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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 23 February 2024. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-12 are currently presented in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement(s)
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 2/23/2024, 6/3/2024, 9/5/2024, and 10/6/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without the reference distribution generator 425, the selector 426, the corrector 427, and storage 43, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976).
See below for additional details.
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.
Claims 1-12 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.
Claim 1 recites “an evaluator configured to evaluate damage to the structure on the basis of one or more reference distributions generated on the basis of a simulation including a random number and the elastic wave source density distribution generated by the distribution generator”.
It is unclear what is encompassed by “the basis of a simulation including a random number” and the wording is exceedingly broad to render the claim unclear. There are no restrictions in the random number (and in the specification between 0 and 1 is given as a non-limiting example in paragraph [0067], while in [0082] this is more limited to between 0 to 1, and the method of generation is not described) or what the random number is applied to (it could be an added distance, rather than time).
There is also insufficient information on how the simulation is performed to generate a reference distribution. As discussed in [0066]-[0067] with respect to the distribution generator 424, the density distribution is evaluated on the basis of the equation D = Nev/S, where Nev is the number of elastic wave sources located in the region, and S represents an area of the region which appears to be a predetermined section ([0105]).
However, when discussing the simulations by the reference distribution generator, the simulations are to generate hit data detected by a sensor based on an amplitude and a time of arrival of an elastic wave, where the time delay is multiplied by a random number in the range of 0 to 1 ([0082]) and the amplitude uses a different random number also between 0 and 1 that does not appear to be the same random number as used for the delay ([0082] and Expression (3) uses Rij and [0084] and Expression (5) uses Rj). Therefore, there is a question here on which random number is being claimed in claim 1.
This process is repeated for M number of theoretical waves (suggested to be 10,000 or more), but each wave is generated in a random position and singularly ([0081] and [0086]), until the whole data is collected and stored, then filtered to remove hits whose amplitude is less than 20dBs ([0087]). In [0088], it is then stated that using these filtered numbers, “After that, the reference distribution generator 425 generates an elastic wave source distribution using position information of a plurality of elastic wave sources obtained using position location. The reference distribution generator 425 generates an elastic wave source density distribution using the elastic wave source distribution.” This is considered to be unclear and non-enabling on how the individual waves with varied and randomized time delays and amplitudes are collected, sorted, and a density distribution is created from, for example, five thousand individually randomized waves.
During evaluation, a distribution selector is utilized (first claimed in claim 5 but required for the evaluation system to work), which picks the reference distribution of the generator 425 “on the basis of the calculated average value of the index of uncertainties of the position location result and the reference distribution table stored in the storage 43” ([0107]). The method of calculating the index of uncertainties is discussed in detail in paragraphs [0092]-[0096] and is considered enabled when applied to the output of distribution generator 424 (the measured values). [0107] follows, “Specifically, the distribution selector 426 refers to the reference distribution table and selects a record in which the average value of the index of uncertainties of the position location result which is closest to the calculated average value of the index of uncertainty of the position location result is registered”. This seems to be unclear or non-enabling. It is unclear how the simulated values found in the reference distribution table, being simulated/generated, would yield an index of uncertainty of the position, or where those values are stored/indicated/calculated.
Lastly, after selection, a correction is performed (discussed in claim 4), and then the evaluator uses this corrected distribution (also claim 4). These parts are considered to be enabled with the exception of the reference distribution density, as discussed above.
In summary, the final limitation citing “on the basis of a simulation including a random number” is considered insufficient to enable or be unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention. There appears to be two random numbers generated per simulated elastic wave, leaving questions on which random number is being claimed, the range of these random numbers (numbers outside of 0 or 1 is suggested in one point and not in others), and there is insufficient information on how the simulated elastic waves are then grouped into a density distribution that has a defined/calculated index of uncertainty that can be compared to an actual measured result as done with the distribution generator 424 to be selected to perform the correction and evaluation processes.
Ultimately, one of ordinary skill in the art, evaluating damage “on the basis of” the distribution generator and the generated distributions is considered to be unclear and non-enabling without also describing the parts/methods needed to generate the reference distributions/uncertainties, and how to perform the corrections using that reference distribution.
Claims 11 and 12, being similar to claim 1, are rejected in a similar fashion.
Due to these issues, the claims will not be rejected under art, but Examiner points to the extended European search report submitted with the IDS on 9/5/2024 as examples of art that performs similar functions.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Usui et al. (Publication No.: US 2024/0319038 A1), a related case with similar evaluations that does not use a simulation.
Someda et al. (Publication No.: US 2020/0217822 A1)
Watabe et al. (Publication No.: US 2017/0336365 A1)
Scarzello et al. (Patent No.: US 6,208,268 B1)
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIANA HANCOCK whose telephone number is (571)270-7547. The examiner can normally be reached on 10AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached on (571) 272-3555. 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 system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would 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.
/D.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
3/21/2026
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852