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 § 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, 2, 6-8, and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claims 1 and 8, the following bold limitations are considered abstract:
detecting a propagation velocity (
c
x
x
F
) of a first ultrasonic vibration propagating in a tensile force direction and a propagation velocity (
c
y
y
F
) of a second ultrasonic vibration propagating in another direction orthogonal to the tensile force direction in the structure by applying ultrasonic vibrations to the structure;
and calculating, with a processor, an absolute strain
(
ε
x
)
of the structure in the tensile force direction due to the tensile force using the detected propagation velocities (
c
x
x
F
,
c
y
y
F
) of the first and second ultrasonic vibrations and a relationship between propagation velocities of the ultrasonic vibrations and a strain in the structure.
The above bolded limitations are directed to abstract ideas and would fall within the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas. Calculating absolute strain is a mathematical concept as seen in Para. [0011] of the specification where it shows the equation used. According to MPEP 2106.04(C) “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.”
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements –
“detecting a propagation velocity (
c
x
x
F
) of a first ultrasonic vibration propagating in a tensile force direction and a propagation velocity (
c
y
y
F
) of a second ultrasonic vibration propagating in another direction orthogonal to the tensile force direction in the structure by applying ultrasonic vibrations to the structure; a processor; a velocity detection unit; and a strain calculating unit.”
Examiner views these limitations amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
As such Examiner does NOT view that the claims
-Improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field
-Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP
2106.05(b)
-Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing -
see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Apply or use 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 - see MPEP
2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
Moreover, Examiner views the claims to be merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to measurements of a propagation velocity and computer elements.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “detecting a propagation velocity (
c
x
x
F
) of a first ultrasonic vibration propagating in a tensile force direction and a propagation velocity (
c
y
y
F
) of a second ultrasonic vibration propagating in another direction orthogonal to the tensile force direction in the structure by applying ultrasonic vibrations to the structure; a processor; a velocity detection unit; and a strain calculating unit.” amount to mere data gathering as velocity data is detected in a well-known way and also amounts to using a computer as a tool as a processor/calculating unit is used to calculate strain. Examiner further notes that such additional elements are viewed to be well known routine and conventional as evidenced by
Bray (“Current directions of Ultrasonic Stress Measurement Techniques”; 2000)
Kwon (“Ultrasonic-based tensile force estimation for cylindrical rod at various temperature conditions”; 2022)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Considering the claims as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the practical application of the present invention since the claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way. As currently claimed, Examiner views that the additional elements do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, because the claim fails to recite clearly how the judicial exception is applied in a manner that does not monopolize the exception because the limitations “detecting a propagation velocity (
c
x
x
F
) of a first ultrasonic vibration propagating in a tensile force direction and a propagation velocity (
c
y
y
F
) of a second ultrasonic vibration propagating in another direction orthogonal to the tensile force direction in the structure by applying ultrasonic vibrations to the structure; a processor; a velocity detection unit; and a strain calculating unit.” just tie the claim to measuring propagation wave data using a well-known device.
Dependent claims 2, 6, 7, and 11 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below:
The dependent claims are directed to further limit the algorithms being used and the way that the data is processed which still amounts to a mathematical concept.
Therefore, dependent claims 2, 6, 7, and 11 further limit the abstract idea with an abstract idea and thus the claims are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 3 and 9 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they include specific features and details as to how the propagation of the ultrasonic vibrations are induced and measured in the structure. This is viewed as applying or using 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo. Claims 3-5, 10, and 12-18 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are dependent upon claims 3 and 9.
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.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Bray (“Current directions of Ultrasonic Stress Measurement Techniques”; 2000).
With respect to claim 1,
Bray teaches,
detecting a propagation velocity (
c
x
x
F
) of a first ultrasonic vibration propagating in a tensile force direction and a propagation velocity (
c
y
y
F
) of a second ultrasonic vibration propagating in another direction orthogonal to the tensile force direction in the structure by applying ultrasonic vibrations to the structure; (The Theory section teaches “Figure 1 shows elements of a bar under tension where the wave propagates in three perpendicular directions. The first index in the velocities represents the propagation direction for the wave and the second represents the direction of the movement of the particles. In (a) the wave propagates parallel to the load and V11 represents the velocity of the particles in the same direction (longitudinal wave), meanwhile V12 and V13 represents the velocity in a perpendicular plane (shear waves).” Where the applied force shown in figure 1 is viewed as a tensile force. V12 and V13 viewed as second ultrasonic vibration. Stress measurement section teaches “the LCR probes are arranged in a tandem fashion (Figure 5), with one probe acting as the transmitter and the other as a receiver.”)
and calculating, with a processor, an absolute strain
(
ε
x
)
of the structure in the tensile force direction due to the tensile force using the detected propagation velocities (
c
x
x
F
,
c
y
y
F
) of the first and second ultrasonic vibrations and a relationship between propagation velocities of the ultrasonic vibrations and a strain in the structure. (Introduction teaches “Ultrasonic instrumentation has an advantage in this aspect because it has the lowest cost among the previously cited methods. Boards with data acquisition rates of 100 MHz or more are normally used in conjunction with regular personal computers” (i.e. Boards and computer are viewed as a processor that is used to calculate.) Theory section teaches “The speeds of the plane waves traveling parallel to load can be related to the strain (a) by the following expressions:” (i.e. where V12 and V13 appearing in the expressions are perpendicular to the force.))
With respect to claim 8,
Bray teaches,
a velocity detection unit configured to detect a propagation velocity (
c
x
x
F
) of a first ultrasonic vibration propagating in a tensile force direction and a propagation velocity (
c
y
y
F
) of a second ultrasonic vibration propagating in another direction orthogonal to the tensile force direction in the structure by applying ultrasonic vibrations to the structure; (The Theory section teaches “Figure 1 shows elements of a bar under tension where the wave propagates in three perpendicular directions. The first index in the velocities represents the propagation direction for the wave and the second represents the direction of the movement of the particles. In (a) the wave propagates parallel to the load and V11 represents the velocity of the particles in the same direction (longitudinal wave), meanwhile V12 and V13 represents the velocity in a perpendicular plane (shear waves).” Where the applied force shown in figure 1 is viewed as a tensile force. V12 and V13 viewed as second ultrasonic vibration. Stress measurement section teaches “the LCR probes are arranged in a tandem fashion (Figure 5), with one probe acting as the transmitter and the other as a receiver.” (i.e. LCR probes are viewed as detection unit))
and a strain calculating unit configured to calculate, an absolute strain
(
ε
x
)
of the structure in the tensile force direction due to the tensile force using the detected propagation velocities (
c
x
x
F
,
c
y
y
F
) of the first and second ultrasonic vibrations and a relationship between propagation velocities of the ultrasonic vibrations and a strain in the structure. (Introduction teaches “Ultrasonic instrumentation has an advantage in this aspect because it has the lowest cost among the previously cited methods. Boards with data acquisition rates of 100 MHz or more are normally used in conjunction with regular personal computers” (i.e. Boards and computer are viewed as strain calculating unit.) Theory section teaches “The speeds of the plane waves traveling parallel to load can be related to the strain (a) by the following expressions:” (i.e. where V12 and V13 appearing in the expressions are perpendicular to the force.))
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 3-5, 9, 10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bray (“Current directions of Ultrasonic Stress Measurement Techniques”; 2000) as modified by Kwon (“Ultrasonic-based tensile force estimation for cylindrical rod at various temperature conditions”; 2022).
With respect to claim 3,
Bray further teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the ‘detecting propagation velocities’ comprises: detecting the first and second ultrasonic vibrations by first and second vibration detection elements installed at first and second positions of the structure, respectively, (Stress Measurement section teaches “For stress measurement work, the LCR probes are arranged in a tandem fashion (Figure 5), with one probe acting as the transmitter and the other as a receiver. In some cases, dual receivers are used. Distance between the probes (d) is kept constant by the rigid space bar, assuring that any change in travel-time between the two probes is due to stress or material variations, and not a change in probe spacing”)
Bray does not explicitly teach
inputting an ultrasonic signal generated by a waveform generator to a vibration exciting element fixed to the structure to cause the vibration exciting element to generate ultrasonic vibrations to be propagated within the structure;
to output corresponding first and second analog electrical signals, respectively, wherein the first position is spaced apart from the vibration exciting element by a first predetermined distance in the tensile force direction of the tensile force, and the second position is spaced apart from the vibration exciting element by a second predetermined distance in the another direction orthogonal to the tensile force direction;
converting the first and second analog electrical signals, by a digitizing unit, provided from the first and second vibration detection elements to first and second digital signals;
and calculating the propagation velocities (
c
x
x
F
,
c
y
y
F
) of the first and second ultrasonic vibrations using the first and second digital signals by executing an absolute strain estimation program with the processor.
Kwon teaches,
inputting an ultrasonic signal generated by a waveform generator to a vibration exciting element fixed to the structure to cause the vibration exciting element to generate ultrasonic vibrations to be propagated within the structure; (Section 4.1 teaches “The schematics of the data acquisition (DAQ) is shown in Fig. 7 (a). It consists of a 16-bit arbitrary waveform generator (AWG, NI PXI-5421), a two-channel, 14-bit digitizer (DIG, NI PXI-5122), and a controller (NI PXI-8840). The controller controls and synchronizes the AWG and the DIG, and sends the input waveform (five-cycle tone-burst) to the AWG. The input signal generated by the AWG is transmitted to MFC1 to generate the ultrasonic bulk waves, and the corresponding ultrasonic responses are measured by MFCs 2 and 3 simultaneously.”)
to output corresponding first and second analog electrical signals, respectively, wherein the first position is spaced apart from the vibration exciting element by a first predetermined distance in the tensile force direction of the tensile force, and the second position is spaced apart from the vibration exciting element by a second predetermined distance in the another direction orthogonal to the tensile force direction; (See Fig. 5 where MFC3 is located at the second position and MFC2 is located at the first position.)
converting the first and second analog electrical signals, by a digitizing unit, provided from the first and second vibration detection elements to first and second digital signals; Section 4.1 teaches “The schematics of the data acquisition (DAQ) is shown in Fig. 7 (a). It consists of a 16-bit arbitrary waveform generator (AWG, NI PXI-5421), a two-channel, 14-bit digitizer (DIG, NI PXI-5122), and a controller (NI PXI-8840).
and calculating the propagation velocities (
c
x
x
F
,
c
y
y
F
) of the first and second ultrasonic vibrations using the first and second digital signals by executing an absolute strain estimation program with the processor. (Section 2.1 teaches “The value of Cij can be calculated as, where di is the wave propagation distance, and tij is the arrival time of wij”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Bray and Kwon wherein inputting an ultrasonic signal generated by a waveform generator to a vibration exciting element fixed to the structure to cause the vibration exciting element to generate ultrasonic vibrations to be propagated within the structure; to output corresponding first and second analog electrical signals, respectively, wherein the first position is spaced apart from the vibration exciting element by a first predetermined distance in the tensile force direction of the tensile force, and the second position is spaced apart from the vibration exciting element by a second predetermined distance in the another direction orthogonal to the tensile force direction; converting the first and second analog electrical signals, by a digitizing unit, provided from the first and second vibration detection elements to first and second digital signals; and calculating the propagation velocities (c_xx^F, c_yy^F) of the first and second ultrasonic vibrations using the first and second digital signals by executing an absolute strain estimation program with the processor such as that of Kwon.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Bray and Kwon, because utilizing the set up as seen in Bray would allow the ultrasonic responses to be measured simultaneously as seen in section 4.1. It would further allow the system to store and utilize the data.
With respect to claims 4 and 12,
Bray does not explicitly teach,
The method of claim 3, wherein the propagation velocity (
c
x
x
F
) of the first ultrasonic vibration is calculated by dividing the first predetermined distance by a first arrival time taken for the first ultrasonic vibration to propagate from the vibration exciting element to the first vibration detection element, and the propagation velocity (
c
y
y
F
) of the second ultrasonic vibration is calculated by dividing the second predetermined distance by a second arrival time taken for the second ultrasonic vibration to propagate from the vibration exciting element to the second vibration detection element.
Kwon teaches,
wherein the propagation velocity (
c
x
x
F
) of the first ultrasonic vibration is calculated by dividing the first predetermined distance by a first arrival time taken for the first ultrasonic vibration to propagate from the vibration exciting element to the first vibration detection element, and the propagation velocity (
c
y
y
F
) of the second ultrasonic vibration is calculated by dividing the second predetermined distance by a second arrival time taken for the second ultrasonic vibration to propagate from the vibration exciting element to the second vibration detection element. (Section 2.1 teaches “The value of Cij can be calculated as, where di is the wave propagation distance, and tij is the arrival time of wij” Figure. 1 shows predetermined undisturbed lengths of a thick homogeneous isotropic medium.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Bray and Kwon wherein the propagation velocity (c_xx^F) of the first ultrasonic vibration is calculated by dividing the first predetermined distance by a first arrival time taken for the first ultrasonic vibration to propagate from the vibration exciting element to the first vibration detection element, and the propagation velocity (c_yy^F) of the second ultrasonic vibration is calculated by dividing the second predetermined distance by a second arrival time taken for the second ultrasonic vibration to propagate from the vibration exciting element to the second vibration detection element such as that of Kwon.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Bray and Kwon, because utilizing two elements would allow both propagations to be monitored at once. Finding velocity by dividing a change in distance by a change in time is well known. Furthermore, Bray utilizes the two velocities to find strain as seen in the Theory Section.
With respect to claims 5 and 13,
Bray does not explicitly teach,
The method of claim 4, wherein the first arrival time is determined by a first time difference between a departure time of the first ultrasonic vibration from the vibration exciting element and a first arrival time at the first vibration detection element, and the second arrival time is determined by a second time difference between the departure time and a second arrival time of the second ultrasonic vibration at the second vibration detection element, wherein the first and second arrival times are determined based on peak points of the first and second ultrasonic vibrations.
Kwon teaches,
wherein the first arrival time is determined by a first time difference between a departure time of the first ultrasonic vibration from the vibration exciting element and a first arrival time at the first vibration detection element, and the second arrival time is determined by a second time difference between the departure time and a second arrival time of the second ultrasonic vibration at the second vibration detection element, wherein the first and second arrival times are determined based on peak points of the first and second ultrasonic vibrations. ((Section 2.1 teaches “The value of Cij can be calculated as, where di is the wave propagation distance, and tij is the arrival time of wij” where the departure time is viewed as starting at 0 seconds. wij represents both wxx and wyy.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Bray and Kwon wherein the first arrival time is determined by a first time difference between a departure time of the first ultrasonic vibration from the vibration exciting element and a first arrival time at the first vibration detection element, and the second arrival time is determined by a second time difference between the departure time and a second arrival time of the second ultrasonic vibration at the second vibration detection element, wherein the first and second arrival times are determined based on peak points of the first and second ultrasonic vibrations such as that of Kwon.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Bray and Kwon, because utilizing two elements would allow both propagations to be monitored at once. Furthermore, Bray utilizes arrival time as seen in the Introduction Section.
With respect to claim 9,
Bray does not explicitly teach,
wherein the velocity detection unit comprises a waveform generator configured to generate an ultrasonic vibration exciting signal;
a vibration exciting element, attached to the structure and configured to be vibrated by the ultrasonic vibration exciting signal from the waveform generator to cause vibrations to be propagated within the structure;
a first vibration detection element, installed at a first position of the structure spaced apart from the vibration exciting element by a first predetermined distance in the tensile force direction and configured to detect a first ultrasonic vibration propagating in the tensile force direction and to output a corresponding first analog signal;
and a second vibration detection element, installed at a second position of the structure spaced apart from the vibration exciting element by a second predetermined distance in the another direction orthogonal to the tensile force direction and configured to detect a second ultrasonic vibration propagating in the another direction orthogonal to the tensile force direction, and to output a corresponding second analog signal.
Kwon teaches,
wherein the velocity detection unit comprises a waveform generator configured to generate an ultrasonic vibration exciting signal; a vibration exciting element, attached to the structure and configured to be vibrated by the ultrasonic vibration exciting signal from the waveform generator to cause vibrations to be propagated within the structure; (Section 4.1 teaches “The schematics of the data acquisition (DAQ) is shown in Fig. 7 (a). It consists of a 16-bit arbitrary waveform generator (AWG, NI PXI-5421), a two-channel, 14-bit digitizer (DIG, NI PXI-5122), and a controller (NI PXI-8840). The controller controls and synchronizes the AWG and the DIG, and sends the input waveform (five-cycle tone-burst) to the AWG. The input signal generated by the AWG is transmitted to MFC1 to generate the ultrasonic bulk waves, and the corresponding ultrasonic responses are measured by MFCs 2 and 3 simultaneously.”)
a first vibration detection element, installed at a first position of the structure spaced apart from the vibration exciting element by a first predetermined distance in the tensile force direction and configured to detect a first ultrasonic vibration propagating in the tensile force direction and to output a corresponding first analog signal; and a second vibration detection element, installed at a second position of the structure spaced apart from the vibration exciting element by a second predetermined distance in the another direction orthogonal to the tensile force direction and configured to detect a second ultrasonic vibration propagating in the another direction orthogonal to the tensile force direction, and to output a corresponding second analog signal. (See Fig. 5 Where MFC2 is the first detection element and MFC3 is the second detection element where MFC3 is located at the second position and MFC2 is located at the first position.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Bray and Kwon wherein the velocity detection unit comprises a waveform generator configured to generate an ultrasonic vibration exciting signal; a vibration exciting element, attached to the structure and configured to be vibrated by the ultrasonic vibration exciting signal from the waveform generator to cause vibrations to be propagated within the structure; a first vibration detection element, installed at a first position of the structure spaced apart from the vibration exciting element by a first predetermined distance in the tensile force direction and configured to detect a first ultrasonic vibration propagating in the tensile force direction and to output a corresponding first analog signal; and a second vibration detection element, installed at a second position of the structure spaced apart from the vibration exciting element by a second predetermined distance in the another direction orthogonal to the tensile force direction and configured to detect a second ultrasonic vibration propagating in the another direction orthogonal to the tensile force direction, and to output a corresponding second analog signal such as that of Kwon.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Bray and Kwon, because utilizing the set up as seen in Bray would allow the ultrasonic responses to be measured simultaneously as seen in section 4.1.
With respect to claim 10,
Bray does not explicitly teach,
The system of claim 9, wherein the strain calculating unit comprises a digitizing unit configured to convert the first and second analog signals into first and second digital signals, respectively; and a computing unit configured to perform functions of calculating, by executing an absolute strain estimation program, the propagation velocity (c.sup.F.sub.xx) of the first ultrasonic vibration and the propagation velocity (c.sup.F.sub.yy) of the second ultrasonic vibration after receiving the first and second digital signals from the digitizing unit; and applying the calculated propagation velocities (c.sup.F.sub.xx, c.sup.F.sub.yy) of the first and second ultrasonic vibrations to the relationship to calculate the absolute strain (ε.sub.x) of the structure in the tensile force direction.
Kwon teaches,
wherein the strain calculating unit comprises a digitizing unit configured to convert the first and second analog signals into first and second digital signals, respectively; (Section 4.1 teaches “Section 4.1 teaches “The schematics of the data acquisition (DAQ) is shown in Fig. 7 (a). It consists of a 16-bit arbitrary waveform generator (AWG, NI PXI-5421), a two-channel, 14-bit digitizer (DIG, NI PXI-5122), and a controller (NI PXI-8840).”)
and a computing unit configured to perform functions of calculating, by executing an absolute strain estimation program, the propagation velocity (c.sup.F.sub.xx) of the first ultrasonic vibration and the propagation velocity (c.sup.F.sub.yy) of the second ultrasonic vibration after receiving the first and second digital signals from the digitizing unit; and applying the calculated propagation velocities (c.sup.F.sub.xx, c.sup.F.sub.yy) of the first and second ultrasonic vibrations to the relationship to calculate the absolute strain (ε.sub.x) of the structure in the tensile force direction. (Section 2.1 teaches “The value of Cij can be calculated as, where di is the wave propagation distance, and tij is the arrival time of wij” Section 2.1 further teaches “are the strains in the directions, respectively. Because the tensile force is applied in the direction, the relationship between strains can be expressed as,” Section 4.1 teaches “The DIG performs the analog-to-digital conversion, and the digitized data is stored in the controller” controller is viewed as computing unit.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Bray and Kwon wherein the strain calculating unit comprises a digitizing unit configured to convert the first and second analog signals into first and second digital signals, respectively; and a computing unit configured to perform functions of calculating, by executing an absolute strain estimation program, the propagation velocity (c.sup.F.sub.xx) of the first ultrasonic vibration and the propagation velocity (c.sup.F.sub.yy) of the second ultrasonic vibration after receiving the first and second digital signals from the digitizing unit; and applying the calculated propagation velocities (c.sup.F.sub.xx, c.sup.F.sub.yy) of the first and second ultrasonic vibrations to the relationship to calculate the absolute strain (ε.sub.x) of the structure in the tensile force direction such as that of Kwon.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Bray and Kwon, because digitizing would further allow the system to store and utilize the data.
With respect to claim 14,
Bray does not explicitly teach,
The system of claim 10, wherein the digitizing unit comprises a first digitizing unit configured to receive the first analog signal from the first vibration detection element and convert the first analog signal to the first digital signal; and a second digitizing unit configured to receive the second analog signal from the second vibration detection element and convert the second analog signal to the second digital signal.
Kwon teaches,
wherein the digitizing unit comprises a first digitizing unit configured to receive the first analog signal from the first vibration detection element and convert the first analog signal to the first digital signal; and a second digitizing unit configured to receive the second analog signal from the second vibration detection element and convert the second analog signal to the second digital signal. (Section 4.1 teaches “The schematics of the data acquisition (DAQ) is shown in Fig. 7 (a). It consists of a 16-bit arbitrary waveform generator (AWG, NI PXI-5421), a two-channel, 14-bit digitizer (DIG, NI PXI-5122), and a controller (NI PXI-8840).” Fig. 7 shows multiple digitizers on the back of the instrument and both signals being input into the digitizer.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Bray and Kwon wherein the digitizing unit comprises a first digitizing unit configured to receive the first analog signal from the first vibration detection element and convert the first analog signal to the first digital signal; and a second digitizing unit configured to receive the second analog signal from the second vibration detection element and convert the second analog signal to the second digital signal such as that of Kwon.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Bray and Kwon, because digitizing would further allow the system to store and utilize the data. Using two digitizers would allow both signals to be utilized by the computing component.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bray (“Current directions of Ultrasonic Stress Measurement Techniques”; 2000) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yasuhiro (JP 2017207441 A).
With respect to claim 6,
Bray does not explicitly teach,
The method of claim 1, further comprising assessing stability of the structure by evaluating the calculated absolute strain (ε_x) of the structure in the tensile force direction based on a predetermined criterion.
Yasuhiro teaches,
The method of claim 1, further comprising assessing stability of the structure by evaluating the calculated absolute strain (ε_x) of the structure in the tensile force direction based on a predetermined criterion. (Para. [0013] teaches “10 is a diagram illustrating a tensile load-displacement curve A obtained in a test A step and a recording A step of sample A of the present embodiment, and the results of evaluating the state of deterioration. FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating a stress-strain curve B obtained in a test B step and a recording B step of sample B of the present embodiment. 1 is a flowchart showing an evaluation process procedure according to an embodiment of the present invention.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Bray and Kwon further comprising assessing stability of the structure by evaluating the calculated absolute strain (ε_x) of the structure in the tensile force direction based on a predetermined criterion such as that of Yasuhiro.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Bray because if the structure is deteriorated it could collapse or break. Therefore, detecting the stability of the structure would enable it to be fixed before it collapsed preventing a costly disaster.
With respect to claim 7,
Bray does not explicitly teach,
The method of claim 6, wherein the ‘assessing stability of the structure’ include comparing the calculated absolute strain (ε_x) of the structure in the tensile force direction with an elastic limit of the structure on a stress-strain curve of the structure to obtain a strain margin of the structure;
determining that if the obtained strain margin is less than a reference value, stability of the structure is low enough to require measures to improve health of the structure; and determining that if the obtained strain margin is greater than the reference value, the structure is healthy.
Yasuhiro teaches,
wherein the ‘assessing stability of the structure’ include comparing the calculated absolute strain (ε_x) of the structure in the tensile force direction with an elastic limit of the structure on a stress-strain curve of the structure to obtain a strain margin of the structure; (Para. [0013] teaches “10 is a diagram illustrating a tensile load-displacement curve A obtained in a test A step and a recording A step of sample A of the present embodiment, and the results of evaluating the state of deterioration. FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating a stress-strain curve B obtained in a test B step and a recording B step of sample B of the present embodiment. 1 is a flowchart showing an evaluation process procedure according to an embodiment of the present invention.” Para. [0017] teaches “As shown in FIG. 3 described later, if the deformation is within the range of elastic deformation, the actual tensile load can be determined from the measured strain using the linear portion of the stress-strain curve B or Young's modulus.”)
determining that if the obtained strain margin is less than a reference value, stability of the structure is low enough to require measures to improve health of the structure; Para. [0011] teaches “a determining unit that compares the curve A in the recording unit A with the result C to determine the deterioration state of the metal structure.” Para. [0022] teaches “FIG. 2, point C is below curve A, so the metal structure being evaluated is evaluated as being in a deteriorated state.”)
and determining that if the obtained strain margin is greater than the reference value, the structure is healthy. Para. [0051] teaches “The tensile load applied to a metal structure in its normal use state does not bring about a large strain that reaches the plastic region, but is within the range of strain that is in the elastic region.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Bray and Kwon wherein the ‘assessing stability of the structure’ include comparing the calculated absolute strain (ε_x) of the structure in the tensile force direction with an elastic limit of the structure on a stress-strain curve of the structure to obtain a strain margin of the structure; determining that if the obtained strain margin is less than a reference value, stability of the structure is low enough to require measures to improve health of the structure; and determining that if the obtained strain margin is greater than the reference value, the structure is healthy such as that of Yasuhiro.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Bray and Kwon, because if the structure is deteriorated it could collapse or break. Therefore, detecting the stability of the structure would enable it to be fixed before it collapsed preventing a costly disaster.
Claims 15 and 16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bray (“Current directions of Ultrasonic Stress Measurement Techniques”; 2000) as modified by Kwon (“Ultrasonic-based tensile force estimation for cylindrical rod at various temperature conditions”; 2022) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Yasuhiro (JP 2017207441 A).
With respect to claim 15,
Bray does not explicitly teach,
The system of claim 10, wherein the computing unit is configured to further perform a function of assessing stability of the structure by evaluating the calculated absolute strain (ε_x) of the structure in the tensile force direction based on a predetermined criterion.
Yasuhiro teaches,
further comprising assessing stability of the structure by evaluating the calculated absolute strain (ε_x) of the structure in the tensile force direction based on a predetermined criterion. (Para. [0013] teaches “10 is a diagram illustrating a tensile load-displacement curve A obtained in a test A step and a recording A step of sample A of the present embodiment, and the results of evaluating the state of deterioration. FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating a stress-strain curve B obtained in a test B step and a recording B step of sample B of the present embodiment. 1 is a flowchart showing an evaluation process procedure according to an embodiment of the present invention.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Bray and Kwon further comprising assessing stability of the structure by evaluating the calculated absolute strain (ε_x) of the structure in the tensile force direction based on a predetermined criterion such as that of Yasuhiro.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Bray and Kwon, because if the structure is deteriorated it could collapse or break. Therefore, detecting the stability of the structure would enable it to be fixed before it collapsed preventing a costly disaster.
With respect to claim 16,
Bray does not explicitly teach,
The system of claim 15, wherein the function of ‘assessing stability of the structure’ comprises comparing the calculated absolute strain (ε_x) of the structure in the tensile force direction with an elastic limit of the structure on a stress-strain curve of the structure to obtain a strain margin of the structure;
determining that if the obtained strain margin is less than a reference value, stability of the structure is low enough to require measures to improve health of the structure; and determining that if the obtained strain margin is greater than the reference value, the structure is healthy.
Yasuhiro teaches,
wherein the ‘assessing stability of the structure’ include comparing the calculated absolute strain (ε_x) of the structure in the tensile force direction with an elastic limit of the structure on a stress-strain curve of the structure to obtain a strain margin of the structure; (Para. [0013] teaches “10 is a diagram illustrating a tensile load-displacement curve A obtained in a test A step and a recording A step of sample A of the present embodiment, and the results of evaluating the state of deterioration. FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating a stress-strain curve B obtained in a test B step and a recording B step of sample B of the present embodiment. 1 is a flowchart showing an evaluation process procedure according to an embodiment of the present invention.” Para. [0017] teaches “As shown in FIG. 3 described later, if the deformation is within the range of elastic deformation, the actual tensile load can be determined from the measured strain using the linear portion of the stress-strain curve B or Young's modulus.”)
determining that if the obtained strain margin is less than a reference value, stability of the structure is low enough to require measures to improve health of the structure; Para. [0011] teaches “a determining unit that compares the curve A in the recording unit A with the result C to determine the deterioration state of the metal structure.” Para. [0022] teaches “FIG. 2, point C is below curve A, so the metal structure being evaluated is evaluated as being in a deteriorated state.”)
and determining that if the obtained strain margin is greater than the reference value, the structure is healthy. Para. [0051] teaches “The tensile load applied to a metal structure in its normal use state does not bring about a large strain that reaches the plastic region, but is within the range of strain that is in the elastic region.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Bray and Kwon wherein the ‘assessing stability of the structure’ include comparing the calculated absolute strain (ε_x) of the structure in the tensile force direction with an elastic limit of the structure on a stress-strain curve of the structure to obtain a strain margin of the structure; determining that if the obtained strain margin is less than a reference value, stability of the structure is low enough to require measures to improve health of the structure; and determining that if the obtained strain margin is greater than the reference value, the structure is healthy such as that of Yasuhiro.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Bray and Kwon, because if the structure is deteriorated it could collapse or break. Therefore, detecting the stability of the structure would enable it to be fixed before it collapsed preventing a costly disaster.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bray (“Current directions of Ultrasonic Stress Measurement Techniques”; 2000) and Kwon (“Ultrasonic-based tensile force estimation for cylindrical rod at various temperature conditions”; 2022) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Brandenburger (US 4926870 A).
With respect to claim 17,
Bray further teaches,
The system of claim 10, and a processing device configured to execute the absolute strain estimation program, to perform operations to calculate, based on the clock signal, the propagation velocities (c.sup.F.sub.xx, c.sup.F.sub.yy) of the first and second ultrasonic vibrations and the absolute strain (ε.sub.x) of the structure in the tensile force direction, and to control the waveform generator to generate the ultrasonic vibration exciting signal. (Introduction section teaches “When acquiring data, the researcher usually looks for a single position in time, like the time that the wave crosses the null in the amplitude scale. Because of the linear interpolation between two consecutive data points, it is possible to get estimates of this time with resolution of arrival time of 0.01 ns or better” Theory section describes finding velocities and absolute strain. The characteristics section teaches longitudinal waves being generated by a probe.)
Bray does not explicitly teach,
a clock generator configured to generate a clock signal used as a reference for operations;
Brandenburger teaches,
a clock generator configured to generate a clock signal used as a reference for operations; (Col. 8 Ln(s). 29-35 teach “The apparent velocity of the component of the received ultrasonic signal that propagates through the member along the desired path can be computed by dividing a determined distance between the receiver and the transmitter by the measured propagation time. The apparent velocity is related to the strength of the member.” Col. 16 Ln(s). 40-44 teach “Clock and control 122 is provided to ensure that processing of received ultrasonic signals occurs in the proper sequence. Signal conditioning means 124 further includes a bandpass filter that allows a band of 20 KHz to 3 MHz to pass”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Bray and Kwon with a clock generator configured to generate a clock signal used as a reference for operations such as that of Brandenburger.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Bray and Kwon, because a clock generator would ensure that processing of received ultrasonic signals occurs in the proper sequence as seen in Col. 16 Ln(s). 40-44 of Brandenburger. Furthermore, Bray utilizes time measurements as seen in the introduction section.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bray (“Current directions of Ultrasonic Stress Measurement Techniques”; 2000) and Kwon (“Ultrasonic-based tensile force estimation for cylindrical rod at various temperature conditions”; 2022) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Chambers (US 20060236777 A1).
With respect to claim 18,
Bray does not explicitly teach,
The system of claim 9, wherein the vibration exciting element and the first and second vibration detection elements are elements made from piezoelectric ceramic (PZT) material.
Chambers teaches,
wherein the vibration exciting element and the first and second vibration detection elements are elements made from piezoelectric ceramic (PZT) material. (Para. [0044] teaches “For example, an acoustic generator can be fabricated from a single layer of piezoelectric ceramic sheet with electrodes, e.g., in a configuration such as T180-A4E-602, from Piezo Systems, Inc., of Cambridge, Mass., if such can be configured to produce an acoustic stress wave that is sufficient for actuation.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Bray and Kwon wherein the vibration exciting element and the first and second vibration detection elements are elements made from piezoelectric ceramic (PZT) material such as that of Chambers.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Bray and Kwon, because as seen in Para. [0005] of Chambers “Piezoelectric materials are characterized by an ability to deform mechanically, i.e., expand and contract, in response to an applied electric field, as a result of the inverse piezoelectric effect. Piezoelectric ceramic actuators, commonly employed in series in the form of a stack, exhibit a very high actuation bandwidth, enabling a fast actuation stroke, while maintaining an acceptable output actuation energy density.” Therefore, in order to vibrate the object effectively using a PZT element would be beneficial for the above listed advantages.
Prior Art Analysis
Claims 2 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 however none of the known prior art could be applied to the claims for the following reasons.
With respect to claims 2 and 11,
Bray (“Current directions of Ultrasonic Stress Measurement Techniques”; 2000) teaches that propagation velocities are related to strain through a series of expressions. (Theory Section) However, they do not explicitly teach the equation as claimed in claims 2 and 11.
Kwon (“Ultrasonic-based tensile force estimation for cylindrical rod at various temperature conditions”; 2022) teaches, a relationship between strain, temperature, and velocity of the propagation. (Equation 27) They further teach the relative change of elastic modulus is equal to 21 times the strain as found by viewing the elastic modulus as the slope of the interatomic force and by doing a Taylor expansion. However, they do not explicitly teach a relationship between strain, velocity, and Poisson’s ratio of the structure.
Alves (A new approach to determine tensile stress states from the parameters of longitudinal waves; 2020) teaches, finding a propagation velocity of a material in an unstressed state that is reliant upon density, the elastic modulus, and Poisson’s ratio as seen in equation 1. They later teach finding a perturbed velocity with a relation to strain in section 2.2. However, the perturbed velocity is found in Alves based on a delay time instead of using a relative change in the elastic modulus.
As seen above none of the known prior art teaches and it would not be obvious to combine the known prior at to teach,
The method of claim 1, wherein the relationship is defined by an equation,
ε
x
=
c
y
y
F
c
x
x
F
2
-
1
21
[
c
y
y
F
c
x
x
F
2
+
v
]
,
where v is a Poisson's ratio of the structure.
Therefore, prior art cannot be applied to claims 2 and 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to JOSHUA L FORRISTALL whose telephone number is 703-756-4554. The examiner
can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM- 5 PM.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached on 571-272-2302. 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.
/JOSHUA L FORRISTALL/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857