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 .
Summary
Claims 1-33 are pending. Claims 17-33 were withdrawn due to a Restriction Requirement date 04 Nov 2025. Claims 1-16 are rejected herein. This is a Final Rejection as necessitated by the amendment and arguments (hereinafter “the Response”) dated 18 May 2026.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 18 May 2026. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claims 16 is/are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 16: In line 4, change “a testing device” to --the testing device-- because it has antecedent basis in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim(s) 16 is/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.
Regarding claim 16: The scope of the claim is unclear because it is unclear what statutory category the claim is supposed to fall into. Claim 1 is a method claim and claim 16 depends from claim 1, but repeats the same subject matter. It therefore means that claim 16 is supposed to be some kind of apparatus claim, but it only recites “a computer program…” The Examiner recommends using language such as “a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions executable by a processor configured to execute the method according to claim 1…” or something similar.
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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected for failing to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 16: Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is a “computer program” which depends from a method. The claim does not fit into one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. The Examiner recommends using language such as “a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions executable by a processor configured to execute the method according to claim 1…” or something similar.
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.
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-10, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as being anticipated by HIRONAKA et al. (JP 2002267639). A machine translation of HIRONAKA was included with the office action dated 18 Feb 2026. All references to text in HIRONAKA are to that machine translation.
Regarding claim 1: HIRONAKA discloses: A method for non-destructively testing a specimen by acoustic waves (para. 1), comprising: providing a test device (G in FIG. 1; para. 21), positioning the testing device at a measurement position in mechanical contact with the specimen (para. 23), receiving from a testing device (para. 16) at a measurement position, in mechanical contact with the specimen (para. 16), raw data representing acoustic waves that propagated through the specimen (para. 16), wherein the raw data is processable in a first processing algorithm and wherein the raw data is processable in a second processing algorithm (Any acoustic data would be processable by the two algorithms, therefore the scope of the claim only requires processing by one of the two algorithms. Incidentally, HIRONAKA discloses both algorithms. Single reflections are illustrated in FIG. 8 [para. 33] and multiple reflections are illustrated in FIG. 10 [para. 43]), and processing the raw data by at least one of the first and the second processing algorithm, wherein the first processing algorithm comprises deriving information about the specimen from multiple reflections of the acoustic waves (FIG. 10; para.43), wherein the second processing algorithm comprises deriving information about the specimen from a travel time of a single reflection of the acoustic waves (FIG. 8; para. 33).
Regarding claims 2-4 and 7-10: These claims only limit one of the two processing algorithms. As discussed above, the rejection of claim 1 only requires processing by one of the two algorithms, and because HIRONAKA discloses both of the algorithms, HIRONAKA will anticipate any claim that narrows only one of the two algorithms, regardless of whether they disclose the added limitation.
Regarding claim 15: HIRONAKA discloses: A testing system comprising: a testing device (G in FIG. 1; para. 21) comprising an acoustic wave sensor (para. 21-22), a processing unit (processing apparatus 71 in FIG. 7; para. 30) adapted to execute the method of claim 1 (The rejection of claim 1 has been discussed above.).
Regarding claim 16: As best understood, HIRONAKA discloses: A computer program (signal processing and waveform processing in para. 30-31) comprising instructions executable by a processor (signal processing apparatus 71 in FIG. 7; para. 30-31) to execute the method of claim 1 (The rejection of claim 1 has been discussed above.) so as to: receive from a testing device positioned at a measurement position, and in mechanical contact with the specimen, raw data representing acoustic waves that propagated through the specimen, wherein the raw data is processable in a first processing algorithm and wherein the raw data is processable in a second processing algorithm, and process the raw data by at least one of the first and the second processing algorithm, wherein the first processing algorithm comprises deriving information about the specimen from multiple reflections of the acoustic waves, wherein the second processing algorithm comprises deriving information about the specimen from a travel time of a single reflection of the acoustic waves (These limitations are addressed in the rejection of claim 1.).
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) 2-9 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HIRONAKA in view of GUTHRIE et al. (US 2018/0011088).
Regarding claims 2-9 and 11-14: HIRONAKA does not disclose determining a frequency spectrum.
GUTHRIE however does teach determining a frequency spectrum of the raw data (para. 43). Please note that GUTHRIE teaches non-destructively testing a specimen by acoustic waves (para. 41), receiving from a testing device (microphone 230 in FIG. 2) at a measurement position, on a specimen (concrete surface in para. 41), raw data representing acoustic waves that propagated through the specimen (para. 33), deriving information about the specimen from multiple reflections of the acoustic waves (Many acoustic measurements are taken as discussed in para. 33.), and deriving information about the specimen from a travel time of a single reflection of the acoustic waves (Such as wave speed within the concrete as discussed in para. 51. This is determined from a single reflection/echo and the difference in time it takes to reach two different microphones.). GUTHRIE also teaches using frequency components of the raw data with frequencies up to at least 15 kHz (FIGS. 14A and 14B show frequency responses in this range.), thus meeting the limitations of claim 3. GUTHRIE also teaches determining a dominant frequency component in the frequency spectrum (Different resonant frequencies based on the integrity of the concrete in para. 39), thus meeting the limitations of claim 4. GUTHRIE also teaches receiving, from the testing device, raw data from several different measurement positions (Taking data while traversing the concrete surface in para. 33), and compiling a data set comprising the dominant frequency component per measurement position, displaying the data set as a heat map (FIG. 17A is a heat map of the surface of a two-lane bridge. Para 115), thus meeting the limitations of claim 5. GUTHRIE also teaches detecting a deviating dominant frequency component, which deviates from other dominant frequency components in the data set (Different resonant frequencies based on the integrity of the concrete in para. 39), thus meeting the limitations of claim 6. GUTHRIE also discloses using these dominant frequencies (para. 39) to determine discontinuities (para. 37) which would be a measure of the thickness of the concrete, thus meeting the limitations of claim 7. GUTHRIE also teaches evaluating the raw data in time domain (para. 64), thus meeting the limitations of claim 8. GUTHRIE also teaches using frequency components of the raw data with frequencies up to 10 kHz (FIGS. 14A and 14B show using frequencies up to 5 kHz), thus meeting the limitations of claim 9. GUTHRIE also teaches generating the acoustic waves at an impact position on the specimen, in particular by letting an impactor impact on the specimen (para. 41), thus meeting the limitations of claim 11. GUTHRIE also teaches triggering an automatic impactor to hit the specimen (para. 33), wherein the impact position is located at a known distance from the measurement position (para. 62), and determining a speed of sound in the specimen based on the known distance (para. 51), thus meeting the limitations of claim 13. Guthrie also teaches generating the acoustic waves at the impact position repetitively, thereby generating several raw signals, averaging over the several raw signals at one measurement position (para. 72), thus meeting the limitations of claim 14. Although GUTHRIE teaches generating the acoustic waves by hitting the specimen with an impact hammer (para. 33), they do this automatically and not manually. However, it is obvious that one skilled in the art could use an impactor manually to test a small spot instead of the automated system of GUTHRIE that scans an entire road lane while continuously moving, thus meeting the limitations of claim 12.
Overall both HIRONAKA and GUTHRIE both teach propagating acoustic radiation into concrete and analyzing the state of the concrete based on the detected reflections. The main difference is that GUTHRIE uses an impact hammer to create the acoustic radiation and HIRONAKA uses ultrasonic transducers. Therefore it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to use both of these techniques because the signals will be somewhat different and therefore provide different data.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HIRONAKA in view of HIROSE (JP H09189599). A machine translation of HIROSE was provided with the office action dated 18 Feb 2025. All references to text in HIROSE are to that machine translation.
Regarding claim 10: As best understood, HIRONAKA does not disclose using the sensor to determine a length of a specimen.
HIROSE however does teach a concrete pile (31 in FIG. 75) and using an acoustic sensor (6, 7) to measure the length of the pile based on travel time (para. 116).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the device of HIRONAKA to measure the length of a pile as taught by HIROSE because it may be buried and its length unknown (para. 115 of HIROSE).
Response to Amendment/Argument
The replacement drawing is acknowledged and the previous objection thereto is accordingly withdrawn.
The amendment to claim 1 to overcome the previous objection is acknowledged and said objection is accordingly withdrawn.
The amendments to the claims to overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are acknowledged and several of those rejections have been withdrawn. Please note that there is still an outstanding 112(b) rejection based on the current claim language.
The amendments to the claims to overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are acknowledged and the 101 rejections of claims 1-10 are accordingly withdrawn. Claim 16 is still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because a computer program is not one of the statutory categories. It is also clear that the claim is not meant to be a method claim because it depends from claim 1 which is already a method claim. The Examiner recommends using language such as “a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions executable by a processor configured to execute the method according to claim 1…” or something similar.
The Applicant has argued (page 13-14 of the Response) that GUTHRIE does not anticipate every limitation in claim 1 as currently amended. This argument is moot as GUTHRIE is no longer relied upon for a 102 rejection.
The Applicant has argued (pages 16-17 of the Response) that HIRONAKA does not disclose the first algorithm of deriving information about the specimen from multiple reflections of the acoustic waves. This argument has been fully considered and is not persuasive for multiple reasons. The first reason is that the language of claim 1 does not require a reference to disclose both algorithms. Claim 1 recites “the raw data is processable in a first processing algorithm and…a second algorithm” (emphasis added). This only states a property of the data, and because HIRONAKA discloses acoustic data that has propagated through the specimen, the data of HIRONAKA could be processed by either named algorithm (i.e. “the raw data is processable…” as required by the claim). The claim then further requires that the data actually be processed by one of the two algorithms. The Applicant has agreed that HIRONAKA discloses the second processing algorithm, which is clearly illustrated in FIG. 8. The second reason that this argument is unpersuasive is that HIRONAKA actually does disclose both algorithms. FIG. 10 shows multiple reflections of acoustic waves as discussed in para. 43. Para. 31 states that ultrasonic waves are propagated into the concrete and are reflected by defects such as voids and by the bottom surface. Therefore information is derived from multiple reflections of the acoustic waves. HIRONAKA also discloses using propagation time in para. 46, therefore HIRONAKA discloses deriving information about the specimen from a travel time of a single reflection.
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 NATHANIEL J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)270-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, Laura M Sweeney can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/NATHANIEL J KOLB/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights