NON-FINAL REJECTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 2-6, 8-11, 13-17 and 19-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 2-6, 8-11, line 1, replace “A scanning system” with -- The scanning system --.
In claims 13-17, 19-22, line 1, replace “A method” with -- The method --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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, 2, 5, 9-13, 16 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Sarr (US 2009/0277269 Al).
Regarding Claim 1, Sarr teaches a scanning system configured for through-transmission ultrasound imaging of structural features below the surface of an object ([Abstract], [0001]), the scanning system comprising: a controller (fig.2; element 260) for interfacing with a plurality of transducer modules (elements 220 and 230, fig.2); a first transducer module (fig.2; element 220) coupled to the controller (fig.2; element 260) and comprising a first 2D array (implicitly taught in [0036]) configured to transmit ultrasound signals towards an object (fig.2; element 200) under control of the controller and to receive ultrasound signals from the object whereby data pertaining to an internal structure of the object can be obtained ([0027]-[0029]); and a second transducer module (fig.2; element 230) coupled to the controller (fig.2; element 260) and comprising a second 2D array (implicitly taught in [0036]) configured to receive through-transmission ultrasound signals transmitted by the first transducer module that pass through the object whereby data pertaining to an internal structure of the object can be obtained ([0027]-[0029]).
Regarding Claim 2, a scanning system as claimed in claim 1 is taught by Sarr.
Sarr further teaches the system in which the second 2D array is configured to transmit further ultrasound signals towards the object under control of the controller ([0014]-[0015]; Fig.1-2).
Regarding Claim 5, a scanning system as claimed in claim 1 is taught by Sarr.
Sarr further teaches the system in which the controller comprises a signal analyser (fig.2; element 260, “Data collection and analysis equipment”) configured to analyse the received ultrasound signals and to output an analysis signal, the controller being configured to further analyse the received ultrasound signals based on the analysis signal (fig.1; steps 130, 140 & 170, [0019]-[0021]; claim 1).
Regarding Claim 9, a scanning system as claimed in claim 5 is taught by Sarr.
Sarr further teaches the system in which the signal analyser comprises a position detector (fig.6; element 640) configured to detect a first transducer position of the first transducer module and a second transducer position of the second transducer module, and to output the analysis signal in dependence on the first transducer position and the second transducer position ([0043]-[0047]).
Regarding Claim 10, a scanning system as claimed in claim 5 is taught by Sarr.
Sarr further teaches the system in which the signal analyser comprises an overlap detector configured to detect an overlap in the lateral extent of the first transducer module and the second transducer module, based on an analysis of the received ultrasound signals and/or the first transducer position and the second transducer position ([0025]; claim 6).
Regarding Claim 11, a scanning apparatus as claimed in claim 5 is taught by Sarr.
Sarr further teaches the system in which the controller is configured to further analyse received ultrasound signals based on one or more of: detecting that an amplitude of a peak in the received ultrasound signals meets or exceeds a threshold amplitude; detecting that an overlap between the first transducer module and the second transducer module meets or exceeds a threshold overlap; and detecting that a measure of alignment between the first transducer module and the second transducer module meets or exceeds a threshold measure of alignment ([0017]; [0020]; [0022]).
Regarding Claim 12, Sarr teaches a method of imaging structural features below the surface of an object ([Abstract], [0001]), the method comprising: transmitting ultrasound signals, using a first 2D array (implicitly taught in [0036]) of a first transducer module (fig.2; element 220), towards an object (fig.2; element 200), under control of a controller (fig.2; element 260) ([0027]; [0029]); receiving ultrasound signals from the object using the first 2D array (implicitly taught in [0036]), whereby data pertaining to an internal structure of the object can be obtained [0029]; receiving through-transmission ultrasound signals transmitted by the first transducer module that pass through the object using a second 2D array (implicitly taught in [0036]) of a second transducer module (fig.2; element 230) ([0027]-[0029]); and analysing the received ultrasound signals to obtain data pertaining to an internal structure of the object [0029].
Regarding Claim 13, a method as claimed in claim 12 is taught by Sarr.
Sarr further teaches the system comprising transmitting, by the second 2D array, further ultrasound signals towards the object under control of the controller ([0014]-[0015]; Fig.1-2).
Regarding Claim 16, a method as claimed in claim 12 is taught by Sarr.
Sarr further teaches the method comprising analysing the received ultrasound signals at a signal analyser of the controller (fig.2; element 260, “Data collection and analysis equipment”), and outputting an analysis signal by the signal analyser, wherein the controller further analyses the received ultrasound signals based on the analysis signal (fig.1; steps 130, 140 & 170, [0019]-[0021]; claim 1).
Regarding Claim 20, a method as claimed in claim 16 is taught by Sarr.
Sarr further teaches the method comprising detecting, at a position detector (fig.6; element 640) of the signal analyser, a first transducer position of the first transducer module and a second transducer position of the second transducer module, and outputting the analysis signal in dependence on the first transducer position and the second transducer position ([0043]-[0047]).
Regarding Claim 21, a method as claimed in claim 16 is taught by Sarr.
Sarr further teaches the method comprising detecting, at an overlap detector of the signal analyser, an overlap in the lateral extent of the first transducer module and the second transducer module, based on an analysis of the received ultrasound signals and/or the first transducer position and the second transducer position ([0025]; claim 6).
Regarding Claim 22, a method as claimed in claim 16 is taught by Sarr.
Sarr further teaches the method comprising analysing the received ultrasound signals based on one or more of: detecting that an amplitude of a peak in the received ultrasound signals meets or exceeds a threshold amplitude; detecting that an overlap between the first transducer module and the second transducer module meets or exceeds a threshold overlap; and detecting that a measure of alignment between the first transducer module and the second transducer module meets or exceeds a threshold measure of alignment ([0017]; [0020]; [0022]).
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 3-4 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarr in view of Sherwin (6,032,534).
Regarding Claim 3, a scanning system as claimed in claim 1 is taught by Sarr.
Sarr does not explicitly teach the system in which the controller comprises a trigger signal generator for generating a trigger signal, and the first transducer module is configured to transmit the ultrasound signals in response to receiving the trigger signal.
However, Sherwin teaches an apparatus and method of locating defects, discontinuities, nonconformities and the like (collectively, locations of interest) within objects such as microcomponent devices using ultrasonic technology (col.1; lines 6-10) wherein the system/method in which the controller comprises a trigger signal generator (fig.1; element 4) for generating a trigger signal, and the first transducer module is configured to transmit the ultrasound signals in response to receiving the trigger signal (col.5; lines 1-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sarr’s system by incorporating Sherwin’s trigger signal generator since such trigger generator is known in the field of ultrasonic testing to energize the transducer so that it can produce the ultrasonic impulse used during the inspection.
Regarding Claim 4, a scanning system as claimed in claim 3 is taught by Sarr in view of Sherwin.
Modified Sarr further teaches the system in which the second transducer module is configured, in response to receiving the trigger signal, to receive the ultrasound signals transmitted by the first transducer module (Sherwin: col.5; lines 1-9).
Regarding Claim 14, a method as claimed in claim 12 is taught by Sarr.
Sarr does not explicitly teach the system comprising generating a trigger signal at a trigger signal generator of the controller, and transmitting, by the first transducer module, the ultrasound signals in response to receiving the trigger signal.
However, Sherwin teaches an apparatus and method of locating defects, discontinuities, nonconformities and the like (collectively, locations of interest) within objects such as microcomponent devices using ultrasonic technology (col.1; lines 6-10) wherein generating a trigger signal at a trigger signal generator (fig.1; element 4) of the controller, and transmitting, by the first transducer module, the ultrasound signals in response to receiving the trigger signal (col.5; lines 1-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sarr’s method by incorporating Sherwin’s trigger signal generator since such trigger generator is known in the field of ultrasonic testing to energize the transducer so that it can produce the ultrasonic impulse used during the inspection.
Regarding Claim 15, a method as claimed in claim 14 is taught by Sarr in view of Sherwin.
Modified Sarr further teaches the method comprising, in response to receiving the trigger signal, receiving the ultrasound signals transmitted by the first transducer module at the second transducer module (Sherwin: col.5; lines 1-9).
Claims 6, 8, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarr in view of Georgeson et al. (US 2006/0201252 Al, “Georgeson”).
Regarding Claim 6, a scanning system as claimed in claim 5 is taught by Sarr.
Sarr does not teach the system in which the signal analyser comprises a threshold detector configured to detect the signal amplitude of the received ultrasound signals and to compare the signal amplitude with a threshold amplitude, and to output the analysis signal in dependence on the comparison; and/or the signal analyser is configured to identify a feature in the received ultrasound signals and to output the analysis signal in dependence on the identified feature.
However, Georgeson teaches an apparatus and method for inspecting a structure and, more particularly, to an apparatus and method for non-destructive angle beam shear wave through-transmission ultrasonic inspection of a structure [0002] in which the signal analyser comprises a threshold detector configured to detect the signal amplitude of the received ultrasound signals and to compare the signal amplitude with a threshold amplitude, and to output the analysis signal in dependence on the comparison; and/or the signal analyser is configured to identify a feature in the received ultrasound signals and to output the analysis signal in dependence on the identified feature (a processing element: [0018]; [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sarr’s system by incorporating Georgeson’s teaching regarding threshold processor since usage of comparing with threshold is known in the field of ultrasonic testing.
Regarding Claim 8, a scanning system as claimed in claim 5 is taught by Sarr.
Sarr does not teach the system in which the signal analyser is configured to identify a feature in the received ultrasound signals and to output the analysis signal in dependence on the identified feature, and the threshold detector is configured to detect the amplitude of the identified feature.
However, Georgeson teaches an apparatus and method for inspecting a structure and, more particularly, to an apparatus and method for non-destructive angle beam shear wave through-transmission ultrasonic inspection of a structure [0002] in which the signal analyser is configured to identify a feature in the received ultrasound signals and to output the analysis signal in dependence on the identified feature, and the threshold detector is configured to detect the amplitude of the identified feature (a processing element: [0018]; [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sarr’s system by incorporating Georgeson’s teaching regarding threshold processor since usage of comparing with threshold is known in the field of ultrasonic testing.
Regarding Claim 17, a method as claimed in claim 16 is taught by Sarr.
Sarr does not teach the method comprising detecting a signal amplitude of the received ultrasound signals by a threshold detector of the signal analyser, comparing the signal amplitude with a threshold amplitude, and outputting the analysis signal in dependence on the comparison; and/or identifying, by the signal analyser, a feature in the received ultrasound signals, and outputting the analysis signal in dependence on the identified feature.
However, Georgeson teaches an apparatus and method for inspecting a structure and, more particularly, to an apparatus and method for non-destructive angle beam shear wave through-transmission ultrasonic inspection of a structure [0002] in which the signal analyser is configured to identify a feature in the received ultrasound signals and to output the analysis signal in dependence on the identified feature, and the threshold detector is configured to detect the amplitude of the identified feature (a processing element: [0018]; [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sarr’s method by incorporating Georgeson’s teaching regarding threshold processor since usage of comparing with threshold is known in the field of ultrasonic testing.
Regarding Claim 19, a method as claimed in claim 16 is taught by Sarr.
Sarr does not teach the method comprising identifying, by the signal analyser, a feature in the received ultrasound signals, outputting the analysis signal in dependence on the identified feature and detecting the amplitude of the identified feature by the threshold detector.
However, Georgeson teaches an apparatus and method for inspecting a structure and, more particularly, to an apparatus and method for non-destructive angle beam shear wave through-transmission ultrasonic inspection of a structure [0002] wherein the method comprising identifying, by the signal analyser, a feature in the received ultrasound signals, outputting the analysis signal in dependence on the identified feature and detecting the amplitude of the identified feature by the threshold detector (a processing element: [0018]; [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sarr’s method by incorporating Georgeson’s teaching regarding threshold processor since usage of comparing with threshold is known in the field of ultrasonic testing.
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon, are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kristoffersen et al. (US 2006/0058656 Al) teaches an ultrasound system comprising an ultrasound probe having a 2D matrix of transducer elements transmitting a continuous wave (CW) Doppler transmit signal into an object of interest. An analog to digital (ND) converter converts the analog CW receive signal to a digital CW receive signal at a predetermined sampling frequency and a processor processes the digital CW receive signal in connection with CW Doppler imaging [Abstract].
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAN NATH whose telephone number is (571)270-1443. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F 9:00 am to 5:00 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, JOHN BREENE can be reached on 571-272-4107. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUMAN K NATH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855