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 . 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 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.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed 04/08/2026 (“Amendment”). Claims 13, 19, 20, 23, 28, 31, and 32 are currently under consideration. The Office acknowledges the amendments to claims 13, 19, 20, 23, and 28, as well as the addition of new claims 31 and 32. Claims 14, 18, and 24 remain withdrawn.
The objection(s) to the drawings, specification, and/or claims, the interpretation(s) under 35 USC 112(f), and/or the rejection(s) under 35 USC 101 and/or 35 USC 112 not reproduced below has/have been withdrawn in view of the corresponding amendments.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 13, 19, 20, 23, 28, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 13 and 23, there is no support for using a laser exciter to generate an aerial ultrasonic wave. Fig. 5 shows that the pulsed light is not an aerial ultrasonic wave, and e.g. ¶ 0041 of the specification as filed suggests that the pulsed light and the (aerial) ultrasonic wave are different/mutually exclusive embodiments. Fig. 6 shows that the laser/pulsed light is not continuous.
Further regarding claims 13 and 23, there is no support for a “controller” comprising a “processor” and a “calculator.” A control unit, as in Fig. 2, is not necessarily a controller, a processing part is not necessarily a processor, and a calculation part is not necessarily a calculator.
Claims 19, 20, 28, 31, and 32 are rejected because they depend on rejected claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/08/2026 have been fully considered.
The rejections under 35 USC 101 are withdrawn because the claims are directed to a particular data-gathering arrangement that uses e.g. a laser to generate an irradiation wave that is a continuous wave of an aerial ultrasonic wave whose basic frequency ranges from 20 KHz to 200 KHz or a burst wave having more than 10 waves of the aerial ultrasonic wave.
The rejections under 35 USC 103 are withdrawn because the art does not contemplate the particular data-gathering arrangement described above. However, it is submitted that this arrangement is new matter, as the disclosure does not contemplate the ultrasonic portion of the laser embodiment being aerial (see Fig. 5).
As noted previously, Applicant’s arguments are largely independent of the claims. The claims do not require e.g. Rayleigh or Lamb waves, do not preclude Rayleigh waves, Lamb waves, mechanical waves, etc. Applicant is referred to the remarks made in the Non-Final Rejection of 12/18/2025.
All claims remain rejected.
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 ANDREY SHOSTAK whose telephone number is (408) 918-7617. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 am - 3 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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached on (571) 272-5001. 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.
/ANDREY SHOSTAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights