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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 16 June 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 1, 8, 15, and 21 with regard to the Li reference previously cited have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. In particular, Li is no longer relied upon to teach the claimed features of each of said claims and instead the newly discovered reference Argudayev et al. US PG-PUB 2012/0225179 A1 is instead relied upon as noted in further detail below.
Applicant further argued that each of the claims dependent upon one of claims 1, 8, 15, or 21 should be allowed in the event each of said claims are also allowable. The examiner acknowledges said argument but because each of claims 1 and 15 have been rejected as indicated in further detail below, each of the claims dependent thereupon have been considered of their own merits as also indicated in further detail below.
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 –
(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.
Claims 1, 6, 15 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Argudayev et al. US PG-PUB 2012/0225179 A1 (hereafter Argudayev).
As to claim 1: Argudayev discloses a system comprising:
an acoustic transmitter (10; see fig. 3 and ¶ 64) configured to transmit an acoustic signal into a material with an unknown moisture level (see ¶ 65 and fig. 3; also see ¶ 61 regarding unknown humidity that can be calculated), wherein the acoustic signal associated with the material with the unknown moisture level changes into an acoustic response signal after passing through the material (see fig. 5 and ¶ 73-78);
an acoustic receiver (12; see fig. 3 and ¶ 64) configured to receive the acoustic response signal associated with the material with the unknown moisture level (see ¶ 65 and further details in ¶ 77);
a memory component configured to store data (see ¶ 81; the disclosed computer must necessarily contain a memory component that stores data), wherein the data comprises a plurality of moisture levels associated with a plurality of acoustic speeds of a plurality of acoustic response signals (see fig. 5 and ¶ 73-77); and
a processor coupled the acoustic receiver and to the memory (see ¶ 81; the disclosed computer must necessarily contain a processor that carries out the disclosed functions), wherein the processor is configured to determine a speed of the acoustic response signal associated with the material with the unknown moisture level, and further configured to determine an actual moisture level of the unknown moisture level of the material by correlating the speed of the acoustic response signal associated with the material with the unknown moisture level to the data in the memory component (see fig. 5, ¶ 81 and further details in ¶ 73-77).
As to claim 6: Argudayev discloses the system as described in claim 1, wherein the acoustic transmitter (10; see fig. 3) faces the acoustic receiver (12; see fig. 3).
As to claim 15: Argudayev discloses a method comprising:
transmitting an acoustic signal into a material with an unknown moisture level (see ¶ 65 and fig. 3; also see ¶ 61 regarding unknown humidity that can be calculated), wherein the acoustic signal associated with the material with the unknown moisture level changes into an acoustic response signal after passing through the material (see fig. 5 and ¶ 73-78);
receiving the acoustic response signal associated with the material with unknown moisture level (see ¶ 65 and further details in ¶ 77);
processing the acoustic response signal to determine a speed of the acoustic response signal (see ¶ 56 and further details in ¶ 73-77); and
determining a moisture level of the material by correlating the speed of the acoustic response signal to a data (see fig. 5 and ¶ 73-77 regarding moisture level determine by correlating velocity of response signals as depicted), wherein the data comprises a plurality of moisture levels associated with a plurality of acoustic speeds of a plurality of acoustic response signals (see fig. 5 and ¶ 73-77).
As to claim 27: Argudayev discloses a method comprising:
transmitting a plurality of acoustic signals into a material at a plurality of known moisture levels (see ¶ 65 and fig. 3 and ¶ 61 regarding the known specific humidity), wherein an acoustic signal changes into an acoustic response signal after passing through the material (see fig. 5 and ¶ 73-78);
processing a plurality of acoustic response signals resulting from the plurality of acoustic signals to determine a speed or amplitude associated with the plurality of acoustic response signals (see fig. 5 and ¶ 56); and
generating a data to correlate the plurality of known moisture levels to a plurality of speeds or a plurality of amplitudes (see fig. 5 and ¶ 73-78).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 3, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Argudayev et al. US PG-PUB 2012/0225179 A1 (hereafter Argudayev) in view of McNames et al. US PG-PUB 2021/0003656 A1 (hereafter McNames), prior art of record.
As to claim 2: Argudayev teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including an acoustic transmitter (10; see fig. 3) and an acoustic signal associated with a material with an unknown moisture level (see fig. 5 and ¶ 73-78), but does not explicitly teach:
the system further comprising an amplifier coupled to the acoustic transmitter, wherein the amplifier is configured to amplify the acoustic signal associated with the material with the unknown moisture level.
However, McNames teaches a system (see fig. 10 and ¶ 68) that comprises an amplifier (1010; see fig. 10 and ¶ 68) coupled to an acoustic transmitter (1006; see fig. 10 and ¶ 68).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify Argudayev by including an amplifier coupled to the acoustic transmitter, wherein the amplifier is configured to amplify the acoustic signal associated with the material with the unknown moisture level because amplifiers are an art recognized means of achieving the useful and predictable result of increasing acoustic signal amplitude which can allow for greater sensitivity and signal to noise ratio when using acoustic signals in various measuring applications and accordingly would allow Argudayev’s system to potentially improve its sensing sensitivity by amplifying any utilized acoustic signals.
As to claim 3: Argudayev teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including an acoustic receiver (10; see fig. 3) and an acoustic response signal (see fig. 5 and ¶ 73-78), but does not explicitly teach:
the system further comprising a preamplifier coupled to the acoustic receiver, wherein the preamplifier is configured to amplify the acoustic response signal.
However, McNames teaches a system (see fig. 10 and ¶ 68) that comprises a preamplifier (1010; see fig. 10 and ¶ 68) coupled to an acoustic receiver (1002a-1000e; see fig. 10 and ¶ 68), wherein the preamplifier (1010) is configured to amplify an acoustic signal (see ¶ 68).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify Argudayev by including a preamplifier coupled to the acoustic receiver, wherein the preamplifier is configured to amplify the acoustic response signal because preamplifiers are an art recognized means of achieving the useful and predictable result of increasing acoustic signal amplitude which can allow for greater sensitivity and signal to noise ratio when using acoustic signals in various measuring applications and accordingly would allow Argudayev’s system to potentially improve its sensing sensitivity by amplifying any utilized acoustic signals.
As to claim 16: Argudayev teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 15, including an acoustic signal associated with a material with an unknown moisture level (see fig. 5 and ¶ 73-78), but does not explicitly teach:
the method further comprising amplifying the acoustic signal associated with the material with the unknown moisture level.
However, McNames teaches that acoustic signals may be amplified (see fig. 10 and ¶ 68).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify Argudayev’s method by amplifying the acoustic signal associated with the material with the unknown moisture level because such amplification is an art recognized means of achieving the useful and predictable result of increasing acoustic signal amplitude which can allow for greater sensitivity and signal to noise ratio when using acoustic signals in various measuring applications and accordingly would allow Argudayev’s method to potentially improve its sensing sensitivity by amplifying any utilized acoustic signals.
As to claim 17: Argudayev teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 15, including an acoustic response signal (see fig. 5 and ¶ 73-78), but does not explicitly teach:
the method further comprising amplifying the acoustic response signal.
However, McNames teaches amplifying an acoustic signal (see fig. 10 regarding the pre-amplifier/amplifier 1010 and details in ¶ 68).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify Argudayev’s method by amplifying the acoustic response signal because such amplification is an art recognized means of achieving the useful and predictable result of increasing acoustic signal amplitude which can allow for greater sensitivity and signal to noise ratio when using acoustic signals in various measuring applications and accordingly would allow Argudayev’s system to potentially improve its sensing sensitivity by amplifying any utilized acoustic signals.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Argudayev et al. US PG-PUB 2012/0225179 A1 (hereafter Argudayev), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Troxler US PG-PUB 2007/0046289 A1 (hereafter Troxler), prior art of record.
As to claim 4: Argudayev teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including data (see fig. 5 and ¶ 73-77), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the data comprises a calibrated model.
However, Troxler teaches wherein acoustic data associated with acoustics may comprise a calibrated model (see ¶ 213).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify Argudayev’s data such that it comprises a calibrated model because such data is an art recognized means of comparing measured acoustic data to other data for the purpose of determining properties of measured materials, such as suggested in ¶ 46 of Troxler.
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Argudayev et al. US PG-PUB 2012/0225179 A1 (hereafter Argudayev), as applied above, and further in view of Scholte et al. US PG-PUB 2011/0120222 A1 (hereafter Scholte), prior art of record.
As to claim 7: Argudayev teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including an acoustic signal (see ¶ 65), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the acoustic signal is a Tukey window sinusoidal burst signal.
However, Scholte teaches that acoustic signals may be analyzed using an acoustic signal that is a Tukey window sinusoidal burst signal (see ¶ 116 and 117).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Argudayev’s acoustic signal to be a Tukey window sinusoidal burst signal because such a signal strikes a balance between k-space leakage and loss of acoustic information, such as suggested in Scholte ¶ 116. Accordingly, such a window is useful because it balances attenuation of an acoustic signal of leakage in k-space and thus would provide Argudayev the useful and predictable benefit of extracting useful data from interaction between the acoustic signal and other media while preventing signal attenuation that could reduce the signal.
As to claim 20: Argudayev teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 15, including an acoustic signal (see ¶ 65), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the acoustic signal is a Tukey window sinusoidal burst signal.
However, Scholte teaches that acoustic signals may be analyzed using an acoustic signal that is a Tukey window sinusoidal burst signal (see ¶ 116 and 117).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the acoustic signal in Argudayev’s method to be a Tukey window sinusoidal burst signal because such a signal strikes a balance between k-space leakage and loss of acoustic information, such as suggested in Scholte ¶ 116. Accordingly, such a window is useful because it balances attenuation of an acoustic signal of leakage in k-space and thus would provide Argudayev the useful and predictable benefit of extracting useful data from interaction between the acoustic signal and other media while preventing signal attenuation that could reduce the signal.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-14 and 21-26 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As to claim 8: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a system comprising a processor configured to determine an amplitude of an acoustic response signal associated with a material with an unknown moisture level and further configured to determine an actual moisture level of the unknown moisture level of the material by correlating the amplitude (emphasis added) of the acoustic response signal associated with the material with the unknown moisture level to the data in the memory component, when considered in combination with the other limitations recited in the instant claim.
In particular, while Argudayev is considered to teach correlating a speed of an acoustic response signal with a material with an unknown moisture level to data in a memory component (see fig. 5 and ¶ 73-77), there is no disclosure therein or obvious modification of Argudayev nor the other available prior art of record that would render obvious the feature of correlating the amplitude (emphasis added) of the acoustic response signal associated with the material with the unknown moisture level to the data in the memory component outside of impermissible hindsight of Applicant’s disclosure.
As to claim 21: The claim is drawn to a method but recites limitations similar to claim 8 above and accordingly is indicated allowable over the cited prior art of record for reasons similar thereto but not repeated herein for brevity.
As to claims 9-14 and 22-26: Each of said claims depends ultimately from one of claims 8 or 21 and accordingly each is indicated allowable over the cited prior art of record at least by virtue of their respective dependencies upon an allowable independent claim.
Claims 5, 18, 19, and 28 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 5: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a calibrated model that is generated based on a distance between the acoustic transmitter and the acoustic receiver, a packing density of the material, and (emphasis added) the plurality of acoustic signal speeds through the material at known moisture levels, when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claims 1 and 4.
In particular, while the cited prior art of record discloses the features of claims 1 and 4, including an acoustic transmitter (10 of Argudayev), an acoustic receiver, (12 of Argudayev), there is no disclosure or suggestion available in the cited prior art of record that renders obvious a calibrated model that is generated based on a distance between the acoustic transmitter and the acoustic receiver, a packing density of the material, and (emphasis added) the plurality of acoustic signal speeds through the material at known moisture levels.
As to claim 18: The claim recites features similar to claim 5 and is therefore also indicated objected to as containing allowable subject matter if rewritten in independent form including the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (i.e. claim 15) for reasons similar to claim 5 as indicated previously above but not repeated herein for brevity.
As to claim 19: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a method comprising transporting the material and positioning the material between an acoustic transmitter and an acoustic receiver, when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claim 15.
In particular, while Argudayev is considered to disclose the features of claim 15 including a material (the ambient air within oven cavity 14 as disclosed in Argudayev ¶ 62), an acoustic transmitter (10 of Argudayev), and an acoustic receiver (12 of Argudayev), there is no disclosure or suggestion in Argudayev or the other available cited prior art of record disclosing or rendering obvious the feature of transporting the material and positioning the material (emphasis added) between the acoustic transmitter and the acoustic receiver.
As to claim 28: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a method comprising controlling the plurality of moisture levels using an air flow controller, when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claim 27.
In particular, while Argudayev is considered to disclose the features of claim 27 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 27 above), there is no disclosure, teaching, suggestion, or motivation that would render obvious the limitation of controlling the plurality of moisture levels of Argudayev using an air flow controller, such as required by the limitations of claim 27.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M ROYSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30 E.S.T..
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JOHN M ROYSTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights