known formula λ = v/f, wherein λ is the wavelength, v is the speed of sound in the medium, and f is the frequency, in Hajime’s system, the medium is water, speed of sound in the medium is 1481 m/s, frequency is 25MHz, therefore, wavelength
λ
=
1481
m
/
s
25
M
H
z
, after calculation, λ = 0.05924 mm. (10x λ)2 = 0.35 mm2, and the area of the reception surface of each of the plurality of receivers is 0.25mm2, which is less than (10x λ)2 ).
Hajime is silent about the transmitter configured to transmit in air, and receivers receive via an interface of air and the reception surface.
Sanabria teaches the transmitter configured to transmit in air, and receivers receive via an interface of air and the reception surface (Paragraph 61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to transmit and receive Hajime’s ultrasonic beam via air instead of water because air does not require physical contact between transmitter/receiver and the subject, therefore prevent scratch or damage to the subject.
Regarding claim 2, Hajime teaches wherein the plurality of receivers are arranged in a plurality of rows of receivers and a plurality of columns of receivers, or the plurality of receivers are arranged in a single row of receivers (Paragraphs 9-10 and 14).
Regarding claim 3, Hajime teaches wherein the reception surface of each of the plurality of receivers has a square shape (Paragraph 14), and a length of one side of the square shape is equal to or less than (10 x λ) (As explained above for the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Hajime teaches wherein the reception surface of each of the plurality of receivers has a rectangular shape (Paragraph 14), and a length of a short side of the rectangular shape is equal to or less than (10 x X) (As explained above for the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Hajime and Sanabria teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, the combination of Hajime and Sanabria is silent about wherein the area of the reception surface of each of the plurality of receivers is equal to or less than (6 x λ)2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the area of the reception surface of each of the plurality of receivers equal to or less than (6 x λ)2, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Hajime and Sanabria teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, the combination of Hajime and Sanabria is silent about wherein the area of the reception surface of each of the plurality of receivers is equal to or less than (4 x λ)2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the area of the reception surface of each of the plurality of receivers equal to or less than (4 x λ)2, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Hajime and Sanabria teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, the combination of Hajime and Sanabria is silent about wherein the area of the reception surface of each of the plurality of receivers is equal to or less than (2 x λ)2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the area of the reception surface of each of the plurality of receivers equal to or less than (2 x λ)2, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 9, Hajime teaches wherein the plurality of receivers are arranged spaced apart from each other (As shown in Fig.2).
Regarding claim 10, Hajime teaches wherein the plurality of receivers are spaced apart from each other by a resin layer or an air layer (As shown in Fig.2, air is between each elements), each of the resin layer and the air layer having acoustic characteristics that differ from acoustic characteristics of the plurality of receivers (Inherent, air has different acoustic characteristics).
Regarding claim 15, Hajime teaches wherein the ultrasonic beam is transmitted to the subject along a transmission direction, and the transmitter and/or the plurality of receivers are disposed in relation to the subject such that a distance, in a direction crossing the transmission direction, between (i) the transmitter and/or the plurality of receivers and (ii) an end of the subject is at least a length of the wavelength of the ultrasonic beam (Paragraph 16, also as explained above, λ = 0.05924 mm).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hajime et al. (JPH07260747, see attached English translation) in view of Sanabria et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20140216158) and Hakkens et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20180130457).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Hajime and Sanabria teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, the combination of Hajime and Sanabria is silent about wherein the reception surface of each of the plurality of receivers has a circular shape, and a diameter of the circular shape is equal to or less than (10 x λ).
Hakkens teaches wherein the reception surface of each of the plurality of receivers has a circular shape (Paragraph 39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to change the shape of Hajime’s transducer element to circular shape because circular shape is suitable for different applications, also a circular ultrasonic transducer element offers advantages like good directivity.
The combination of the combination of Hajime, Sanabria and Hakkens is silent about a diameter of the circular shape is equal to or less than (10 x λ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the diameter of the circular shape equal to or less than (10 x λ), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hajime et al. (JPH07260747, see attached English translation) in view of Sanabria et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20140216158) and Appelquist et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20190257792).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Hajime and Sanabria teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, the combination of Hajime and Sanabria is silent about a memory configured to store instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions to determine whether a defect is present in an inspection subject based on a relationship between a reference waveform and an inspection subject waveform, the inspection subject waveform being a waveform of the ultrasonic beam that has transmitted through the inspection subject and that has been received by at least one of the plurality of receivers.
Appelquist teaches a memory (Fig.1, 106, it is inherent that the computer 106 has a memory to store instructions) configured to store instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions to determine whether a defect is present in an inspection subject based on a relationship between a reference waveform and an inspection subject waveform, the inspection subject waveform being a waveform of the ultrasonic beam that has transmitted through the inspection subject and that has been received by at least one of the plurality of receivers (Fig.4 and paragraphs 59-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to compare Hajime’s received waveform to a reference waveform to detect a defect because it is a common practice, also it is easier to find the defect.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Hajime, Sanabria and Appelquist teaches all the features of claim 11 as outlined above, Appelquist further teaches wherein the reference waveform is a waveform of the ultrasonic beam that has transmitted through a reference subject and that has been received by at least one of the plurality of receivers, and wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine whether the defect is present in the inspection subject based on a correlation value between a phase of the reference subject waveform and a phase of the inspection subject waveform (Fig.4 and paragraphs 59-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to compare Hajime’s received waveform to a reference waveform to detect a defect because it is a common practice, also it is easier to find the defect.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Hajime, Sanabria and Appelquist teaches all the features of claim 11 as outlined above, Appelquist further teaches wherein the reference waveform is a waveform of the ultrasonic beam that has transmitted through a reference subject and that has been received by at least one of the plurality of receivers, andwherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine whether the defect is present in the inspection subject depending on whether or not a phase of the inspection subject waveform differs from a phase of the reference waveform (Fig.4 and paragraphs 59-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to compare Hajime’s received waveform to a reference waveform to detect a defect because it is a common practice, also it is easier to find the defect.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Hajime, Sanabria and Appelquist teaches all the features of claim 11 as outlined above, Appelquist further teaches wherein the memory stores the reference waveform (Paragraph 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to compare Hajime’s received waveform to a reference waveform to detect a defect because it is a common practice, also it is easier to find the defect.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hajime et al. (JPH07260747, see attached English translation) in view of Sanabria et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20140216158) and Nakayama et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20150260691).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Hajime and Sanabria teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, the combination of Hajime and Sanabria is silent about a field effect transistor (FET) substrate configured to output a received signal corresponding to the ultrasonic beam received by at least one of the plurality of receivers, wherein the plurality of receivers are integrally provided on the FET substrate.
Nakayama teaches a field effect transistor (FET) substrate configured to output a received signal corresponding to the ultrasonic beam received by at least one of the plurality of receivers, wherein the plurality of receivers are integrally provided on the FET substrate (Paragraph 192-194).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use FET substrate in Hajime’s system because FET-based sensors can provide high sensitivity, allowing for detection at lower power levels and providing greater accuracy.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 XIN Y ZHONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3798. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 a.m. - 6 p.m..
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/XIN Y ZHONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights