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 .
Allowed claims
Claims 1-2,4-9 are allowed.
35 U.S.C. 112(a) Rejection
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
As to claim 3, nothing in the application describes how to employ software to simulate. There is no defined basis from which to begin, no explanation as to what information might initially be obtained, no explanation as to what might be done with such information and no suggestions as to how any type or experimentation may be of assistance. There is no basis from which to provide for any steps of experimentation. Note that Paragraph 52 (Applicant’s Publication) calls for “using a master part or simulation software” (italics added), so the two should not be confused.
35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejection
Claims 3,12 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.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 3, the same single step of acquiring appears to be claimed twice. Once as “acquiring first information” (line 3, claim 1) and a second time as “the first information is acquired from a software tool” (claim 3). Maybe, claim 3 was intended such the “where said 1qquiring first information comprises employing a software too”; but of course such would be problematic under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
As to claim 12, the preamble calls for an article/apparatus (“medium), but such depends upon method claim 1 which is steps. Is this claim a article, or is this claim steps? A claim may be a method or an article, but not some mixture. As such, the claim is indefinite.
35 U.S.C. 112(d) Rejection
Claims 3,12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3’s step of employing software seems to remove claim 1’s employing a “mechanical part” (claim 1). Note that Paragraph 52 (Applicant’s Publication) expresses that the method of defining the template uses “a master part or simulation software” (italics added, Para 52). Claim 12’s medium appears to remove all of the actual steps of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 Rejection
Claim(s) 10,11,12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Takehisa ‘JP2005283134 (listed 1449).
As to claim 10,11, Takehisa teaches a system for analyzing a quality of a first mechanical part
PNG
media_image1.png
248
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
using non-destructive testing, comprising: an input interface (sensor in probe 1) configured to acquire first information representing an ultrasonic wave reflected when emitting said ultrasonic wave along a first Application path in a second mechanical part
PNG
media_image2.png
578
852
media_image2.png
Greyscale
made of a material identical to that from which the first mechanical part is made and having the same shape as the first mechanical part (as the two identified parts in the drawings are of the same body);
a
a transducer configured to emit said ultrasonic wave into the first mechanical part by applying it via a second application path
PNG
media_image3.png
384
826
media_image3.png
Greyscale
;
at least one sensor configured to acquire second information representing said ultrasonic wave reflected in the first mechanical part when emitting the ultrasonic wave
PNG
media_image4.png
218
646
media_image4.png
Greyscale
;
and
The Reference does not employ the terms (control units, processors etc.) that express what it is that determines the filtering template and what determines a flaw.
As to claims 10,11, either the reference requires processors to carry out such determinations despite the translation not referring to such, or in the alternative, one of ordinary skill would recognizes that it would be desirable to so carry out the determinations because it would be cumbersome to carry such out manually.
As to claim 12, one of ordinary skill recognizes the efficiency of employing a processor to provide instructions to a test system, suggestive of a program in claim 12.
Prior Art not Applied
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Veyssiere et al EP 4105681 teach (Figure 1) a data sensor 100 and input interface 111 to receive data (from first mechanical part under test); and control 106 to remove points from the data (by employing data from a second mechanical part) to provide a modified list at second interface 112 which is indicative of third (adjusted) information. The second part cannot be said to be that of the same shape and identical material as the first part per Applicant’s claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT R RAEVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2204. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8am to 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina DeHerrera, can be reached at telephone number 303-297-4237. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/ROBERT R RAEVIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights