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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses phases which can be implied and employs legal phraseology such as “means”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an acquisition unit that acquires…” and “a detection unit that detects…” introduced in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 12 and 13 recite(s) the steps of:
“acquiring data of a reflected wave generated by irradiating an electromagnetic wave from a surface toward an interior of an inspection object and causing the electromagnetic wave to be reflected inside the inspection object”; and
“detecting presence or absence of a void based on the data of the reflected wave acquired in the step of acquiring”.
Analysis
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claims recite “detecting presence or absence of a void based on the data of the reflected wave acquired in the step of acquiring”. This encompasses a mental observation or evaluation.
Thus, the claims recite a mental process, which are recognized as abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claims recite a first additional element of “acquiring data of a reflected wave…”. This step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire data in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform the detection. The step amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the exception into a practical application. It is noted that this step specifically does not include “irradiating an electromagnetic wave…”, but rather merely the acquiring data of that was generated in this manner. This is clear from the disclosure, as “acquisition unit” (41) acquires data which is generated by inspection device (2). However, even if the conventional irradiation were required as a step in the method, this likewise would amount to insignificant extra-solution activity.
Step 2B:
A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the re-evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Here the step of acquiring data of a reflected wave is mere data gathering that is recited at a high level of generality, and as shown in numerous documents listed on the IDS (e.g. JP2003-166950A , JP2005-043197A, etc.), is well-understood, routine, and conventional practice. Therefore, this limitation remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration and does not amount to significantly more.
Additionally concerning claim 13, the claim recites a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program that causes a computer to perform the same steps as the method of claim 1. Therefore, the claim includes the additional element of a computer to execute the steps of the method. Accordingly, the claim invokes a generic computer merely as a tool for performing the recited abstract idea. The presence of such a computer does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception per step 2A or represent significantly more per step 2B.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP2003166950A (‘Keisoku’), cited on the IDS filed 10/25/2023.
Regarding claim 1, Keisoku discloses an information processing device comprising: an acquisition unit that acquires data of a reflected wave generated by irradiating an electromagnetic wave from a surface toward an interior of an inspection object and causing the electromagnetic wave to be reflected inside the inspection object (processing unit 130 acquires data from receiving unit 120, generated as claimed; [0029]); and a detection unit that detects presence or absence of a void in the inspection object based on the data of the reflected wave acquired by the acquisition unit ([0012]).
Concerning claims 12 and 13, Keisoku likewise discloses the claimed method and computer readable medium ([0032]).
Regarding claims 2 and 10-11, Keisoku discloses the inspection object is a composite of reinforcing steel and concrete ([0005]) and the detection unit determines whether an object that has reflected the electromagnetic wave is a void or an embedded object (e.g. reinforcing bar) in the inspection object based on the data of the reflected wave ([0040]).
Regarding claim 3, Keisoku discloses the detection unit includes an analysis section that performs frequency analysis on the data of the reflected wave (Fast Fourier Transform), and detects presence or absence of the void based on a frequency characteristic of the reflected wave acquired by the frequency analysis of the analysis section ([0034], [0040]).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keisoku as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP2005-043197A (‘Oyo’), cited on the IDS filed 10/25/2023.
It is implicit that the void inside the concrete irradiated by radar of Keisoku produces a composite wave of first and second reflected waves, as reflections naturally result from impedance mismatches at interfaces between the concrete and air. Keisoku however does not appear to specifically require the data of the reflected wave used to detect the presence or absence include both reflections. Oyo discloses a similar device to detect defects in concrete including cavities, and specifically uses data of a composite wave including a first reflected wave at a first surface of the void inside the inspection object and a second reflected wave at a second surface opposite to the first surface of the void ([0070]-[0071]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to use both in the processing of Keisoku in order to determine the thickness of the cavity as described by Oyo at [0071].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art demonstrates numerous examples of void detection based on waves reflected inside inspection objects.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew M Barker whose telephone number is (571)272-3103. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 8:00 AM-4:30 PM; Fri 8 AM-12 PM Eastern Time.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 571-273-6878. 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.
/MATTHEW M BARKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646