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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 02/13/24. These drawings are accepted by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without being integrated into a practical application and does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Utilizing the two step process adopted by the Supreme Court (Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l US Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and the recent 101 guideline, Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan 2019)), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 USC 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong one), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then proceeding to the second part of Step 2A (Prong two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination, provide "inventive concept" that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Looking at the claims, the claims satisfy the first part of the test 1A, namely the claims are directed to two of the four statutory classes, apparatus and method. In Step 2A Prong one, we next identify any judicial exceptions in the claims. In Claim 1 (as a representative claim), we recognize that the limitations “extracting, by a defect assessment system, one or more assessment parameters from ultrasound waves propagated through a cross-section of the material at each of one or more predefined alignment angles, identifying, by the defect assessment system, presence of one or more defects in the material by analysing the one or more assessment parameters using a first machine learning model; determining, by the defect assessment system, a position of each of the one or more defects present in the material based on a graphical representation of the one or more defects; and determining, by the defect assessment system, a severity score and size of each of the one or more defects, corresponding to the position of each of the one or more defects determined on the graphical representation using a second machine learning model” s they are directed to a combination of mental process and usage of mathematical concept. Similar rejections are made for other independent and dependent claims. With the identification of abstract ideas, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong two, where with additional elements and taken as a whole, we evaluate whether the identified abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application.
In Step 2A, Prong two, the claims additionally recite " determining, by the defect assessment system, a severity score and size of each of the one or more defects, corresponding to the position of each of the one or more defects determined on the graphical representation using a second machine learning model” but said limitation, recited at high level of generality, merely is directed to insignificant data collection activity and general purpose computer. The claims do not improve the functioning of any devices. In short, the claims do not provide sufficient evidence to show that they are more than a drafting effort to monopolize the abstract idea. As such, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B and evaluate whether the additional elements provide "inventive concept" that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Step 2B, the claims additionally recite " determining, by the defect assessment system, a severity score and size of each of the one or more defects, corresponding to the position of each of the one or more defects determined on the graphical representation using a second machine learning model”, but said limitation, recited at high level of generality, merely is directed to data collection activity and general purpose computer that is well-understood, routine and conventional. As such, the claims do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims recite abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S Independent claim 1 is not supported by the description as required by Article 84 EPC, as its scope appears to be broader than justified by the description.
The reasons therefore are the following: claim 1 broadly defines its subject matter as a computer-implemented method of assessing one or more defects in a material, but the only embodiment detailed in the present application relates to the assessment of defects in wooden utility poles and not to the assessment of defects in any possible material, like a semiconductor chip or welds or wings of an aircraft. The same reasons may also be seen as grounds for an objection of insufficient disclosure of the invention under Article 83 EPC (see also the Guidelines, F-IV, 6.4)..C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The expression "computer-implemented inventions" covers claims which involve computers or other programmable apparatus, whereby at least one feature is realised by means of a program. A common type of CII relates to subject-matter where all the method steps can fully be carried out by computer program instructions running on means which, in the context of the invention, provide generic data processing functions.
In the present case, i.e. in the field of NOT testing of a material, independent method claim 1 involves steps of manipulating or interacting with technical physical entities (here ultrasound transducers arranged in a certain configuration around the wooden pole under inspection, cf. claim 2) by using computer control. These method steps cannot be fully performed by the computer and the method claim should have recite the specific technical means for carrying out some of the steps.
Since the steps carried out by the specific technical means (transmitting of the US waves, receiving the US waves, ND processing the US waves, etc.) cannot be carried out by a generic data processing means, the method claims 1-12, which do not refer back to an ultrasound system comprising said ultrasound transmitter and receivers, lack essential features as explained in the Guidelines, Part F, Chapter IV- 3.9.2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Chilakabathini et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0273182), hereinafter, Chilakabathini.
Regarding Chilakabathini discloses a computer-implemented method of assessing one or more defects in a material (see Fig. 1, 2a and [0030-0031]), the method comprising:
extracting, by a defect assessment system (107), one or more assessment parameters from ultrasound waves propagated through a crosssection of the material at each of one or more predefined alignment angles (see Fig. 2a-2b, the block 215 and [0024], [0030], [0043]);
identifying, by the defect assessment system, presence of one or more defects in the material by analysing the one or more assessment parameters using a first machine learning model (see Fig. 2a, the block 217 and§ [0030], [0053]);
determining, by the defect assessment system, a position of each of the one or more defects present in the material based on a graphical representation of the one or more defects (see Fig. 2a-2e, the block 219 and [0030], [0057]); and
determining, by the defect assessment system, a severity score and size of each of the one or more defects, corresponding to the position of each of the one or more defects determined on the graphical representation using a second machine learning model (see Fig. 2a, the block 221 and [0030], [0059-0064]).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, see: Fig. 2b and [0030-0031] of Chilakabathini.
Regarding claims 3-5 and 13-15, see Fig. 2a-2e and [0047-0058] of Chilakabathini.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, see 1, Fig. 2a-2e of Chilakabathini
Regarding claims 7 and 17, see par. [0058-0059] of Chilakabathini.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, see par. [0072] of Chilakabathini.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, see par. [0056], [0061], [0064] of Chilakabathini.
Regarding claim 10, see claim 18 of Chilakabathini.
Regarding claim 20, it is similar in scope with claim 1, therefore, it is rejected similarly for the reasons set forth for that claim. Furthermore, Chilakabathini discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium including instructions stored thereon that when processed by at least one processor cause a wood health assessment system to perform operations (see claim 13).
Since a similar argument can be derived from document D2, this document must also be regarded as novelty destroying for claim 1: see Fig. 2-5b and pages 6-10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACQUES M SAINT SURIN whose telephone number is (571)272-2206. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Frid (Flex) 10:00 to 7:00.
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, JOHN BREENE can be reached at 571 272 4107. 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.
/JACQUES M SAINT SURIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2855