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 Amendment
The 112(b) rejection of claim 5 is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 5 that Pelivanov teaches ultrasonic signals, which are different from the instant invention’s thermal acoustic waves.
Examiner’s position is that the word “thermal” and the phrase “thermal acoustic wave” do not appear in the applicant’s specification. Instant paragraph 0005 (Summary) teaches “generating an internal acoustic wave within the object due to heat flux”. As such, the examiner interprets the word “thermal” in the phrase “thermal acoustic wave” to refer to the cause of an internal acoustic wave, which instant paragraph 0005 teaches is caused by “employing a laser source to excite an object”.
Pelivanov teaches using a laser on a surface (paragraph 0048 “Light source 210 is configured to transmit first light 216 onto surface 218 of structure 202. In some illustrative examples, light source 210 may be laser 219.”), where the laser generates an internal acoustic wave due to heat flux generated by the laser (paragraph 0051 “First light 216 is configured to form acoustic waves 224 within structure 202 when first light 216 encounters structure 202. … For example, energy in first light 216 may cause thermoelastic expansion in structure 202. The thermoelastic expansion may result in acoustic waves 224 in structure 202.”).
While the instant claims are not explicitly directed to ultrasonic signals, the instant specification details ultrasonic techniques and the language of the claims does not contraindicate the use of ultrasonic signals as taught by Pelivanov. As such, Pelivanov is deemed to read on the claimed “thermal acoustic wave”.
Applicant argues on page 6 that the applicant does not rely on or process ultrasonic signals.
Examiner’s position is that the instant specification paragraph 0051 recites “A schematic of the typical laser-air hybrid ultrasonic detection system 400 is shown in FIG. 4.”.
Applicant argues on page 6 that Pelivanov does not teach or suggest thermal acoustic wave-based flaw detection.
Examiner’s position is that Pelivanov teaches using a laser on a surface (paragraph 0048 “Light source 210 is configured to transmit first light 216 onto surface 218 of structure 202. In some illustrative examples, light source 210 may be laser 219.”), where the laser generates an acoustic wave due to heat flux generated by the laser (paragraph 0051 “First light 216 is configured to form acoustic waves 224 within structure 202 when first light 216 encounters structure 202. … For example, energy in first light 216 may cause thermoelastic expansion in structure 202. The thermoelastic expansion may result in acoustic waves 224 in structure 202.”), and the waves are detected (paragraph 0054 “number of detectors 208 is configured to detect first response 229 to acoustic waves 224”) for flaw detection (paragraphs 0081-0083 teach detecting inconsistencies from shear, surface and longitudinal waves, respectively).
Applicant argues on pages 6-7 that the instant invention possesses advantages not found in the applied references: a) real-time processing, b) thermal acoustic wave-based flaw detection, and c) generality of application.
Examiner’s position is that
a) the invention of Pelivanov as modified by Colin performs automatic inspection and real-time signal processing (Colin paragraphs 0083-0091 teach automatic inspection and signal processing, as shown by “Any anomaly or inconsistency detected during the third step is immediately reported 231 by the collaborative robot 10 to an operator”),
b) Pelivanov teaches using a laser on a surface (paragraph 0048 “Light source 210 is configured to transmit first light 216 onto surface 218 of structure 202. In some illustrative examples, light source 210 may be laser 219.”), where the laser generates an acoustic wave due to heat flux generated by the laser (paragraph 0051 “First light 216 is configured to form acoustic waves 224 within structure 202 when first light 216 encounters structure 202. … For example, energy in first light 216 may cause thermoelastic expansion in structure 202. The thermoelastic expansion may result in acoustic waves 224 in structure 202.”), and the waves are detected (paragraph 0054 “number of detectors 208 is configured to detect first response 229 to acoustic waves 224”) for flaw detection (paragraphs 0081-0083 teach detecting inconsistencies from shear, surface and longitudinal waves, respectively), and
c) Pelivanov teaches the inspection of a broad range of surfaces (paragraph 0004 “In manufacturing aircraft, vehicles, and other structures, inspection of parts used to form these structures is often performed to determine whether the parts will have desired parameters for a desired performance of the part.”).
As such, the invention of Pelivanov as modified by Colin is deemed applicable.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14-15, 17-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11821848. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims all the limitations of the instant claims.
Instant claim #
US 11821848 claim #
1-3
1-3
4
1
5
4
6
1
7-12
5-10
13-14
9
15
11
16
9
17-20
12-15
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 9-13, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelivanov et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20170248551) in view of Colin et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20160264262), the combination of which is hereafter referred to as “PC”.
As to claim 1, Pelivanov teaches a method for detecting structural integrity in an object (Abstract “A method of detecting inconsistencies in a structure”) comprising:
employing a laser source (Figure 2, element 220, paragraph 0049 “pulsed laser beam 220”) to excite the object (Figure 2, element 202, paragraph 0048 “Light source 210 is configured to transmit first light 216 onto surface 218 of structure 202.”);
generating an internal thermal acoustic wave within the object due to heat flux generated by the laser source exciting the object, wherein the thermal acoustic wave propagates within the object (paragraph 0051 “First light 216 is configured to form acoustic waves 224 within structure 202 when first light 216 encounters structure 202. … For example, energy in first light 216 may cause thermoelastic expansion in structure 202. The thermoelastic expansion may result in acoustic waves 224 in structure 202.”);
receiving the thermal acoustic wave from the object (paragraph 0057 “First response 229, caused by acoustic waves 224 traveling within structure 202, may reach surface 218 and may be detected.”); and
determining the presence or absence of a structural fault within the object based on analyzing the thermal acoustic wave from the object (paragraph 0064 “Data 241 representative of surface waves 227 may be used to identify crack 245 or joint inconsistency 246.”, paragraph 0068 “Report 270 may identify any inconsistencies in structure 202.”).
While Pelivanov teaches inspecting an aircraft (Figure 1), Pelivanov does not teach a mobile, field-deployed intelligent inspection system implementing an automatic target detection system employing computer vision, that identifies an object for analysis. However, it is known in the art as taught by Colin. Colin teaches a mobile, field-deployed intelligent inspection system (Figure 1, paragraph 0011 “a visual inspection robot of which a mobile platform carries a turret with viewing means and comprises processing means that guide the mobile platform and process information received from the viewing means”) implementing an automatic target detection system employing computer vision, that identifies an object for analysis (paragraph 0087 “the collaborative robot 10, when it has reached the zone in which to find the aircraft 90 that it is to inspect, makes an overall examination of the aircraft using its viewing means 13, and from this examination deduces, from a database containing the shapes of the aircraft, which type of aircraft is involved”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have a mobile, field-deployed intelligent inspection system implementing an automatic target detection system employing computer vision, that identifies an object for analysis, in order to more efficiently ensure the intended objects are analyzed.
Pelivanov as modified by Colin above does not teach fault detection to enable on-site decision making to quantify the structural fault and severity of the structural fault in real time. However, it is known in the art as taught by Colin. Colin teaches fault detection to enable on-site decision making to quantify the structural fault and severity of the structural fault in real time (paragraphs 0083-0091 teach automatic inspection and signal processing, and the existence of real-time processing is indicated by paragraph 0089 “Any anomaly or inconsistency detected during the third step is immediately reported 231 by the collaborative robot 10 to an operator responsible for the inspection who will then decide what action to take” indicated that the system processes the data as it’s being taken). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have fault detection to enable on-site decision making to quantify the structural fault and severity of the structural fault in real time, in order to better assess results that are outside expected parameters.
As to claim 2, PC teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Pelivanov teaches the method detects a location of the structural fault within the object (paragraph 0068 “Report 270 also may include other information, such as locations of inconsistencies”).
As to claim 3, PC teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Pelivanov teaches an extent of the structural fault within the object (paragraph 0068 “Report 270 also may include other information, such as … sizes of inconsistencies,”).
As to claim 9, PC teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Pelivanov teaches generating longitudinal, shear and/or Rayleigh waves with a single laser pulse within the object (paragraph 0010 “The plurality of types of ultrasonic signals includes at least one of surface waves, shear waves, or longitudinal waves.”).
As to claim 10, PC teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Pelivanov teaches comparing the analyzed thermal acoustic wave from the object to a library of structural defects to provide onsite determination of the presence or absence of a structural defect (paragraph 0120 “an inconsistency may be detected in the structure by comparing the data to reference data from a reference standard.”).
As to claim 11, Pelivanov teaches a method of non-destructive and contact-free structural integrity inspection (Figure 9 teaches “direct a pulsed laser beam towards the structure” and “detect the plurality of types of ultrasonic signals”, where lasers are non-contact, and paragraph 0055 teaches “detectors 208 may include a fiber-optic modified Sagnac interferometer for non-contact detection of backscattered ultrasound.”) comprising;
determining a location on the object to activate laser excitation (Figure 6, line 606 is deliberately positioned relative to joint 604, see paragraphs 0094-0096 and the “set-up such that” & “may be positioned” phrases, see also paragraph 0062);
employing a laser source (Figure 2, element 220, paragraph 0049 “pulsed laser beam 220”) to excite an object (Figure 2, element 202, paragraph 0051 “First light 216 is configured to form acoustic waves 224 within structure 202”);
generating an internal thermal acoustic wave within the object due to heat flux generated by the laser source exciting the object, wherein the thermal acoustic wave propagates within the object (paragraph 0051 “First light 216 is configured to form acoustic waves 224 within structure 202 when first light 216 encounters structure 202. … For example, energy in first light 216 may cause thermoelastic expansion in structure 202. The thermoelastic expansion may result in acoustic waves 224 in structure 202.”);
receiving the thermal acoustic wave from the object (paragraph 0051 “energy in first light 216 may cause thermoelastic expansion in structure 202. The thermoelastic expansion may result in acoustic waves 224 in structure 202.”); and
determining the presence or absence of a structural fault within the object based on analyzing the thermal acoustic wave from the object (paragraph 0064 “Data 241 representative of surface waves 227 may be used to identify crack 245 or joint inconsistency 246.”, paragraph 0068 “Report 270 may identify any inconsistencies in structure 202.”).
While Pelivanov teaches inspecting an aircraft (Figure 1), Pelivanov does not teach a mobile, field-deployed intelligent inspection system implementing an automatic target detection system employing computer vision, that identifies an object for analysis. However, it is known in the art as taught by Colin. Colin teaches a mobile, field-deployed intelligent inspection system (Figure 1, paragraph 0011 “a visual inspection robot of which a mobile platform carries a turret with viewing means and comprises processing means that guide the mobile platform and process information received from the viewing means”) implementing an automatic target detection system employing computer vision, that identifies an object for analysis (paragraph 0087 “the collaborative robot 10, when it has reached the zone in which to find the aircraft 90 that it is to inspect, makes an overall examination of the aircraft using its viewing means 13, and from this examination deduces, from a database containing the shapes of the aircraft, which type of aircraft is involved”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have a mobile, field-deployed intelligent inspection system implementing an automatic target detection system employing computer vision, that identifies an object for analysis, in order to more efficiently ensure the intended objects are analyzed.
Pelivanov as modified by Colin above does not teach fault determination to enable on-site decision making to quantify the structural fault and severity of the structural fault in real time. However, it is known in the art as taught by Colin. Colin teaches fault detection to enable on-site decision making to quantify the structural fault and severity of the structural fault in real time (paragraphs 0083-0091 teach automatic inspection and signal processing, and the existence of real-time processing is indicated by paragraph 0089 “Any anomaly or inconsistency detected during the third step is immediately reported 231 by the collaborative robot 10 to an operator responsible for the inspection who will then decide what action to take” indicated that the system processes the data as it’s being taken). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have fault detection to enable on-site decision making to quantify the structural fault and severity of the structural fault in real time, in order to better assess results that are outside expected parameters.
As to claim 12, PC teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 11, in addition Pelivanov teaches the method detects a location of the structural fault within the object (paragraph 0068 “Report 270 also may include other information, such as locations of inconsistencies”).
As to claim 13, PC teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 11, in addition Pelivanov teaches an extent of the structural fault within the object (paragraph 0068 “Report 270 also may include other information, such as … sizes of inconsistencies,”).
As to claim 19, PC teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 11, in addition Pelivanov teaches generating longitudinal, shear and/or Rayleigh waves with a single laser pulse within the object (paragraph 0010 “The plurality of types of ultrasonic signals includes at least one of surface waves, shear waves, or longitudinal waves.”).
As to claim 20, PC teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 11, in addition Pelivanov teaches comparing the analyzed thermal acoustic wave from the object to a library of structural defects to provide onsite determination of the presence or absence of a structural defect (paragraph 0120 “an inconsistency may be detected in the structure by comparing the data to reference data from a reference standard.”).
Claims 4-5, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PC, and further in view of English et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20170267264).
As to claims 4 and 14, PC teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claims 1 and 11 respectively, with the exception of the object is a railroad spike or screw. However, it is known in the art as taught by English. English teaches an automated inspection vehicle (Abstract and Figure 7) that uses electromagnetic radiation to inspects railroad components (Abstract & paragraph 0026 “a secondary sensor, such as x-ray, is used to image the flaw”), wherein the object is a railroad spike or screw (paragraph 0094 “the technology may be optimized to inspect other track fixtures such as … tie spikes”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the object is a railroad spike or screw, in order to better inspect all parts of a railroad track.
As to claims 5 and 15, PC in view of English teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claims 4 and 14 respectively, in addition English teaches the railroad spike or screw is analyzed while remaining in place on a railway (Figure 7 shows an inspection vehicle on top of the track it’s inspecting, see paragraphs 0006, 0027). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the railroad spike or screw be analyzed while remaining in place on a railway, in order to make sure existing railroad tracks are safe.
Claims 7-8, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PC, and further in view of Shen et al (CN 101900708).
As to claims 7 and 17, PC teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claims 1 and 11 respectively, with the exception of employing pattern recognition to determine the absence or presence of a structural defect in the object. However, it is known in the art as taught by Shen. Shen teaches a high speed train rail failure detecting method (Abstract “The invention claims a high speed train rail failure detecting method”, and paragraph 0005 mentions “laser ultrasonic detection technology” as a relevant field) that teaches the use of pattern recognition technology to determine the absence or presence of a structural defect in an object based on image analysis (paragraph 0005 “pattern recognition artificial intelligence technology”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to be employing pattern recognition to determine the absence or presence of a structural defect in the object, in order to better identify unsafe railways.
As to claims 8 and 18, PC teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claims 1 and 11 respectively, with the exception of using an artificial intelligence module to determine the absence or presence of a structural defect in the object. However, it is known in the art as taught by Shen. Shen teaches using an artificial intelligence module (paragraph 0005 “pattern recognition artificial intelligence technology”) to determine the absence or presence of a structural defect in the object (paragraph 0005 “flaw detecting car computer and the high speed pattern recognition artificial intelligence technology combined with the classification”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to be using an artificial intelligence module to determine the absence or presence of a structural defect in the object, in order to better identify unsafe railways.
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 JARREAS UNDERWOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-1536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0600-1400 EST.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 2705789. 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.
/J.C.U/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 /MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877