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 .
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 –
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, 8-11, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20120024067 (herein Oberdoerfer).
Regarding claim 1, Oberdoerfer teaches A method comprising: receiving data characterizing a plurality of acoustic signals reflected by a defect in a target object, and a first depth of the defect relative to a surface of the target object during a calibration operation of an ultrasonic measurement process (control unit 50 is configured to be connected to an ultrasonic receiver 40 in order to receive echo signals reflected back from a test object 10, which echo signals result from the ultrasonic pulses insonified from the ultrasonic transmitter 12, [0091]; depth of the flaw in the test object can in this case be determined simply, for example, from the echo delay time and the insonification angle .beta., [0016]; calibration of the sensitivity of the test probe, [0106]),
wherein the plurality of acoustic signals comprise a first acoustic signal detected by a detector at a first location on the surface of the target object and a second acoustic signal detected by the detector at a second location on the surface of the target object (variation of the X-position of the transmitting test probe 10… A-scans resulting with the growing of the echo signal at various insonification locations X1, X2 and X3, [0095]);
determining an envelope function for the plurality of acoustic signals based on at least the first acoustic signal and the second acoustic signal (during the displacement of the transmitting test probe 10 on the surface of the test object 100, the center of the sonic cone in which the highest sonic pressure prevails is pushed over the flaw 102. As a rule, the maximum amplitude in the echo signal results when the sound beam strikes the flaw 102 centrally. If the envelope curve of all echo signals is determined for a fixed insonification angle .beta.1 with a variation of the insonification location X, a representation of the echo amplitude is obtained as a function of the propagation time or the depth of the flaw 102 in the test object 100, [0095]);
identifying a target distance between the detector and the defect, wherein the target distance is associated with a peak value of the envelope function (maximum amplitude in the echo signal results when the sound beam strikes the flaw 102 centrally, [0095]); and
calculating a detection angle based on the target distance and the first depth of the defect ([0112] and Fig. 6 teaches calculating depth using trigonometrical function; electronic adjustment of the insonification angle .beta. on the detected ERS value of the flaw is automatically compensated by calculation, [0022]) to recalibrate the ultrasonic measurement process to determine a transmission angle ([0116] teaches using the taught echo diagrams to calibrate sound path insonification angles; Note that the Office interprets both the instant limitation and Oberdoerfer to both teach an original pre-calibrated angle and a calibrated angle).
Regarding claim 8, Oberdoerfer teaches wherein the envelop function is determined by fitting peak values of the at least the first acoustic signal and the second acoustic signal ([0095] teaches envelope curve determined amplitude Amax for B2, B2, B3).
Regarding claim 9, Oberdoerfer teaches identifying a location range associated with the first axis, wherein the location range includes locations of the detector at which measurement of each of the plurality of acoustic signal is performed ([0037] teaches information determining within the range of predetermined flaw limits).
Regarding claim 10, Oberdoerfer teaches A system (device 1, [0088], Fig. 1) comprising :at least one data processor (control unit 50, Fig. 1); memory coupled to the at least one data processor, the memory storing instructions to cause the at least one data processor to perform operation ([0102] teaches storage in control unit 50) comprising the same steps claimed in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 11, Oberdoerfer teaches A computer program product comprising a machine-readable medium storing instructions (control unit 10, [0088]) that, when executed by at least one programmable processor, cause the at least one programmable processor to perform operations comprising the same steps claimed in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 18, Oberdoerfer teaches wherein the envelop function is determined by fitting peak values of the at least the first acoustic signal and the second acoustic signal ([0095] teaches envelope curve determined amplitude Amax for B2, B2, B3).
Regarding claim 19, Oberdoerfer teaches identifying a location range associated with the first axis, wherein the location range includes locations of the detector at which measurement of each of the plurality of acoustic signal is performed ([0037] teaches information determining within the range of predetermined flaw limits).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 12, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Oberdoerfer as applied to claims 1 and 10-11 above.
Regarding claims 2 and 20, Oberdoerfer teaches rendering a graph in a graphical user interface display space, wherein the graph comprises a first axis indicative of distance between the defect and the detector, a second axis indicative of amplitudes of acoustic signals detected by the detector, a first visual representation of the first acoustic signal, a second visual representation of the second acoustic signal (display on a display device 52, [0094], see graphs on Fig. 2. Oberdoerfer does not teach the graph comprising, “a third visual representation of the envelope function.” However, Oberdoerfer teaches the envelope curve is known ([0095]) and said amplitude/depth charts are known (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Oberdoerfer teaches a graphical user interface display space, wherein the at least one data processor is configured to perform operations (display device 52 associated with the control unit 50, [0094]) further comprising: rendering a graph in the graphical user interface display space, wherein the graph comprises a first axis indicative of distance between the defect and the detector, a second axis indicative of amplitudes of acoustic signals detected by the detector, a first visual representation of the first acoustic signal, a second visual representation of the second acoustic signal (see graphs on Fig. 2 showing amplitude/depth). Oberdoerfer does not teach the graph comprising, “a third visual representation of the envelope function.” However, Oberdoerfer teaches the envelope curve is known ([0095]) and said amplitude/depth charts are known (Fig. 2).
For the above claims 2, 12, and 20, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to superimpose a known envelope curve onto the amplitude/depth charts found in Fig. 2. One would have been motivated to do so for at least the purpose of improving human interpretation of data. In addition, a limitation involving displaying and manipulating data on a graphical user interface was found to be an obvious functional relationship and not new as discussed in MPEP §2111.05. Specifically, MPEP §2111.05 (B)(III) states that these claims are directed toward conveying meaning to the human reader rather than towards establishing a functional relationship between recorded data and the computer.
Claims 3-7 and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Oberdoerfer as applied to claims 2 and 12 above in view of US 20240118245 (herein Gopakumar).
The applied reference has a common Assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Oberdoerfer does not teach, “further comprising rendering, in the graph, a fourth visual representation of a measurement gate, wherein the fourth visual representation is rendered between a first distance value and a second distance value on the first axis and between a first acoustic amplitude value and a second acoustic amplitude value on the second axis.” However, Gopakumar teaches GUI display 400 with graph with a first axis indicating depth, and second axis indicating acoustic signal amplitude ([0031]).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Oberdoerfer does not teach, “receiving a first user input indicative of the first distance value and a second user input indicative of the second distance value.” However, Gopakumar teaches it is known in the art to zoom in/out of a visual representation ([0029]) which would allow use to choose ranges displayed.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Oberdoerfer does not teach, “receiving a third user input indicative of the first acoustic amplitude value and a fourth user input indicative of the second acoustic amplitude value.” However, Gopakumar teaches in Fig. 4 several portions that may be selected for the visual representation ([0031]).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Oberdoerfer does not teach, “comprising determining the first distance value and the second distance value by a predetermined function, wherein the predetermined function is configured to receive the target distance as input and provide the first distance value and the second distance value as output.” However, Gopakumar teaches graph in Fig. 5 having curves for each visual representation ([0033], each curve corresponds to a function that user may select as input ([0031]).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Oberdoerfer does not teach, “displaying peak values associated with one or more acoustic signals of the plurality of acoustic signals that have peak values detected between the first location value and the second location value, and wherein the peak values are greater than the third acoustic amplitude value and the fourth acoustic amplitude value.” However, Gopakumar teaches “visual representation (or a portion thereof) of the first acoustic signal can be based on the location of the peak of the visual representation of the first acoustic signal” ([0036]), and that peak of visual representation 532 is between curves 516 and 518 ([0037]), which correspond to user input ranges of the present invention.
For claims 3-7 and 13-17, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the GUI display representation and manipulation of Gopakumar into the display and control unit of Oberdoerfer. One would be motivated to do so for at least the purpose of allowing user interactive (e.g., allow the user to access acoustic measurement data from a desirable segment of the industrial system) ([0018]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Upon further search and consideration, the Office finds that Oberdoerfer still teaches the amended limitation “to recalibrate the ultrasonic measurement process to determine a transmission angle.” Oberdoerfer in [0116] teaches equivalent calibration of sound path insonification angles using ultrasonic echoes. The Office interprets the transmission angle to be a calibrated angle of the sound path, and Oberdoerfer teaches this in the equivalent sound path after calibration.
Applicant states a graph is required which includes all of the 3 listed in claim 2. The Office adjusted its rejection to reflect that though Oberdoerfer does not explicitly teach a graph that shows all three, Oberdoerfer does teach in [0095] that an envelope curve of all echo signals is already known, so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to display the known curve on a known amplitude/depth graph (from Fig. 2). Picking and choosing what to display on a display device is owed no patentable weight unless a new and nonobvious functional relationship exists (MPEP §2111.05).
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 PHILIP FADUL whose telephone number is (571)272-5411. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8pm-6pm.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/PHILIP T FADUL/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights